Georgia's Geoff Duncan could wage No Labels bid for president
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The third-party presidential movement No Labels could feature former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan as a White House contender atop a “unity” ticket after several high-profile candidates decided against running.
The group’s 800 delegates from 50 states voted during a virtual meeting Friday to field an independent candidate, and an official with direct knowledge of the negotiations said Duncan, a Republican, could be picked to lead the effort.
During his one term as Georgia's No. 2 official, Duncan was an iconoclast.
While most state Republican officials either cozy up to Trump or try to avoid his wrath, Duncan set himself on a collision course with the former president and top members of his own party by disputing the falsehoods spread about the 2020 election.
Since Trump's 2020 election defeat, Duncan has repeatedly urged fellow Republicans to move past the former president. He's called proposed rollbacks to voting rights "solutions in search of a problem," and he refused to preside over a Senate vote on election restrictions.
His stance alienated many Republicans, who said he effectively betrayed the GOP.
A former professional baseball player, Duncan was a three-term member of the Georgia House from Forsyth County when he announced a 2018 run for the seat left open when then-Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle ran for governor. Duncan narrowly defeated David Shafer in a GOP runoff, then bested Democrat Sarah Riggs Amico.
He quickly positioned himself as an ally to Gov. Brian Kemp and was one of the first high-profile officials to endorse U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler. Before he became a vocal critic of Trump, he was seen as a potential contender for the U.S. Senate or other higher office.
The extent of Duncan's national name recognition is unclear, though he's tried to build a broader profile as a CNN commentator and a contributing columnist to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution after leaving office in 2023. Still, he could have a bigger impact on the electorate in Georgia, where he won nearly 2 million votes in 2018.
Former U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, one of the leaders of No Labels, said on "The Julie Mason Show" that Duncan was an intriguing prospect.
"I can't confirm or deny, but I admire him a lot because he has the guts to stand up," Lieberman said. "He's a conservative Republican, but he stood up to Trump, particularly after the 2020 election."
Tags
Who is online
417 visitors
This may be the path for those in the center.
Too little and way too late. The best is that this could siphon off some Trump votes. In that regard it is good. I have very low expectations of anything significant coming of this in 2024.
Siphoning off a portion of moderate GOP votes is always a good thing. Every voting block counts. I have to assume that there are many republicans who would jump at any excuse not to vote for Trump.
It's a downright shame the same can't ever be said about Democrats and Biden.
Manchin was their only real shot.
Even then, they are starting a new third party. Manchin should have been their solid candidate at least 18 months ago. They would also need major league funding, a solid ground game, etc. to have a shot.
It is incredibly difficult for a newcomer to break through (same as in business). Unless of course the newcomer has some disruptive technology (in politics that means a highly charismatic candidate) that changes the game. Manchin would not have been such a game changer (too old, not charismatic at all) and No Labels is not really all that distinguished from every other third party .... yet another third party. Thus they had no real advantage and all of the challenges.
Note: the Libertarian party is 52 years old and has yet to even come close to the presidency or even make a dent in Congress. Their greatest federal accomplishment is a former congressman (Justin Amash) who switched to Libertarian after being elected Republican but was never elected as a Libertarian. This is a pathetic showing for such a long-standing party.
To wit, (and I am not suggesting you hold this view) it is unrealistic to think that any third party in 2024 has even a remote shot at the presidency.
Agreed, but Manchin supposedly hadn't made his mind up.
It is incredibly difficult for a newcomer to break through (same as in business).
Agreed, but US history does show that new political parties do emerge, though usually to replace other parties. The democrat party is begging to be replaced.
The calendar has already decided for Manchin.
That really is amazing. I understand your disagreement with D policies, but how can you in 2024 look at the D and R parties and say that it is the D party that needs to be replaced?
Have you not noticed that the GOP has lost pretty much everything other than its name? The GOP is unrecognizable to me. Those who held the good qualities of the GOP are now either outcasts or are pretending to be MAGA / Trump supporters. The GOP is going to nominate a scoundrel ... a demonstrable traitor — a vindictive, irresponsible, narcissist, demagogue asshole who is the only PotUS in our history to try to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement.
The D party has its issues, but the GOP is out of its friggin' mind! My support for Haley was in part as a step towards healing the broken / dysfunctional / irresponsible GOP.
People like to TALK about change but when it comes right down to it, the majority will still vote for who their Party tells them they should vote for.
