If you’re among the 60+ percent of Americans who don’t want to relive 2020, and don’t want to ever see Donald Trump or Joe Biden again, join the club. So this 2024 cycle is ripe for a third party, right? Enter No Labels, not a party but a non-profit seeking to recruit a D & an R to run and win. Listen to our podcast with Governor Pat McCrory, former governor of North Carolina, who is, with Ben Chavis, the co-chair of No Labels, for the full download. Or check out the highlights below.
Shorter:
No, Nikki Haley can’t be on the No Labels ticket.
No, we don’t know how No Labels is going to pick their candidates.
No, we don’t know who they’re running, who they’re thinking of running, who will be on the top of the ticket, or much else.
But if there’s ever going to be a year for a No Labels ticket this is it. Can they win? That’s your call. There are a bunch of raps on NL — they’ll boost Trump; they’re insufficiently transparent; they’re undemocratic… You get the picture. Basically, the parties are comfortable with how things are and they don’t want anyone upsetting their apple cart. Fair enough, but that’s not up to the parties alone.
More importantly, if the party process generates Joe Biden and Donald Trump, is it really that great? Aren’t there other questions we should ask? Like,
Does the current primary process work?
Is the primary process representative?
Do the two parties represent the interests of the American people?
Is there another system that might work better — mandatory voting? Ranked choice voting?
These are all reasonable questions that merit public debate, but aren’t, for the most part, being discussed. There’s nothing too nefarious behind it, any more than there’s something nefarious behind the idea of a third party. Sure, there are powerful interests who want a third party. But they’re not more powerful than the interests — and elected politicians — behind the existing ones. Yep, NL may pick terrible candidates in a shadowy smoke-filled room. OK, so don’t vote for them.
At the end of the day, there’s a yawning gap between the two-thirds of Americans who don’t want Biden or Trump and the reality that we’re likely to get Biden and Trump. Thinking about why that’s the case, what’s wrong with our political system, and why it is that we can’t have nice [political] things any more deserves more energy than it’s getting. Just saying.
HIGHLIGHTS
So, are you in?
PM: If the scenario continues for the obvious results will be Biden and Trump. And if we can find a candidate that we think could win — because we're not interested in doing it unless we win — we will enter the contest most likely sometime after soon after Super Tuesday. But what's ironic is the scenarios coming out earlier than we anticipated, it may be over by South Carolina. And if Nikki had not been staying in like she is right now, we'd be put on the spot. Do we do it now or not? But No Labels is actually a nonprofit. So our main goal is to get on ballot access. And then once we get on ballot access, our goal is to have a president and vice president on that slate. Once we pick the slate, No Labels is actually out of the picture
You filed suit at the Justice Department saying lefty groups are out to get you…
PM: First of all, it's coming from three groups. The first group is the typical Washington insiders who were on all the talk shows like myself, who predicted that Biden and Trump would never be president of the United States, so they're experts. The second group it's coming from is moveon.org the Third Wave and the Lincoln Project, who obviously have an agenda. They want to protect the duopoly that we have right now for the two-party system because that means it's power and money. They do not want to break up the duopoly, and we're a threat to that duopoly. And by the way, we have gone to the Justice Department as of about three weeks ago.
How are they threatening you?
PM: "We are going after your livelihood if you dare connect yourself with No Labels, you'll never work in this town again." And listen, free speech is fine, but you cannot threaten people for trying to vote or for trying to get on a ballot, that's different. And that's how our lawyers feel about it. And the third group, by the way, that's just started attacking us, President Trump sent on a tweet last week saying, "This No Labels is up to no good. They're trying to get me defeated." So they're all seeing us have some power and influence. And I find it kind of ironic that both parties think they're the ones who are going to lose, when I think they might be the spoiler for us.
They’re the spoiler for you?
PM: Because I mean, why not? If 65% of the people do not want to rematch of 2020, the numbers don't work in the party's favor right now, when Perot ran against Clinton and Bush, about 40% of the people did not like either candidate. We've never had 65% of the people. So the ceiling is completely different. And Perot was at 35% of the polls beating both Clinton and Bush at one time, but then he got in an argument with the media about his wife's daughter's wedding and he quit and then came back and he still got 19% of the vote. And these days it's different too. With the Super PACs and ability to get into campaigns, it's totally different. And we're on schedule to get on the ballots faster than Ross Perot was at this point in time. So our three main goals is get on the ballot, find the candidates, and then let the candidate run their campaign.
And these outside groups want to keep you off the ballot?
PM: Yeah, there's a lot of hypocrisy in politics. Listen, I've played the game. I've been played by the game, and I'm here to expose the game because the game is so hypocritical. And voter suppression when you're wearing one jersey is okay, but the other jersey's allowed to do it if it fits their jersey's needs. And right now, they're doing a type of voter suppression to keep us off the ballot. And they tried to do this in Maine. They're trying to do this in Delaware right now. They've tried to do this in Nevada and Arizona, and they're using false, legal arguments to do it and we're winning every case.
