As I said to pissant, I understand that you're peeved Hunter is left out. But there's little in their criteria that would count as "dirty tricks" or any other conspiracy. If, after campaigning for months and having completed three state races, you can't poll better than 5% nationally, you haven't a prayer. All Hunter had to do to make this a moot point was finish in the top five in NH, OR -- not and, but OR -- poll at 5% in the polls nationally. He didn't.
Expanding the GOP and all that crap, doncha know.
Then the Party expects solid conservatives to be on board with them in the General Election to support a Republican In Name Only? What is wrong with this picture.
I get the circular, Catch 22 logic here. Deny coverage and black out the candidate's voice and picture and name (make him an asterik), he polls low, and, well, because he polls low, deny him further coverage. Great system. The only reason this is done is become he is an unquestionable conservative.
No, they did't. I did. I was giving you a hint.
And how does that get measured?
That's the question I asked you to answer. I originally asked you to come up with other ways other then polls and previous primary results.
But there's little in their criteria that would count as "dirty tricks" or any other conspiracy.
Many Hunter supporters disagree.
Should the NFL decide who gets in the playoffs based on the results of the exhibition season and the first three games?