They give lip service to "change" but their actions don't follow their mouths.
Correct. Partisans vote for whoever is the nominee. That is the key problem with partisan thinking. Groupthink is unhealthy.
That is true, which is why I won't be a sheep and vote for who the Party tells me to this fall.
Now, if only more Americans could say that honestly.
That is a good thing.
But you need to recognize that not everyone who votes R or D this year is doing so as a partisan. The majority of the electorate (by far) is now unaffiliated with either the D or R parties. Of that group, it is illogical to think their vote for the R or D candidate is partisan.
Further, within the affiliated electorate, not everyone who is a registered R or registered D is a pure partisan.
So while I agree that pure partisan 'thinking' is unhealthy for the nation, you cannot reliably determine pure partisan 'thinking' simply by one's voting choice this year.
You have a basic misunderstanding of why people vote for a party. The two major political parties in America now have long established basic ideologies which represent roughly how the party will govern if they come into power. If I don't want the republican ideology to govern i'm not going to vote for republican candidates.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone voting on the basis of party ideology and yet people like you try to pretty much always make it sound like partisan voting is some mindless thing. In some cases it probably is ,but in most cases it is someone voting on behalf of the ideology they believe should be running the country.
Personally I think it's offensive for so-called independents to constantly be trying to rundown so-called partisanship as if it is an evil.
And you need to realize that I didn't make that claim and already know it instead of assuming I didn't. But the vast majority of them are going to vote that way.
I know some of them will vote for Biden solely because he isn't Trump.
Well, then, when you find someone claiming that or thinking that way--TELL THEM! It is illogical to assume I meant that, implied that, thought that, or said that.
Which is why I didn't waste bandwidth and time stating the clearly obvious.
You should probably be telling someone else all of this. You know, someone thinking that way or making a claim that way. Not me!
I actually agree with you on this, John.
Like you said....If I believe the ideology of a candidate, I will vote for that candidate.
One thing I have never done, and never plan on doing, is vote for someone ONLY to keep someone else out of office. I understand my candidate may not win, and unfortunately, I will have to suck up the one I did not choose for 4 years when I have another chance to vote in who I like.
you go first...
for the third time I'll be voting against a career criminal now facing 91 federal charges from election interference to willful possession of classified documents and the prolonged obstruction of their return.
No I do not, you are simply looking at the one aspect that I criticize and presuming that this is the only reason I understand.
And that is a shame since I have explained my position to you. Do you not remember my explanation of the strategic partisan? That is what you are describing ... an individual who is looking at the big picture (above that of a single candidate) and also looking long term (beyond the duration of a single politician).
My focus on partisans today is pretty much on the GOP partisans because they are going to vote for a scoundrel and a traitor. And that is NOT strategic partisanship, it is largely mindless groupthink partisanship. The unhealthy partisanship.
Bookmark this comment.
'so-called' independent? What is that supposed to mean? Funny how independents are considered 'so-called' by those who are not independent. Some R partisans think that my intention to vote for Biden shows that I am a D partisan. And now you come back with the reciprocal nonsense.
Why not? What, logically, stops you from looking at the two viable candidates and determining which is worse for the nation? If one is capable of understanding a difference, why would you object to doing one's part to lessen the harm to the nation?
People do not oppose Donald Trump because they are partisan
I would blow my brains out before I would vote for Donald Trump. The character of the candidate comes first then the ideology. That is what Republicans today are missing.
If trump is elected in 2024 the national character of the United states will be shot to hell probably for a long long time.
Just stop with this stupid platitude, this ridiculous uber-defensive crap.
Are you trying to understand my point or are you just trying to be contrary?
I don't. That's why I didn't vote for Biden in 2020 and will not vote for him in 2024. I was correct because he ran as a moderate, then turned on the country and "led" as a far leftist. Hopefully my vote will help correct the crap we have in the WH today.
Logically, there are checks and balances to keep one from doing real harm to the country. Voting for someone just to keep someone else out of the WH is not the logical way of doing it.
Why the insults? He said he didn't mention what you posted so why argue otherwise?
Well, I won't be voting for Trump or Biden as both are incompetent.
I prefer to vote for someone because I think they will do well as opposed to voting for failure.
Easy. The democrat party is now an all-powerful Orwellian organization. I'm sure you would disagree.
