Dems' mission to stop a third-party presidential bid hits the Hill
By: BURGESS EVERETT (POLITICO)
If Joe Biden is so vulnerable to a moderate, centrist spoiler then maybe Democrats have the wrong candidate.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Democrats are mounting a coordinated mission to kill a third-party presidential bid — and it's coming soon to Capitol Hill.
Officials from the progressive group MoveOn and centrist group Third Way are planning to brief Senate Democratic chiefs of staff on July 27, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO. It's part of an effort to educate Democrats about the risk that a third-party bid funded by the well-heeled group No Labels could pose to President Joe Biden — particularly if centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) runs for president rather than reelection.
Matt Bennett, executive vice president for public affairs at Third Way, and Rahna Epting, the executive director of MoveOn, will speak to Democratic senators' top aides, according to the invitation. The invite tells chiefs of staff dryly that the two "want to share some information that they have on No Labels."
Third Way has put together research showing that a third-party campaign would hurt Biden, an argument that No Labels has dismissed. Bennett declined to comment specifically on this month's Capitol Hill meeting but confirmed that Third Way is working urgently to stop a third-party candidate.
"Very often there are differences of opinion or strategy when it comes to the Democratic coalition, because it's very, very broad. But here, there's unanimity, and everyone agrees that if they go forward this is going to hurt Joe Biden," Bennett said in an interview. "We need to make clear to folks that what they are selling is an illusion, not a choice."
The alliance between the party's leading centrists and prominent liberals to publicly squash a third-party effort demonstrates how seriously Democrats fear that a spoiler candidate could tip the election to Donald Trump or another Republican candidate. If next year's presidential ballot is as close as 2016 or 2020 were, Democrats worry that Trump-weary voters could defect from Biden to an alternative candidate — and just a few thousand of those defections could be decisive in the Electoral College.
Liz Cattaneo, a spokesperson for MoveOn, said that the group is "working with a broad range of Democratic organizations to stop No Labels from running a third-party presidential ticket." She added that her organization is "committed to accountability for No Labels and to preventing right-wing extremists from winning back" the White House.
No Labels is unbowed. Ryan Clancy, the group's chief strategist, said that "it shouldn't surprise anyone … that voters are more open to an independent than ever before. It's why our polling shows an independent ticket has a viable path" to winning.
Manchin has argued that there's little harm in his entertaining a third-party bid, and he's refused to rule one out even as his colleagues try to talk him out of it. Both Democrats and Republicans are "being driven by business extremes" and catering to the "far right and far left," he said in an interview on the topic last month.
Briefing top Hill Democrats about No Labels is a clear move to get the party on the same page in opposition to the group's work. And all these dynamics could make the difference between the Senate majority and minority come 2025: If Manchin runs for the White House instead of reelection in West Virginia, Democrats could end up losing both his Senate seat and the presidential race.
A Manchin aide said that if his schedule permits, the senator's chief of staff will attend the July 27 meeting.
Manchin is the candidate most frequently mentioned as a potential recruit for No Labels, which is eyeing a budget as high as $70 million for its third-party initiative. But there's also some private talk about former Maryland GOP Gov. Larry Hogan or even Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona leading an alternative slate, though Hogan says he won't run for president and Sinema generally stays away from such speculation.
Any of those three candidates on a presidential ballot could influence a close contest for the Electoral College next fall. Dritan Nesho, No Labels' chief pollster, said that polling "shows an overwhelming opening for a third-party ticket before names are even announced and any campaign communicating the vision and issue positions is run."
Detractors counter that the group is wildly overstating its chances.
"What we are trying to make clear to the people around No Labels, especially people thinking about running on their ticket, is that that is a preposterous pipe dream. And they can have an impact, but it isn't by winning," Bennett said. "They can have an impact by spoiling."
Tags
Who is online
74 visitors
Senate Democrats are unable to legislate whether they hold a majority or not; citing a variety of excuses. But Senate Democrats can certainly meddle in elections to protect their powerless position in the Senate.
It would be political malfeasance for either the DNC or the GoP to ignore NL.
I think the Ds have the wrong candidate regardless of this factor.
But even with a strong candidate, a D-leaning third party does indeed compromise the D nominee. Same would hold true for the Rs.
What is of serious concern is that a third party D draining D votes with Trump as the R nominee (if that comes true) is actually a way for Trump to win the presidency.
A truly independent centrist/moderate candidate should 'compromise' more extremist candidates of either party.
Unless a third party candidate drains votes away from Trump, too. Wouldn't a moderate third party candidate be incentive for both Biden and Trump to shift away from extreme positions?
IMO a moderate third party candidate represents a threat to extremists is both parties. And the extremists will fight hardest to prevent that third party candidate.
Of course, but that is not the case in this example. I am speaking of the case in point.
IBID (above)
Yes if there was a truly independent third party candidate it would represent a threat (especially to the extremists). But, again, Manchin is a D and is far more a threat to the Ds than the Rs.
Democrats (particularly more extreme Ds) have attempted to portray Manchin as an R-leaning D. Extremist Democrats have actually been trying to make Manchin appealing to Republicans. So, why wouldn't Manchin take votes away from Trump?
Manchin is a threat to extremist Democrats. Manchin did throw a wrench into their agenda, after all. But Manchin only damaged the Democratic Party IF (big if) the Democratic Party is a party of extremists.
