The Journal. - Why No Labels’ Presidential Campaign Failed to Launch

Episode Date: April 8, 2024

No Labels, the centrist group which was trying to field a third-party presidential candidate, is abandoning its efforts to find someone to lead its “unity ticket.” WSJ’s Ken Thomas explains how the group spent millions of dollars and months of work but ultimately came up short.  Further Reading: - How the No Labels 2024 Presidential Campaign Failed to Launch  Further Listening: - Donald Trump’s Meme Stock Moment  - Biden vs. Trump: The Rematch Nobody Wants  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In U.S. politics, the only thing people seem to be able to agree on these days is that it's exhausting, especially as we face yet another Biden-Trump rematch in November. According to a Pew Research poll, a quarter of Americans have a negative view of both candidates. One group that was trying to offer an alternative is called No Labels. It wanted to give voters a more centrist option for president and vice president. They saw polling that they thought gave them the opportunity

to put together a bipartisan ticket, a Republican and a Democrat, as a way to reach voters who are turned off by both President Biden and former President Trump. That's our colleague Ken Thomas. He says those polls gave no labels hope. who wanted an alternative, who were upset with the partisanship, and said that they would be willing to support a third-party candidate. But despite America's apparent appetite for something different, it didn't work out.

No Labels has decided not to back a third-party presidential candidate. No Labels is not going to field a ticket. They're not going to pursue a presidential contender in any way. In a statement today, CEO Nancy Jacobson announced that the group would end its efforts to launch a third-party ticket after no candidates emerged. Welcome to The Journal, our show about money, business, and power. I'm Ryan Knudsen. It's Monday, April 8th. Coming up on the show, the third-party paradox. We'll see you next time. full of adventures, delicious food, and diverse cultures. You'll love it so much, you'll want to extend your stay beyond the matches. Get the ball rolling on your soccer getaway. Head to visittheusa.com.

No Labels was founded in 2010 by a former Democratic National Committee fundraiser named Nancy Jacobson. What was the motivation for even founding this group in the first place? Well, they saw early on this partisanship that was happening in America, and they were worried that would prevent Congress from getting things done. And so they thought that if they could create this organization that might represent the middle of our political thought, that they might be able to attract some moderate members who would be able to come together and actually get things done. And I think their crowning achievement thus far has been the Problem Solvers Caucus in Congress.

The Problem Solvers Caucus is a coalition of 31 Republicans and 31 Democrats in the House of Representatives. Over the years, they have worked together to really get some tough legislation across the line. I mean, they were very active in the infrastructure law that President Biden got approved earlier in his administration. They've worked on tough issues like the debt limit, on spending issues. They've been active on immigration. And so the idea for these members is that they need to come together to sort of tackle the toughest problems. No Labels and its Problem Solvers Caucus became regarded in Washington as a rare force for moderation. Not to be too glib here, but it is a Problem Solvers Caucus. They actually were focused on getting something done. We simply can't afford the partisanship that is

slowing Congress. That's why I'm grateful for the work that No Labels is doing. The Problem Solvers Caucus just a couple weeks ago released a plan of about $1.5 trillion. Actually, I think that's a pretty good plan. In 2014, the group added a prominent voice to its leadership, former Senator Joe Lieberman. He started his career as a Democrat, but famously left the party and became an independent. famously left the party and became an independent. You know, Lieberman was someone whose career really showed the possibility, I think, to no labels of what you could accomplish. You know, he was a Democratic senator.

He was Al Gore's running mate. But then he had a real deep friendship with John McCain. And so Lieberman really was somebody who showed an ability to work across the aisle. And he was this sort of foundational leader within this No Labels movement. No Labels isn't technically a political party. It's a 501c4, a type of nonprofit organization that's allowed to participate in politics. And that designation means it's never had to disclose where it gets its money. I remember going to an early no-labels meeting up in New York City more than a decade ago, and I remember they were getting a lot of questions about whether they would disclose their donors. And that's something that they have declined to do so throughout the

history of their organization. And I think that's one of the things that their detractors point to, that people don't really know who's funding them. When did No Label start thinking about putting forward a third-party presidential candidate? Yeah, some of the early work was done in 2022. You had President Biden with low approval numbers, and they also saw looming on the horizon the potential for another Trump presidency. And the polling that they conducted showed that there were a lot of Americans at the time who really were not excited about the prospect of a Biden-Trump rematch