What’s the No Labels pitch?
PM: I'll give you the sound bite that you and I often have to do on the TV talk shows. It's about common sense, but we've detailed that common sense. We've come out with a 30 point common sense statement on issues, social issues, foreign policy issues, domestic issues. And heck, we've been more specific than any party. And it's still pretty general, but we're more specific than the two presidential candidates on what we stand for. And what we did was basically ask the American people through surveys, "Where do you stand on certain issues?" And we did focus groups, and I'll give you an example on immigration, which is totally broken. The American people are saying, "Why don't we enforce the border, close the loopholes, but also accept that we're going to have to let the Dreamers in, they're in their twenties now. We're not going to send them back home."
That's what 70% of the people are saying. But the two parties refuse to accept that. The Republicans aren't going to let the Dreamers in or they lose the primary. The Democrats aren't going to be hard on the border or they lose their primary. And the American people are going, "What the hell's going on? You don't really want to solve the problem." And that's the common sense approach. And we have this on issues, issue on issue on issue, which we actually went to the American people and after hearing back from the American people what they had to say, Ben Chavis and I got together and with the No Labels staff help write these things. And Ben and I were going, "Damn, we agree with each other."
What about on the question of abortion?
PM: The No Labels, in asking American people, the American people are saying 15 weeks to 20 weeks. 15 weeks seems to be the middle ground among the American people. But you see that doesn't meet the litmus test of each party. Again, I know the game. When you're running in primaries, all these organizations have the litmus test, and if you don't meet the litmus test on social issues regarding gender identity, regarding guns, regarding abortion, you're afraid you're going to lose the primary and the right will go after you or the left will go after you. We are going, no, this is what the American people are saying. We know we've got to have an agreement because the people are divided and this is what the American people are saying.
So we're looking for presidential candidates that understand our framework, but we're not putting them in a litmus test either. We're not going to have 10 questions for them to mark yes, no, or undecided and if you answer any of the 10 questions incorrectly you're disqualified. Because that's what's happening with US senate candidates, governor candidates, house candidates from all these groups now in primaries. You're given a 10 question survey, I know this, I've done it for 30 years and you're afraid to mark the questions not according to what the group is looking for.
So… what’s the answer?
PM: No Labels in their common sense booklet did not talk about the issue, whether it's a federal issue or state issue. We did not get to that point. So I've got to be very careful. I've got to leave something up to the presidential candidate that is selected. Again, we're going to put this presidential candidate in a box and say, you must do everything No Labels said. Because that's what the two parties are doing right now and they're trapped without having the ability to negotiate, without having the ability to listen to the American people because trapped in their two silos of parties afraid of all these special interest groups. And it's killing our nation right now. And frankly, if you look at most polling there's a certain percentage of people that vote only on one issue, and it's not as big as percentage as most people think in D.C.
How are you choosing the candidates?
PM: I'm going to be a little coy because we're not ready to announce that process. And there's several reasons, is we want as much flexibility and information on our table as possible. And the other reason is that we are being attacked unmercifully by these groups trying to slam us down.
Listen, I know we've got candidates who are very interested in us and we're interested in them and vice versa. But it's going to be a huge decision for the individual. And they've got to be confident that we can get on the ballot, which we feel very confident we will. Although the candidate's going to have to get on about 14 or 15 ballots, don't quote me on the exact number because by state law we have to have a candidate name. But on all the other ballots, about 34, again don't quote me on the numbers, we can get on the ballot.
Could Nikki Haley be on your ticket?
PM: So the minute we start talking about candidates, we get off our agenda of No Labels, and that's ballot access. But we will have a process. Nikki Haley has got some restrictions which hasn't been mentioned by the media, and that is this. Anyone who's been running in the Republican or Democratic primary most likely will not qualify for president because there are many states with state laws, election laws, which are every state it says state election laws, even federal laws-
Marc Thiessen: Sore loser laws.
PM: Sore loser laws. And so that basically disqualifies them from president because we can't afford to have someone who can't run into any states because to win this thing we know what states we have to run. We've done very extensive modeling on which states we will target to get enough electoral votes to win. You've got to remember it's winner-take-all in each state. This is not a national election, it's a state-by-state election. And it's except for I think Nevada and Maine, that's it. So North Carolina, the ninth most populous state in the United States is winner-take-all. So we can win with 35% of the vote.
And this is what the media and the parties are starting to realize, is that it's not a 50% election, it's a 25 to 45% election in each state. So we're doing a lot of analytics. Analytics. We're very studious. This is a very professional, yet idealistic organization. It's fun being with them because they're very serious. We're not in this for ego or jobs. We're in this for America. And I'm not saying that a sound bite. We actually are putting country over party. Everyone involved has been blackballed from our parties, and we don't care. I mean, I'll never be invited to a Republican convention in North Carolina again. Which is fine.
Is the candidate going to be a D or an R?
