Is the Electoral Fix Already In?

[I_M4_AU 7,961]

Here is an opinion that has not been shared enough:

 

 

[Gowebb11 9,362]

30 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The erosion of rights is the main issue between the parties.  Conservatives have, in the past, went along to get along.  If it doesn’t affect me personally, then I guess it will be OK.  Conservatives are fighting back because they IMO believe the restrictions the left comes up with is erasing personal opinion and forcing people to conform to a different way of thinking.

Examples are: CRT, DEI, gender fluidity.  The left has incorporated colleges and corporations to go along with these ideologies and only now are conservatives fighting back.  These ideologies should not be reinforced by government decrees.

The problem is that the government in power has, by bureaucratic decree, enforced these beliefs on the American public.  No one voted for these ideologies, no one, but here we are.  The biggest problem is Congress has given up their duties of passing laws and allow these bureaucrats to rule by EOs.  The EOs are vague enough when written that when the bureacrats get through with them they are a lot more specific and binding.

 

You and I agree on EOs. It is a lazy way around accountability and leadership. And both parties are equally guilty. But I want our leaders focused on real important issues. Our roads and bridges are crumbling, our schools have vastly underperformed for decades, mass shootings are a plague on our society, there’s a continual growing divide between rich and poor, we haven’t controlled the border for 40 years, we lose 50-60,000 people a year to drug overdose, thousands more to suicide, etc…..We have a critical shortage of teachers, police officers, air traffic controllers, airline pilots, military recruitment, etc…These issues and many more didn’t spring up when Biden took office and didn’t go away when Trump took office. They have festered for decades because of ineffective and corrupt leaders, and a dumb downed society. A transgender drinking Bud Light on Instagram is hardly our biggest issue. 

Regarding beliefs, thoughts, and ideologies, you and I have a very different perspective. A couple of examples: The government can create civil rights laws, but cannot force someone not to be racist in their hearts or minds. Politicians can create protections for LGBT, but cannot force you to like or condone it. Those are choices we make. 

[Gowebb11 9,362]

32 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Here is an opinion that has not been shared enough:

 

 

He forgot to mention that his network recently paid over $750 million in a lawsuit for sharing election fraud conspiracy theories.

[I_M4_AU 7,961]

11 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

He forgot to mention that his network recently paid over $750 million in a lawsuit for sharing election fraud conspiracy theories.

What does that have to do with the subject he is talking about?  Or just a dig at FOX?

[I_M4_AU 7,961]

48 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

Regarding beliefs, thoughts, and ideologies, you and I have a very different perspective. A couple of examples: The government can create civil rights laws, but cannot force someone not to be racist in their hearts or minds. Politicians can create protections for LGBT, but cannot force you to like or condone it. Those are choices we make. 

Some laws are necessary, such as civil right laws, others are quesitonable.  As an example; the baker in Denver that was sued because he wouldn’t bake a cake for a guy couple.  The law he broke was a Denver law not a national one, I believe.   His beliefs were infringed and the law tried to force him to condone it.  The SCOTUS sided with the baker.

I have always wondered why have a separate category for a *hate* crime.  If you murder or torcher someone you probably did it because you hated that person, why the distinction?  The law is already there, why create more laws that are subjective and, as it has turned out, not equally applied.  Making up laws to satisfy certain priviledged people has alway seemed odd to me.

ETA:  the SCOTUS found that Trans women were protected under Title IX is an example of the SCOTUS interpreting a law that was never meant to be interpreted that way.  That law should have been discussed and decided by Congress, not adjudicated by judges.

 

Edited January 28 by I_M4_AU

[Gowebb11 9,362]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

What does that have to do with the subject he is talking about?  Or just a dig at FOX?

It’s the hypocrisy of a guy from a blatantly biased network, debasing bias in journalism. If he did the same rant but also admitted that he and his network need to clean up their act too, I would have no problem with it. 

[I_M4_AU 7,961]

Which one is the correct story?

Jan 13 (Reuters) - A woman and two children drowned in the Rio Grande as they tried to the enter the U.S. from Mexico on Friday night after Texas military officers prevented federal border officials from aiding them, U.S. border officials and a member of Congress said.

