GOP Candidates Must Sign Loyalty Pledge
A no-brainer that's brainless.
POLITICO (“GOP primary candidates must agree to loyalty pledge in order to debate, RNC chair says“):
Any candidate who wants to take part in the GOP’s first primary debate in Milwaukee later this year will have to sign a pledge promising to support whoever wins the nomination, Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel said Sunday.
“We’re saying you’re not going to get on the debate stage unless you make this pledge,” McDaniel said during an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.” McDaniel, who recently won her fourth term as RNC chair after a contentious battle against Harmeet Dhillon, said that Republican voters are tired of “infighting” within the party, and “want to see us come together.”
So far, three prominent candidates have entered the GOP presidential primary — former President Donald Trump, former Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley and conservative entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. More are expected to join the race, potentially including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
McDaniel said she expects all candidates who decided to join what may become a crowded race to sign the pledge, describing it as “a no-brainer.”
“If you’re going to be on the Republican National Committee debate stage asking voters to support you, you should say, I’m going to support the voters and who they choose as the nominee,” McDaniel said.
But earlier this month, Trump told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt his support for the GOP candidate in the general election would depend on who the nominee was.
McDaniel, however, said she believes the former president will sign the pledge. “I think they all want to be on the debate stage. I think President Trump would like to be on the debate stage. That’s what he likes to do. And I expect they will all be there.”
If one knew nothing about the last few years of American politics, this would seem rather pro forma. While the United States has, as Steven Taylor constantly seeks to remind us, very weak parties, it makes sense for party leadership to seek to strengthen the brand by controlling who gets on the debate stage to vie for their presidential nomination and to expect that those who do coalesce around the eventual nominee. Indeed, with relatively rare exceptions, that has been the norm during the primary era.
But, of course, that assumes a “normal” political party and political climate. We haven’t had that since Donald Trump went down the escalator in 2015. There was a famous moment during one of the 2016 debates when candidates were asked whether they would support the eventual nominee and Trump said what he’s saying now: it depends on whom the nominee is. And several of the other candidates had made statements about Trump being uniquely unfit for the office.
Thus far, 2024 looks to be a contest between Trump and Trump Lite candidates, with Nikki Haley trying to triangulate as a Trump-friendly Normal Republican without much success. But it’s not inconceivable that some genuine Not-Trump Republican (a Larry Coker or Chris Sununu or even a Mitt Romney) will get into the race. I don’t have much hope that any of those would win. But they certainly can’t do it while pledging to back Trump.
Now, of course, McDaniel was Trump’s hand-picked RNC Chair. Despite the party having lost seats in every single election since she’s been in the post, she’s continued to win re-election to it. Presumably, she’s doing this for Trump’s benefit. But it’s simply untenable given the state of the party.
The Republicans should probably resign themselves to losing presidential elections–and many house and senatorial races–till Trump is gone from the scene, however that happens.
This is meaningless unless the RNC has the means to meaningfully punish candidates who break their promise.
Let’s say Trump doesn’t get the nomination and starts an independent run, then what? A wag of the finger won’t hold him back.
@drj:
I don’t think he can be stopped from doing that unless the RNC wants to hire an assassin. I’m not joking.
@CSK:
Substantial financial penalties for breach of contract? It would at least be a possibility, I guess.
I saw this yesterday. I’m not sure it’s meant to keep the never-Cheeto candidates out, or to keep Benito from an independent run if he loses the nomination.
It may work for the first possibility, but not for the second (as has been pointed out already).
I wonder, too, whether this denotes a breakdown in party discipline in the GQP.
@drj:
I don’t know if exorbitant fines would be legal in this case.
Last night Trump announced on TruthSocial that: “Crooked Democrat Prosecutors, many of them Racists in Reverse, are trying to steal a second Presidential Election. They did it in 2020, and we’re not going to let them do it in 2024. MAGA!!!”
Lacking a viable enforcement mechanism any such pledge is meaningless. And I emphasize viable.
If TFG is denied the nomination, no pledge will make him back the winner or keep him from running in a 3rd party. After all, he’ll claim the primaries were rigged…
As far as the bind that the pledge would place on an anti-trumper, what does “support” mean?
@Sleeping Dog:
In Trump’s case it would mean saying things like: “I would never accuse Ron DeSantimonius of being a groomer” or “I would never say Nikki Haley was a RINO.”