PM: We've never stated what party would be at the top or bottom. But we know what the analytics show, but we're looking at the candidates probably more than anything. So we shall see. So I'll admit that I'm coy unlike the parties do where I'm not re-pivoting to another answer and ignoring your question, I just don't know yet. And that's the fact.
Are you in it to win it?
PM: There's no doubt that we think there are some states that we have a great chance to win. And there are other states that we probably don't have a chance to win. But what's ironic, the two party system has made now the presidential election come down to six states maybe, and everything else is irrelevant. We're now going to make many more states relevant in this election if we decide to run. Which wouldn't that be great for our election process where instead of having Florida, Michigan, Ohio, whatever, North Carolina being the only states where it really makes a difference, that it's going to be a much broader selection of states which will have a real say so in the presidential election?
What’s your argument?
PM: The system is broken. And right now, I think the two parties actually don't mind that. In fact, they've rigged it to be that way. Who would've imagined the Democrats would pull out of Iowa, not even be involved in that after the history of them being very active in that in New Hampshire, Biden didn't even get on the ballot
What’s the case against NL?
PM: I don't know. In fact, the only argument many of the critics are leveling against us is that you're going to be the spoiler. They never level an argument against us on the issues or the quality of the candidate. It's just, you're wasting your vote. It's almost a type of arrogance that the two parties have in which they're saying, "You have to select our choice or else." Can you imagine a company? You have to pick your product, whatever we present to you, or you're wasting your purchase. I'm a conservative who believes in competition. Competition in business, competition in sports, and competition in politics, and these are the least two competitive groups of organizations I've been involved with that I think are hurting our democracy.
So once we’re down to Biden and Trump… you’re in?
PM: The scenario fits the criteria. If the criteria of them not being the obvious candidates, our numbers don't work. And again, we're not getting in this for our ego or pride, or just because we put a lot of time and effort and money into it. We're doing it to be competitive and win. And so it's going to be pretty obvious at that point in time. I mean, look at four years ago, Biden won South Carolina and the Democratic election ended. In winning one state, it basically, poof, it's gone. And Trump, it was over pretty early for him too. So it's just kind of ironic where if anyone throws stones at our process, I will go, you're living in a glass house right now.
And we're doing that and we're on schedule to do that, in the states that we're allowed to do it. We'll be announcing the process of candidate selection. I guarantee it'll be based upon feedback from the American people.
It'll be feedback from No Labels members and delegates, which we do have. We have delegates in every state required by law, and we'll be getting their feedback also.
How exactly?
PM: I've stated also that the selection will be among the business community, the military community, and the political community, both current and past. And Republicans, Democrats, and independents. And I hope, if this scenario works out, that we find a president and vice president that are willing to take on the assignment and have a chance to win, and are qualified
So, no convention?
PM: We were going to do a hard convention and we decided against it about two months ago because... Several reasons, one is it's mainly a PR move for the two parties now. And the media's finally figured that out, it's not worth their time to cover it. And therefore it's not worth the money. And it also tied us into a hard date to make the decision. And we don't want to be tied into a date, we want as much flexibility as an organization as possible, knowing that the scenario on the ground can change at a moment's notice. But we have stated Super Tuesday is kind of the time where we go, did this scenario work or not work?
Full transcript here.
SHOWNOTES
Here is the No Labels site: https://www.nolabels.org/about-us
Who are ‘No Labels’ donors? Democratic groups file complaints in an attempt to find out (AP and Colorado Radio Staff, January 28, 2024)
No Labels Sued by New York Donors Claiming ‘Bait and Switch’ (NYT, January 23 2024)
No Labels Super PAC Ramps Up (The Dispatch, January 29 2024)
No Labels asks Justice Department to investigate its opponents’ efforts (Washington Post, January 18 2024)
No Labels Asks U.S. Department of Justice to Investigate Racketeering Conspiracy to Subvert Americans’ Voting Rights(No Labels, January 18 2024)
The Brain-Breaking Logic of No Labels (The Atlantic, January 29 2024)
FiveThirtyEight Latest Polls: 2024 South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary (Updated 29 January 2024)
Real Clear Politics: 2024 South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary
South Carolina GOP Primary (American Promise & Tyson Group, 24 January - 26 January)
FiveThirtyEight Latest Polls: 2024 South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary
Emerson College Poll (2 January - 3 January)
FiveThirtyEight Latest Polls: 2024 General Election (Updated 29 January 2024)
2024 General Election: Trump vs. Biden (RealClear Polling)
2024 General Election: Haley vs. Biden (RealClear Polling)
National Multimodal Survey; 1500 Registered Voters (Wall Street Journal, 29 November - 4 December)
Most Americans are dissatisfied with their choices for President (Ipsos, 25 January 2024)
South Carolina Probably won’t save Nikki Haley (Politico, 24 January 2024)
Scoop: Trump pollster predicts “smackdown” of Haley in South Carolina (Axios, 19 January 2024)
Poll: Most Americans don’t want Biden or Trump to run (Axios, 25 April 2023)