Priebus plans punishment in 2020/24 for people who didn't endorse Trump

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reince-priebus-gop-primary-penalty_us_57dec1f3e4b0071a6e07d7b8?section=

This pretty much illustrates why the democratic party is wrong to assume that those who endorse Trump actually like him. In many cases, they do not, but have to endorse him to stay in good standing with the party. It's a near-legal obligation, and you do it even if you hate the candidate, because it's your duty if you're an elected official or want to be one. If Kasich or Cruz endorses Trump, I will not judge them for doing so. It would be the same if Sanders was the dem nominee - endorse him or suffer.

[Mr. Morden]

Priebus won't care about carrying water for Trump anymore on November 9th.  And if he did, there's nothing much he can do to "retaliate" against these guys.  Party chairs aren't that powerful.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Priebus won't care about carrying water for Trump anymore on November 9th.  And if he did, there's nothing much he can do to "retaliate" against these guys.  Party chairs aren't that powerful.

He can probably strong-arm the rules committee into just about anything. They wouldn't dare go against the  party chair, probably.

[Xing]

Sickening, but that just makes the ones who are endorsing Trump despite not liking him cowards. If they were worth re-electing, they'd stand up Priebus, who clearly has no control of the party to begin with.

[Blue3]

Empty threat. Priebus won't still be RNC then.

[Mr. Morden]

Priebus won't care about carrying water for Trump anymore on November 9th.  And if he did, there's nothing much he can do to "retaliate" against these guys.  Party chairs aren't that powerful.

He can probably strong-arm the rules committee into just about anything. They wouldn't dare go against the  party chair, probably.

I mean that he's not that powerful in the sense that he won't try to exercise his hypothetical power if he's not getting support from the rest of the RNC, and the rest of the RNC isn't going to be interested in pushing this too hard.  Neither will Priebus himself.  None of them will care about punishing these folks after November.  And what would the punishment even look like?  Rigging the next primary season to disadvantage folks like Cruz, Kasich, and Sasse?  What kind of rule change would even do that?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Priebus won't care about carrying water for Trump anymore on November 9th.  And if he did, there's nothing much he can do to "retaliate" against these guys.  Party chairs aren't that powerful.

He can probably strong-arm the rules committee into just about anything. They wouldn't dare go against the  party chair, probably.

I mean that he's not that powerful in the sense that he won't try to exercise his hypothetical power if he's not getting support from the rest of the RNC, and the rest of the RNC isn't going to be interested in pushing this too hard.  Neither will Priebus himself.  None of them will care about punishing these folks after November.  And what would the punishment even look like?  Rigging the next primary season to disadvantage folks like Cruz, Kasich, and Sasse?  What kind of rule change would even do that?

Not sure about Sasse, but Cruz, Kasich, Jebra, and I believe Graham all signed pledges to endorse the eventual nominee, unconditionally, to get on the ballot in several states, including the key early state of South Carolina. Priebus could try to strongarm the state party into prohibiting them from being on the ballot in those states in 2020/24 (depending on whether Trump wins this year), or strongarm the rules committee into not seating any delegates awarded to said candidates from those states, or only seating half of such delegates - on the basis that such candidates gave a willful oath to the party that should have consequences if it is ever broken.

[LLR]

Priebus won't care about carrying water for Trump anymore on November 9th.  And if he did, there's nothing much he can do to "retaliate" against these guys.  Party chairs aren't that powerful.

He can probably strong-arm the rules committee into just about anything. They wouldn't dare go against the  party chair, probably.

I mean that he's not that powerful in the sense that he won't try to exercise his hypothetical power if he's not getting support from the rest of the RNC, and the rest of the RNC isn't going to be interested in pushing this too hard.  Neither will Priebus himself.  None of them will care about punishing these folks after November.  And what would the punishment even look like?  Rigging the next primary season to disadvantage folks like Cruz, Kasich, and Sasse?  What kind of rule change would even do that?