The deaths come as a dispute over immigration intensifies between Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, and the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, with a record number of migrants having illegally crossed the border since Biden took office in 2021.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/three-migrants-drown-us-border-amid-dispute-between-texas-white-house-2024-01-14/

Or:

WASHINGTON — A top Border Patrol official said three migrants who died crossing the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass on Friday had already drowned when agents received a distress call from Mexico, countering initial claims that the woman and two children had drowned after state soldiers blocked federal agents from reaching them. 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/border-patrol-migrant-drownings-18610592.php

Is it all political or just a rush to be first?

[homersapien 11,431]

23 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

You can't handle the truth. Sadly. Much less debate the merits of the article. Just pathetic, but expected.

OK.  Let's debate the "merits" of this article. You said: "The piece does an excellent job of showing the attempt to steal democracy."

Care to expand on that? 

For example, who exactly is doing the "stealing"?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

OK.  Let's debate the "merits" of this article. You said: "The piece does an excellent job of showing the attempt to steal democracy."

Care to expand on that? 

For example, who exactly is doing the "stealing"?

Read the letter from No Labels I posted at 9:04 PM last night in this very thread. Sadly, not a single individual has commented on it and that is a damn shame. Are you ok with the attempt? I can tell you I'm not. You can't take away my vote much less who I vote for, but that is the attempt and that is not democracy. As I stated previously it is the tactics of communist countries, not the USA. It should make our citizens blood boil. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,167]

On 1/28/2024 at 8:58 AM, Gowebb11 said:

He forgot to mention that his network recently paid over $750 million in a lawsuit for sharing election fraud conspiracy theories.

Maybe Gutfeld was subtly hinting that Fox News doesn't have any journalist. 

 

Fox News's whole defense of itself is always that it's just a network of entertainers who  shouldn't be taken seriously or believed to be factual. 

[homersapien 11,431]

13 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Read the letter from No Labels I posted at 9:04 PM last night in this very thread. Sadly, not a single individual has commented on it and that is a damn shame. Are you ok with the attempt? I can tell you I'm not. You can't take away my vote much less who I vote for, but that is the attempt and that is not democracy. As I stated previously it is the tactics of communist countries, not the USA. It should make our citizens blood boil. 

Your lack of response puts the lie to your willingness to "debate the merits" of a "serious" article.

[auburnatl1 5,015]

Trump has averaged 100 lawsuits/yr throughout his life. Say that 3 times because it’s historic.  It’s not a conspiracy - it’s how he operates at any level. Sleazy chaos. So before maga unleashes more buffalo horned guys building gallows in DC again - please research the facts about the man first. 

From the 1970s until he was elected president in 2016, Donald Trump and his businesses were involved in over 4,000 legal cases in U.S. federal and state courts, including battles with casino patrons, million-dollar real estate lawsuits, personal defamation lawsuits, and over 100 business tax disputes.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

15 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Read the letter from No Labels I posted at 9:04 PM last night in this very thread. Sadly, not a single individual has commented on it and that is a damn shame. Are you ok with the attempt? I can tell you I'm not. You can't take away my vote much less who I vote for, but that is the attempt and that is not democracy. As I stated previously it is the tactics of communist countries, not the USA. It should make our citizens blood boil. 

Your lack of response puts the lie to your willingness to "debate the merits" of a "serious" article.

You are responding to my response. 

Not complicated homey. I've provided links and articles for your review and ask you a simple question, "Are you ok with the attempt?", so until you answer how are we to debate?

[CoffeeTiger 5,167]

This 'No Labels' group is just another dark money organization being funded by rich elites and political insiders who want to alter the political landscape in their favor. 

The group hides behind a "charity" IRS designation and shields it's donors and supporters because it knows it's messaging as a independent party 'for the people' would be undone if everyone could see who was pulling the strings behind the curtain. 

 

I don't believe it's complaint to the Justice Department has merit. 

Edited January 29 by CoffeeTiger

[homersapien 11,431]

12 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

This 'No Labels' group is just another dark money organization being funded by rich elites and political insiders who want to alter the political landscape in their favor. 

The group hides behind a "charity" IRS designation and shields it's donors and supporters because it knows it's messaging as a independent party 'for the people' would be undone if everyone could see who was pulling the strings behind the curtain. 