Have you not noticed that the GOP has lost pretty much everything other than its name? The GOP is unrecognizable to me. Those who held the good qualities of the GOP are now either outcasts or are pretending to be MAGA / Trump supporters. The GOP is going to nominate a scoundrel ... a demonstrable traitor — a vindictive, irresponsible, narcissist, demagogue asshole who is the only PotUS in our history to try to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement.
Trump is the antidote.
[deleted]
I think the word hyperbole is appropriate.
There is no reasoning with someone who thinks that way.
Honestly, that is kinda sad.
"The character of the candidate comes first then the ideology."
Not necessarily. Someone can be an asshole but be a good leader. Most sane people look to see who can lead this country successfully.
"That is what Republicans today are missing."
And many who lean right feel the same of the Democratic party.
"If trump is elected in 2024 the national character of the United states will be shot to hell probably for a long long time."
You guys said the same thing in 2016 and here we are, 7 years later, and far worse today than we were in 2016-2020.
Notice that the most unhappy about a potential third party are going to vote for Trump or Biden?
I wonder what they're scared of.
The checks and balances (e.g. having a contra Congress) are another tool. They do not replace the primary tool of keeping an undesirable candidate out of office.
Explain how —in a Biden v Trump contest where one of the two will be PotUS— it is illogical to vote for Biden as the best way to use one's presidential vote to keep Trump out.
How, exactly, is that illogical? (This should be amusing.)
Who is unhappy about a potential third party? I cannot think of anyone in this forum who has expressed sadness about a potential third party. So what are you talking about?
Read the comments. Remember other comments on other articles.
What I am talking about is very obvious.
Once again, you alienate those fighting your corner.
Another vague response.
You could have used your words to address the question but instead you deflect. Makes me conclude that you are offering bullshit.
Nothing at all vague, it specifically called on you to do two very simple, explicit things.
What you manage to conclude isn't my concern.
You're right. I want Biden and everyone with him held accountable.
really?
I hardly ever say anything about everything that is said about partisanship on this forum. Partisanship is not wrong, maybe it's not the choice that everyone would make or should make but it is not an unreasonable choice for a way to vote for candidates. Almost every member of Congress is a political partisan. Are they all wrong about what they're doing?
Constantly talking about partisanship as if it were a bad thing doesn't help at all with keeping trump out of office.
The former 'president' is poison, not any kind of 'antidote' - more like the anti-christ
Context is your friend. The context in my use of partisanship has been, for years now, specific to the support of Trump. The notion of voting for the nominee even if that means voting for Trump.
Yes, really.
Partisanship requires one to submit one's own opinion to that of the political party to which one belongs, even when they are in opposition. The most extreme elements of that party then have more say over an individual's vote than that individual does.
Partisanship is how we get formerly moderate Republicans, like Sununu, supporting Trump even when their consciences previously prohibited it. That type of partisanship sure sounds wrong to me.
Maybe the popular governor has future political ambitions and realizes the present reality of his broken party.
He had the option to NOT endorse Trump. He could have taken the Christie stance. He could simply not endorse anyone.
Agreed. By endorsing Trump, he has shown us all that he puts party before country, and alienated non-Trump Republicans and independents.
nonsense.
There are a lot of people who will vote Democratic even when they disagree about this or that policy. I doubt if AOC has ever voted for a republican so she would be considered a partisan ,yet she voices vocal disagreement with Democratic policies all the time.
And? That's not necessarily a good thing, either.
That's how we end up with weak candidates like Biden. The Democractic party assumes they'll have the Dem vote, no matter who they nominate. Less partisanship and the knowledge they'll actually have to appeal to voters who aren't partisan would likely yield better candidates whose views better represent the majority.
As long as voters hold their noses and vote for candidates they know aren't decent, both parties will continue to do what they have been doing without any qualms at all about it. Why wouldn't they? It's been working so far for them.
Of course, but those that want to run again don’t vote against their Party.
Did you miss my point?
I did not state that Sununu should have endorsed Biden.
I stated that he could have simply NOT endorsed Trump.
He could have, by the way, endorsed Haley. One need not endorse the presumptive nominee.
Do you recognize that the reason Trump is the presumptive nominee is because of the voters? It is not the party machinery that gave Trump his momentum, it was polls from supporters (GOP members). The party machinery kicked in after the momentum was established.
The GOP voters had the option to nominate someone other than Trump. They did not do so. They want Trump. How do you explain that?
