No Labels, With No Candidate, Says Yes to a 2024 Presidential Campaign
The 14-year-old nonprofit is about to find out whether third-party politics has a centrist/establishment lane.

No Labels says it's about to jump into the 2024 presidential race.
A day prior to a secret delegate meeting that's not a convention, the centrist nonprofit that isn't a political party indicated Thursday that the members whom it won't name are almost certainly going to agree with the backers it refuses to disclose that a non-existent unity ticket to be chosen via undetermined process should nonetheless be green-lit to enter a presidential contest that No Labels swears it can plausibly win and definitely not tip to Donald Trump.
"We expect our delegates to encourage the process to continue," No Labels Chief Strategist Ryan Clancy told The Wall Street Journal.
The Joe Lieberman–chaired organization remains convinced, all contrary evidence notwithstanding, that what disgruntled voters most crave as an alternative to Beltway politics as usual is a centrist coalition of establishment office-holders who can out-hawk both major parties on foreign policy.
"The far left wants to abandon Israel," former Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings warned in an awkward March 5 No Labels State of the Union prebuttal that had 2,600 views in its first two days on YouTube. "And the far right wants to abandon Ukraine."
Is Rawlings a potential candidate to leverage No Labels' ballot access, currently tabulated at 16 states plus the District of Columbia on the way to a projected 32 (with the eventual candidate expected to go after the remaining 19)? Who knows!
"The right candidate is out there," group founder Nancy Jacobson insisted in The Dallas Morning News on February 29. "That's the last piece we need."
What we do know is that the list of politicians rebuffing No Labels' advances grows almost as fast as the organization floating candidate names to the press: former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.), vanquished Republican contender Nikki Haley, and steamrolled Biden-challenger Dean Phillips (D–Minn.).
On Thursday afternoon, The Wall Street Journal reported that "One candidate the group is interested in, according to a person familiar with its discussions, is Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I., Ariz.), a former Democrat who said this week that she wouldn't run for re-election." Less than three hours later, Sinema ruled it out.
Why wouldn't a brand-name politician jump at the chance to mount a longshot entry into a polarized, razor-thin White House race? Besides the persuasive cooing of good cops (like Bill Clinton) and out-and-out threats from bad cops like the Lincoln Project ("If you have one fingernail clipping of a skeleton in your closet, we will find it…We are going to come at you with every gun we can possibly find"), there is the cruelty of electoral math.
Manchin, one of the best-known names associated with the organization, appeared in presidential polls in December and January. The showing both times: 3 percent.
Third Way, a center-left think tank playing point on anti–No Labels agitation, released a national poll Thursday testing a name-recognition best-case scenario for the unity ticket, Nikki Haley and Dean Phillips. The duo came in fourth place in a four-way race, at 9 percent, behind Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 13 percent.
Now imagine that instead of a high-profile former governor and United Nations ambassador who had been campaigning for the past year, you had at the top of the ticket one of the last whispered names that hasn't yet said no, like…former Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam. Brutal.
For nine years running, the establishment centrist hawkish lane for presidential politics inside the GOP has been narrow and littered with bones, from Haley's to Bill Weld's all the way back to Jeb Bush's. Attempts to assemble a new "common sense" coalition in the patriotic center—Evan McMullin, Howard Schultz, Michael Bloomberg—have largely exploded on the launch pad in a conflagration of dollar bills.
While I may prefer this category's comparative sobriety and willingness to prioritize the long-dead project of tackling America's looming entitlements catastrophe, a decent respect for the opinions of the electorate requires facing that voters just aren't into stentorian Problem Solvers who fret that Washington isn't interventionist enough. And those voters who do finally break free of the two-party grip tend to gravitate toward candidates, issues, and parties that represent a clean break from the recognizable Washington past.
Though No Labels, ever opportunistic on public relations, is expected to formally announce after today's post–Super Tuesday Zoom call that the organization is finally in it to win it, one of its officials' many contradictory quotes about the quest gives a possible future way out.
"If the rank and file of No Labels says to us tomorrow, 'Go for it,'" Lieberman told Newsmax Thursday, "we'll do some last polling to see whether we can actually win, and then we'll choose the best ticket we can."
It's hard to imagine even the most skilled masseuse making any such poll numbers look viable. But the underlying political weirdness of 2024 has yet to manifest in the presidential campaign, and you should never underestimate the intoxicating force of visualizing oneself at the vanguard of power.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A third party made up of Bush Republicans and Clinton Democrats, who wouldn’t get excited?!! /sarc
Maybe they should just rebrand themselves 'The UniParty'.
