No Labels Party out of Presidential Race

[*pally*]

The WSJ is reporting that having contacted more than 30 potential candidates, all of whom turned them down, they have abandoned the idea of having a candidate for the 2024 Presidential election

[Mike M (the other one)]

Looks like they've had their fair share of fighting Dems to get on State Ballots.

Still have no idea why minor parties shoot so big. Start taking over on the state side, get stronger that way then take on the bulllies.

[Rotobeast]

(04-04-2024, 03:58 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Still have no idea why minor parties shoot so big. Start taking over on the state side, get stronger that way then take on the bulllies.

Because running a presidential candidate generates press/visibility, which in turn generates more donations. But I do agree that the more important work is at the grassroots level. This was hashed and rehashed ad nauseum in my time with the Libertarian Party.

Sent from my SM-S515DL using Tapatalk

[*pally*]

(04-04-2024, 03:58 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Looks like they've had their fair share of fighting Dems to get on State Ballots.

Still have no idea why minor parties shoot so big. Start taking over on the state side, get stronger that way then take on the bulllies.

Easy, because for the most part, 3rd parties are far too often started by a disgruntled individual who was thwarted at some level.  Its an ego thing for them far more than it is a true movement.  

Big-time Republicans were funding no Labels (and RFK Jr)...it was all designed to try to subvert Joe Biden by claiming a moral middle ground.  Savvy politicians wanted nothing to do with it because they knew all they would do is cause problems not solve them

[NATI BENGALS]

Wow. How much money have they wasted?

This was the perfect scenario for a 3rd party to make a stand. Really pisses me off and makes me think they weren’t even serious.

[CKwi88]

(04-04-2024, 04:29 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Wow. How much money have they wasted?

This was the perfect scenario for a 3rd party to make a stand. Really pisses me off and makes me think they weren’t even serious.

Not entirely perfect, in my opinion. If both candidates on the ticket were really just equally uninspiring old farts I could see it being a perfect scenario. I'm sure there were a handful of candidates for the No Labels ticket that realized that participating would really benefit one side of the ticket and they do not want to see that happen. Christie said so plain as day. 

There are myriad reasons that a 3rd party will never gain traction. This was largely a waste of time from the onset.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-04-2024, 04:38 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Not entirely perfect, in my opinion. If both candidates on the ticket were really just equally uninspiring old farts I could see it being a perfect scenario. I'm sure there were a handful of candidates for the No Labels ticket that realized that participating would really benefit one side of the ticket and they do not want to see that happen. Christie said so plain as day. 

There are myriad reasons that a 3rd party will never gain traction. This was largely a waste of time from the onset.

From my brief reading about them, they felt they would take votes from Dems. So you should be happy they picked up their ball and went home

[*Nately120*]

(04-04-2024, 04:29 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Wow. How much money have they wasted?

This was the perfect scenario for a 3rd party to make a stand. Really pisses me off and makes me think they weren’t even serious.

The perfect time was 2016.  Right now I'd wager most voters are of the "If my side doesn't win, the world as we know it is going to end" mindset.  Not really a 3rd party-friendly voting time, and I say this as someone who gleefully threw votes away on 3rd party candidates most of my adult life.

[Luvnit2]

I would love to see the list of those who said no as most I have heard were RINO.

Hogan
Christie
Haley
Manchin
Romney

Who are the other 25?

It appeared their goal was to take votes from Trump.

On the other hand, why are Democrats fighting to keep RFK Jr. and Trump off state ballots. The party of inclusion and wanting everyone to vote is attempting to stop voters to vote for THEIR CHOICE.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-04-2024, 06:58 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I would love to see the list of those who said no as most I have heard were RINO.

Hogan
Christie
Haley
Manchin
Romney

Who are the other 25?

It appeared their goal was to take votes from Trump.

On the other hand, why are Democrats fighting to keep RFK Jr. and Trump off state ballots. The party of inclusion and wanting everyone to vote is attempting to stop voters to vote for THEIR CHOICE.

I would have voted for a 3rd Party ticket of Manchin/Sinema or Manchin/Gabbard, or RFK/any of those other three. The rest of that list just seems like warm dog doo to me.

[*pally*]

(04-04-2024, 06:58 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I would love to see the list of those who said no as most I have heard were RINO.

Hogan
Christie
Haley
Manchin
Romney

Who are the other 25?

It appeared their goal was to take votes from Trump.

On the other hand, why are Democrats fighting to keep RFK Jr. and Trump off state ballots. The party of inclusion and wanting everyone to vote is attempting to stop voters to vote for THEIR CHOICE.

Joe Manchin is a Democrat

[SunsetBengal]

(04-04-2024, 10:09 PM)pally Wrote: Joe Manchin is a Democrat

Just like a few of the others on that list, who were Republican In Name Only.

[*pally*]

(04-04-2024, 10:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Just like a few of the others on that list, who were Republican In Name Only.

everyone else on that list was a Republican...not MAGA but most certainly a Republican.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-04-2024, 10:24 PM)pally Wrote: everyone else on that list was a Republican...not MAGA but most certainly a Republican.

Yeah, the point of what I said went right over your head...

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(04-04-2024, 10:29 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yeah, the point of what I said went right over your head...

I guess, if the term RINO has changed.

People that are lifelong conservatives are now considered RINOs because they disapprove of the Democrat that left the party when a black man became President and started calling himself a Republican about 9 years ago. In what ways are they no longer Conservatives?

[*pally*]

Others asked included Dem Duval Patrick, Krysten Sinema, Andrew Cuomo.
Also William McRaven, Mark Cuban, Dwayne Johnson

[GMDino]

(04-05-2024, 03:51 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: I guess, if the term RINO has changed.

People that are lifelong conservatives are now considered RINOs because they disapprove of the Democrat that left the party when a black man became President and started calling himself a Republican about 9 years ago. In what ways are they no longer Conservatives?

When Trump, or one his supporters uses the term now, RINO= anti-MAGA.

Soon they will be "animals" too.  Probably.

[HarleyDog]

(04-04-2024, 05:12 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The perfect time was 2016.  Right now I'd wager most voters are of the "If my side doesn't win, the world as we know it is going to end" mindset.  Not really a 3rd party-friendly voting time, and I say this as someone who gleefully threw votes away on 3rd party candidates most of my adult life.

I still believe Ross Perot would have had a strong chance to win the election in 92 had he not dropped out and then re-entered the race. He had a lot of traction up until that move.

[CKwi88]

(04-05-2024, 03:51 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: I guess, if the term RINO has changed.

People that are lifelong conservatives are now considered RINOs because they disapprove of the Democrat that left the party when a black man became President and started calling himself a Republican about 9 years ago. In what ways are they no longer Conservatives?

I'd say they're leaning into George W's "You either with us, or you are with the terrorists" but I think Bush is also a RINO now huh?

[*Nately120*]

(04-05-2024, 10:16 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: I still believe Ross Perot would have had a strong chance to win the election in 92 had he not dropped out and then re-entered the race. He had a lot of traction up until that move.

Possibly, I'll say the most legitimizing thing about his 1992 run was how efficiently the status quo parties were in making sure 3rd party candidates weren't given TV time or a place on the debate stage.  Then again, it almost seems like the two major parties could now send debates the way of the dodo.  Ah well.

I was in 5th grade in 1992 and I remember our desks having cutout pictures and "campaign signs" for the candidates we wanted and I had a Ross Perot one.  Most of the kids in the class wanted Bush, my parents wanted Clinton, but me?  Well, I was always a pain in the ass I guess.