The Democratic Party announced Thursday that it is replacing traditional candidate vetting with what insiders describe as "a revolutionary concept known as checking first."
The move follows another high-profile Senate campaign collapse after allegations surfaced against a candidate who had already received millions in support and enthusiastic endorsements before suddenly becoming "deeply concerning."
Party officials insisted the timing was purely coincidental.
"We've always believed in accountability," explained fictional DNC spokesman Barrett Clipboard. "We just prefer accountability to arrive after the fundraising emails."
According to leaked documents, future candidates will now complete a rigorous six-question ethics questionnaire before receiving national support.
Among the questions:
- "Have you committed anything that could become a headline next Tuesday?"
- "Is there a tattoo we should probably ask about?"
- "Would your college roommate describe you as 'complicated'?"
Campaign consultants reportedly applauded the reform.
"This could save millions," said imaginary strategist Linda Pollworthy. "Previously we spent months building candidates only to discover Google existed."
Meanwhile, consultants unveiled a companion program called Outrage Reserve, allowing party officials to pre-record emotional reactions before learning which politician they're reacting to.
"It saves time," Pollworthy explained. "We simply insert the correct name afterward."
Political scientists praised the innovation as America's first renewable source of selective indignation.
Even cable news panels welcomed the development.
"We're tired," admitted fictional anchor Chip Breakington. "Keeping track of which accusations matter this week requires an Excel spreadsheet and three constitutional scholars."
Republicans reportedly considered launching a similar system before deciding that opposition research conducted by the internet remains significantly cheaper.
Voters expressed cautious optimism.
"I don't expect perfection," said fictional Maine resident Harold Benson. "I'd just appreciate if discovering a candidate's biggest scandal didn't feel like the bonus scene after the election trailer."
The new vetting process is expected to include background investigations, social media reviews, reference checks, and the groundbreaking practice of asking former coworkers whether the candidate should, perhaps, not represent millions of Americans.
Party leaders celebrated the announcement as historic.
"This represents a bold new era," declared Clipboard. "We're proving democracy works best when surprises happen on Election Night—not every Wednesday afternoon."
Analysts say the program's greatest challenge may be convincing consultants that reading résumés before writing victory speeches isn't an attack on democracy.