Not sure about Sasse, but Cruz, Kasich, Jebra, and I believe Graham all signed pledges to endorse the eventual nominee, unconditionally, to get on the ballot in several states, including the key early state of South Carolina. Priebus could try to strongarm the state party into prohibiting them from being on the ballot in those states in 2020/24 (depending on whether Trump wins this year), or strongarm the rules committee into not seating any delegates awarded to said candidates from those states, or only seating half of such delegates - on the basis that such candidates gave a willful oath to the party that should have consequences if it is ever broken.

But Trump himself said that pledge didn't matter any more.

[RogueBeaver]

Spineless hack says what?

[Mr. Morden]

Priebus could try to strongarm the state party into prohibiting them from being on the ballot in those states in 2020/24 (depending on whether Trump wins this year), or strongarm the rules committee into not seating any delegates awarded to said candidates from those states, or only seating half of such delegates - on the basis that such candidates gave a willful oath to the party that should have consequences if it is ever broken.

I would say there is zero chance of any of that happening.  It would look stupidly anti-democratic to try something like that--to basically disqualify candidates by fiat.  The information is out there....about the pledges that they broke.  Opposing candidates are free to use it against them.  If the voters don't care and vote for them anyway, then why should the party chairman overrule them?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Priebus could try to strongarm the state party into prohibiting them from being on the ballot in those states in 2020/24 (depending on whether Trump wins this year), or strongarm the rules committee into not seating any delegates awarded to said candidates from those states, or only seating half of such delegates - on the basis that such candidates gave a willful oath to the party that should have consequences if it is ever broken.

I would say there is zero chance of any of that happening.  It would look stupidly anti-democratic to try something like that--to basically disqualify candidates by fiat.  The information is out there....about the pledges that they broke.  Opposing candidates are free to use it against them.  If the voters don't care and vote for them anyway, then why should the party chairman overrule them?

Priebus's argument seems to be that the pledge should have meant something, so there has to be a consequence for breaking it. If someone rescinded the pledge before a given primary, there would likely have been a move to take them off the ballot in that state. But the primaries have happened, so the punishment has to be something else. I guess Cruz can just be removed from congressional committees, but Jebra and Kasich aren't in Congress.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Empty threat. Priebus won't still be RNC then.

Yes, plus if (when) Trump loses it will be even more toothless.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

I would ask the Democrats here just how they would have felt if in 1976 the Democrats nominated a Democrat who, explicitly, refused to endorse George McGovern in 1972.  (Jimmy Carter was, certainly, a guy who tried to stop McGovern and didn't campaign for him, but he DID endorse him to the point of saying he would vote for him.)  Would they have been OK with, say, former Sen. William Spong (D-VA), a moderate who, nonetheless, never even said that he'd vote for McGovern?  Would they have been OK with Gov. Mike O'Callaghan (D-NV) who refused to endorse McGovern? 

There have, over the years, been lots of Democrats who were LOCAL Democrats, but not NATIONAL Democrats.  Most, but not all, were from the South and Border states.  Is it OK for a political party's national chair to reward folks who bolt the ticket?  How does that play with folks who are loyal, despite some distaste for the nominee?

The distaste for Trump from many Republicans is all issue-based.  They are globalist-interventionists, and Trump represents a departure from both, as well as a hostile takeover of the GOP's Presidential nominating apparatus.  It has nothing to do with "temperament", or any of that crap; that's just an excuse, albeit one Trump has sometimes provided.  It's no different than Democrats for Nixon, or those Democrats who wouldn't endorse Mondale. 

And I'll say this:  History has never shown good things happening for party bolters.  Ever.  Show me one bolter who went on to prominence in his own party.  The ones that did almost always had to switch.

[Mr. Morden]

I would ask the Democrats here just how they would have felt if in 1976 the Democrats nominated a Democrat who, explicitly, refused to endorse George McGovern in 1972.

Probably similar to how they'd feel if the Democrats in 1976 had nominated someone who'd said that LBJ should have been impeached.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I would ask the Democrats here just how they would have felt if in 1976 the Democrats nominated a Democrat who, explicitly, refused to endorse George McGovern in 1972.

Probably similar to how they'd feel if the Democrats in 1976 had nominated someone who'd said that LBJ should have been impeached.

