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

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & 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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & 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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & 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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & 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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & 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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & 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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & 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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & 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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Well, Priebus is going to be Trump's chief of staff now, not RNC chair, so I guess nothing will come of this threat.