Here is a link to some of the Democrats who have endorsed Joe Biden for 2024:
List of Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements - Wikipedia
There are those who look at the long-term, big picture and conclude that their party is, when all is said and done, best for the nation. That is strategic partisanship. It is a calculation that goes beyond a single election cycle and beyond candidates and looks at the mega trend dynamics of the political parties.
In 2024, the GOP strategic partisanship concept makes no sense. The GOP is dysfunctional and has fundamentally lost its way. Voting to keep this current crop in power is a strategic mistake. Strategic partisanship for the GOP would seek to take actions that will return the GOP to a sensible party with at least a modicum of integrity. Embracing MAGA and, specifically, Trump is a tactical blunder and a strategic failure. They are voting to enshrine MAGA as the dominant force of the GOP. Trump, if elected, will infect the GOP with his sycophants and the likelihood of those clowns having statesperson-like motivations is near zero.
Of course. Do you recognize that Biden is the nominee for the same reasons? Why ask such a question when the answer is so blatantly obvious?
Democrats had an option for someone other than Biden, but did not.
They want Biden.
I explain it this way:
More people who voted wanted Trump and Biden. See? Easy-peasy. And obvious.
Never said that, did I? I simply opined that there are checks and balances. Everything else is simply unneeded filler.
"Explain how —in a Biden v Trump contest where one of the two will be PotUS— it is illogical to vote for Biden as the best way to use one's presidential vote to keep Trump out.
How, exactly, is that illogical? "
It's been explained to you several times. Obviously you do not read responses to you or you would not keep asking the same questions, but, alas, I will do it once more.
The PATRIOTIC way to vote is to vote for the person you want to lead this country. Voting for someone just to keep someone else out is not only not patriotic, it is illogical, ESPECIALLY when one has opined on how bad of a job the one he wants to vote for has done so far.
You don't like either of the major party candidates, vote for third party or a write in. Those are your rights. Anything else shows you actually support that candidate you vote for, invalidating most everything that was opined in the past.
Now, don't engage me in third party crap that has been explained over and over, as I will not respond in kind.
Then you recognize that it is not the party that must change (as you stated), it is the voters who must change. The party did not drive Trump to the nomination, the people did!
He did, last December.
Common sense and reason tells me that when enough voters have the integrity to vote for someone for other reasons than just because there is a D or an R behind their name, parties will be forced to change IF they want to be viable. Of course voters make all the difference, but far too many are voting just because of a R or a D or because they don't want an R or a D in office. I don't consider those valid reasons but know AND "recognize" that some people consider them valid reasons.
Where did I state that?
Please read 1.1.45.
That post makes it crystal clear I recognize that voters matter and how they can effect change in parties. Until enough voters do the parties have no reason to change.
And here you now go with the same platitude denial tactic.
You stated that it is illogical to vote against a candidate because there are checks and balances. Remember that? Here, bugsy, I will refresh you memory:
If you are going to make an argument, then cease with the equivocation / deflection / denial tactics.
You are not explaining, you are merely repeating your claims. Do you not see the difference? I asked you to explain how it is illogical.
I asked this:
How is voting for Biden to keep Trump out of office not patriotic?
How is voting for Biden to keep Trump out of office illogical?
Don't just repeat your claim, actually answer the question (if you can).
Do you actually want readers to think that you are incapable of comprehending the logic of taking the least worst of two choices? I doubt you want that. If you are going to drive to a destination and both routes have negatives (one takes a lot of time, the other has winding roads and lots of speed limit changes through small towns) do you simply NOT take the trip or do you figure out the least bad route and take that one?
Either Trump or Biden will be PotUS. They are NOT, in any stretch of the imagination equivalent. IMO, anyone who claims they see no difference is either lying or has the reasoning capability of a child. So I will assume every adult in this forum can indeed determine which of those two is worse for the nation. Thus it would be logical for everyone in the forum to decide to vote for the least bad candidate. They can choose to not vote, vote third party, etc. but they have no sound argument to say that voting for the least bad is illogical.
You are not illustrating logic.
You seem to be determined to miss my point.
How could your vote for Biden encourage any political party to change anything? It is precisely what the Democratic Party wants, and you are giving it to them. Do you recognize that is all that is important--that WHY you voted for him doesn't matter to the party? They got your vote, they'll be happy.
Here you are essentially blaming the GOP party for its support of Trump. What I was emphasizing is that the GOP party only supports Trump because the GOP electorate supports Trump. It is not that the GOP party was "continuing to do what they have been doing" but rather that the GOP was doing what its electorate suggested it wanted via the polls.
