Lots of Risk in No Labels Bid

Sept.3, 2023

The possibility that the bipartisan No Labels might field a “unity” candidate for president in 2024 is producing two contrasting storylines.

• One version is prospective victory, or close to it. No Labels says there is both a need and an opportunity for its candidate, claims a majority of voters are open to the prospect, and maintains it won’t go forward unless polling shows it can win.
• The other version says trouble ahead. With democracy thought to be in peril, this is not the time for a quixotic bid by a third-party candidate that could easily muddy if not muck up the result.

These competing scenarios are weighed in this the second of a series about the ambitious plans of No Labels.  There is still more to written on the subject, about what is being said and what isn’t, but we’ll save that for a different day.

No Labels claims no decision has been made on a presidential run.  It plans to announce its intentions at a convention it’s setting up immediately after the March primaries.  Meanwhile though it is busy getting on the ballot in as many states as possible, and is out there selling its viewpoint.

“The most powerful forces in both major parties,” No Labels argues, “are still driven by ideology and identity politics instead of common sense.  The dominant leaders in both parties can’t or won’t break us out of this vicious cycle.”

Rather than being stuck with a Trump-Biden rematch, it claims 59% of voters would be open to considering a moderate independent as a third-party candidate.

Whoever that might be, or even how he/she will be chosen, is a bit of a mystery.  Joe Manchin, the independent Democrat senator from West Virginia, and Jon Huntsman, the former Republican governor of Utah, were the frontmen at No Labels’ coming-out party in July but I’d guess any number of possible tickets are being considered.

Let’s though be realistic.  With an announcement scheduled just six months before the election, whoever the candidate is would have to be shot from a cannon to make a dent in public awareness.  Ross Perot, for instance, entered the 1992 race in February of that year.  He leveraged his near celebrity status as a business tycoon into the most successful third-party candidacy of recent times, and still he ended up with only 19% of the popular vote.

If victory turns out to be a hill too high, we’re left to worry about the second scenario.  Given the high chance that the disputes over the 2020 election will be repeated in 2024, a serious third-party candidacy can only mean unintended trouble.

No Labels is doing all it can to downplay the concern.  “The Spoiled Logic of the Spoiler Argument,” its website contends.

For proof it turns to none other than the aforementioned Ross Perot.  His candidacy didn’t harm anybody or anything, goes the argument.  The support for Perot, a middle-of-the-roader, came from conservatives, liberals and moderates alike.  And anyway, it wasn’t nearly enough to affect Bill Clinton’s lopsided victory over incumbent President George H.W. Bush.

The Wall Street Journal has a different view, blaming Perot for dividing the GOP coalition.  Nonetheless it’s hard to assign much if any direct responsibility to Perot because the outcome wasn’t even close.  Clinton took 370 electoral votes, Bush 168, Perot himself had 0.

The stronger case of a third-party candidate spoiling an election, despite No Labels’ arguments to the contrary, is the role played by Ralph Nader in 2000.  We have short memories but the drama of that particular election will come back to you quickly.

Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush ran neck and neck in the national vote total, 48.38% to 47.87%.  The Electoral College was equally close, with everything coming down to a to-and-fro battle for Florida’s 25 electoral votes.  The state see-sawed back and forth all night, with Bush’s eventual margin of 537 votes so slim that by state law a recount was required.  The ensuing legal battles over voter confusion and hanging chads went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The court, itself split 5-to-4, had the final say in giving the presidency to Bush.

Any of this sounding familiar?  Does it foreshadow in any way what was to come 20 years later?

The drama might not have happened were it not for Nader, the consumer activist running as the Green Party candidate.  Nader was no Ross Perot, garnering just 2.74% of the national vote.

He performed even worse in Florida.  Even so, his 1.63% share of the Sunshine State represented 97,488 votes, far more than the 537 votes that separated Bush and Gore.

This review is not complete without also mentioning New Hampshire.  Its four electoral votes were the difference between Bush’s final tally of 271 to Gore’s 267.  Flip tiny New Hampshire and flip the entire election.  While the results there were not as close as Florida, Nader’s 22,198 votes were still more than Bush’s winning margin of 7,361.

If the liberal-minded Nader hadn’t been on the ballot in Florida or for that matter New Hampshire, how would his backers have voted?  Did he spoil the presidency for Gore?

We don’t know.  Exit pollers found that Nader supporters were equally divided in their sentiments toward Bush and Gore.  But frustrated liberals had to blame someone.  The fallout toward Nader was so severe that Public Citizen, the non-profit organization he started in 1971, was forced to disavow any remaining connection to its founder.

That’s the moral of this tale.  We don’t know.  IF No Labels decides to field its Unity ticket in 2024, IF the ticket doesn’t come close to winning, IF the major parties run neck and neck as they did in 2000 and 2020, how will the Unity candidate factor into the outcome?  We don’t know.

No Labels admits as much in trying to downplay the concern.  Its website emphasizes that it will enter the race only if “there is a viable path to Electoral College victory” and rather huffily asserts:

“The spoiler charge is being peddled by people who want to scare the public, sow doubts, and limit Americans’ choice at the ballot box.  It is premature to make these assumptions because we have no idea who the candidates will be or where the country will be in November 2024. There is no way to know how a No Labels ticket would affect the race and anyone who claims otherwise is just spinning.”

Exactly.  We don’t know.  IF 2024 turns out to be neck and neck, the losing side – whichever side it might be – will find it easy to scapegoat No Labels, and the entire nonpartisan movement, for spoiling what otherwise would have been the will of the majority.  And we won’t even know how valid that blame will be.

No Labels deserves considerable credit for all it has done to build up bipartisanship when it is so desperately needed.  The Wall Street Journal says “its members are patriots who want to spare the country from a campaign that offers four more years of the last two polarizing Presidencies.”  Maybe the No Labels brain trust is correct in believing the bipartisan ideal can be fully realized only from the White House.

These though are difficult times.  Well-intentioned acts can have unintended consequences.  No Labels has to pick when the intervention it has in mind has the best chance to succeed and will play to best effect.

One can conceive of that in 2028.  It’s harder to see in 2024.  There is already too much at stake.

–Richard Gilman

Part I of this two-part series can be found by clicking below on Next Article.
Please direct comments to ourcommonpurpose@gmail.com