How about "The Establishment" (like a well-run business)?
Or "The Deep State" (as in philosophically profound)?
Or "Our Thing" (to make us an offer we can't refuse)?
Will the “no labels” thing stick after they start taking policy positions?
How long did the Reform Party last after Ross Perot?
Yes, Sarc will get excited about this.
First Term Bill Clinton and his 2-trillion-dollar budget would sound good about now.
You won’t get that. Instead you will get a democrat lite/neocon RINO that will give the democrats at least 80% of what they want. Which includes $6 trillion budgets gong forward and a slew of fresh, industry crushing regulations. Including at least some DEI mandates. Probably making it illegal to not hire illegals.
Yeah, the worst of both sides. The ultimate Stupid-Evil cross aisle consensus.
I have to wonder; without a platform, how do you know the 'right' candidate?
State media will tell us.
Personality trumps platform every time.
Personality? At least Trump *has* one.
This isn't just cart before the horse, it's no horse at all.
These quotes have to be real. No one could put this in a novel. Fiction has to at least sound plausible.
I don’t see why those quotes are so out of line. They’re exactly what you’d expect to hear from someone interested in grifting.
That was before ChatGPT though.
chatgpt, give us a speech on behalf of a party which combines the best features of Democrats and Republicans
ChatGPT
Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed members of our diverse society,
Today, I stand before you not as a representative of one party or the other, but as a voice advocating for the synthesis of ideas, the convergence of principles, and the unity of purpose. Our nation stands at a critical juncture where the challenges we face demand a departure from partisan division and a commitment to common ground.
In recognizing the best features of both Democrats and Republicans, we acknowledge the richness of our political landscape and the diversity of thought that defines our great nation. From the Democratic Party, we inherit a deep commitment to social justice, equality, and the protection of the most vulnerable among us. We embrace the idea that access to quality healthcare, education, and economic opportunity is not just a privilege for the few, but a fundamental right for all.
Yet, we also recognize the invaluable contributions of the Republican Party: a steadfast dedication to individual liberty, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. We believe in the power of entrepreneurship, innovation, and free markets to drive prosperity and empower individuals to pursue their dreams. We understand that government must be accountable, efficient, and transparent in its stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
But beyond the partisan labels and ideological divides, lies a shared vision for a brighter future—a future where progress is not hindered by political gridlock, but propelled by collaboration and compromise. We reject the notion that progress is a zero-sum game, where one side must prevail at the expense of the other. Instead, we embrace the spirit of bipartisanship, recognizing that the best solutions often emerge from the synthesis of diverse perspectives and the exchange of ideas.
In this spirit, we commit ourselves to a politics of empathy, civility, and respect—a politics that transcends party lines and puts the interests of the American people above all else. We reject the politics of division, fear, and polarization that seek to tear us apart and undermine the very fabric of our democracy.
Instead, we choose unity over discord, cooperation over conflict, and hope over despair. We believe in the promise of America—the promise of a land where all are created equal, where opportunity knows no bounds, and where the pursuit of happiness is within reach of every citizen.
Together, let us build a future worthy of our shared aspirations—a future where the best of both parties is not only celebrated but embodied in our collective pursuit of a more perfect union. Thank you.
If your apt to waste your vote, why do it for one of these rejects of the establishment? I'll be writing in Javier Milei when I waste mine.
Winston Churchill got honorary citizenship. Why not Javier Milei?
Cheney Gabbard FTW !!11!!!!1!
That sounds a lot like what they are shoveling.
>>The 14-year-old nonprofit is about to find out whether third-party politics has a centrist/establishment lane.
100% a ploy by the Establishment.
Just a little more polling to be sure they take more Trump votes than whoever will be the pretend democrat to front the deep state.
I continue to wonder why third parties always want to run for the Presidency. I think that a third party could make definite inroads into Congress. With the razor thin majorities now in Congress a third party with a few members could have effective sway. Just image if Libertarians or No Labels held enough seats to determine the Speaker or Senate leader. That not a lot of seats and I think they are out there for the taking if the third party wants them.
You said something sensible for a change. Good.
Only because the discouragement helps democrats. If this group threatened the gop he would support.
Minority parties believe that exposure is too important to ignore, thus they run for the highest office.
People in the LP have been saying that for 50 years. The odds of winning a seat in Congress are lower than winning the presidency, because voters usually don’t even know who their Congress-person is, they just vote the label.
And if you vote LP for your Representative, you're the sucker, because 434 other districts are voting to take money for their districts.
Depends on the district.
The greatest journey starts with a single step.