 

I don't believe it's complaint to the Justice Department has merit. 

Thus, my (dodged) question:  Who is doing this?

[homersapien 11,431]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/18/third-party-2024-no-labels-00132066

No Labels Is Pushing a Lie That Will Elect Trump

There’s no path to victory for a third-party candidate.

With a rematch between President Joe Biden and Donald Trump almost set in stone, it’s time to put a farce to rest: The notion that a third-party candidate could actually win the presidency in 2024.

The idea that a “unity ticket” featuring a Republican and a Democrat could somehow produce a nominee with “a clear path to victory” is worse than a political fiction. The group behind it, No Labels, is pushing a dangerous lie that would simply serve to put Trump back in the White House.

Then there’s Ross Perot, who No Labels aspires to emulate for his appeal to “ the vast middle of the electorate.” Despite unlimited cash and facing an unpopular incumbent in George H.W. Bush and a near-unknown in Bill Clinton, Perot failed to win a single state. Can No Labels twist the data and make an argument that Perot could have won if he had done things differently? Sure! But that’s like saying I could have been the quarterback of the Denver Broncos — technically true, but come on!

There’s a reason for this lack of success: Our political system isn’t designed to support third parties at the presidential level.

The biggest barrier is the Electoral College. States use a “winner takes all” system to distribute their electoral votes, which is why Perot won nearly 20 percent of the popular vote but got a big fat zero from the Electoral College. This leads to two practical effects: First, parties are incentivized to form the largest coalitions possible, which naturally leads to a two-party system. Second, many voters don’t want to “waste” their vote on a candidate with no chance of winning, so they default to the major parties. Both effects make it harder for third parties to compete.

The question of whether Americans are willing to vote for a third party comes up every presidential cycle. Consider this: Two months before the 2016 election, Gary Johnson polled at 10 percent. In June 1992, Perot led all candidates at 39 percent. These polls were mirages — neither got anything close to that number of votes. Third parties often poll well during a campaign, but that support vanishes on Election Day.

This points to a larger truth: Americans think a third party is needed, even if they won’t vote for one. Voters want to express discontent with their party. Sure, nearly half of the electorate thinks a third party is necessary, but No Labels mistakenly assumes this means those voters will actually vote for one. Once Americans get a good look at the alternatives, like Perot or Johnson, they end up sticking with the major parties.

While a third-party candidate can’t win, No Labels could still throw the election to Trump, and it wouldn’t take that many votes. Let’s look at three battleground states: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In 2016, Trump’s margin of victory was less than 50,000 votes in these states, and third parties won significantly more votes than that in each one. Did they flip the election for Trump? It’s possible. In 2020, with no third parties to contend with, Biden beat Trump in Michigan by 154,188 votes, Pennsylvania by 80,555 votes and Wisconsin by 20,682. All of those margins are smaller than what third parties received in 2016. These Blue Wall states will be close again in 2024, and if third parties perform similarly in 2024 as they did in 2016, they will deny Biden a second term.

This alone should give any responsible person pause. A No Labels candidate in these states could easily hand the election to Trump. But maybe that’s the goal. Whatever their original intentions, the people behind No Labels — including Harlan Crow, the GOP mega-donor who gifted travel and luxury vacations to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — are using dark money on this folly. The group is working to raise $70 million and has already qualified for the ballot in 12 states, including states that could be pivotal to the outcome, such as Arizona, Nevada and North Carolina.

There are serious questions about how the group’s ticket would be picked ( likely behind closed doors) and whether acting like a political party without registering as one is legal. Not to mention, its own founders and staff are in “open revolt” over the group’s current aspirations.

While I’m not a fan of polling done more than a year out (seriously), The Wall Street Journal did an analysis that showed third parties would more likely draw votes from Biden. The report points to an NBC survey that has Biden and Trump tied head to head, but if you add a third-party candidate, Trump leads by 3 percent. (Of course, this math might change if Liz Cheney or RFK Jr. make a serious run.) New polling of young voters shows a similar dynamic, shrinking Biden’s lead with the introduction of third parties.

Historical data suggests the same. Based on exit polling (a highly flawed metric), No Labels believes Perot in 1992 may have siphoned votes from both parties equally. However, an American Journal of Political Science study concluded that Perot increased turnout by 3 percent and decreased Clinton’s margin of victory by 7 percent.

