Candidates have to get a certain amount of signatures before getting ballot access on the primary in a state.
Williamson and Phillips weren’t able to do that everywhere, and Biden was, that’s on them not having as many campaign resources as a literal incumbent U.S. President, not the DNC somehow keeping them off the ballot.
Except that’s not true; the DNC sets the rules for each state, and they make plenty of exceptions when they feel like it. In North Carolina, the DNC will allow someone on the ballot if their candidacy is, “generally advocated and recognized in the news media.” In Tennessee, the DNC chair will accept applications if someone is “a bona fide Democrat.” They’re perfectly willing to rubber stamp a challengers applications based on subjective criteria.
The DNC creates a feedback loop to keep challengers off the ballot; they don’t hold debates, so alternative candidates don’t get any exposure to mount a challenge; without any exposure, they can dismiss the candidates as not having enough media presence to warrant being on the ballot, and tell them they have to gather signatures; without any support from the DNC or exposure from the media, it’s virtually impossible to get the funding and resources to collect signatures in 50 states.
Plus, you will face retribution from the DNC for challenging an incumbent. I mean, just look at what they did to Phillips. They forced him out of his leadership positions, then they found someone to primary him, and now he’s not even seeking reelection. All because he had the audacity to think there should be a real primary. Does this really sound like a fair process?
Candidates have to get a certain amount of signatures before getting ballot access on the primary in a state.
Williamson and Phillips weren’t able to do that everywhere, and Biden was, that’s on them not having as many campaign resources as a literal incumbent U.S. President, not the DNC somehow keeping them off the ballot.
Except that’s not true; the DNC sets the rules for each state, and they make plenty of exceptions when they feel like it. In North Carolina, the DNC will allow someone on the ballot if their candidacy is, “generally advocated and recognized in the news media.” In Tennessee, the DNC chair will accept applications if someone is “a bona fide Democrat.” They’re perfectly willing to rubber stamp a challengers applications based on subjective criteria.
The DNC creates a feedback loop to keep challengers off the ballot; they don’t hold debates, so alternative candidates don’t get any exposure to mount a challenge; without any exposure, they can dismiss the candidates as not having enough media presence to warrant being on the ballot, and tell them they have to gather signatures; without any support from the DNC or exposure from the media, it’s virtually impossible to get the funding and resources to collect signatures in 50 states.
Plus, you will face retribution from the DNC for challenging an incumbent. I mean, just look at what they did to Phillips. They forced him out of his leadership positions, then they found someone to primary him, and now he’s not even seeking reelection. All because he had the audacity to think there should be a real primary. Does this really sound like a fair process?