General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Democrats used to stand for principles [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)and in fact, they'd have to play ball. A candidate has to have a crew, a visible and enthusiastic following, and -- again, I don't make the rules -- an all important donor list. If he (or she) can demonstrate the ability to GOTV and to fill the coffers, it's off to the races. No one can stop 'em. Thing is, though, a lot of donors are already committed to a favorite, and if there's an incumbent in the mix, they're going to have to be pissed at the incumbent, specifically, to switch horses like that.
Incumbency, mind you, is another thing altogether. Incumbents are harder to shift than dried bloodstains. Name recognition is a huge piece of the pie.
But if a new potential candidate is thought to be a possibility, the party will do oppo research on them and if the vetting digs up something squirrelly, it's hot potato time. They'll dump 'em for someone new. They don't want to spend party money on an unknown who has vetting problems or who will blow up with a scandal in the general election.