If we look at who helped Biden win last time, they are the type of voters who might switch parties: Voters who selected a third party in 2016 voted for Biden by 29 percent. Those voters could be the difference for Biden in 2024.

From all the data I see, the practical effect of having No Labels run a third-party campaign is that Trump would win. And any argument that a third party can win next year is a false promise, an illusion and a lie spread by people with ulterior motives.

The prospect of Trump being president again should be repellent to any decent person who believes in freedom and building a more perfect union. The people at No Labels know better than this. It’s time to cut the crap, believe the data and be honest with the American people. Any well-funded third-party candidate would be a disaster for our republic — and risks putting us on a direct path to a dictatorship.

Edited January 29 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 5,015]

34 minutes ago, homersapien said:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/18/third-party-2024-no-labels-00132066

No Labels Is Pushing a Lie That Will Elect Trump

There’s no path to victory for a third-party candidate.

With a rematch between President Joe Biden and Donald Trump almost set in stone, it’s time to put a farce to rest: The notion that a third-party candidate could actually win the presidency in 2024.

The idea that a “unity ticket” featuring a Republican and a Democrat could somehow produce a nominee with “a clear path to victory” is worse than a political fiction. The group behind it, No Labels, is pushing a dangerous lie that would simply serve to put Trump back in the White House.

Then there’s Ross Perot, who No Labels aspires to emulate for his appeal to “ the vast middle of the electorate.” Despite unlimited cash and facing an unpopular incumbent in George H.W. Bush and a near-unknown in Bill Clinton, Perot failed to win a single state. Can No Labels twist the data and make an argument that Perot could have won if he had done things differently? Sure! But that’s like saying I could have been the quarterback of the Denver Broncos — technically true, but come on!

There’s a reason for this lack of success: Our political system isn’t designed to support third parties at the presidential level.

The biggest barrier is the Electoral College. States use a “winner takes all” system to distribute their electoral votes, which is why Perot won nearly 20 percent of the popular vote but got a big fat zero from the Electoral College. This leads to two practical effects: First, parties are incentivized to form the largest coalitions possible, which naturally leads to a two-party system. Second, many voters don’t want to “waste” their vote on a candidate with no chance of winning, so they default to the major parties. Both effects make it harder for third parties to compete.

The question of whether Americans are willing to vote for a third party comes up every presidential cycle. Consider this: Two months before the 2016 election, Gary Johnson polled at 10 percent. In June 1992, Perot led all candidates at 39 percent. These polls were mirages — neither got anything close to that number of votes. Third parties often poll well during a campaign, but that support vanishes on Election Day.

This points to a larger truth: Americans think a third party is needed, even if they won’t vote for one. Voters want to express discontent with their party. Sure, nearly half of the electorate thinks a third party is necessary, but No Labels mistakenly assumes this means those voters will actually vote for one. Once Americans get a good look at the alternatives, like Perot or Johnson, they end up sticking with the major parties.

While a third-party candidate can’t win, No Labels could still throw the election to Trump, and it wouldn’t take that many votes. Let’s look at three battleground states: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In 2016, Trump’s margin of victory was less than 50,000 votes in these states, and third parties won significantly more votes than that in each one. Did they flip the election for Trump? It’s possible. In 2020, with no third parties to contend with, Biden beat Trump in Michigan by 154,188 votes, Pennsylvania by 80,555 votes and Wisconsin by 20,682. All of those margins are smaller than what third parties received in 2016. These Blue Wall states will be close again in 2024, and if third parties perform similarly in 2024 as they did in 2016, they will deny Biden a second term.

This alone should give any responsible person pause. A No Labels candidate in these states could easily hand the election to Trump. But maybe that’s the goal. Whatever their original intentions, the people behind No Labels — including Harlan Crow, the GOP mega-donor who gifted travel and luxury vacations to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — are using dark money on this folly. The group is working to raise $70 million and has already qualified for the ballot in 12 states, including states that could be pivotal to the outcome, such as Arizona, Nevada and North Carolina.

There are serious questions about how the group’s ticket would be picked ( likely behind closed doors) and whether acting like a political party without registering as one is legal. Not to mention, its own founders and staff are in “open revolt” over the group’s current aspirations.

