This party registering in every state for the upcoming presidential election seems fishy with how they are going about it. It's possible that someone really wants a third-party spoiler. What's your guess? With dark money, we won't know for a while. https://www.pressherald.com/2023/05...arty-status-warned-against-misleading-voters/ Maine’s secretary of state has formally warned a national organization that is trying to form a new political party in all 50 states against mischaracterizing its intentions to prospective voters. Shenna Bellows sent a cease-and-desist letter Thursday to Nicholas Connors, director of ballot access for the group No Labels, expressing concerns that their efforts have confused voters who think they are merely signing a petition but are enrolling in a new party. “Over the past few months, municipal clerks have received reports from numerous Maine voters who did not realize that they had been enrolled in the No Labels Party,” Bellows wrote. “These voters have provided similar accounts of how they came to be enrolled in the party: that they were approached by No Labels Party organizers in public places and asked to sign a ‘petition’ to support the new party. These voters have further stated that No Labels organizers did not disclose – and the voters did not understand – that No Labels was asking them to change their party enrollment.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Labels Dark money Critics of the organization have suggested that No Labels exists primarily to advance the financial interests of the wealthy, pointing in particular to the organization offering large "dark money" campaign donations to members of Congress without disclosing the source of the funds.[44][55][56] This has been echoed in critiques that the group caters to the wealthy and special interests that drive partisanship, instead of bringing people together.[57] No Labels appears to have relationships with a variety of dark money organizations, with journalists uncovering eight linked super PACs in 2018,[58] all of which have since been shuttered (see table below). Linked PAC Formed Closed Type United Together[58] 2017[59] 2020[59] super PAC Forward Not Back[58] 2017[60] 2020[60] super PAC Citizens for a Strong America Inc[58] 2017[61] 2020[61] super PAC United for Progress, Inc.[58] 2017[62] 2020[62] super PAC Progress Tomorrow, Inc.[58] 2018[63] 2020[63] super PAC Govern or Go Home[58] 2018[64] 2020[64] super PAC Patriotic Americans PAC[58] 2018[65] 2020[65] super PAC No Labels Action, Inc.[58] 2018[66] 2022[66] super PAC No Labels Problem Solvers PAC 2022[67] PAC No Labels 2024 2023[68]super PAC
If you are referring to Citizens United, that's a horribly bad decision. I assume you are fine with it?
Where does he find the funds after paying every illegal immigrant $1,000,000, paying every BLM member $1,000,000, paying every Antifa member $1,000,000, paying every single crisis actor from mass school shootings $1,000,000, paying for all the fraudulent voting machines, etc. That's a lot of output in addition to the whole Biden campaign.
If Joe Manchin ran on the No Labels ticket I definitely think they’d pull more from the Republican voter base than they would Dem. What they represent more than anything is corporate greed. Something nearly the entire Dem voting base and actually a lot of the GOP voters are against as well (they just love the racism etc). No Labels only really can exist at the Congressional level where it’s not obvious that the candidate is a corporate shill and there’s a very split electorate where a No Labels Candidate can successfully convince you that they are moderate because like all corporations do with risk assessments they take measure approaches to make sure they never really piss off anyone. However once they get exposed like Kirsten Sinema, it’s hard for them to exist in the Dem voter pool. There’s just no appetite for that in the voter base. Sinema, Manchin, etc. now that they are exposed over the past few years, if they are a third party they pull more from the right. Dems will vote for them over a MAGA fascist sure, but will never vote for them over a dedicated Democrat who actually takes positions on issues they actually care about like women’s rights, gun control, healthcare, voters rights, etc.
