The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: ralph nader
Third party can't win

Why There's No Place for 'No Labels' In 2024

Third parties are just not a thing in American presidential politics. The first-past-the-post nature of our system means that without supplanting one of the major parties, the best-case scenario for any third-party candidate is to play the spoiler.

So why engage in such a futile endeavor? One obvious reason is to use the high-profile nature of the campaign to bring attention to one’s pet issues. This is why Ralph Nader or Cornel West might throw their hat in the ring: Their need to promote themselves and their causes trumps any negative consequences of their quixotic campaigns. In the case of Nader, he played spoiler and we got George W. Bush and an endless war. We could have had a climate champion instead in Al Gore.

But let’s be clear: No Labels is not that. The fledgling “political party” doesn't have a message to sell. Their name literally says, “We stand for nothing.” Theirs is a more cynical pursuit: a bunch of washed-up, loser politicians grifting conservative billionaires out of millions, using ridiculous and easily refuted arguments to line their pockets and pretend to retain some semblance of relevance.

This was all clear as I faced off with No Labels Co-chair Pat McCrory, the transphobic former governor of North Carolina, this past weekend on “Meet the Press.”

The core of the argument is encapsulated in this tweet:

Here’s the transcript of the broader exchange:

CHUCK TODD: Welcome back. So let's look at a Biden general election campaign and this idea of a third party. Pat, you are a big part of No Labels. You guys are recruiting candidates. What is this ticket going to look like, and is this a 100% commitment that there is going to be a ticket from No Labels?PAT McCRORY: Well, Nikki Haley in the debate confirmed that 65% of the people are disgusted with both Trump and Biden being our only choices. They're asking, "Isn't America better than this? Can't we have a better choice?" And the momentum, the movement of No Labels is on fire right now. People are looking for another potential candidate --
CHUCK TODD: I get that people don't want --
PAT McCRORY: And I know -- wait a minute. There are a lot of people --
MARKOS MOULITSAS: No, there are not.
PAT McCRORY: There are a lot of people --
MARKOS MOULITSAS: No, there are not.
PAT McCRORY: There are a lot of people – I'm telling you right now. A lot of people who predicted Trump would never be president are the same people who are saying, "There's no way in hell a third party can win." I'm telling you. We've never had 65% --
CHUCK TODD: Go, Markos.
PAT McCRORY: – of the people disgusted --
MARKOS MOULITSAS: So, No Labels --
PAT McCRORY: – with both parties.
MARKOS MOULITSAS: – is literally a movement that says, "We stand for nothing." Imagine going to Walmart --
PAT McCRORY: That is so –
MARKOS MOULITSAS: – or Target and seeing no labels on a product.
PAT McCRORY: You haven't read obviously the –
MARKOS MOULITSAS: The products are the problem.
PAT McCRORY: – 30-issue statement --
MARKOS MOULITSAS: No, here.
PAT McCRORY: – of No Labels.
MARKOS MOULITSAS: The issue statement ignores abortion. And it has such --
PAT McCRORY: You missed the whole --
MARKOS MOULITSAS: – barn-burning issues such as medical --
PAT McCRORY: You never read it.
MARKOS MOULITSAS: – tort reform. That'll light up the audience.
PAT McCRORY: You have not read it.
MARKOS MOULITSAS: So the –
PAT McCRORY: He hasn’t read it.
MARKOS MOULITSAS: – reality is it's finance-industry heavy. Oh, I read it. No, I actually did read it. I read it last night.
DANIELLE PLETKA: That's why he couldn't sleep.
MARKOS MOULITSAS: Yeah, really.
PAT McCRORY: Well, Nikki Haley --
MARKOS MOULITSAS: So …
PAT McCRORY: – basically repeated the No Labels agenda --
MARKOS MOULITSAS: So the problem isn't they don't like Biden or Trump. It's that you are creating this idea that there's a mythical unicorn creature that will agree with these people who want something else. That doesn't exist. When [Monmouth] polled Manchin and Huntsman, it's like what? 12% --

Let’s run down the arguments.

