ADVERTISEMENT

Democrats meet with anti-Trump conservatives to fight No Labels 2024 bid

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
78,236
60,199
113
Top Democratic strategists, including current advisers to President Biden and former U.S. senators, met last week with former Republicans who oppose Donald Trump at the offices of a downtown D.C. think tank.

Their mission: to figure out how to best subvert a potential third-party presidential bid by the group No Labels, an effort they all agreed risked undermining Biden’s reelection campaign and reelecting former president Donald Trump to the White House.



The broad show of force at the off-the-record gathering — with about 40 people in the room and others appearing on Zoom on the anniversary of D-Day — was just the latest sign of a growing concern in some political circles about the No Labels effort to get ballot access to challenge the major-party candidates next year.

Attendees included former White House chief of staff Ron Klain, Democratic National Committee senior adviser Cedric L. Richmond and Stephanie Cutter, a former campaign adviser to Barack Obama who has worked with the Biden team. They were joined by former senators Doug Jones (D-Ala.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), along with representatives of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, former Weekly Standard publisher Bill Kristol and Lucy Caldwell, a former Republican consultant who now advises the independent Forward Party, according to people present at the event, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the event was private.


“I see a group, under a catchy slogan that is misleading at best, saying that they have the country’s best interest at heart when the exercise will do nothing but elect Donald Trump,” said Richmond, who like Klain and Caldwell told The Washington Post that they attended in their personal capacities. “I am encouraged that a lot of people share the concern that this effort is dangerous.”
No Labels, a nonprofit group that does not disclose its donors, has been working to qualify a new party of the same name for state ballots in 2024 that could be used by an independent bipartisan presidential ticket in case the major parties nominate “unacceptable” candidates. The group’s leaders have said they view Trump as unacceptable, while telling others that they would not move forward if Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wins the GOP nomination.

The group has declined to say definitively that it views Biden as unacceptable, though many Democratic strategists fear the effort will move forward if Biden and Trump are the nominees.


The Arizona Democratic Party has sued to kick No Labels off the ballot in that state, alleging that its application was deficient. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) recently sent letters to more than 6,000 people who had enrolled in the No Labels party in her state, notifying them of concerns that they may have been tricked into signing what they thought was a petition when in fact they were changing their party registration.
No Labels fired back at Bellows on Tuesday with a letter asking for the evidence that prompted her to target the voters individually who had signed documents. A No Labels attorney from Marcus Clegg, a firm based in Portland, Maine, alleged that Bellows’s actions potentially “had a chilling effect” on voters. In a clear suggestion of potential litigation, the letter cited Supreme Court precedent that says it is illegal to discriminate against “new or small political parties.”

Bellows responded to the letter in a statement to The Post on Tuesday.


“Ensuring that Maine voters have the information they need to exercise their First Amendment rights to associate with the party of their choice (or no party) is my main concern,” Bellows said. “The response we’ve seen from voters who received our letter has been overwhelmingly that of gratitude for the information provided.”
Benjamin Chavis Jr., a former executive director of the NAACP who now works with No Labels, said the people working to stop the group misunderstand its intentions and are undermining the electoral process. No Labels leaders have said they will decide in 2024 whether to move forward with a presidential campaign based on whether there is a clear path to victory with named candidates.

“I’ve spent my entire life in the Democratic Party, championing civil and voting rights and I’ve always believed our democracy is stronger when there are more voices and choices in our political process. That’s why I was so disturbed to hear that a group of my friends and leaders in the Democratic Party recently convened to try to undermine No Labels’ 2024 presidential insurance project,” Chavis said in a statement. “No Labels will not spoil this election for Trump. What we will do is continue working resolutely to give millions of Americans a choice they so clearly want.”


Matt Bennett, the executive vice president for Third Way, which hosted the event, declined to comment, citing the confidentiality of the proceedings. Klain is a former Third Way board member.
People who attended the June 6 meeting described presentations from recent polling and focus groups that suggested a No Labels campaign would draw more support from Biden than Trump in a hypothetical three-way matchup. They said attendees discussed efforts to put pressure on No Labels donors and to educate potential No Labels presidential candidates about the dangers of the effort resulting in Trump’s election.

They also spoke about raising more money to counter the effort and increasing outreach to members of Congress who are affiliated with the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, which was founded with the help of No Labels, attendees said.


ADVERTISING

Among those present or connected by Zoom was Obama 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina, former Howard Dean 2004 campaign manager Joe Trippi, Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright, Investing in U.S. co-founder Dmitri Mehlhorn and Lincoln Project co-founder Reed Galen, who previously worked as a Republican strategist, according to people present. Hilltop Public Solutions partner Patrick Dillon, a former Obama White House deputy political director who is married to White House deputy chief of staff Jen O’Malley Dillon, also attended, the people said.
“I thought it was a pretty mixed group,” said one participant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the event. “It was not like some progressive, Democratic caucus meeting.”
 
Suppose it's Biden vs Trump again, and the No Labels folks decide to go forward with their own ticket. Do we have any clue what sort of candidates they might put forward?

