Keeping Trump Off The Ballot Will Backfire
The Republican Party is now the party of Donald Trump. That's a pretty astounding statement, but as Trump continues to not only lead in all the primary polls but also to drive the debate for all the other contenders, it would be hard to make the case that Trump hasn't completed what might be called a hostile takeover of the Republican Party brand. This could always change, of course -- nothing is ever set in stone in a presidential race. But for the time being, Trump's not only the party frontrunner, he is actually defining the race for everyone else.
This state of affairs is downright terrifying to the establishment Republican Party machine. Trump is, almost by definition, uncontrollable. He could do or say anything, and often does. The party elders have watched the rise of Trump and seen their own power diminish. What worries them most is the fact that so far Trump refuses to publicly commit to supporting the Republican candidate (if it turns out not to be him), and has left the door wide open for a third-party or independent run. Trump is using this threat as leverage over the party, which he freely admits.
Some party leaders are now contemplating pushing back, but this effort seems destined to blow up in their faces. This first surfaced in the run-up to the first televised Republican debate, as the Republican National Committee considered limiting the debate stage to only those who would pledge not to run an independent campaign if they lost the Republican nomination. In the end, they didn't do this, and Trump took center stage. The first question he faced was about his commitment to not running independently, which he again refused to rule out.
Now some state-level party leaders are pondering whether to use their own leverage to force any Republican candidate who appears on the primary ballot to sign a "loyalty oath" to the party, and foreswear an independent bid. Some states already have such rules, such as South Carolina. Some states have "sore loser" rules which bar any primary candidate who doesn't win their party's nomination from appearing on the general election ballot, such as Virginia. Virginia's Republicans are considering making this rule even more explicit, and other states such as North Carolina may follow this trend.
This might turn out to be a gigantic mistake. Especially for states changing the rules this time around, because such actions would so obviously be aimed at Donald Trump. Trump has stated that what would drive him to a third-party bid would be if the Republican Party treats him unfairly, and this certainly seems to fit the bill.
The constitutionality of such "loyalty oath" rules is an open question. So is their enforceability. If a candidate pledges not to run as an independent and then later breaks that pledge, could one party alone keep him off the general election ballot? Setting the rules for a primary is one thing, because primary elections are essentially an intra-party affair. Since it's a Republican primary, the Republicans can set whatever criteria they wish for who appears on the ballot -- it's their party, and it's their primary. Same goes for Democrats for a Democratic primary, of course. But a general election is supposed to be a neutral event, held by the government (not one individual political party). So how can one party dictate the criteria for who gets to appear on the general election ballot? Signing and reneging on a loyalty oath to one party is not against federal law, after all.
If the state-level Republicans do decide to create loyalty oaths in a naked bid to keep Donald Trump off their primary ballots, his supporters are going to be enraged. "Donald Trump" isn't all that hard to spell, so I could easily see a massive write-in campaign for Trump, either in the Republican primaries or even in the general election, if the Republicans successfully keep his name from appearing. It worked for Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, and her name's a lot harder to spell.
The Trump phenomenon is truly a cult of personality. Most of Trump's supporters are loyal to Donald Trump and not to the Republican Party at large. To put this another way, I doubt there are many Republican voters who are saying to themselves: "I'm thinking of voting for Trump, but I'd only do so if he swore to support the Republican candidate and not make an independent run." Perhaps there are a few, but most of Trump's supporters didn't make up their minds that way.
The Republican Party leaders are caught in a real bind. They really don't want to see Trump win their nomination, but Trump has already thrown down the "fairness" gauntlet. Keeping his name off the ballot would be seen as patently unfair by almost everyone (Trump supporter or not), and would give Trump a built-in excuse to launch a third-party bid if he didn't win the Republican nomination. Not that he'd really need an excuse, because predicting whether Trump will indeed run as an independent is already impossible (indeed, predicting anything Trump does is impossible). Will Trump play their game and sign loyalty oaths he has no intention of being bound by? Will there be some prominent court battles over the constitutionality of such rules? Trump sues people at the drop of a hat, so this could be a likely outcome.
A goodly portion of Trump's supporters are already pretty annoyed with the Republican Party. If the party apparatus chose an outright hostile stance against Trump, these feelings are going to get a lot more acute. Which means if Trump does run independently, a lot of his voters are simply not going to return to the Republican fold and support anyone else's candidacy. The overwhelming feeling -- on both sides -- will be of betrayal. Establishment Republicans will be saying Trump betrayed the party, and Trump voters will be saying the Republican Party is trying to rig the vote in advance. They'll both be at least partially right.
Fox News and the Republican National Committee allowed Trump into the first televised debate, and tens of millions of people watched. If Trump had been excluded, that number would likely have been an order of magnitude lower. This pretty much ended the talk of excluding Trump from debates, since television channels are in business to make money, and Trump obviously has his own built-in audience. But the primaries don't involve such questions of commerce. The Republican Party controls their own ballots. But if they use this power to exclude Donald Trump, his supporters are not going to meekly return to the party ranks and vote for Jeb or Marco or any of the others. In fact, making such a move might even create a groundswell of Trump voters demanding that he immediately bolt the party and make his own run for president. State-level Republicans don't seem to realize that they're playing with fire by even contemplating such rules. In the end, they may get badly burned, because the backlash (to borrow a Trumpism) "will be huge."