There’s broad “disgust” with both Trump and Biden.

Yes, neither is particularly popular with the broader electorate in our deeply polarized society, but both are actually popular within their own parties.

Trump is at 34 percent -58 percent among independents, while Biden is at 32 percent --60 percent. Is there “disgust” there? Maybe. But it’s not a unanimous opinion. Left-leaning independents might pine for Bernie Sanders while center-right, never-Trump independents might pine for Mitt Romney. Far-right nuts might want … Ted Nugent? This is an important point, which we’ll return to in a bit.

A bit later in the show, I was asked why there wasn’t a real Democratic primary. “Biden's actually very popular among Democrats. In Civiqs polling—Civiqs with a ‘q’—Biden is sitting around 80% with Democrats,” I said, underplaying Biden’s actual support of 83%. “There's no space. You think there's no space for an anti-Trump? There's really no space for an anti-Biden.”

If you watch the segment, the whole panel—including supposed Democrat Stephanie Murphy, a former congresswoman from Florida—scoffed. They thought it was so ludicrous that anyone would have a favorable opinion of Biden despite the overwhelming evidence in the polling. Do some people wish their favorite Democrat were the nominee instead of Biden? Of course! But that’s a far cry from “disgust.” And yes, all three had stories about how their social circles didn’t like Biden, but the D.C.-groupthink was strong.

And if you think I’m biasing Biden’s numbers by pointing to our very own Civiqs polling, Gallup just asked respondents whether they approved of the way Joe Biden is handling his job as president. Among Democrats a whopping 87 percent approved, even higher than in Civiqs polling. This is not controversial. The data is clear.

“There are a lot of people—I'm telling you right now,” McCrory said. “A lot of people who predicted Trump would never be president are the same people who are saying, ‘There's no way in hell a third party can win.’ I'm telling you. We've never had 65% of the people disgusted with both parties.”

Okay, that’s different than Biden versus Trump. That’s talking about the parties. Let’s take a look, shall we?

Among Democrats, 81 percent approve of the Democratic Party, which is shocking given the real problems with our party. The party brand is shit among independents at 24-65, but we know that. It’s why we lose elections in places that should naturally be Democratic, like poor rural counties.

Overall, the Democratic Party approval rating is 38-55. Horrible! But I’d rather have those numbers than the Republican favorability rating among all Americans: 27-64. Ouch. It is only 66-20 approval among Republicans, probably because Trump does such a good job of trashing every other Republican. Among independents it’s 17-70. Brutal.

Still, trying to extrapolate the idea that “voters will support my third party” from those numbers is absurd. The reason the Republican Party favorables among Republicans are so low is because some are angered by the MAGA takeover of the party while others think the party isn’t MAGA enough. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party’s numbers among Democrats are high because we are unified to an unprecedented level—but there are still those who wish we were more like Sanders, and a smaller but still real crowd who wishes we were more “centrist.”

There are a million opinions in politics and you can’t shoehorn them all into two parties. But here’s the thing: You can’t shoehorn them into three parties, either—not without a major realignment.

McCrory then pushes back against my rational notion that a party that is called “No Labels,” which literally means, “we stand for nothing,” actually stands for nothing. He pushes their 30-point platform with such great ideas as number one: “America can’t solve its biggest problems and deliver the results hardworking taxpayers want, need, and deserve unless Democrats and Republicans start working together side by side on bipartisan solutions.” How is a third party going to get the two other parties to work together? And seriously, Democrats have a pathological desire to engage in bipartisanship. The problem there is one-sided. It is Republicans who refuse to engage. (And honestly, I don’t blame them! Parties are supposed to disagree! Let the voters decide which vision to follow.)

Or how about, “National service could help heal America’s political divide.” And then there’s, “It’s in America’s interest to work with our allies to advance our mutual interests.”

I mean, it’s pablum! And if you’re looking for substance on actual issues, forget it. Abortion?* “America must strike a balance between protecting women’s rights to control their own reproductive health and our society’s responsibility to protect human life.” That’s how they manage to talk about abortion without taking an actual position on it. The “balanced” position was Roe v. Wade. If they really wanted to “strike a balance,” all they’d have to say is, “Return to the Roe v. Wade standard.” But they don’t.

