Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="UPS Lifer" data-source="post: 947012" data-attributes="member: 9789">I can&#039;t agree more with this and Upstates post.And another point along this same line of thought...These governors or state officials (of which mine is one) who are trying to make their state stand out on the national primary scene by moving the primaries up have hurt the primary process.&nbsp; Using Arizona as an example, it completely backfired!We were punished by losing 1/2 of our delegates because of an early primary. Not only that, but why a winner take all process??? Arizona became a non-issue because of the close race in Michigan.&nbsp; Winner take all means that a candidate who is not going to win won&#039;t even bother coming to the state to campaign and hear from the voters. IT COSTS MONEY to campaign!&nbsp; Each candidate in Michigan gets a proportional share of delegates based winning each district. This is a fair process and the candidates campaigned there.&nbsp; Why waste time in AZ??&nbsp; I am not a fan of huge campaign spending.&nbsp; Super pacs are ruining the campaign process.&nbsp; Who wants to keep seeing these negative ads????&nbsp; There is a different campaign landscape now because of social websites, smartphones and iPads. The whole process needs to be revamped but we know that money is power and unless that is taken out of the equation it will be hard to make the playing field equal for all candidates.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="UPS Lifer, post: 947012, member: 9789"] I can't agree more with this and Upstates post. And another point along this same line of thought... These governors or state officials (of which mine is one) who are trying to make their state stand out on the national primary scene by moving the primaries up have hurt the primary process. Using Arizona as an example, it completely backfired! We were punished by losing 1/2 of our delegates because of an early primary. Not only that, but why a winner take all process??? Arizona became a non-issue because of the close race in Michigan. Winner take all means that a candidate who is not going to win won't even bother coming to the state to campaign and hear from the voters. IT COSTS MONEY to campaign! Each candidate in Michigan gets a proportional share of delegates based winning each district. This is a fair process and the candidates campaigned there. Why waste time in AZ?? I am not a fan of huge campaign spending. Super pacs are ruining the campaign process. Who wants to keep seeing these negative ads???? There is a different campaign landscape now because of social websites, smartphones and iPads. The whole process needs to be revamped but we know that money is power and unless that is taken out of the equation it will be hard to make the playing field equal for all candidates. [/QUOTE]

Verification