No Labels 'talking with several exceptional leaders,' national co-chair says

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Politico

02/18/2024 01:06 PM EST


A national co-chair for No Labels said Sunday the organization continues to pursue “several exceptional leaders” in the wake of Sen. Joe Manchin’s decision not to run for president in 2024.

“We’re talking with several exceptional leaders. We have our own internal process,” Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis said on “The Weekend” on MSNBC.

No Labels is seeking to offer a centrist unity ticket for the 2024 presidential election. Manchin (D-W.Va.), who is retiring from the Senate, was considered a possible candidate but said Friday he would not be running. Another potential candidate, former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, has opted instead to run for an open Senate seat in his state.

While not naming anyone who might run, Chavis said No Labels was pushing forward. “In the next couple of weeks or more,” Chavis said, “we will probably make an announcement whether or not we will give the ballot access to a unity ticket. A unity ticket means a Republican and a Democrat. And we are talking to Republicans, Democrats and independents.”

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/18/no-labels-joe-manchin-campaign-00142069

[BootinUp]

1. File under people that will do anything to prevent a Biden 2nd term. nt

[TwilightZone]

2. That sounds a little wishy-washy.

“In the next couple of weeks or more,” Chavis said, “we will probably make an announcement whether or not we will give the ballot access to a unity ticket. A unity ticket means a Republican and a Democrat. And we are talking to Republicans, Democrats and independents.”

In the next couple of weeks. Or maybe not. We will probably make an announcement, but we're not sure.

"A unity ticket means a Republican and a Democrat"

Then, why are they talking to Independents? I'm being facetious, of course, but that's actually kind of funny.

[Silent Type]

3. Seems like Manchin has said he wasn't going to run several times, only to say later he's thinking about it.

[Rebl2]

12. Thought he

said Friday he was not running.

[Silent Type]

18. He did. But I think he has said the same months ago. Then he started testing waters again.

But don’t know. Point is, I wouldn’t count him out completely.

[DemocraticPatriot]

23. Nah, he was more wishy-washy before. "maybe I will, and maybe I won't"

His recent statement was more categorical, that he will Not...

[William Seger]

4. The Nader fallacy

... which is that someone who can't possibly win the nomination of either major party could nonetheless win running as an independent.

What is far more likely -- almost certain, in fact -- is the same thing that happened with Nader: If No Labels run a "reasonable" candidate, then the "reasonable" vote will be split two ways, giving a win to the worst candidate.

[DemocraticPatriot]

24. DEFINITELY-- any vote for anyone other than President Biden, is a vote for Trump

That's how it is.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

36. Nader said he'd drop out if the race between Gore and Bush got close.

It did. He didn't. I guess he was enjoying being back in the limelight too much to let it go.

This is like Repugs who promise "I'll only serve one term in Congress." Then they get hooked on the perks and status and find all kinds of reasons to run again...and again...

No Labels should be called the "F*ck Democracy Party."

[cstanleytech]

5. Why do I sense that this is an attempt to try and siphon off independent voters from voting for Biden?

[live love laugh]

8. Because that's exactly what it is. ✅

[Bleacher Creature]

6. Guaranteed that everyone they're considering will draw more votes from Biden than Trump.

[live love laugh]

7. No Labels is just Republicans trying to hide to siphon away Democratic votes.

[OAITW r.2.0]

9. Even Micheal Steele knows it's bullshit.

The dude that they hauled out on the AM MSNBC show couldn't answer the basic questions as to who is behind this BS campaign.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. Ben Chavis has been around a long time

and I was surprised to see his name up there. He had been heavily involved in the Civil Rights Movement and had been EO of the NAACP after Ben Hooks died. I think some of these Civil Rights "leaders" were more leftist in terms of being more "nationalist", and when that failed, they opted to build some kind of "independent" coalition.

[OAITW r.2.0]

11. Sad, using their reputation to support/front a Republican rat-fucking operation.

[cstanleytech]

16. Problem is our system of government simply isn't really designed well enough to support more than two political parties.