The point of agreement is that the voters make the difference. The problem is that the voters show no signs of getting truly informed and breaking free of groupthink.
No it doesn't. The only thing that matters is the ideology and agenda. That's why I cannot ever vote for a Democrat.
One has to look no further than the Clintons to realize how little character and decent values seem to have with the Democrats at voting time.
Well, if Haley was the nominee, I and others would be voting R. Because Trump is the presumptive nominee, I and others will be voting D.
The worst thing for a political party is to have votes that could have gone their way go to the other party. That is a stronger statement than votes that could have gone their way go into a pointless third party (or disappear due to abstention).
So what kind of bizarre logic are you trying to offer now? You think I should not vote against Trump because that would make the D party happy? Do you actually think I should care about how a political party feels? My priority is the good of the nation and my consideration is the immediate future — the 2024 presidential election.
I would never, under any circumstance, diminish my ability to help prevent Trump from being the next PotUS simply because it would inadvertently help the Ds. That is ridiculous 'logic'.
For some, pure partisanship far overrides what is best for the country. They don't understand that voting for someone equates supporting them....and their party, no matter the claims of "nonpartisan".
By any stretch of the imagination, that is not even close to:
In FACT, I am explicitly saying there is no need for parties to change a thing when voters will hold their noses for whatever reasons and still vote for their candidates. How is that not clear?
Then you should have refrained from telling me I said parties must change when you now agree I said it was voters that could force changes. And as long as people continue to vote for a R or a D because of silly reasons like "He's worse than my guy" the parties get what they want--your vote. Do you think the party gives a damn about WHY someone voted for their candidate?
To break away from groupthink, one must be willing to do something different personally.
I am.
Explain how you could label me a pure partisan given my oft-stated preference was Haley and that I have stated that I would have voted for several of the GOP candidates over Biden if I had the chance.
On top of that, my criticism is focused on Trump and those who support him. Do you even see me criticize the policies of the GOP (when it was still somewhat rational)? No? All you have seen is my opposition to Trump. Do you see me making irrational, emotional comments about GOP politicians? No? All you have seen is my opposition to Trump and his supporters.
Go ahead, bugsy, make your case. Explain how you can label me a pure partisan.
Exactly right.
The projection is so freaking hilarious!
The parties care about getting votes. They do not want to lose votes to third parties or to abstention. However, they especially do not want to lose votes to the other party.
Your voting third party when there is no viable third party will accomplish very little. Your vote just disappears. In the end, the GOP has fewer votes than it would have had.
My voting against Trump reduces the GOP vote count (same as you) but then increases the D vote count (which the GOP does NOT want).
If the priority is to send a message (not my top priority this year), my voting approach sends a much stronger message to the GOP than yours.
I was not playing what ifs. I asked a specific question. Which remains unanswered.
Not bizarre. You are giving the Democratic Party precisely what it wants--your vote despite fielding a poor candidate that you say you don't want but will vote for anyway. I find THAT bizarre and illogical, and we can agree to disagree on that.
My God, where did you get THAT from?
It damn sure didn't come from MY posts.
I think you should vote for who can do a good job--period, although I recognize you don't think the same way.
True.
Now add practicality to your list and you will be dealing with reality.
Show me how one encourages the electorate to make better informed, rational choices. Until you have a proposal your wishful thinking is utterly worthless and your criticism of others who do not want to be merely wishful thinkers is unfounded.
By the way, here is what will cause the electorate to change. Hitting rock bottom. That is usually what breaks the momentum of a downward cycle and causes those involved to reset. Given the GOP is nominating Trump, we clearly are far from hitting rock bottom for the GOP. How much worse can it get before the GOP electorate wakes up?
So what is your proposal for encouraging the GOP electorate to be responsible?
That tired old platitude again?
If Biden doesn't win, tell me what YOUR vote accomplishes.
You think you are sending a "message" to the GOP by voting for Biden?
That's hilarious!
Read my comment.
And then read @1.1.68
No matter how clearly and detailed I answer, you whine about me not answering your question.
Do you not understand what you write? Look what you wrote above that:
I am dealing with reality. Please stop pretending I am not.
Same as for the Democratic electorate.
Be informed. Vote FOR someone. Don't be a sheep and merely willing to settle for the lesser of two evils, because just as long as voters do that, the longer we will only get shitty candidates.
Seems to me giving a party precisely the only thing they need from you while bemoaning the choices is illogical and counterproductive.