Indeed, “No Labels” is an apt name as they don’t actually create an ideological framework that sets them apart from the two main parties. Did you know that they’re also against crime (idea eight) and want our students to be number one (idea thirteen)? Everyone says that, and everyone (mostly) means it! The question is how we get there. And if you think their detailed explanation of their ideas provides more substance, think again. In idea 13, their proposal is to spend more time “reaching for excellence,” and they think, “Our next president should send a signal to us and the world that America is embarking on a national goal to make our students number one in math and reading within a decade.” Well that’s easy! Just send a signal!

Ultimately there’s one big point when talking about third parties, and here it is:

MARKOS MOULITSAS: So the problem isn't they don't like Biden or Trump. It's that you are creating this idea that there's a mythical unicorn creature that will agree with these people who want something else. That doesn't exist. When [Monmouth] polled Manchin and Huntsman, it's like what? 12% --

There are myriad reasons for rejecting the two major parties and their two likely nominees. There isn’t a gap in the ideological spectrum just waiting to be filled by someone who proudly proclaims his strong support for medical tort reform (idea five). Their attempts to sidestep difficult issues like abortion, gun control, and democracy simply mean that anyone who cares about those issues will stick with the major parties since Republicans and Democrats aren’t shy about where they stand on those critical issues.

No Labels likes to quote polls that show a generic third-party candidate as competitive in a presidential matchup against Biden and Trump. Those polls are useless for two reasons: 1) an unnamed candidate who people can imagine as their ideal will always poll better against an actual human with actual positions on things people care about, and 2) third parties always poll better than they perform in actual elections.

On the first point, we have recent proof thanks to a recent Monmouth University poll.

First they asked about a Biden-Trump matchup:

  • Biden: 47
  • Trump: 40

Then they added a generic third-party candidate:

  • Biden: 37
  • Generic: 30
  • Trump: 28

Finally, they gave us names for the third party—a “fusion” ticket featuring Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin and Republican former Gov. Jon Huntsman:

  • Biden: 40
  • Trump: 34
  • Manchin: 16

A generic candidate takes 10 points from Biden and 12 points from Trump. An actual name takes 7 points from Biden and 6 points from Trump.

But here’s where the poll gets extra interesting: Monmouth then added a question about voting for a spoiler candidate.

Asked if a third-party vote would spoil the election and lead to a Biden victory:

  • Biden: 39
  • Trump: 37
  • Manchin: 20

In other words, if people think their third-party vote helps Biden, they’re more likely to vote third party and Trump notches his best three-way numbers. But … if told their vote for a third party would benefit Trump, check it out:

  • Biden: 43
  • Trump: 33
  • Manchin: 20

People don’t want Trump to win, and this gives us Biden’s most comfortable winning margin.

And of course, Manchin wouldn’t come anywhere near 20 percent. Meet the Press moderator Todd directly pointed this out to McCrory using my “unicorn” frame:

CHUCK TODD: Pat, can you give us some names? Because, you know, Manchin and Huntsman, that's not going to get you your unicorn. What other candidates --
PAT McCRORY: I'm just saying, I don't think there's going to be a shortage --
CHUCK TODD: Is Will Hurd one of your candidates?
PAT McCRORY: I don't think there'll be a shortage of candidates --
CHUCK TODD: Why can't you guys name some names?
MARKOS MOULITSAS: Who is it?

This was a huge messaging victory. The biggest political show on television just flipped the No Labels discussion frame from “people want a third party candidate” to, “Oh yeah? So who is your unicorn?” As McCrory showed, they have no answer for that because the second anyone floats a name, any potential support will quickly evaporate under the inevitable scrutiny and attacks from multiple sides.

That’s not a bad thing! If someone claims that they can fill a massive, unsatisfied percentage of the electorate, then they’ll have to prove it. And there isn’t a single person who can pull that off. It certainly won’t be former Rep. Will Hurd. And if it is? Well, having someone run third party who explicitly calls himself a Republican is fine with me. Let the right split their vote as many ways as possible.

