It’s tough to understand what’s going on at No Labels, the centrist political group that is trying — and repeatedly failing — to find a candidate for its presidential ticket this year. But judging by a slew of bad press over the past week, even the group’s insiders are starting to question what, exactly, their bosses are up to.
No Labels has faced rejection from over a dozen prospective candidates who want nothing to do with them, for reasons ranging from distaste over the party’s shadowy funders to an unwillingness to play spoiler in the pitched battle between President Biden and Donald Trump. It looks like the organization that promised to shake up the 2024 presidential race may end the cycle with no candidate at all. Yikes!
The group’s 0-for-13 track record at candidate recruitment is a brutal admission that, whatever its flashy marketing may suggest, few knowledgeable political players have faith in its mission to create a nonpartisan presidential ticket. Eight months out from Election Day, No Labels’ tentative nominating convention is looking an awful lot like the political equivalent of Fyre Fest.
It isn’t just that No Labels can’t find any credible politician willing to give them the time of day. The party’s long list of rejections undercuts CEO Nancy Jacobson’s core argument that American voters are crying out for an alternative to Biden and Trump. If that were the case, No Labels would certainly be able to produce convincing polling on the subject. So far, none of the numbers the group has come up with have convinced a single politician to give a unity ticket a try.
That was the case this week when former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan formally declined No Labels’ increasingly desperate courtship.
On paper, Duncan is exactly the kind of politician who would fit perfectly with No Labels: an anti-Trump Republican with an independent streak who exemplifies exhaustion with our political system. What’s more, he also put country over party by testifying before the Fulton County grand jury that ultimately indicted Trump on state racketeering charges.
Then, two days later, Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy also announced he wouldn’t serve as the No Labels candidate if nominated. Even Andrew Yang, the party-hopping businessman who briefly launched a third party of his own, ultimately backed away after conversations with No Labels executives back in September. If there’s a groundswell of grassroots support for a politician not named Biden or Trump, No Labels can’t seem to make any of their prospective candidates see it.
Even without a specific candidate, voters don’t seem to have much interest in No Labels as a concept. The group boldly promised that it would be on the ballot in 34 states by the end of 2023. It’s now mid-March and the party has gained ballot access in just 16 states, only halfway to their goal. There is simply no way No Labels can mount a viable presidential campaign while appearing on the ballot in so few states, making the movement look unserious to the voters it hopes to sway.
That puts No Labels yet again in conflict with its own stated values. The group has repeatedly vowed to only field a national ticket with a real chance at victory. Ryan Clancy, chief strategist for No Labels, often remarks that No Labels doesn’t want to be a spoiler campaign. Yet the party’s frantic search for a presidential ticket tells a different story.
No Labels executives have raised a lot of money for this effort, though it’s tough to tell who that money comes from, given how secretive their finances are. What’s clear is that, having built the thing, senior No Labels leaders are determined to deliver a headline-grabbing national campaign even if it means drafting a ticket of literally-who candidates running in only a handful of states.
That isn’t statesmanship — it’s the sunk cost fallacy in action.
No Labels’ efforts are crashing and burning because the movement is an astroturfed effort by conservative big-money donors to throw a wrench into the 2024 election cycle. Ambitious politicians from all corners of the political room have so far been smart enough to keep their distance from whatever it is No Labels is cooking up. Voters should do the same.
Max Burns is a veteran Democratic strategist and founder of Third Degree Strategies.
No Labels can’t get a ‘yes’ on a candidate for 2024 — and there’s a good reason why
19
10
20.03.2024
It’s tough to understand what’s going on at No Labels, the centrist political group that is trying — and repeatedly failing — to find a candidate for its presidential ticket this year. But judging by a slew of bad press over the past week, even the group’s insiders are starting to question what, exactly, their bosses are up to.
No Labels has faced rejection from over a dozen prospective candidates who want nothing to do with them, for reasons ranging from distaste over the party’s shadowy funders to an unwillingness to play spoiler in the pitched battle between President Biden and Donald Trump. It looks like the organization that promised to shake up the 2024 presidential race may end the cycle with no candidate at all. Yikes!
The group’s 0-for-13 track record at candidate recruitment is a brutal admission that, whatever its flashy marketing may suggest, few knowledgeable political players have faith in its mission to create a nonpartisan presidential ticket. Eight months out from Election Day, No Labels’ tentative nominating convention is looking an awful lot like the........
© The Hill
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