I think we need to take it a step further and stay out of all federal races. Focus on getting into city, county and state offices where real shit can get done. To make changes in the federal government will require nukes. Those fecaliths are too well entrenched and have way too much money behind them.
There are no seats in Congress up for the taking. We've spent 100+ years making sure that representation is a zero-sum game. The obvious example is when we doubled suffrage, Congress stayed the same. So whatever new noises/voices should have come into the legislature with a more diverse electorate, we made sure that that could not happen without eliminating an incumbent with power/connections/etc.
Zero-sum thinking is directly a result of entitlement mindsets about power/dominance/etc. It is how an establishment preserves its existing power against anything 'new' and is how divide-and-conquer works. Whether that 'new' is a new voting demographic, a new increase in population, a generational turnover of population when the population isn't growing as fast, new people moving from one state to another that then claim a new rep, incumbent pols in a state losing reps that now have to eat one of them, new parties, new coalitions, new messaging/influence that requires resources.
And over the last 100 years, we have so completely ignored the creeping zero-sum corruption of our representation that we are now one of the countries that is LEAST able to adapt to anything truly new in our politics. It is not possible to seriously run for Congress unless you can raise a ton of money (and pay the price for that).
Third parties are vanity projects precisely because they don't think about this problem.
And yet people are shocked to learn that the US Congress had a higher reelection rate than the old Soviet Politburo....
Contesting more lines on the ballot helps all the candidates, due to regular and reverse coattails. Very tiny coat but still better than none.
If it was a case of dividing resources then you'd have a point. But there is usually little party level funding, its all individual fundraising and more individual candidates means more funding. The "paper" candidates don't cost anything.
Finally, the most expensive item is ballot petitioning and most states are aet up such that one statewide petition gets you all offices in the state, so might as fill the lines you're allowed ifyou have candidates. In states where it's not like that th LP does it your way.
"A day prior to a secret delegate meeting that's not a convention, the centrist nonprofit that isn't a political party indicated Thursday that the members whom it won't name are almost certainly going to agree with the backers it refuses to disclose that a non-existent unity ticket to be chosen via undetermined process should nonetheless be green-lit to enter a presidential contest that No Labels swears it can plausibly win and definitely not tip to Donald Trump."
Gotta say I loved this paragraph. Kudos Matt.
That was one of the best word salads of non commital intentions I've ever read.
As always with the so called "centrists", No Labels has no constituency.
They offer nothing that GOP voters want (leadership notwithstanding), they offer only a slower Marxism that the Democrats offer, and independents are never truly so.
But what about the issues the voters really care about?
-- abortion ban at 6/15/20/36 weeks?
-- military aid to Ukraine?
-- cold shoulder or sanctuary + debit card to undocumented asylum seekers?
-- cease fire in Gaza now, or after Hamas is obliterated and/or releases all the hostages?
Voters have shown no concern for spending or debt.
Haven't really been following the NL thing because...well there was nothing to follow. If Matt's assessment is correct and they are a "middle of the road" neocon party I can only hope that they run a campaign because they can only hurt Biden. Trump's foreign policy was demonstrated in his 4 year term. We can wish for better but he clearly does not favor endless war financed by the US Treasury. Biden's foreign policy is also known. He is a full on neocon intent on poking the bear until WW3 is the inevitable outcome. If the complaint is that he isn't sufficiently war mongering in Gaza they should rest assured that he will immediately pivot if he wins the election. If the competition is which party best represents the Nuland strategy, the America First Republicans aren't even in the game.
How about an "under age 75" lane?
Who could accept the nomination and win though? Any established politician would have too many enemies already on either the left or the right. It would have to be someone well known with murky politics.
Oprah? Mark Cuban? The Rock? Would any of them be willing to run, and risk being blamed for Trump beating Biden?
Risk? No matter what happens any of their candidates will be hated by one side or the other. The stolen votes falicy will be in full play.
But if you work in Hollywood or the entertainment industry, the career risk is all on one side.
These days we are seeing more self funded projects by conservative leaning actors sidestepping the gatekeepers in Hollywood. Especially with the large number of streaming services they can reach their market with movies that don't violate their values. That's not to say the movies are any good. But compared to the typical Hollywood script they aren't too horrible.
35 is as young as you can have for a President.
Now...who would want to elect a 35-year-old Biden?
We're talking the Biden of 1977-78. He was just winding up his first term in the U. S. Senate.
Wikipedia:
"Biden supported a 1976 measure forbidding the use of federal funds for transporting students beyond the school closest to them. He co-sponsored a 1977 amendment closing loopholes in that measure, which President Carter signed into law in 1978."