While I’m not a fan of polling done more than a year out (seriously), The Wall Street Journal did an analysis that showed third parties would more likely draw votes from Biden. The report points to an NBC survey that has Biden and Trump tied head to head, but if you add a third-party candidate, Trump leads by 3 percent. (Of course, this math might change if Liz Cheney or RFK Jr. make a serious run.) New polling of young voters shows a similar dynamic, shrinking Biden’s lead with the introduction of third parties.

Historical data suggests the same. Based on exit polling (a highly flawed metric), No Labels believes Perot in 1992 may have siphoned votes from both parties equally. However, an American Journal of Political Science study concluded that Perot increased turnout by 3 percent and decreased Clinton’s margin of victory by 7 percent.

If we look at who helped Biden win last time, they are the type of voters who might switch parties: Voters who selected a third party in 2016 voted for Biden by 29 percent. Those voters could be the difference for Biden in 2024.

From all the data I see, the practical effect of having No Labels run a third-party campaign is that Trump would win. And any argument that a third party can win next year is a false promise, an illusion and a lie spread by people with ulterior motives.

The prospect of Trump being president again should be repellent to any decent person who believes in freedom and building a more perfect union. The people at No Labels know better than this. It’s time to cut the crap, believe the data and be honest with the American people. Any well-funded third-party candidate would be a disaster for our republic — and risks putting us on a direct path to a dictatorship.

I’m tired of the keeping it real, you’ll elect Trump, lesser of 2 evils, it’ll be Perot again  narratives. The Dems and gop are presenting a choice between dementia and bat sh!t crazy - combined with extreme ideologies.  Historically pathetic. Enough. I’m not alone by a long shot.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/512135/support-third-political-party.aspx

Edited January 29 by auburnatl1

[CoffeeTiger 5,167]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

I’m tired of the keeping it real, you’ll elect Trump, lesser of 2 evils, it’ll be Perot again  narratives. The Dems and gop are presenting a choice between dementia and bat sh!t crazy - combined with extreme ideologies.  Historically pathetic. Enough. I’m not alone by a long shot.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/512135/support-third-political-

 

A lot of people have claimed they want a third party alternative for decades.

very, very few of those people have ever actually voted for a third party or independent candidate at the polls. 
 

Also, how many of that 60% want the same things in an independent party? How many of those 60% would vote for a right leaning 3rd party if they are liberal/ or a left leaning 3rd party if they are more conservative? 

60% saying they want a third party doesn’t mean that that many people would be willing to vote for any third party….as evidenced by the fact that existing parties like Green and Libertarian have never really taken off. 
 

 

 

[Gowebb11 9,362]

2 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

I’m tired of the keeping it real, you’ll elect Trump, lesser of 2 evils, it’ll be Perot again  narratives. The Dems and gop are presenting a choice between dementia and bat sh!t crazy - combined with extreme ideologies.  Historically pathetic. Enough. I’m not alone by a long shot.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/512135/support-third-political-party.aspx

Amen. I’m beyond wanting a third party. I want a competent and sane leader as a choice on the ballot. I’ve started to use a different standard for assessing candidates. I’ve worked in the military and in a large corporation. I try to imagine where in those entities a lot of the current candidates would rank. There’s no way Trump would survive in our corporation at any level for HR reasons alone. His crap would never be tolerated. And I can’t for a moment imagine Biden possessing the judgment or decision making to make it to the rank of a Two Star General. Same for Mike Pence or Kamala Harris. We’re electing people for President and Vice-President who would be capped at Regional Manager or LT Colonel (maybe) at Home Depot or the Army. And which Fortune 100 company would have MGT or Boebert or Omar in the C-Suite? Historically pathetic is accurate. 

 

[auburnatl1 5,015]

12 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

A lot of people have claimed they want a third party alternative for decades.

very, very few of those people have ever actually voted for a third party or independent candidate at the polls. 
 

Also, how many of that 60% want the same things in an independent party? How many of those 60% would vote for a right leaning 3rd party if they are liberal/ or a left leaning 3rd party if they are more conservative? 

