Both Biden and Trump are have abysmally low favorability ratings and immense numbers of voters don’t want either of them— not to mnetion both of them— to run again. Problem: the alternatives are also unacceptable. The system has puked up a pack of wretched politicians no one much likes, from DeSantis, Pence and Christie on the GOP side, to Kamala, Mayo Pete and Newsom on the Democratic side. Corrupt politics has raised up a horrible crop of monsters who have risen to the top of the system. And when newcomers to the system put themselves forward— like RFK, Jr, Larry Elder and Vivek Ramaswarmy— they’re just as bad… if not worse.
And then there’s a grifter outfit as bad as Trump’s— Nancy Jacobson’s and Mark Penn’s No Labels, for decades one of the worst political outfits in the country, currently threatening to run a “moderate” candidate— as though Biden was something other than that— and throw the election to Trump. Fortunately, just as the Republican alternatives to Trump and the Democratic alternatives to Biden don’t excite anyone, the candidates No Labels has put forward are getting a thumbs down from the public. Yesterday, New York Magazine published a column by Ed Kilgore explaining why. He starts off by describing No Labels as a “terrorist threat” to American electoral politics— an apt description— “with shadowy funding and questionable motives… Democrats in particular (including centrist Democrats) are fearful that the ‘independent unity’ ticket that No Labels is planning will help Trump win back the White House.”
No Labels boosters, he wrote have “been able to point to polls (including one earlier this week from Quinnipiac) showing unsurprisingly that lots of voters (47 percent in the Q-Pac results) would ‘consider’ a vote for a theoretical third option. There are two major problems with that proposition. First, of course, the number of people who ‘would consider’ voting a particular way in an election that’s 16 months away is more than a little short of bankable political support. Who wouldn’t ‘consider’ more options? But even more importantly, abstract candidacies without names invite all sorts of hopeful speculation. Might an independent bid feature Oprah Winfrey? Or Tom Hanks? Or if the citizenship issues can be sorted out, a ticket of Harry and Meghan?”
So it’s useful to look at a new national poll from Monmouth that offers an identifiable “independent unity” ticket in a matchup with Trump and Biden. It’s not a random ticket, either; it is composed of West Virginia Democratic senator Joe Manchin and former Utah Republican governor and diplomat Jon Huntsman, who were the featured speakers at a recent No Labels event aimed at kicking off a 2024 platform-development process. Monmouth found that support for a “fusion” ticket including an unnamed Democrat and Republican dropped by half once candidates were named:
3 in 10 Americans say they would entertain voting for a third-party “fusion” ticket comprised of a Democrat and a Republican. Just 5% say they would definitely vote for this option if Biden and Trump are the major party nominees and another 25% say they would probably vote third party. At the other end of the spectrum, 31% say they definitely would not support a fusion ticket and 34% probably would not. …
Monmouth tested Manchin and Huntsman as an alternative ticket in a Biden-Trump race and found that only 2% of voters would definitely vote for this specific third-party option and just 14% would probably vote for them. Moreover, 44% definitely would not vote for a Manchin-Huntsman ticket and 31% probably would not.
Interestingly, the poll showed it didn’t matter at all which of these centrist candidates was first or second on the ticket. It’s also notable that firm support for either an abstract (5 percent) or specific (2 percent) third option is very low. Traditionally support for third-party or independent candidacies begins to fade as actual voting grows nigh amid fears of “wasted votes.” Looks like Manchin-Huntsman (or Huntsman-Manchin) would begin with a pretty small base.
Aside from showing the limited appeal of an actual No Labels ticket, the Monmouth survey provided additional comfort for Democrats by concluding that the effect of the third option was pretty much a “wash” in terms of support levels for Biden and Trump. But that’s pretty far down in the weeds and depends on all sorts of impossible-to-predict variables.
No Labels president Nancy Jacobson has been swearing up and down that her organization will not run an “independent unity” ticket unless it can win. But it’s unclear who will decide its viability. The Monmouth polling suggests it’s totally a pipe dream. But preliminary No Labels polling conducted by Jacobson’s Trump-friendly husband Mark Penn showed lots of states— including, incredibly, Joe Biden’s Delaware— ripe for the plucking. So the three big questions now are this: Will No Labels’ heavily (if anonymously) funded effort to get a mysterious ticket on the ballot in enough states to make victory even remotely possible succeed? And if so, will the group ignore evidence (like the Monmouth survey) that the whole idea is either pointless or destructive? And will Democrats and Republicans cooperate by nominating both Biden and Trump? We’ll know the answers no later than April of next year, when No Labels plans to hold its nominating convention in Dallas, if the “independent unity” ticket is a go.
We’ve been writing about No Labels, Problem Solvers and the rest of Nancy Jacobson’s career of evil since soon after they got the show on the road in 2010. And since DWT moved to this platform, we’ve continued, regularly. They’re the for sale, crooked garbage dump of U.S. anti-progressive politics, the worst of the worst, operated by Jacobson and Penn for the sole reason of lining their own pockets while advancing the reactionary agenda that's so attractive to deep-pocketed billionaires.
People may want an alternative to Biden and Trump-- who doesn't?… but not garbage like Joe Manchin and not anyone even remotely connected to No Labels, with toxic board members like former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman and former North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory, two villainous conservatives who were rejected by the voters in their own states. The fact that No Labels is run by shady career-long grifters like Jacobson and Penn just adds to the sewer-like ambience of the effort.
Wait, 2% Independents would be willing to vote for Joe Manchin for President? How many of them were actually stoned teens goofing on pollsters?
The only reason the third option is always made up of corrupt shit is because the money might tolerate them rather than their two fully owned parties.
Green? Socialist? Why does DWT never explore anyone here in depth? By my count, 'no labels' gets mentioned here more than Socialist by a factor of infinity; and more than Green by a factor of about 12.
And while I am not arguing that the 'no labels' fusion truly is feces (a mixture of horse, cow, pig and chicken shits), it makes it seem like you actually like the democraps... even though the democrap party is just as bad as the fusion... because the party donates the worst of their own to the…