If Republican billionaires like Justice Clarence Thomas’ sugar daddy Harlan Crow want to shower $70 million on No Labels to run a Republican spoiler candidate, more power to them.

(*Fact checking myself: I was wrong in saying that their platform doesn’t mention abortion. In my prep, I jotted down that they “don’t take a position” because they don’t. It just came out wrong in the moment.)

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

What Sanders — And His Supporters — Must Remember Before November

What Sanders — And His Supporters — Must Remember Before November

Exactly one year before Election Day – on November 8, 2015 – Bernie Sanders was asked whether his agreement with Hillary Clinton on basic issues outweighed the conflicts that he proclaimed at every campaign appearance.

Speaking on television rather than on the stump, the Vermont senator conceded reluctantly that he and Clinton concur on some issues. But then he added an entirely gratuitous endorsement:

“And by the way, on her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate on his bestday.”

That moment of reassuring reason is worth remembering as the debate becomes more rancorous. Clinton isn’t foreordained to win the Democratic nomination, so Sanders neither will nor should hesitate to emphasize their differences.

So far, in fact, his challenge has improved both her candidacy and the national discourse. It is healthy for Democrats to argue about the best ways to ensure more good jobs, higher wages, universal health care, affordable higher education, paid family leave, immigration reform, national security, and a clean energy future.

But the overwrought reaction of some Sanders supporters – who already insist they cannot imagine voting for Clinton because of her campaign donors, her paid speeches, her vote on Iraq, or her support for some of her husband’s policies two decades ago – evokes bad memories of another, truly disastrous presidential campaign.

It is no accident, as they say, that those who “feel the Bern” today include prominent supporters of Ralph Nader’s independent presidential campaign in 2000. Their urge to overthrow the mundane, demand the utopian, reject grubby compromise, and assert moral purity is as powerful today as four cycles ago; and perhaps even more so, especially among those who feel somehow “disappointed” by President Obama. But political decisions based solely on such emotional considerations can prove terribly costly to our country and the world – as we discovered when George W. Bush usurped Al Gore.

Nader and his supporters were not responsible alone for the appalling outcome of the 2000 election but – along with the Supreme Court majority and Gore himself — they bear a substantial share of blame. Their defamatory descriptions of the Democratic nominee were echoed across the media by reporters, columnists, and commentators who knew better — from the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post to the cable networks.

Mocking Gore for his supposed personal flaws, such as an alleged propensity to exaggerate his achievements, was as fashionable in media and political circles then as it is to denigrate Hillary Clinton now. Clever people delighted in contrasting Nader’s — and even Bush’s! — “authenticity” with Gore’s stiff insincerity. (Indeed, many of the same pundits are still doing versions of the same stupid pundit tricks.)

Besides, according to the Naderites, there were no important differences between the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent. Or at least none that merited as much concern as Gore’s earth-toned suits and the preppy character he did or didn’t inspire in a romance novel. A wave of such idiotic babble delivered America and the world into a catastrophic Bush presidency.

Fortunately, the parallels only go so far. Sanders chose a far more responsible route than Nader when he decided to run for the Democratic nomination rather than jump to a third-party line. He has focused on substantive issues and admirably dismissed fake scandals like Benghazi and Clinton’s emails. But by repeating his unfounded insinuation that Clinton’s paid speeches and Wall Street donors have somehow corrupted her, he is inflicting damage that will be very hard to mend.

Looking toward the likelihood that either Clinton or Sanders will face Donald Trump next fall, those corrosive tactics are shortsighted. Should Sanders win the nomination, he will want and need Clinton’s support. And should she defeat him, he will and should want her to win — if he believes what he said last November, and understands the exceptionally dangerous threat posed by a Trump presidency.

The next round of Democratic primaries could encourage still more destructive bashing, from either camp or both. The candidates and their supporters ought to think beyond the moment – and pay attention to filmmaker Michael Moore, an outspoken Sanders backer.