Do they have any kind of platform?

Do they stand for anything at all?

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of more parties. Or, to be more precise, I like the idea that the 2 main parties should have less of a stranglehold on our democracy. But it's hard for me to like the No Labels folks. Then again, I feel pretty ignorant about them.

Can someone explain this in a way that makes the No Labels effort seem like a good thing?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ree4
Our country is 4 parties;

1) Bernie-AOC Left
2) Biden - Center Left
3) Trump Right (Its not really Right by the traditional political spectrum, not based on economics)
4) Old Republicans/Traditional Conservatives.

2&4 might be able to govern by coalition in a European style system.

Bernie would be pretty close to a centrist in Europe. I'm not saying Europe is too far left, the US is just conservative and very capitalist. The other groups would be varying degrees of far right parties over there.
 
Best thing that could happen is all the Dems register as republicans and vote for Christie in the primary or caucus
 
Suppose it's Biden vs Trump again, and the No Labels folks decide to go forward with their own ticket. Do we have any clue what sort of candidates they might put forward?

Do they have any kind of platform?

Do they stand for anything at all?

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of more parties. Or, to be more precise, I like the idea that the 2 main parties should have less of a stranglehold on our democracy. But it's hard for me to like the No Labels folks. Then again, I feel pretty ignorant about them.

Can someone explain this in a way that makes the No Labels efort seem like a good thing?



 
Last edited:
I would need to know who the No Labels candidate is before I could judge whether this would be good or bad. If a 3rd party will ever seriously challenge this would be the year if Trump and Biden are again the nominees.

I did find it funny they had an "off the record" gathering but then released the attendees and what was discussed.
 
Our country is 4 parties;

1) Bernie-AOC Left
2) Biden - Center Left
3) Trump Right (Its not really Right by the traditional political spectrum, not based on economics)
4) Old Republicans/Traditional Conservatives.

2&4 might be able to govern by coalition in a European style system.
Three of those (2-4) are corporate-dominated "parties." They currently run things.

They vary mainly on which corporations and rich folks should enjoy more of the spoils. Not on whether the average citizens or the nation should come first. None of them believe that.

Your "2) Biden - Center Left" is willing to try to get some benefits for people who aren't oligarchs and plutocrats, and is even willing to try to do worthwhile things like address climate change or racism. But they won't work to hard for any of that. They're somewhat better than 3 and 4, but not enough.

We already have pretty much what you seem to want, with 2 & 4 working for their donors. That coalition gave us 20 years of war this century, failed to address climate change, and squandered a balanced budget on tax cuts for the rich. Sure, the Trump element is sometimes a monkey wrench in the works, but the idea that reverting to the pre-Trump division of spoils between traditional Ds and Rs will fix things strikes me as wishful thinking.
 
Bernie would be pretty close to a centrist in Europe. I'm not saying Europe is too far left, the US is just conservative and very capitalist. The other groups would be varying degrees of far right parties over there.
And that's the view most reasonable people outside our echo chamber are likely to take. We rarely debate left and right. We normally debate right and further right.
 
I would need to know who the No Labels candidate is before I could judge whether this would be good or bad. If a 3rd party will ever seriously challenge this would be the year if Trump and Biden are again the nominees.

I did find it funny they had an "off the record" gathering but then released the attendees and what was discussed.
Hard to tell if they are more pro-America or anti-Trump. More anti-Trump is what my gut says.
 
Thanks.

"The third effort is to find a policy agenda that appeals to unity voters. The group has come up with a series of both/and positions on major issues: comprehensive immigration reform with stronger borders and a path to citizenship for DACA immigrants, American energy self-sufficiency while transitioning to cleaner sources, no guns for anyone under 21 and universal background checks, moderate abortion policies with abortion legal until about 15 weeks."
 
This one from the No Labels site is more problematic. Consider these statements of belief. Mostly pablum, and what isn't pablum tends to be right-leaning drivel.

Our Beliefs​

We care about this country more than the demands of any political party.

Political leaders need to listen more to the majority of Americans and less to extremists on the far left and right.

We are grateful to live in a country where we can openly disagree with other people.

America isn’t perfect, but we love this country and would not want to live any place else.

We can still love and respect people who do not share our political opinions.

We support, and are grateful for, the U.S. military
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
I'm not opposed to that strategy, but why Christie?
I also don't get the love for Christie. When he was governor, he used his power in a-holish, vindictive ways. Famous examples were closing a bridge out of spite and taking his family to a public beach that was closed to the public. By no means is that close to anything Trump has done, but isn't there someone better to run as the "at least this guy has a moral compass" GOP candidate?
 
Three of those (2-4) are corporate-dominated "parties." They currently run things.

They vary mainly on which corporations and rich folks should enjoy more of the spoils. Not on whether the average citizens or the nation should come first. None of them believe that.

Your "2) Biden - Center Left" is willing to try to get some benefits for people who aren't oligarchs and plutocrats, and is even willing to try to do worthwhile things like address climate change or racism. But they won't work to hard for any of that. They're somewhat better than 3 and 4, but not enough.

