Thread: WHAT!? Hunter endorses Huck

Tancredo and Hunter are still good men. Maybe because both are in the public eye and ran for president, and enjoy attention (all politicians like attention) they felt obligated as "dropouts" to endorse someone, so that it appears that their candidacy had some legacy to it, ("hey, I lost, but I'm endorsing so and so, and if they win, then they won in small part because of my high-profile endorsement...therefore, my candidacy was important after all, even though I dropped out of the race"... so they chose whom they chose, for whatever reason). (National Security, religion, or whatever reason).

I personally think that they endorsed the wrong people, but the decision is up to them.

Ostrich

Originally Posted by sturmruger

Originally Posted by patbrunz

Originally Posted by sturmruger

So much for all the Romney supporters using Tancredo and the Sheriff as their excuse for his vote!

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. How does Hunter endorsing the Huckster have ANYTHING to do with Tancredo and Arpaio's endorsement of Romney?

Some Romney supporters, who at times were without any logical argument, would state that since Tancredo and the Sheriff in Arizona were tough on illegals and endorse Romney then they will follow that endorsement. Now that Gilchrist and Hunter who are both strong against illegals have supported someone other than Romney they, the Romney supporters, can no longer make the afore mentioned excuse. They can without merit!

I disagree. Endorser A and Endorser B are independent. They are unrelated and one certainly does not cancel the other one out. It's not a zero sum game.

Following your logic, if Hunter and Gilchrist endorsed Hillary, then Tancredo and Arpaio's endorsements are null.

It just means that Hunter and Gilchrist endorsed the wrong candidate.