60% saying they want a third party doesn’t mean that that many people would be willing to vote for any third party….as evidenced by the fact that existing parties like Green and Libertarian have never really taken off. 
 

 

 

When a market dominated by 2 companies  deteriorates to the point that they  knowingly produce unreliable, dangerous, and dysfunctional products -  consumers  have been historically  very favorable to a new company than produces products aligned  with their wishes.  The fear of change or failure is superseded by the frustration  with knowing they are settling.  And it won’t get better until they act.

I know the risks but this isn’t getting better. If not now, when?  I live in a metro suburb in a purple state, mostly moderates (as is most of the country).  And everyone I know is saying the same thing - this is nuts - it’s now.

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

3 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

This 'No Labels' group is just another dark money organization being funded by rich elites and political insiders who want to alter the political landscape in their favor. 

The group hides behind a "charity" IRS designation and shields it's donors and supporters because it knows it's messaging as a independent party 'for the people' would be undone if everyone could see who was pulling the strings behind the curtain. 

 

I don't believe it's complaint to the Justice Department has merit. 

You are quoting the words of those behind the attempt to subvert democracy. Just unbelievable. Pathetic attempt Coffee. 

And for the record, should they put forward a candidate they will disclose contributions. 

Former Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), a leading proponent of the group, said “the American people want another choice for president this year” and that “No Labels is working to provide that choice.”

“No one in our country has a right to prevent that choice from being offered to the voters,” he added, articulating the basis of the complaint with the DOJ.

[auburnatl1 5,015]

40 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

Amen. I’m beyond wanting a third party. I want a competent and sane leader as a choice on the ballot. I’ve started to use a different standard for assessing candidates. I’ve worked in the military and in a large corporation. I try to imagine where in those entities a lot of the current candidates would rank. There’s no way Trump would survive in our corporation at any level for HR reasons alone. His crap would never be tolerated. And I can’t for a moment imagine Biden possessing the judgment or decision making to make it to the rank of a Two Star General. Same for Mike Pence or Kamala Harris. We’re electing people for President and Vice-President who would be capped at Regional Manager or LT Colonel (maybe) at Home Depot or the Army. And which Fortune 100 company would have MGT or Boebert or Omar in the C-Suite? Historically pathetic is accurate. 

 

When we made the word “elite” an insult and not simply meaning our best and most gifted, we chased away this generations Jefferson’s and Lincoln’s - and instead began sourcing politicians from the land of misfit toys. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/18/third-party-2024-no-labels-00132066

No Labels Is Pushing a Lie That Will Elect Trump

There’s no path to victory for a third-party candidate.

With a rematch between President Joe Biden and Donald Trump almost set in stone, it’s time to put a farce to rest: The notion that a third-party candidate could actually win the presidency in 2024.

The idea that a “unity ticket” featuring a Republican and a Democrat could somehow produce a nominee with “a clear path to victory” is worse than a political fiction. The group behind it, No Labels, is pushing a dangerous lie that would simply serve to put Trump back in the White House.

Then there’s Ross Perot, who No Labels aspires to emulate for his appeal to “ the vast middle of the electorate.” Despite unlimited cash and facing an unpopular incumbent in George H.W. Bush and a near-unknown in Bill Clinton, Perot failed to win a single state. Can No Labels twist the data and make an argument that Perot could have won if he had done things differently? Sure! But that’s like saying I could have been the quarterback of the Denver Broncos — technically true, but come on!

There’s a reason for this lack of success: Our political system isn’t designed to support third parties at the presidential level.

The biggest barrier is the Electoral College. States use a “winner takes all” system to distribute their electoral votes, which is why Perot won nearly 20 percent of the popular vote but got a big fat zero from the Electoral College. This leads to two practical effects: First, parties are incentivized to form the largest coalitions possible, which naturally leads to a two-party system. Second, many voters don’t want to “waste” their vote on a candidate with no chance of winning, so they default to the major parties. Both effects make it harder for third parties to compete.

The question of whether Americans are willing to vote for a third party comes up every presidential cycle. Consider this: Two months before the 2016 election, Gary Johnson polled at 10 percent. In June 1992, Perot led all candidates at 39 percent. These polls were mirages — neither got anything close to that number of votes. Third parties often poll well during a campaign, but that support vanishes on Election Day.