Exactly. Because endorsing McGovern or Mondale is one's duty to the party. The "Republican = Trump" argument that dems are making is very hypocritical because dem leaders would expect everyone in their party to endorse someone obviously terrible as well.

[Mr. Morden]

Priebus could try to strongarm the state party into prohibiting them from being on the ballot in those states in 2020/24 (depending on whether Trump wins this year), or strongarm the rules committee into not seating any delegates awarded to said candidates from those states, or only seating half of such delegates - on the basis that such candidates gave a willful oath to the party that should have consequences if it is ever broken.

I would say there is zero chance of any of that happening.  It would look stupidly anti-democratic to try something like that--to basically disqualify candidates by fiat.  The information is out there....about the pledges that they broke.  Opposing candidates are free to use it against them.  If the voters don't care and vote for them anyway, then why should the party chairman overrule them?

Priebus's argument seems to be that the pledge should have meant something, so there has to be a consequence for breaking it. If someone rescinded the pledge before a given primary, there would likely have been a move to take them off the ballot in that state. But the primaries have happened, so the punishment has to be something else. I guess Cruz can just be removed from congressional committees, but Jebra and Kasich aren't in Congress.

I think any "punishment" should be left to the voters to decide.  Actually withholding delegates in a future presidential run by Cruz or Kasich, delegates that they would normally be awarded based on how many votes they get....it would look terrible.  And it's not going to happen, because no one's going to care about Trump or this pledge anymore in three years.*

* That is, assuming Trump loses this November.  If he wins, then he replaces Priebus at the RNC with his own cronies, and the "punishment" will be something more substantial than what's being contemplated here.

[Figueira]

I would ask the Democrats here just how they would have felt if in 1976 the Democrats nominated a Democrat who, explicitly, refused to endorse George McGovern in 1972.

Probably similar to how they'd feel if the Democrats in 1976 had nominated someone who'd said that LBJ should have been impeached.

Exactly. Because endorsing McGovern or Mondale is one's duty to the party. The "Republican = Trump" argument that dems are making is very hypocritical because dem leaders would expect everyone in their party to endorse someone obviously terrible as well.

If the Democrats nominated someone as bad as Trump, and the Republican candidate was better, I'd certainly want people to avoid endorsing that person.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I would ask the Democrats here just how they would have felt if in 1976 the Democrats nominated a Democrat who, explicitly, refused to endorse George McGovern in 1972.

Probably similar to how they'd feel if the Democrats in 1976 had nominated someone who'd said that LBJ should have been impeached.

Exactly. Because endorsing McGovern or Mondale is one's duty to the party. The "Republican = Trump" argument that dems are making is very hypocritical because dem leaders would expect everyone in their party to endorse someone obviously terrible as well.

If the Democrats nominated someone as bad as Trump, and the Republican candidate was better, I'd certainly want people to avoid endorsing that person.

YOU would, yes, I believe that, but I do not believe for a second that party leaders like Pelosi and Schumer would endorse a republican in that situation. It would be all "xxx scandal" or "SUPREME COURT" or "Fifth Bush Term!". Congress Critters would be forced to endorse the nominee, and punished if they steadfastly refused. Same thing is happening now with the GOP.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

I would ask the Democrats here just how they would have felt if in 1976 the Democrats nominated a Democrat who, explicitly, refused to endorse George McGovern in 1972.  (Jimmy Carter was, certainly, a guy who tried to stop McGovern and didn't campaign for him, but he DID endorse him to the point of saying he would vote for him.)  Would they have been OK with, say, former Sen. William Spong (D-VA), a moderate who, nonetheless, never even said that he'd vote for McGovern?  Would they have been OK with Gov. Mike O'Callaghan (D-NV) who refused to endorse McGovern? 

There have, over the years, been lots of Democrats who were LOCAL Democrats, but not NATIONAL Democrats.  Most, but not all, were from the South and Border states.  Is it OK for a political party's national chair to reward folks who bolt the ticket?  How does that play with folks who are loyal, despite some distaste for the nominee?