We already have pretty much what you seem to want, with 2 & 4 working for their donors. That coalition gave us 20 years of war this century, failed to address climate change, and squandered a balanced budget on tax cuts for the rich. Sure, the Trump element is sometimes a monkey wrench in the works, but the idea that reverting to the pre-Trump division of spoils between traditional Ds and Rs will fix things strikes me as wishful thinking.

I am not sure what you would call 3. I would not say corporate though. What corporation at this point besides My Pillow is hooking itself to the Trump train?

As for the rest, its caused by the terrible Citizen's United decision. I am in category 2, and I play in the real world to get things done, not self crucify myself on policy purity. I am happy to get money out. I want money out. I am in position that is very restricted in taking gifts. As it should be. I agree with AOC on people in Congress owning stock, etc. That said, the left has to play this game and get corporate support where it can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mthawkeyes
People are allowed to change their minds
He knew Trump was trash at the beginning, then jumped on board because it was politically expedient. There's nothing Trump did in-between that would make someone change their mind and think, "Oh, I guess this guy DOES possess the ability to act in a way that isn't entirely self-serving."
 
He knew Trump was trash at the beginning, then jumped on board because it was politically expedient. There's nothing Trump did in-between that would make someone change their mind and think, "Oh, I guess this guy DOES possess the ability to act in a way that isn't entirely self-serving."
Disagree, I don’t think the depth of his narcissistic traitorous personality was shown until the final year
 
I also don't get the love for Christie. When he was governor, he used his power in a-holish, vindictive ways. Famous examples were closing a bridge out of spite and taking his family to a public beach that was closed to the public. By no means is that close to anything Trump has done, but isn't there someone better to run as the "at least this guy has a moral compass" GOP candidate?
Every one is a hypocrite…look at newsom during covid
 
  • Like
Reactions: mthawkeyes
Our country is 4 parties;

1) Bernie-AOC Left
2) Biden - Center Left
3) Trump Right (Its not really Right by the traditional political spectrum, not based on economics)
4) Old Republicans/Traditional Conservatives.

2&4 might be able to govern by coalition in a European style system.
1 and 2 could, and actually do govern. Although I will allow that circumstances might be different in a Parlimentary system however both the far left and the center left have found ways to agree to a single policy to push for.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CoachJaxKnows
Disagree, I don’t think the depth of his narcissistic traitorous personality was shown until the final year
Meh. Christie identified how bad Trump was at the beginning, as did many other Republicans. Trump didn't do anything after that to assuage those doubts besides becoming super popular with his MAGA base. Christie is better than the majority of the GOP that continues to refuse every opportunity to get off the Trump train, but that's a really low bar. Your point about the hypocrisy of many of our politicians is well taken.
 
Best thing that could happen is all the Dems register as republicans and vote for Christie in the primary or caucus
Switching parties can be problematic in some states according to their rules, and the timing of the primaries.
What would be mischievous, and something I have considered is donating to Christie's campaign in order to guarantee that he makes the debate stage in August. He and Hutchinson are the only two willing to stand up to challenge Trump directly at this point. The others are laying at his feet.
 
Read up and learn what this bullshit is



That was insighful! Mark Penn really is a giant douche. Wasn't he the primary beneficiary of Obama's "help retire Hillary's campaign debt" appeal?

I'm guessing few people had even heard of "No Labels" prior to all of this commotion. The Dem establishment should be careful here, all of this hand-wringing could lead to the "Streisand Effect".
 
Thanks.

"The third effort is to find a policy agenda that appeals to unity voters. The group has come up with a series of both/and positions on major issues: comprehensive immigration reform with stronger borders and a path to citizenship for DACA immigrants, American energy self-sufficiency while transitioning to cleaner sources, no guns for anyone under 21 and universal background checks, moderate abortion policies with abortion legal until about 15 weeks."
I have to admit that brief positional summary has a lot of appeal to it and would likely capture a lot of left leaning centrist voters like myself.

Edit: Until I read the rest of the thread and realized that NL is just a scam to split the moderate vote in order to get Trump or DeSantis into the WH. Eff that.
 
Last edited:
You have got to be joking. A super great Christian like Pence knew exactly what Trump was. We all did. Trump wasn’t a new name to the American populace. Good God with this stuff.
Policy over personality. I bought it
 
You have got to be joking. A super great Christian like Pence knew exactly what Trump was. We all did. Trump wasn’t a new name to the American populace. Good God with this stuff.
Was he worse than I thought? For sure. But we knew he wasn't fit for the job.

It's shocking how many people were - and still are - so easily duped by this proven sociopath.

Or is it that they, too, are sociopaths - and are drawn to Trump's ability to express it without punishment?

I don't even see how someone could vote for him once. But what excuse is there for those who voted for him twice, and will again if they get the chance?

Imagine there's a Political Rapture and all those who supported Trump previously and would again were suddenly transported to Wingnut Heaven.

 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT