No Labels Exposed: The Dangerous Lie That Could Catapult Trump…

Latest articles

CPAC vs. South Carolina GOP Primary: What’s...

In the absence of a better phrase, it is a political watershed day that...

Can Haley Bridge the Divide? Democrats Showing...

To mitigate what looks like an inevitable crushing loss in the home state's primary,...

Trump’s Bold Move: Dismissal of Classified Documents...

By presenting a jumble of arguments, including that the charges are legally flawed, that...

Now that President Trump and Joe Biden have almost confirmed to face off in a rematch in 2024, we can finally put an end to the ridiculous idea that a third-party candidate may possibly become president.

That a Republican and a Democrat running on a “unity ticket” could create a nominee with “a clear path to victory” is as implausible as it is political. In order to get Trump re-elected, the group responsible for it, No Labels, is spreading a harmful untruth.

What gives me this confidence? Take a look at the election outcomes over the past fifty years. Third parties have not been very successful in recent U.S. presidential elections. George Wallace’s racial and regionally focused 1968 campaign earned him 46 electoral votes. They have failed miserably ever then, winning not one but zero states. Neither Ralph Nader in 2000 nor Gary Johnson or Jill Stein in 2016. They all fell short of the 5% mark.

No Labels looks up to Ross Perot, who was able to win over “the vast middle of the electorate.” Perot lost every state he ran in, even though he had an infinite amount of money and was running against two unpopular candidates—George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Would it be possible for No Labels to manipulate the numbers in such a way that Perot would have won the race had he taken other actions? Of course! While it’s true that I could have played quarterback for the Denver Broncos, it’s ridiculous!

Our political system isn’t set up to accommodate third parties running for president, which is why they haven’t been successful.

We face the Electoral College as our greatest obstacle. Since the Electoral College votes are distributed under a “winner takes all” system, Perot received exactly zero from that body while garnering over 20% of the popular vote. Two real-world consequences result from this: First, a two-party system emerges because parties have an incentive to build the biggest coalitions feasible. Also, the main parties tend to attract voters who are reluctant to “waste” their vote on an insignificant candidate. Third parties find it tougher to compete as a result of both consequences.

Every presidential campaign, many wonder if Americans might be open to voting for a third party. Think about this: Gary Johnson had a 10% polling percentage two months prior to the 2016 election. At 39% in June 1992, Perot was the clear frontrunner among the candidates. Neither of these surveys drew even a fraction of that number of valid votes. On Election Day, the support that third parties had during the campaign disappears.

The fact that Americans believe in the necessity of a third party, regardless of their voting intentions, is indicative of a more general truth. This is a way for voters to show their displeasure with the party in power. No Labels is wrong in its assumption that just because almost half of the electorate believes a third party is necessary, it means those voters will actually cast ballots for one. Americans tend to remain loyal to the big parties after taking a good look at the alternatives, such as Perot or Johnson.

Even though a third-party candidate can’t win, Trump may still win the election with just a few votes from No Labels. Three states that will be pivotal in the upcoming election are Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

In 2016, third parties received many more votes than that in each of these states, yet Trump’s victory margin was fewer than 50,000. Were they instrumental in Trump’s victory? I think it’s doable. Without any independent candidates to worry about in 2020, Biden swept Michigan (by 154,188 votes), Pennsylvania (by 80,555 votes), and Wisconsin (by 20,682 votes). Compared to what third parties earned in 2016, each of those margins is less. These Blue Wall states will be very competitive in 2024, and third parties will be able to deny Biden a second term if they repeat their 2016 performance.

Just reading this should make any accountable individual think twice. It would be easy for Trump to win with a No Labels candidate in these states. Perhaps, though, that is the aim. Regardless of their initial goals, the individuals involved with No Labels, such as GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, who provided Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas with flights and luxury holidays as gifts, are utilising black money on this foolish venture. The organisation has qualified for the ballot in 12 states and is aiming to raise $70 million. Some of these states, like North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada, could be crucial in determining the outcome.

Legality of pretending to be a political party without really registering as one and the group’s secret ballot selection process are major concerns. Also, the group’s present ambitions have its founders and employees in “open revolt.”

The Wall Street Journal conducted a study that indicated third parties would be more likely to attract votes from Biden, although I am not a fan of polling done more than a year in advance (really). According to the article, an NBC poll shows that Biden and Trump are neck and neck, but that Trump has a 3% advantage when a third-party candidate is included. (Of course, if RFK Jr. or Liz Cheney were to make a serious run, this math might alter.) Similarly, new surveys of young voters reveal that the presence of third parties reduces Biden’s lead.

The same appears to be true based on past data. No Labels thinks Perot might have stolen votes from both parties in 1992, according to exit polls, a very inaccurate metric. Nonetheless, research published in the American Journal of Political Science found that Perot boosted turnout by 3% while reducing Clinton’s victory margin by 7%.

We can tell who might switch parties based on who voted for Biden in his previous campaign: By a margin of 29%, Biden received the support of 2016 independent voters. In 2024, those voters could decide Biden’s fate.

If No Labels were to organise a third-party campaign, all the evidence points to Trump winning. Furthermore, anyone claiming that a third party has a chance of winning next year is spreading misleading information for their own selfish ends.

Anyone with a reasonable belief in freedom and the pursuit of a more perfect union should find the idea of Trump being president again repulsive. The folks here at No Labels are more knowledgeable than that. The moment has come to stop making excuses, accept the evidence, and tell the truth to the American people. A third-party candidate with enough money to run for office would be disastrous for our republic and may lead us straight into authoritarianism.


More like this

CPAC vs. South Carolina GOP Primary: What’s Happening Today?

In the absence of a better phrase, it is a political watershed day that might provide the Republican Party the confirmation it needed over...

Can Haley Bridge the Divide? Democrats Showing Interest…

To mitigate what looks like an inevitable crushing loss in the home state's primary, Nikki Haley and her supporters are relying on Democrats. A small...

Trump’s Bold Move: Dismissal of Classified Documents Case…

By presenting a jumble of arguments, including that the charges are legally flawed, that prosecutors have targeted him for political reasons, and that the...