With the announcement last week that it was “standing down,” the No Labels group brought an end to arguably the most significant – and certainly the best-funded – third party effort in American presidential politics in the last 30 years.
There is already an abundance of explanations behind the group’s demise. Some would have us think that the No Labels group was simply unprepared, lacking the foundations for a basic campaign, such as a voter database and a legal team. Others suggested that Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) decision to leave Washington, and former Gov. Larry Hogan’s (R-Md.) decision to try to get to Washington, albeit via the Senate, deprived No Labels of the “big name” it was looking for to carry the flag. The untimely death of founding member, former Sen. Joe Liberman (D-Conn.) was also a gut punch, depriving the group of one of its most endearing surrogates. One can imagine that true cynics might suggest the effort was less about politics than it was about money anyway: The group did spend literally tens of millions of dollars on pollsters and consultants.
For its part, No Labels was quick to remind everyone that it had always said, from the very beginning, that it would not pursue the effort if they did not see a “pathway to victory.” Without being able to find a candidate who could meet that criterion, the party simply did what it always said it would.
My guess is that each of those explanations probably contains at least a kernel of truth. But they all miss the larger problem, and the real reason the No Labels effort failed: Its basic premise was simply wrong.
No Labels was built on the idea that there was a “sizeable minority” or even a “silent majority” of voters who simply did not want either Joe Biden or Donald Trump, and who certainly did not want a rematch of 2020.
You probably cannot blame No Labels for thinking that. After all, they had a considerable amount of polling data that seemed to back it up. And certainly, rematch antipathy is high within the D.C. establishment class that made up most of the No Labels core.
But D.C. cocktail parties and, more importantly, generic polling, can be a dangerous way to get a pulse on ordinary Americans. Asking people whether they like a given politician is very different from asking them which of two politicians they prefer.
So, when No Labels asked the generic question, they got the answer that many inside the Beltway expected. They ignored the fact that there was another poll, of sorts, going on at the same time. And that poll — also known as the primaries — included actual names.
Those primaries spoke louder and clearer than any poll. Each party had a chance to replace the top of its ticket, and both overwhelmingly rejected doing so.
The Republicans had no shortage of real alternatives to the Trump, including some of the best of their next generation of leaders. They had accomplished governors, ambassadors, and business leaders to choose from. And in no way can anyone suggest that voters didn’t know Trump.
They chose Trump. Sure, roughly 20 percent of them at any given time checked a box for someone other than Trump, but that still means that 80 percent of Republican voters wanted him.
The Democrats may have only given weak lip-service to an alternative to President Biden in the form of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (who briefly toyed with the idea of running as a Democrat), author Marianne Williamson and Minnesota Rep. Dean Phillips. But even though the last two are mere answers to trivia questions now (I had to Google to find their names), at least they were actual names on the ballot. If Democratic voters had really wanted someone other than Biden, they had the option.
But they didn’t want someone else. Biden got over 96 percent in the South Carolina primary.
The fact that there were potentially bigger Democrat names out there doesn’t change the analysis. If California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer or Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) thought they could beat Biden in a primary, their names would have been on the ballot someplace. Generally, people who really believe they can win an election for president tend to run for president.
The bottom line is that the voters have spoken. And for all the chatter about how no one really wants Trump versus Biden, that is precisely what the American voters said they wanted.
In the end, No Labels was true to its original mission statement: It was never intended to be a spoiler, never designed to be anti-Trump or anti-Biden, and was in it to win it. As the organization noted: “the responsible course of action is for us to stand down.” Credit to them for doing exactly what they said they would.
But in the end, the group also learned a valuable lesson: Be wary of anyone who tells you they know what a majority of Americans want.
Mick Mulvaney, a former congressman from South Carolina, is a contributor to NewsNation. He served as director of the Office of Management and Budget, acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and White House chief of staff under President Donald Trump.
Mulvaney: No Labels’ effort failed because its basic premise was wrong
4
0
10.04.2024
With the announcement last week that it was “standing down,” the No Labels group brought an end to arguably the most significant – and certainly the best-funded – third party effort in American presidential politics in the last 30 years.
There is already an abundance of explanations behind the group’s demise. Some would have us think that the No Labels group was simply unprepared, lacking the foundations for a basic campaign, such as a voter database and a legal team. Others suggested that Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) decision to leave Washington, and former Gov. Larry Hogan’s (R-Md.) decision to try to get to Washington, albeit via the Senate, deprived No Labels of the “big name” it was looking for to carry the flag. The untimely death of founding member, former Sen. Joe Liberman (D-Conn.) was also a gut punch, depriving the group of one of its most endearing surrogates. One can imagine that true cynics might suggest the effort was less about politics than it was about money anyway: The group did spend literally tens of millions of dollars on pollsters and consultants.
For its part, No Labels was quick to remind everyone that it had always said, from the very beginning, that it would not pursue the effort if they did not see a “pathway to........
© 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