@Sleeping Dog:
I agree that it’s important to realize the “pledge” is nonbinding. If a candidate decides to ignore it later on, there’s pretty much nothing the party can do about it.
BUT…. If Trump agrees to make the pledge, it deprives him of his power to hold a potential third-party bid, or at least refusing to support the eventual nominee, over the party as a threat. It’s kind of like Russia’s nukes, in that the benefit to himself comes more from the threat than from ever actually carrying it out.
@Kylopod:
How? Unless state legislatures add language to ballot access laws denying access to any failed candidate who took the pledge, the party has on recourse.
Another angle, does TFG really care if he is part of the debates? Arguably, he has more to lose by participating than by skipping them.
@Sleeping Dog:
I already said the party has no means of enforcing the pledge. The point is that Trump can’t say anything to suggest he might bail, for the period of time in which he attempts to participate in these debates. The implicit threat may still be there, but up to now he’s never been satisfied with being implicit. He has to constantly remind everyone he might bail.
@Kylopod:
How can he constantly remind people he might bail if he can’t say so?
@CSK:
Exactly!
@Kylopod:
I wasn’t clear on your point, but saying that, I still don’t think this stops trump.
He takes the pledge, breaks it and the party denies access to the debate. Trump screams censorship, discrimination and the party is being woke. He doesn’t need the debates and the party won’t refuse to seat delegates that trump won in the primaries, which is really the parties only recourse.
@Kathy:..party discipline in the GQP
Republican Party Discipline means kow tow to Trump and the MAGA base.
@Kylopod:
I think he can.
Shame would hold people like Romney or Cheney. At least during the time it takes them to drop out of the GQP race. Benito doesn’t know what shame is.
On a related matter. If he loses the nomination he will, naturally, slaim the primarie swere rigged. But, will he blame the Democrats or the Republicans for rigging them? If the latter, his independent run, if it gets to that, is 99.9999999% doomed.
@drj: @Sleeping Dog: @Sleeping Dog: While the pledge itself is unenforceable, all but three US states have sore loser laws banning failed primary candidates from subsequently running as an independent or on another party’s ticket.
@Kathy:
Trump can always claim that the RINO globalist communists rigged the primaries, and the MAGA imbeciles will buy it. They hate the RINOs more than they hate the Democrats.
@James Joyner:
Most of those laws don’t apply to presidential elections. When Gary Johnson ran on the Libertarian ticket after failing to win the Republican nomination in 2012, he only failed to make the ballot in two states.
@James Joyner:
So scrolling down your link, this link:
https://ballotpedia.org/Sore_loser_laws_for_presidential_candidates,_2016
Though I suppose a GOP candidacy would be DOA sans TX.
@charon:
Yes. I didn’t look at James’ link, but I did look at the Wikipedia article for Gary Johnson’s 2012 candidacy, and it mentioned that the only two states where he failed to make the ballot were Michigan and Oklahoma. I assume the state laws have changed since then.
Actually it makes prefect logical sense for sore loser laws not to apply to presidential elections.
In a primary for a House seat, or governor, or dog catcher, the primary determines who the candidates will be for the election. Whereas a state primary for the presidency doesn’t. It only elects delegates for the nomination to be voted at the convention.
@drj:
He doesn’t pay his bills now – what’s a penalty gonna do unless they actively start seizing property right away? The man has skated on EVERYTHING so far and I don’t see the RNC being the ones to have the balls to take the first swing.
Take the deed to Mar-a-lago up front, put it in a trust and return it on Jan 6th, 2025 if he behaves. He *might* cooperate… or decide it means you get all the bills and he can run for it. 50/50.
@Kylopod: Gary Johnson brings up another question about his 2012 run. Did he run in every primary race and then drop out or did he quit the race before it ended? Don’t remember, nor do I particularly care, but that would make a difference also in that he shouldn’t be barred from running in states that had elections after he withdrew given that he’s not actually a sore loser in such states.
Is this maybe a way to give Trump cover for not taking part in debates? His fans will think he is taking a principled (hah!) stand and he doesn’t have to display how much his cognition has deteriorated in the last 4 years.
Oh, you mean to support the nominee. I thought at first you meant a pledge of loyalty to the United States. At first blush I’d expect them to have trouble with that. But then I realized they’d all lie.
I pity the Republican Party /s Start out being arsonists, end up being firemen…
Maybe I didn’t get the memo, but didn’t Trump render this pledge stuff irrelevant and/or inoperative?