I think there's a lot of reasons for having an extended primary. I think super PACs play a role.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Incumbents don't like it, but political competition is a good thing. Incumbents usually outspend challengers by better than 3 to 1. Super PACs, which tend to support challengers, have nullified some of this advantage.
I'm asking regular folks to be my super PAC.
A competitive primary does not divide us, it prepares us and we will win.
It's time for grassroots citizens to have a president that's focused on them rather than the super PACs.
Primaries are the place where you see whose message is connecting with the largest number of people.
I would do away with super PACs. I think it's a cancer.
Few developments in campaigning have been as vilified and misunderstood as independent expenditure PACs, or, as they are colloquially known, super PACs.
These candidates are all beholden to these super PACs.
I think the trend to move towards caucuses and conventions, whether to nominate senators, governors or presidential nominees, I think the move towards caucuses and conventions is a very bad one, and that our party should reward those states that spend the time and money to have primaries.
You know, this is not about endorsements in the primary. We have to get through a primary first.