I have happily stopped doing what the party wants me to.
And I look forward to the day when more logical Americans come to the same conclusion.
If Trump wins nothing will matter to the GOP. If Biden wins, the vote disparity will absolutely matter to the GOP. They will definitely do post election analysis to see where their votes went. You understand that, right?
And you just provided the cliche sign of your lost argument.
HMS Pinafore: What never? No Never... What Never? Hardly ever!
I didn't know they were running for public office.
Where is your proposal?
How are you going to encourage the electorate to get informed and not simply vote for party?
A proposal is for HOW to change the status quo, not just stating the desired end.
If I asked you for a proposal for HOW to get the people on Earth to reduce carbon emissions would you state a proposal of "just emit fewer carbon-based molecules into the atmosphere"?"
Same as it was. Alert me if you modify it so I can read something new, please. Telling me to read what I already have is a waste of both our time.
Still the same, too.
My understanding of what I write is just fine. I can't speak for everyone.
The fact remains the Democratic PArty candidate has garnered your vote even though you "don't want" him.
I am kind of sure the Party considers that a success.
Looks like you didn't read the question, Here it is again:
Your "answer" fails to address what was asked in any way. And stop with the incessant "You recognize" and "You understand" quips, they add nothing to the conversation..
Show me where I did so...
"Explain how you can label me a pure partisan."
I just did. Nowhere have I mentioned YOU.
Most of us are on to the tactic of talking 'in general' to skirt a taunting violation.
So let's see if you will set the record straight.
Do you consider me a partisan?
That's awesome Thomas and the perfect answer to that deflection.
I consider you left.
[deleted]
I didn’t miss it, not having to endorse is an obvious point. You seemed to have missed his endorsement of Halley, which he didn’t have to do, last December.
I am certainly to your left. Not sure that has much meaning.
Far more critical of Trump than Biden is correct. For reason: Trump is an order of magnitude worse for the nation than Biden. Trump is an order of magnitude worse human being than Biden (than most public figures in the USA).
This, now is bullshit. Where do you see me being critical of any politician other than Trump or Biden? My criticism of Trump has nothing to do with his party affiliation (he could just as easily be a D). I am critical of Trump because of what he has done (and what he is capable of doing).
There are certain individuals on this site who routinely engage in slimy practices; I challenge them. The fact that they are almost exclusively GOP loyalists is probably a consequence of the dysfunctional nature of the current GOP. If these individuals were Ds and acted the same way, I would respond exactly the same way.
Bullshit spin. I ask questions of those specific few who routinely deflect, make vague/wiggle-room comments, and then claim they have answered. And also those who have answered but then later write contradictory posts.
Yes, and as I noted, you want to falsely label me a partisan. Even though you implied that you were not trying to do so.
Deflecting, being vague, contradicting prior claims, etc. will bring challenge. The tactic of "I already answered" is an obvious (pathetic) dodge.
How do you come to that conclusion?
Sununu just endorsed Trump. His prior endorsement of (and campaigning for) Haley is now superseded by endorsing Trump.
The point, which should be clear, is that endorsing Haley is not a bad thing. Haley would have made a respectable PotUS and would have helped heal the GOP. Trump, however, is bad for the party and bad for the nation. Endorsing Trump under any circumstances is a bad thing.
As I noted upfront, Sununu had the option to just NOT endorse anyone.
Confirmation bias.
You proved my point.
Thanks
Obviously, Haley is no longer a candidate.
[deleted]
Learn the meaning of phrases before you use them.
An empty declaration in lieu of an actual rebuttal.
[deleted]
.
[removed]
not really. he's an unknown
Why didn’t he just start running for president last year? For me, it’s kind of disqualifying that none of the “no labels” candidates thought to get organized long before now. Is that going to be their level of preparation as president?
Agreed. This is the worst move that No Labels could make. At this point they should just focus on 2028. Putting forth a weak, extremely late effort makes them look weak and dysfunctional.
On the other hand who knows what is going to transpire here and much could result from what Biden is going to be doing and saying between now and then? Does he realize that there are about 170 million Americans who use and are probably quite happy with TikTok? If he were to ban it or whatever it could cost him so many Gen Z votes that could then go to a third party who knows whether that third party might just take the cake. (party - cake, get it?) or at least siphon off so many votes the Democrats could have received to put Trump in the lead.
They are a day late and a dollar short. This should have been done a year ago.