OP you really gotta change the thread title spelling https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-lab...berman-harlan-crow-df14ad46?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 Who’s Afraid of a Third Party? The left is attacking the group No Labels for wanting an alternative to a Biden-Trump rematch. By The Editorial Board July 4, 2023 at 3:48 pm ET A majority of Americans say they prefer presidential nominees other than Joe Biden or Donald Trump in 2024, yet the parties are on track to give them exactly this choice. So why has the group that is trying to give voters an alternative become a target of media and Democratic hostility? That’s the predicament of No Labels, a centrist group of Republicans and Democrats organizing to get a spot on the ballot in 2024 in case the major parties default to a Biden-Trump race. Democrats claim the group will elect Mr. Trump if the third party does get on the ballot. The press is piling on the disdain, digging not so deep to report that one of the donors to No Labels is Harlan Crow, the rich friend of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. But anyone who knows Mr. Crow knows he’s no fan of Mr. Trump. No Labels has other donors, and its founder and CEO is Nancy Jacobson, the wife of Mark Penn, the former Hillary and Bill Clinton pollster. Its national co-chairs include Ben Chavis, the civil-rights legend, and Joe Lieberman, former Democratic Senator and vice presidential candidate. Former GOP Govs. Larry Hogan and Pat McCrory are also co-chairs. None are admirers of Mr. Trump. The progressive complaint is that if a No Labels ticket made it onto enough state presidential ballots in 2024, it couldn’t win but could be a spoiler. Democrats say a third candidate would take more votes from Mr. Biden, perhaps deny him the 270 Electoral College votes to win, and throw the election into the House. With each state House delegation having one vote for President, they say, Mr. Trump would be the likely winner. That’s possible, as anything seems to be in politics these days. But it’s hardly guaranteed. The most successful recent third-party candidate, Ross Perot, won 19% of the vote and no electoral votes in 1992. But he divided the GOP coalition and caused President George H.W. Bush’s support to collapse to a vote share of 37.5%. Bill Clinton won with 43%. The last three elections have shown that a sizable chunk of GOP voters don’t want to vote for a party dominated by Mr. Trump. A third-party candidate might be a safe harbor for these voters to abandon Mr. Trump again. It’s true that the odds of a third-party candidate winning the election are long. The Electoral College means that winning a plurality of votes isn’t enough. You have to finish first in enough states to get to 270 electoral votes. In today’s polarized presidential map, each major party has an advantage in states with close to 220 electoral votes. That means a third-party candidate would need to build a center-out Electoral College majority by carrying swing states like Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado and many others. Calling this a tall order is an understatement. Then again, No Labels says its polling shows the public is open to a third-party candidate—59% of all voters would consider a moderate independent, including 53% of Republicans and 59% of Democrats. No Labels is already on the ballot in five states and hopes to get on all 50. The group plans to have a convention next spring after the March primaries when they’ll see where the Democratic and GOP nominations are heading. If a better nominee emerges in either party, No Labels would bow out. If the race is Biden-Trump the sequel, the group is likely to nominate a centrist ticket. Who those candidates are would be crucial, and in our view it might require a moderate Republican like New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu at the top of the ticket. Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin would be a plausible veep nominee. The party would then have to fight to get its candidate on the presidential debate stage, assuming there is a debate. Another obstacle is that the group lacks a galvanizing issue or agenda that the two parties are ignoring. Its platform is likely to be a set of compromises on immigration, the budget deficit and other issues on which the two parties are stalemated. But its main pitch would be as an alternative to what would by then be an 81-year-old President and a 78-year-old former President, both of whom are unpopular. *** What we don’t understand is the obloquy heaped on No Labels. Its members are patriots who want to spare the country from a campaign that offers four more years of the last two polarizing Presidencies. Second terms are notoriously weak even when the winning candidate is popular. If nothing else, the presence of No Labels may serve to wake up both parties that they can do better, and should do better, or face a third-party challenge. Serious Republicans are running against Mr. Trump, and Democrats worried about Mr. Biden’s vulnerability could do the same. Voters certainly deserve better than a 2020 rerun. Appeared in the July 5, 2023, print edition as 'Who’s Afraid of a Third Party?'.