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Let's be honest: the people you see raving for Trump now were raving for Sarah Palin in 2008. This GOP race is about a substantial plurality of the 'big tent' that was recruited with a southern strategy, that embarrasses Republican leaders but also empowers them electorally. They have coalesced around Donald Trump, and the rest of the party is too divided to form a majority.
Did Bill Clinton see this coming? Is that why he encouraged Donald to run? I like to think so.
"if Trump does run independently, a lot of his voters are simply not going to return to the Republican fold and support anyone else's candidacy."
"the backlash (to borrow a Trumpism) "will be huge."
You state this with a lot of certainty, but I doubt it. The Palin-lovin' Republican base voters have been using "leverage" in primaries over the last several election cycles. Even when they don't get their way, they show up and vote for the Rmoneys and McConnells anyway. You betcha.
Bernie Sanders has promised not to run an independent campaign, but I think all the talk about Joe Biden is a corporate Democratic pooh-bah freak-out.
Once again, I am amazed at the recalcitrance of the Left..
Donald Trump is the Democrat Party's dream candidate...
Richer than god and beholden to NO lobbyist, special interest group or Party hierarchy...
Trump is the candidate that the Left has been demanding for years and years...
Ya'all just got to appreciate the irony.. :D
Michale
Bernie Sanders has promised not to run an independent campaign,
It's easy to promise that... Sanders has absolutely NO standing amongst Independents... :D
Michale
If only The Donald would hurry up and name Ann Coulter as his running mate, The Left would surely be on board with his "self-funded" performance art. The Left is all about corrupt Aryan Nation one-percenters provided that they lie a lot and have lots of rasslin', reality TV game show, and bankruptcy experience.
Interesting point, JFC...
I wonder who Trump will pick for his VP....
I can't see him pick Coulter.. Trump is not the radical Righty ya'all would like others to believe he is..
Up until recently, he was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat who was instrumental in electing Democrats (including Hillary Clinton) to office...
Might be an interesting exercise for a commentary, CW?? :D
Who will be the VP picks???
As I mentioned before, Biden could all but assure his nomination if he were to announce immediately that Warren would be his VP....
Michale
My hunch is that a lot of Trump supporters are the people that the Republican are very good at pandering to: white males who feel put-upon for no particular reason. They want to get riled up over something, but they don't much care what. If it's how awful the RINOs are and how Trump is such a swell guy, fine. If it's how awful Hillary is, that's fine too.
My hunch is that a lot of Trump supporters are the people that the Republican are very good at pandering to: white males who feel put-upon for no particular reason.
Despite all the evidence of black men and women supporters of Trump to the contrary... :D
They want to get riled up over something, but they don't much care what.
You know how well that describes many many MANY Democrat groups, right?? :D
Michale
More food for thought, on the legal angles:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/25/why-virginia-republicans-can-make-donald-trump-promise-not-to-run-as-an-independent/
-CW
Interesting article...
Seems like the Democrat Party has had their fair share of trying to keep people off the ballots, eh? :D
Two different sides... Same coin....
Michale
You seem to be forgetting/ignoring the Ted Cruz angle.
If/when Trump gets bored with the game, his BFF Ted is aligning himself to pick up Trump's supporters.
In fact, Trump The Dealmaker could actually be running this whole show as a business, to sell of his "assets" to the highest bidder when he's ready to cash out. He's laid out a lot of cash to politicians, it's time to get some of it back.
You seem to be forgetting/ignoring the Ted Cruz angle.
If/when Trump gets bored with the game, his BFF Ted is aligning himself to pick up Trump's supporters.
In fact, Trump The Dealmaker could actually be running this whole show as a business, to sell of his "assets" to the highest bidder when he's ready to cash out. He's laid out a lot of cash to politicians, it's time to get some of it back.
You seem to be forgetting/ignoring the Ted Cruz angle.
If/when Trump gets bored with the game, his BFF Ted is aligning himself to pick up Trump's supporters.
In fact, Trump The Dealmaker could actually be running this whole show as a business, to sell of his "assets" to the highest bidder when he's ready to cash out. He's laid out a lot of cash to politicians, it's time to get some of it back.
White Hat -
First off, welcome to the site!
Your first comment was held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post instantly, as long as you don't post more than one link per comment (multi-link comments are automatically held for moderation to cut down on comment spam).
As for your comment: That's a good point about Cruz. I just heard they're actually going to sort of "campaign together" in Washington. Even if Trump doesn't collapse, Cruz is likely to be at the top of Trump's veep choice list!
-CW
To Michale:
Interesting article...
Seems like the Democrat Party has had their fair share of trying to keep people off the ballots, eh? :D
Two different sides... Same coin....
I'm very much hoping that Trump is NOT excluded from any of the primary ballots! I agree with CW that this would be very unfair treatment.
Mopshell,
Agreed..
This is exactly why I eschew Party ideology and dogmatic loyalty..
