The Hill chimes in.
The progressive candidate has gotten ballot access in Arkansas, but had his application rejected in Nevada after filing an altered form and crossing out the words “natural born” before “citizen.”
How about a link to the article on The Hill that you seem to be quoting?
Really? You want to look at The Hill? I mean, yeah, they are not NoiseMax, but, still.
Anything to the right of Mother Jones is right-wing propaganda now, apparently.
Most media bias trackers put The Hill as centrist.
“Centrist” translates to “Ronald Reagan was the most awesome President evar.”
That is pretty damn far to the Right, when I come from.
I don’t know if you’re referring to any specific article, but if so, it sounds like it would be under the opinion section (and it’s always somewhat dicey to conclude anything about overall bias from opinion pieces). At the moment, the top two articles under the opinion section are:
- Matthews: Bidenomics is Xinomics with American characteristics
- Republicans’ hatred for America is showing
Whether this averages out to a centrist position, I’ll let you decide. The second one doesn’t exactly scream right-wing rag, though.
Here is The Hill article in question:
Democratic presidential candidate Cenk Uygur raises more than $250K since campaign launch
Here is the author bio:
It’s a centrist article, in the sense that Democrats and Republicans may both find sentences to dislike.
I’d like to get @Hatchie to actually provide a cite to the source that they quoted.
I’m not @Hatchie, but I found the article in question by cutting and pasting the text into google.
As we all know, most successful Presidential campaigns saw their fortunes turn for the better when the candidate scratch-altered an administrative form like a sullen high school student.
Just to be clear: I was able to find the article pretty quickly, too. The point of my post was to nudge @Hatchie that, if they are going to quote, or otherwise refer to, a third-party article in a post that they make, long-standing board etiquette here is to provide a link to that article, rather than make people look it up for themselves.
Ok fair enough
Been trying to get confirmation, a yes or no about Cenk actually being accepted on the ballot, from an Arkansas source. Sent the following to two recipients, the Ark Dems and the Elections person at Arkansas Secretary of State.
Quick question: I have seen in a couple of sources (The Hill and Wikipedia) that Cenk Uygur has applied for and been accepted to appear on the Arkansas primary ballot as a candidate for President, but have not been able to confirm this.
Can you confirm or deny this as a fact?
Thank you
Both replied with essentially the same non-response, that yes Mr. Uygur had filed but not whether his filing was accepted without question, or if there were questions about his eligibility that were resolved in some way, or else the filing had not been processed yet and his appearance on the ballot was an unsettled issue.
Disappointing, but until there’s a definitive answer I’d call this a wait and see.
Nice bit of legwork. 
Thank you for the effort to fact check. You initial post on the subject was a bit misleading/sensationalist, but due to Cenk Uygur’s generalization, rather than yours. And I’m not going to even throw much shade at him, after all, I’m sure it’s exciting for him, even if his final goal isn’t the presidency.
I’m more than content to wait for things to get confirmed, challenged, accepted, whatever happens.
Aw shucks. Bad news for Cenk: Arkansas played bait and switch - or was it all just a fever dream?
Your move, big fella. Still looking for evidence of that legal team of yours snapping to attention.
And you naysayers - stop looking so smug!
This whole chain of messages from you has been the equivalent of Wily E Coyote running off a cliff and you claiming that gravity wouldn’t work as long as he didn’t look down.
No “bait and switch” as far as I can tell.
They accepted an application to enter the primary, which is their duty, and verified the qualification status of the applicant, which is also their duty. They don’t “pre-screen” applicants sight unseen, which really would be grounds to sue.
Honest question, no smug: taking the point in the first line above, and the removal on multiple ballots now, does the lack of actual legal challenges imply (chosen carefully, nothing is proven) that he wasn’t serious about ever challenging the Constitutional requirements? Which means, whether or not Cenk was indeed hoping another ‘qualified’ challenger would step up, that his intentions were at least in part misleading?
Well, not looking good in the short term, by which I mean if a challenge to the refusals of any state is in the offing, he better pull the trigger pretty fast or all ten of his supporters are going to start wondering if they backed the wrong pony.
If he thinks there’s an advantage to sitting tight I don’t see it.