The distaste for Trump from many Republicans is all issue-based.  They are globalist-interventionists, and Trump represents a departure from both, as well as a hostile takeover of the GOP's Presidential nominating apparatus.  It has nothing to do with "temperament", or any of that crap; that's just an excuse, albeit one Trump has sometimes provided.  It's no different than Democrats for Nixon, or those Democrats who wouldn't endorse Mondale. 

And I'll say this:  History has never shown good things happening for party bolters.  Ever.  Show me one bolter who went on to prominence in his own party.  The ones that did almost always had to switch.

Nobody is proposing that defectors are "rewarded". If the voters don't like this, then the candidates will feel the consequences on their own. On the other hand, if these people are successful in the future, then this sends a strong signal that Trump was a bad idea, which is just what the GOP needs to avoid becoming a caricature of itself.

[Figueira]

I would ask the Democrats here just how they would have felt if in 1976 the Democrats nominated a Democrat who, explicitly, refused to endorse George McGovern in 1972.

Probably similar to how they'd feel if the Democrats in 1976 had nominated someone who'd said that LBJ should have been impeached.

Exactly. Because endorsing McGovern or Mondale is one's duty to the party. The "Republican = Trump" argument that dems are making is very hypocritical because dem leaders would expect everyone in their party to endorse someone obviously terrible as well.

If the Democrats nominated someone as bad as Trump, and the Republican candidate was better, I'd certainly want people to avoid endorsing that person.

YOU would, yes, I believe that, but I do not believe for a second that party leaders like Pelosi and Schumer would endorse a republican in that situation. It would be all "xxx scandal" or "SUPREME COURT" or "Fifth Bush Term!". Congress Critters would be forced to endorse the nominee, and punished if they steadfastly refused. Same thing is happening now with the GOP.

Pelosi and Schumer wouldn't, no. But if someone who didn't endorse that person wanted to run for President in the next cycle as a Democrat, I'd want them to have a fair chance. Let the voters decide.

Similarly, if in 2020 someone who had enthusiastically endorsed Republicans in every election as long as they'd been alive decided to run in the Democratic primary, I'd be cool with letting them do so. If the voters don't want that person, then they won't vote for them.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

And Cruz bows down. Did he want to? No. But he understands why you endorse the nominee of your parry if you're an elected official - it is your duty to do so.

[Young Conservative]

We need a different chairman.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

We need a different chairman.

Well, it is considered tradition to let the incoming president select a new party chairman. Of course, the RNC/DNC has to ratify the choice, but the selection is typically not seriously challenged. So if Trump wins, you'll likely get someone new.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Who cares? Principles are more important than personal ambition. I've really gained a lot of respect for John Kasich in the past few months.

[Indy Texas]

I would ask the Democrats here just how they would have felt if in 1976 the Democrats nominated a Democrat who, explicitly, refused to endorse George McGovern in 1972.  (Jimmy Carter was, certainly, a guy who tried to stop McGovern and didn't campaign for him, but he DID endorse him to the point of saying he would vote for him.)  Would they have been OK with, say, former Sen. William Spong (D-VA), a moderate who, nonetheless, never even said that he'd vote for McGovern?  Would they have been OK with Gov. Mike O'Callaghan (D-NV) who refused to endorse McGovern? 

There have, over the years, been lots of Democrats who were LOCAL Democrats, but not NATIONAL Democrats.  Most, but not all, were from the South and Border states.  Is it OK for a political party's national chair to reward folks who bolt the ticket?  How does that play with folks who are loyal, despite some distaste for the nominee?

The distaste for Trump from many Republicans is all issue-based.  They are globalist-interventionists, and Trump represents a departure from both, as well as a hostile takeover of the GOP's Presidential nominating apparatus.  It has nothing to do with "temperament", or any of that crap; that's just an excuse, albeit one Trump has sometimes provided.  It's no different than Democrats for Nixon, or those Democrats who wouldn't endorse Mondale. 

And I'll say this:  History has never shown good things happening for party bolters.  Ever.  Show me one bolter who went on to prominence in his own party.  The ones that did almost always had to switch.

McGovern was, on a basic, objective level, qualified to be POTUS.

Trump is objectively not qualified to be POTUS.

There is no equivalency between Trump and any past presidential candidate from either party.