[BumRushDaShow]

28. Ironically it's possible

that with more states using "ranked choice" or "jungle primaries" or other similar schemes (and I realized that here in Philly, when we elect the "At-Large" City Council members, which would be a max of 7, the top-7 vote-getters win, with the 10 remaining "geographically fixed" Councilmanic Districts doing a majority-wins contest), eventually some other party might eventually break through.

With Philly's At-Large seats, the charter noted that at least 2 At-Large seats would be required to be set aside for a "minority party" and in the past 70 or so years with the modern city government, that has meant either a Democrat or Republican.

But 5 years ago, the Working Families Party actually broke through and grabbed one of the "traditional" GOP minority At-Large seats and after this past fall's election, ANOTHER member of the Working Families Party grabbed the OTHER "minority party" At-Large seat, and that essentially shut the GOP out from our 17-member City Council save for one, 4-decade long incumbent GOP member who runs in a fixed Councilmanic District.

I am still like this -

[cstanleytech]

30. I honestly doubt that that enough of the one's in power both at the State and Federal level of government would

ever allow any of those options to be implemented nationwide.

[BumRushDaShow]

31. I agree

although I never thought I see what happened here in Philly.

And I know people often point back to H. Ross Perot in 1992, so sometimes they can get close.

[karynnj]

32. Although Perot was very strong in summer 1992, he did not come close in the election

He was not close to winning in any state. My second grade Montessori schooled daughter watched the beginning of the results filling in a school provided map. Before the election, she spend a long time thinking about the colors she wanted to use. Her dad and I told her she really did not have to spend a lot of time picking the color for Perot, because she wasn't going to need it. She picked brown for Bush and purple, her then favorite color, for Clinton.

[BumRushDaShow]

33. LOL @ the colors!

The fact that Perot got something like 19% of the popular vote was significant (because it meant that neither Poppy nor Clinton would have a "majority" % of that popular vote). But yeah, he wasn't going to get the Electoral College.

[karynnj]

34. The more serious question - with regards to 2024 - could be whether there are swing states that could be impacted

It is very possible that Stein diverted enough votes from Clinton to win Wisconsin and Michigan. A simplistic analysis just adding the two lines gets Clinton above Trump, but it is very close and some may simply have not voted. The same with Al Gore. Florida likely would have been stolen even without Nadar, but could Gore have won NH, which small as it is had enough delegates to make Gore President even without Florida. This ignores that the claim by both Stein and Nadar that there was no difference and both were unacceptable likely itself hurt.

I have never heard that concerning 1992 - and the bigger impact might have been the nearly a year intense Perot attacks on Bush as Perot rose in the polls. It may be that Perot was getting the populist vote that years later were attracted to the very dissimilar Trump and Sanders. I suspect that when he first dropped out - many went to Clinton, possibly those more aligned with Democrats. Perot's dropping out and the Clinton convention happened so close together and led to a HUGE jump in Clinton's number.

[DemocraticPatriot]

25. You mean "wouldn't" answer that question...

but it has been fairly well documented that 'No Labels' is primarily funded by right-wing sources.

[Deep State Witch]

13. Hogan

Larry Hogan gave up on them. He's running for the open MD Senate seat as a Republican.

[PSPS]

14. "No Labels" is another fake GOP operation

[Wonder Why]

15. One definition in Merriam Webster is

deviating from the norm: such as
a: having above or below average intelligence

In their case, I suggest the latter is appropriate

[emulatorloo]

17. " You Wouldn't Know Her, She Goes to Another School"

[LudwigPastorius]

19. Too bad.

Manchin would have been perfect for the No Scruples Party.

I guess they'll have to go to their bench and get Lieberman to run again.

[Shipwack]

20. "Top people..."

?si=qjeuDAKUcXdpE0Qr

[Warpy]

21. Good luck with that one, guys

[DemocraticPatriot]

22. I am sure they are having earnest convos with a number of exceptional county commissioners....

well, maybe not 'exceptional' county commissioners....

[SunSeeker]

26. Fuck No Labels and the Trojan horse they rode in on.

[4lbs]

27. Exceptional? Minimally exceptional?

at 1:27

?t=87

[speak easy]

29. Louis Buller Gohmert; He's exceptional.

[Torchlight]

35. Partial list: Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich

Kidding of course, but that's exactly what it reeks of.