On the evening when his candidate won an upset victory in the Michigan primary, Moore tweeted this message: “A special congrats to Hillary for her victory in Mississippi on International Women’s Day. If you win the nomination, we will be there [with] you.”

Once a zealous backer of Nader, Moore eventually apologized for that tragic mistake. Evidently he would rather not feel that sorry again.

Democrats, Don’t Blow It

Democrats, Don’t Blow It

The death of Antonin Scalia has set off yet another epic partisan struggle as Senate Republicans seek to deny President Obama his constitutional right to nominate the next Supreme Court justice. They want to wait out Obama’s last year in office, hoping his successor will be one of their own.

If the Democrats choose Bernie Sanders as their presidential candidate, Republicans will almost certainly get their wish. Furthermore, the Republican president would probably have a Republican-majority Senate happy to approve his selection.

The makeup of senatorial races this November gives Democrats a decent chance of capturing a majority. Having the radical Sanders on the ballot would hurt them in swing states.

Some Sanders devotees will argue with conviction that these purplish Democrats are not real progressives anyway, not like our Bernie. Herein lies the Democrats’ problem.

No sophisticated pollster puts stock in current numbers showing Sanders doing well against possible Republican foes. The right has not subjected Sanders to the brutality it routinely rains on Hillary Clinton — precisely because he is the candidate they want to run a Republican against. Should Sanders become the nominee, the skies will open.

One may applaud Sanders’ denunciation of big money in politics, but a moderate Democrat in the White House could do something about it. A democratic socialist not in the White House cannot. Campaign finance reform would be a hard slog under any circumstances, but a seasoned politician who plays well with others could bring a reluctant few to her side.

Some younger liberals may not know the history of the disastrous 2000 election, where Republicans played the left for fools. Polls were showing Al Gore and George W. Bush neck-and-neck, particularly in the pivotal state of Florida.

Despite the stakes, prominent left-wing voices continued to back the third-party candidacy of Ralph Nader. You had Michael Moore bouncing on stages where he urged cheering liberals to vote for the radical Nader because there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Republicans, meanwhile, were running ads for Nader. That was no secret. It was in the papers.

When the Florida tally came in, Bush held a mere 537-vote edge. The close results prompted Florida to start a recount of the votes. Then, in a purely partisan play, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court stopped the recount, handing the election to Bush.

The bigger point is that Gore would have been the undisputed winner in 2000 had Nader not vacuumed up almost 100,000 Florida votes, most of which would have surely gone to him.

Same deal in New Hampshire, where Nader siphoned off more than 22,000 votes. Bush won there by only 7,211 ballots.

Now, Sanders is an honorable man running a straightforward campaign for the Democratic nomination. One can’t imagine his playing the third-party spoiler.

But what makes today similar to 2000 is how many on the left are so demanding of ideological purity that they’d blow the opportunity to keep the White House in Democratic hands. Of course, they don’t see it that way. This may reflect their closed circle of like-minded friends — or an illusion that others need only see the light, and their hero will sweep into the Oval Office.

The other similarity to 2000 is the scorn the believers heap on the experienced liberal alternative. They can’t accept the compromises, contradictions and occasional bad calls that attach to any politician who’s fought in the trenches.

The next president will almost certainly be either Clinton or a Republican. Democrats must ask themselves: Whom would you prefer to name future Supreme Court judges?

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

Photo: Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader speaking at a campaign event in Waterbury, CT at 195 Grand St. Creative Commons, user Ragesoss.

No Good Argument For Clinton Needing A Challenger

No Good Argument For Clinton Needing A Challenger

Even before Hillary Clinton formally announced her intention to seek the office of the presidency, left-of-center pundits had been worried about the appearance of primogenitor. While the Republicans are generally comfortable with the coronation of heirs to the party’s nomination, the Democrats are not. There’s something monarchical about political ascension, the pundits say, something authoritarian and dynastic: it’s anathema to the principles of egalitarianism and meritocracy.