BOTH Party's seem to forget that it's the PEOPLE that allow the Party's to exist...
Party's are there to serve the people... Not the other way around...
If the PEOPLE want a Trump or a Sanders then the Party better damn well toe the damn line...
Michale
Michale,
Oh Democrats do believe that the party is there to serve them BUT:
* They think their party should consist of mind-readers. While they'll argue long and loudly that the party has to "earn their vote", they consider it beneath them to actually have to tell the party what it is they want from them - the party should just know!
* They're aware of the concept: "government of the people, by the people, for the people" but as far as the vast majority of them are concerned, only the last one pertains to them: government for the people. They expect everything to be done for them. They don't think they need to participate in governing the country except by their vote which they seem to regard as a royal favor.
* Democrats believe it is up to the party to persuade them that it's worth participating in the vote at all. But the joke is going to be on them - at the rate Republicans are already purging the electoral rolls in readiness for election 2016, millions upon millions of Democrats are going to find that they are no longer registered to vote. So much for their "participation" then!
Mopshell,
I think you give the Democrat Party way too much credit...
The Democrat Party, like the Republican Party exists solely to push their agenda regardless of the wants, needs or desires of the American people...
Saying that one Party is "better" than the other simply employs that blind ideological loyalty I was eschewing above...
In short, Partys... EITHER Party, will do that is in their own best interests, the people be damned..
There is more than ample evidence to support this claim....
Michale
Michale,
Well at least Republicans won't have to worry too much about the Democratic vote next year. Republican state Secretaries of State are purging them from the rolls by the tens of thousands.
Well at least Republicans won't have to worry too much about the Democratic vote next year. Republican state Secretaries of State are purging them from the rolls by the tens of thousands.
Purging illegal voters..
I have no problem with that...
Nor should you...
Nor should anyone...
Michale
No, they aren't purging 'illegal' voters, they are purging anyone with a non-Caucasian name and anyone who has not voted in the last 2-4 years. They've been quite upfront about the software that chooses the names. I believe it was developed for ALEC.
As they say, anyone purged from the rolls who wants to be reinstated only has to re-register.
No, they aren't purging 'illegal' voters, they are purging anyone with a non-Caucasian name and anyone who has not voted in the last 2-4 years. They've been quite upfront about the software that chooses the names. I believe it was developed for ALEC.
I'de like to see the evidence of this...
Michale
To Michale,
This link is a more general look at voter suppression tactics:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters.html
I'll look for a more specific link regarding voter purging later.
To Michale,
https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/voter-purges
Here's a link to information regarding the Interstate Crosscheck computer program used by state Secretaries of State to purge electoral rolls. Incidentally, such a program would be illegal in any country with a Constitution that guarantees voting rights to all eligible citizens. The US Constitution, of course, has no such Amendment guaranteeing voting rights for all.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters.html
I'll look for a more specific link regarding voter purging later.
ONE Right winger stated an opinion that Voter ID laws are targeting Democrat voters...
I can find a Left winger stating an opinion that the only reason Democrats are helping illegal immigrants is to get them to vote illegally..
Doesn't make it a fact...
Michale
Michale, you need to read ALL of the article. It mentions more than one Republican!
It starts out with Phyllis Schlafly but also gives space to Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer and Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai.
In addition to those in the Daily Beast article, there's Paul Weyrich, founder of ALEC. Its objective is, and always was, to find ways to stop Democrats from voting. As Weyrich so famously said, "If we stop them voting then we win." Can't argue the logic of that.
In addition to those in the Daily Beast article, there's Paul Weyrich, founder of ALEC. Its objective is, and always was, to find ways to stop Democrats from voting. As Weyrich so famously said, "If we stop them voting then we win." Can't argue the logic of that.
And Democrats would never stoop to such tactics?? :D
The entire illegal immigration issue is so that Democrats can steal elections...
Michale
The entire illegal immigration issue is so that Democrats can steal elections...
Yeah, yeah, so say all Republicans like the good little followers they are. But what they don't take into account is that second generation immigrants are far more likely to vote Republican so they're shooting themselves in the foot with their immigrant policy. They're actually kicking future Republican voters out of the country! Funny that!
Yeah, yeah, so say all Republicans like the good little followers they are.
Just like all Democrats say that Republicans want to dis-enfranchise voters..
Two sides of the same coin..
Michale
You haven't provided me with any links yet to all those Democrats who say that their immigration policy is only a tactic to steal elections. Yet I have provided you with evidence that Republicans are admitting that their tactics are designed to disenfranchise voters.
You haven't provided me with any links yet to all those Democrats who say that their immigration policy is only a tactic to steal elections. Yet I have provided you with evidence that Republicans are admitting that their tactics are designed to disenfranchise voters.
So, a couple Republicans state this and that paints the entire Party??
Is that how we do things? :D
I know it's what you WISH to be true...
But Voter ID laws are logical and rational and completely bi-partisan.. The simple fact that it's only DEMOCRATS who are worried about it proves my point that Democrats want illegals to vote...
Michale
In other words, you can't find any references to back up your version of the story. :-)