Wow, who knew he used to be a fascist?
These yahoo have no understanding of Centrists who do NOT want a party which would be dominated by liars, cheaters, and fools. They want to be free of all party controls over their votes. Centrists wants to remain Unaffiliated in order to shift the votes to whichever candidate makes sense. They do NOT want to be locked into another corrupt political party
SMOD is running again, and I'm still all for it.
"The candidate you deserve."
The simple fact is Social Security has been robbed continually since it's inception to finance senseless war, aid to beggar nations and supporting brutal dictators around the world. If you want Social Security to work open your dang eyes and stop acting like sheep every election day. Every two years for the last 200 years the politicians make the exact same promises and never fulfill any of them. We all know they are liars and crooks but does anyone realize the real problem is the American voter.
You are not wrong. Voters seem to want liars and cheats in public office.
but does anyone realize the real problem is the American voter.
This is true for the most part, but it should be noted that the American voter has been intentionally tricked into believing that their vote is a binary. That's not an excuse, mind you - just an explanation.
The aristocratic class realized that in order to get and keep power - lifelong power - they had to transform the voting mindset from "voting what you want" to "voting what you don't want, for fear of something worse." And so Democrats and Republicans started working hand-in-glove with each other - and ensured decades of winning office and maintaining the status quo.
And they successfully cowed virtually every American voter in this regard. Myself included for a good part of my life. I like to say that it was 2016 that really blew the lid off this elitist-favoring "binary choice" scam - when that election was literally nothing more than the two single worst Americans on the planet running identical campaigns of literally nothing but terrorizing their blocs with the threat of the other. But truth is, 2012 and 2008, and even 2004 were really no different - and more of us should have keyed in on it back then.
I've argued before that the problem with the American voter is that they've completely forgotten what their civic duty is, or even what civic duty means. The Founders spelled it out for us - a Republic that aims to guarantee rights and freedoms cannot be an apathetic one. It requires a citizenry that appreciates their duty to be informed, is willing to commit its time to watching their government, and act in response to keep them in check at the polls.
Instead, we have 140M Americans that look at politics and say, "Eh, whatever. Not the one wearing the wrong color. I don't actually care." I work with someone who says to me all the time, "I wouldn't know anything going on in the world unless you told it to me." I mean, wow. That's an so-called American "citizen" - and hardly the only one.
And the aristocratic class didn't hesitate to capitalize on it. But it only has as much power as we give it. The biggest fear of the ruling elite, I might add, is someone like a Ted Cruz or a Bernie Sanders or a Ron Paul who openly promises to topple the apple cart one way or another gaining a bit of traction. Then, you'll notice, both sides take aim at them. The problem is, if they're successful in deflating them, we've all been conditioned at this point to hold our nose and vote. Or stay home.
I am 100% convinced that for all the hoot and holler of the MAGA tribe, that if Donald had fizzled out and that election would have been Jeb vs Hillary - they would have ALL gone out to vote Jeb. And, of course, the Marxist tribe DID in fact do that with Biden even knowing he was a sleepy, senile, incoherent, doddering fool even before he took office.
My favorite illustration of this is none other than good 'ol Mitt Romney. The candidate that nobody wanted for anything, who everyone constantly complained about - but who somehow won a presidential nomination and congressional office. And even when the fanatics started splintering off into their MAGA/Marxist extremes, they were still supporting Mitt. Trump himself, who openly loathed the guy, basically told his bloc, "Yea vote for this guy. He's the man for the job." (But don't take my word for it:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965773283554668544
) Because, swampies 'gon swamp - protect that status quo at all costs - and the checked out voter doesn't care.How many people on the right were excited to vote for Romney in 2016? How many on the left were super psyched for sleepy Joe?
But they did it, didn't they . Because they don't vote their conscience, they vote their cowardice.
Plurality voting, which includes runoff voting (as well as the ranked Instant Runoff System) produces a non-cooperative, equilibrium strategy that quickly evolves into a two-party system. I quit the Libertarian Party 22 years ago because I couldn't get the Indiana Party to go along with me on this.
The basic mathematics of Social Choice was elucidated by Condorcet around 1780, though it was almost 200 years later before game theory came along and demonstrated the evolutionary process.
The only way to reliably eliminated the spoiler effect and the attendant equilibrium strategy is to adopt Condorcet's ranked system.
It's amazing to me that the LP seems to have no one who knows anything about Social Choice/Voting Science. I started pushing it around 1996 or thereabouts. Nothing. In the 22 years since I quit and joined the GOP...nothing. Maybe being the LP only attracts people who actually want to remain minority outsiders/spoilers.