After Jeb Bush announced the launch of his exploratory committee, Glenn Greenwald, the civil-libertarian journalist, said a matchup between the wife and son/brother of former presidents would “vividly underscore how the American political class functions: by dynasty, plutocracy, fundamental alignment of interests masquerading as deep ideological divisions, and political power translating into vast private wealth and back again. The educative value would be undeniable.”

David Corn didn’t go as far as Greenwald. But he found Clinton’s apparent inevitability equally distasteful. Corn advanced the name of former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley as a foil. O’Malley, he said, “would make a good sparring partner. He’s a smart guy with sass, but he’s not a slasher, who could inflict long-lasting political damage.” Critically important, he said, is that Clinton shouldn’t assume victory. Only with a primary fight, Clinton would “earn—not inherit—the nomination,” Corn wrote. “She’d be a fighter, not a dynastic queen. The press and the public would have something to ponder beyond just Clinton herself.”

I admire Corn and Greenwald immensely, and agree with them mostly. But I’d argue their assessments, as well as those of others in the left-liberal commentariat, are not arguments. Instead, they are statements reflecting a discomfort with power, a discomfort widely shared among Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans have no such qualms whatsoever.

Despite her flaws, Clinton and her campaign represent a singular moment in the history of the Democratic Party. Namely, there probably has not been this much party unity since 1964 when President Lyndon Baines Johnson, campaigning in the memory of an assassinated president, beat conservative Barry Goldwater in a landslide. But that unity failed to last. Four years later, in the shadow of Vietnam and in the backlash against the Civil Rights Act, LBJ’s Democratic Party would crack up forever.

In the wake of that crack-up, the Republicans routinely won by deploying an array of wedge issues to divide and conquer—from Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” in 1968, to George H.W. Bush’s “Willie Horton” attack in 1988, to his son’s “gays, guns, and God” in 2004. But by 2008, something essential had shifted. Barack Obama forged a coalition among minorities, young voters, and white liberals and John McCain refused to go negative on his opponent’s race, fearing backlash. In 2012, the Obama coalition held despite Mitt Romney’s clumsy attempts at race baiting.

Holding that coalition together is vital to maintaining the gains, large and small, made in eight years of unprecedented, massive, and total resistance on the part of the Republicans. And I’m not only talking about the Affordable Care Act, which is transforming life for millions, nor the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which is finally taking effect.

Since 2013, when Obama realized he’d get nothing in terms of legislation from the Republicans, the president used his executive authority to make several small-bore advances in climate change, immigration, foreign policy, gay rights, and the minimum wage (among federal contractors). All it takes to turn that around is the next Republican president.

In 2000, Ralph Nader won a few million votes by claiming there was no difference between the major parties. While his message was undeniable, his campaign was indisputably destructive. Nader’s take of the popular vote was enough for George W. Bush to beat Al Gore by a hair. In addition to a disastrous war, giveaways to the wealthy, and incompetent governance, we have Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who, along with the high Court’s Republican majority, believe money has no corrupting effect on politics and that closely held businesses may discriminate on the basis of religious liberty.

Nader isn’t responsible for the Bush era. My point is that the stakes are high—too high to worry about a candidate’s foibles and fret over a “dynastic queen.” That matters less than Clinton’s being a Democrat who will, at the very least, hold the line against attempts to redistribute more wealth upward, to dismantle the welfare state, to privatized the public sphere, and wage more war abroad. Hopefully, if Clinton wins in 2016, she will build on the progressive record started by her predecessor.

Left-liberals are right in saying Clinton must clarify her positions on immigration, Wall Street, unemployment, foreign policy, and a host of other issues. She has been and will continue to be like her husband: maddeningly circumspect and hard to pin down. But that, in addition to all the other complaints thus far, doesn’t amount to an argument against her winning the nomination. Those complaints reflect liberals’ unease with power and the use of that power to protect hard-won progressive gains.

It’s time to get over that.

After all, voting is a political strategy that hopes to achieve political ends, not a quadrennial occasion to assess a candidate’s ideological worth.

—

John Stoehr is managing editor of The Washington Spectator. Follow him on Twitter and Medium.

Photo: Michael Kovac via Flickr