IMO a moderate third party candidate represents a major threat to extremists in both parties because a moderate third party candidate could possibly form a coalition between Democrats and Republicans. If more moderate Democrats and Republicans begin working together then the extremists have less power in either party. That's the power of a bell curve.
That is not the question. Of course some GOP voters would vote for Manchin. My opinion was that Manchin, a D, stands to take much more from the D party than the R party.
Manchin is not an example of a purely independent moderate third party candidate. And, frankly, it would be difficult to find such a candidate. More likely is that a third party run will drain predominantly from one of the parties.
Manchin seems to be a DINO.
Nonetheless, it is far more likely that Ds would vote for Manchin than Rs.
And that was the point.
What is truly amazing is how democrats have been so successful in changing election rules, outspending their opponents and setting the table in the coming election. We have their main opponent (the one they want to win the GOP nomination) facing numerous indictments, generating sympathy for him, with no trials forthcoming before the election. We have the media attacking his only real GOP rival and we have a sweetheart deal that closes the case involving Hunter/Joe Biden.
The only fly in the ointment would be someone like Joe Manchin, who can no longer win in WV, running as an independent. Based on recent history, the dems will find a way to put a stop to that.
What is even more amazing is that none of this gives Biden a clear advantage.
It should then be viewed as the system working properly. Justice is being carried out in spite of adverse political effects of the party in power.
But the system is being subverted to prevent better candidates becoming competitive. The system is being used to give extreme minority positions more influence and power. The system is being used to remove compromise from our politics. IMO that's not a sign that the system is working properly.
I was talking about the judicial part of the system.
The political part of the system is a disgusting mess.
What does the judicial system have to do with a third party spoiler candidate? Although there have been allegations of a politicized judicial system meddling in elections, the discussion here has been directed toward the political system.
But even the judicial system has prevented better candidates to become competitive. The judicial system has been complicit in aiding extreme minority positions to obtain more influence and power within both parties. The judicial system has not encouraged, promoted, or advocated moderation within the political system. Even expanding the discussion to include some sort of partisan justice is not a sign the system is working.
I was responding to Vic’s indictment reference @4.
Curious as to just what you would consider extreme minority positions.
Civil rights?
Anthropogenic global warming/climate change?
Pollution?
Renewable energy?
Voting rights?
No Labels has no path to victory. The only path I have seen would involve their candidate winning some red states. That is not going to happen. If you cant win, and they cant, why run?
A third party candidate will hurt Joe Biden or whoever the Democratic nominee is. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans and the inclination to vote for a "moderate" will be higher among Democrats for ideological reasons as well. There are more moderate Democrats than moderate Republicans.
There is no worry about No Labels winning. The worry, and an accurate one, is that they will hand the presidency to Trump.
"Democratic strategist David Axelrod said the Green Party bid by academic Cornel West could draw votes away from President Biden, leading to a victory for former President Trump."
He won't be a blip on the stage.
Why do you think that?
For starters, the Green party has a historically insignificant impact ... most of the time gaining less than 0.5%. At best, it achieved 2.7% at its inception with Ralph Nader.
I see a 71+ year old Cornel West securing less than 0.5% as well.
Cornel West would probably draw away as many populist crank voters from Trump!
Biden is in no physical or mental condition to campaign or act as president for another four years. At this point Trump could beat him, and DeSantis most assuredly will. Time is running out for the Democrats to find an alternative to Biden.
Newsome anyone?
Not really, now the Michigangster gal, we be talking.
Having taken note of the news and reports from and about both major American political parties. if I were an American I absolutely would vote third party even if the devil himself were the candidate.
I guess keeping people from having another choice to vote for isn't in the definition of democrat values..
The reality is obvious. A political party will do whatever it can to win (unfortunately that includes cheating and lying). So of course the Ds will fight against a third party that they believe will siphon off D voters. The GOP would do exactly the same thing. Hell, the GOP has already demonstrated that they will even back a traitor who was the only PotUS to attempt to steal a US election.
Winning is all that matters to the parties; they are a corruption of democracy.
And that is the "Democracy" that America is trying to sell to the rest of the world, and even doing whatever it can to stymie other forms of government.
How about this? American Democracy is like peaches and cream. You don't like peaches and cream? Then we're damn well going to shove it down your throat.
I am pro on American democracy as it was intended. I am simply down on the politicians who have distorted our system into one that is demonstrably corrupt.
Of course. You mean politicians who refuse to be bought by lobbies such as the NRA, honest politicians, politicians who refuse to toe the party line when it is contrary to their principles and integrity, like Liz Cheney. And courts that determine outcomes based on law instead of party loyalty, with high ethical standards. Good luck with that.
you mean the politicians who take millions from the gun control lobby? Its okay to be bought by them?
Right, we should all be so tolerant of differing forms of government as China was when it took over Hong Kong. Truly honorable how they lived up to their promises to respect Hong Kong's democratic traditions and freedom.
Exactly, you won’t find corruption in a single party system that controls the local media and access of foreign media. That’s what we need here.
I'm glad you guys are so happy with the way things are going in the USA, because, after all, America is beyond criticism. But then let's do some "whataboutisms" okay, even though that's not the topic. Nobody gives a shit about policing off topic on this site any more.
Exactly, the other day a comment about US MIC was allowed to stand on Pres Biden’s recent decision on arming Ukraine.
Exactly, we should have long ago adopted an neo-authoritarian, one-party socialist state as the progressive approach into the future. It’s just what our country and most of the world needs right now.