and really wanted to see some alternative. Trump rematch and really wanted to see some alternative. And No Label's main focus on when they first started talking about a presidential campaign was this idea that then we could offer an alternative to Biden and Trump. And just this idea that if you could force a Democrat and a Republican to be on the same ticket, they would have to come together and find more pragmatic solutions to some of the problems that we face. But the way presidential elections are set up makes it really hard for a third party to succeed. There really are just barriers to a third-party candidate running and winning. The Electoral College, you know, awards electoral votes through a winner-take-all process in the states.

One of the most well-known third-party candidates was Ross Perot, who ran in 1992 against Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. He got 19% of the vote, but didn't win a single state. So you have to go back to really 1968. That was the last time we saw a third party candidate win a significant number of electoral votes. George Wallace ran in the South. He won five states and he picked up electoral votes there. But pretty much there's been little to no ability of a third party candidate to pick up that kind of support that he or she would need in order to be a real contender in a presidential election. Regardless of this history, no labels decided to try and do it anyway. They had a budget that they were able to put together of $70 million, and most of that was focused on ballot access,

you know, the hard, labor-intensive work of getting a line on a ballot in each of the 50 states. So that was their focus initially, and as the months proceeded, they started with this extensive process to try to contact potential candidates, people who might be interested in running on a no-labels presidential line. So how did the political establishment react to no-labels' effort to try to put together a ticket? Well, there was concern, especially among Democrats, that if No Labels created a candidate and put that ticket out there, that they might be able to siphon away some of the support that President Biden was able to get from more

moderate voters in 2020. In an interview with ProPublica, President Joe Biden said this would only help former President Donald Trump. Your former Senate colleague, Joe Lieberman, says he is upholding democracy by working with an organization called No Labels to pursue a potential third party candidacy. Is he? Well, he has a Democratic right to do it. There's no reason not to do that. Now, it's going to help the other guy, and he knows. So that doesn't—that's a political decision he's making that I obviously think is a mistake.

that I obviously think is a mistake. Why were Democrats seemingly more concerned than Republicans? Like, why do people think they have a bigger impact on Biden than Trump? I think there's the view within really both parties that President Trump has a very strong base of supporters who are going to be with him through thick and thin, even when he faces difficulty. We saw that in the primaries. I think with President Biden, his support was more of a coalition that came together not only to support him, but to oppose Trump. And the coalition included more moderate voters, some moderate Republicans, some independents, centrists.

And so I think the fear among Democrats was that a no-labels candidate would get a few percentage points, that that might be enough in some of these swing states to prevent Biden from winning. But no-labels wouldn't back down, and it started looking for candidates. That's next. Wherever you're going, you better believe American Express will be right there with you. Heading for adventure?

We'll help you breeze through security. Meeting friends a world away? You can use your travel credit. Squeezing every drop out of the last day? How about a 4 p.m. late checkout? Just need a nice place to settle in? Enjoy your room upgrade. Wherever you go, we'll go together.

That's the powerful backing of American Express. Visit amex.ca slash yamx. Benefits vary by card. Terms apply. Seth and Riley's Garage Hard Lemonade. A delicious classic with a vibrant taste of fresh lemons. The perfect balance of sweet and sour with a crisp, zesty edge. Welcome to The Garage, the place of refreshing hard lemonade. Available at the LCBO.

Must be legal drinking age. Please enjoy responsibly. No labels had money, an apparent interest among American voters. But what they really needed was a candidate. The search process was pretty long and exhaustive. I mean, they were interested in Nikki Haley at one point. They, you know, looked at Joe Manchin. You know, he is someone who had been associated with the group since its inception. You know, so Manchin was definitely someone

who they spoke with extensively. Larry Hogan as well was someone who, you know, they knew well from his time as governor in Maryland, and they looked at sort of outside-the-box figures. I was told that a prominent Republican reached out to The Rock, Dwayne Johnson, the actor, to see if he might be interested. The Rock? That's right, yeah.

I can imagine him playing a president in a movie, perhaps, but even that feels like not his normal casting role. Well, you know, it's funny. I mean, The Rock has expressed an interest in politics in the past. He has said, you know, that with his fame, he might offer something to the conversation. The first set of potential candidates all said no. Nikki Haley said she'd never consider running

alongside a Democratic vice president. Manchin and Hogan were concerned their candidacies would just help Trump. And Dwayne the Rock Johnson said he didn't want to run because he has young kids. So no labels turned to its next best hope, Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey. Here's Joe Lieberman talking about him on the Michael Smirconish podcast in January.

Chris Christie is refreshingly independent. And that's the kind of candidate No Labels is looking for. Chris Christie, I think, was someone that No Labels saw as a real contender for a long time. I'd like to reach out to him and see if he, Governor Christie, is at all interested in being on a bipartisan No Labels unity ticket this year. He could be a very strong candidate. I think Chris Christie represented sort of the blunt, independent voice that maybe they viewed lacking in this country. I think they saw Chris Christie as somebody who had showed in New Jersey that he could work with both Democrats and Republicans. He was someone who had, you know, developed a following around the country.

He was a very strong communicator and someone who would really tell it like it is. No one up here is going to call you Donald Trump anymore. We're going to call you Donald Duck. And I think they saw the possibility of having Chris Christie lead the ticket. He could, you know, he could continue to take on Donald Trump as he had in the primaries,

but then also partner with a Democrat and try to create this bipartisan offering for voters. But like everyone else, Christie decided that running with no labels wasn't for him. I think in the end, though, ultimately Chris Christie just looked at the data, the polling, and just couldn't see how there was a real pathway to victory. So when did No Labels decide to pull the plug on this and why?

Chris Christie was really the last straw, I believe. I was told by people close to the situation that Christie was really, in a lot of ways, their final attempt at convincing a candidate to run. And you had a confluence of events. You had Christie decide that he was not going to pursue the no-labels ticket. And then at the same time, you had, unfortunately, Senator Lieberman had a fall and he passed away. Let's turn now to some more breaking news. We just learned that former Senator and vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman has died following complications from a fall. He was 82 years old. Lieberman's death was, you know, a real psychological blow to No Labels.

You know, I was told by people who have worked with him that he really just provided a real internal sense of wisdom. And I think they turned to him for the big picture, for advice. Lieberman was someone who, when he spoke, people listened. And so I think when Christie turned them down and Lieberman passed away, I think both of those things really made it difficult for

No Labels to move forward. Another thing standing in No Labels' way was the rise of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He's running as an independent, and recent polls show him getting double-digit support. On Thursday, Ken broke the story that no labels wouldn't be putting forward a candidate. The next day, the group held a public Zoom meeting.

We have made the decision to end our 2024 ballot access effort. That's Mike Rawlings, the former mayor of Dallas who currently serves as the No Labels National Convention chair. While the American people are hungrier today than they've ever been before for an alternative, we were unable to find a credible candidate from both parties to create this unity ticket that we felt had a viable path to the White House. What is going to happen to No Labels now? It's a real question mark of where No Labels goes from here. I think they're going to have more to say in the future about what they may do. I spoke to a board member of No Labels, a key fundraiser for the organization.

And when I asked if they might run a presidential ticket in 2028, he said he couldn't rule it out. That in his view, this process hasn't weakened No Labels, it has strengthened them. But where they go from here, I think, is a real question mark because I think this process of trying to find a candidate and being unsuccessful really showed sort of the limitations that they face. Do you think this means that we're stuck with two political parties forever? I think that's a hard question to answer.

I would say that nothing in our politics is static. We've seen so much change over the years in terms of the types of candidates who are running for office, you know, how the Congress is composed. I think also there tends to be this fear that a third-party candidate can serve as a spoiler. I think that's a powerful motivation in making some people less inclined to run. That's all for today. Monday, April 8th. The Journal is a co-production of Spotify and The Wall Street Journal.

Additional reporting in this episode by Christina Peterson. Thanks for listening. See you tomorrow. I think we're having an earthquake. We're having an earthquake. We're having an earthquake. Wow. In New York? Yeah. Wow.

Holy shit. Okay, well, let's just carry on. Okay. That was crazy.