This points to a larger truth: Americans think a third party is needed, even if they won’t vote for one. Voters want to express discontent with their party. Sure, nearly half of the electorate thinks a third party is necessary, but No Labels mistakenly assumes this means those voters will actually vote for one. Once Americans get a good look at the alternatives, like Perot or Johnson, they end up sticking with the major parties.

While a third-party candidate can’t win, No Labels could still throw the election to Trump, and it wouldn’t take that many votes. Let’s look at three battleground states: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In 2016, Trump’s margin of victory was less than 50,000 votes in these states, and third parties won significantly more votes than that in each one. Did they flip the election for Trump? It’s possible. In 2020, with no third parties to contend with, Biden beat Trump in Michigan by 154,188 votes, Pennsylvania by 80,555 votes and Wisconsin by 20,682. All of those margins are smaller than what third parties received in 2016. These Blue Wall states will be close again in 2024, and if third parties perform similarly in 2024 as they did in 2016, they will deny Biden a second term.

This alone should give any responsible person pause. A No Labels candidate in these states could easily hand the election to Trump. But maybe that’s the goal. Whatever their original intentions, the people behind No Labels — including Harlan Crow, the GOP mega-donor who gifted travel and luxury vacations to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — are using dark money on this folly. The group is working to raise $70 million and has already qualified for the ballot in 12 states, including states that could be pivotal to the outcome, such as Arizona, Nevada and North Carolina.

There are serious questions about how the group’s ticket would be picked ( likely behind closed doors) and whether acting like a political party without registering as one is legal. Not to mention, its own founders and staff are in “open revolt” over the group’s current aspirations.

While I’m not a fan of polling done more than a year out (seriously), The Wall Street Journal did an analysis that showed third parties would more likely draw votes from Biden. The report points to an NBC survey that has Biden and Trump tied head to head, but if you add a third-party candidate, Trump leads by 3 percent. (Of course, this math might change if Liz Cheney or RFK Jr. make a serious run.) New polling of young voters shows a similar dynamic, shrinking Biden’s lead with the introduction of third parties.

Historical data suggests the same. Based on exit polling (a highly flawed metric), No Labels believes Perot in 1992 may have siphoned votes from both parties equally. However, an American Journal of Political Science study concluded that Perot increased turnout by 3 percent and decreased Clinton’s margin of victory by 7 percent.

If we look at who helped Biden win last time, they are the type of voters who might switch parties: Voters who selected a third party in 2016 voted for Biden by 29 percent. Those voters could be the difference for Biden in 2024.

From all the data I see, the practical effect of having No Labels run a third-party campaign is that Trump would win. And any argument that a third party can win next year is a false promise, an illusion and a lie spread by people with ulterior motives.

The prospect of Trump being president again should be repellent to any decent person who believes in freedom and building a more perfect union. The people at No Labels know better than this. It’s time to cut the crap, believe the data and be honest with the American people. Any well-funded third-party candidate would be a disaster for our republic — and risks putting us on a direct path to a dictatorship.

Jim Messina wants you to vote Biden period. Wonder why?

Jim Messina is CEO of The Messina Group. He successfully ran President Barack Obama's 2012 reelection campaign and before that was Deputy Chief of Staff in Obama's White House.

He lies about ulterior motives in the article basically claiming Joe Lieberman, a former Democratic Senator from Connecticut is trying to elect Trump. Outrageous. He should just state the obvious, he wants his guy to win and doesn't care about democracy. Based on this thread, he is not alone. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

3 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

I’m tired of the keeping it real, you’ll elect Trump, lesser of 2 evils, it’ll be Perot again  narratives. The Dems and gop are presenting a choice between dementia and bat sh!t crazy - combined with extreme ideologies.  Historically pathetic. Enough. I’m not alone by a long shot.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/512135/support-third-political-party.aspx

Joe Manchin or Nikki Haley or even the combination could be a ticket. I'm down with that. And the truth is they could possibly win. They'd get my vote.

[arein0 977]

5 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

When we made the word “elite” an insult and not simply meaning our best and most gifted, we chased away this generations Jefferson’s and Lincoln’s - and instead began sourcing politicians from the land of misfit toys. 

Also when the best and most gifted realized they could make generational wealth without being in the public eye