The quest by No Labels was premised in part on the idea that many Americans are dissatisfied with having to choose between President Biden and former president Donald Trump, the two oldest candidates ever to run for president and, combined, the least popular. In that environment, some thought there was an opening for an independent alternative, and some polls lent credence to the idea.
The effort, however, was doomed almost from the start by perceptions that a No Labels ticket would become a spoiler, with no chance of winning the election and every chance of helping to reelect Trump. Leaders of the organization vowed that this was not their goal. To the contrary, they said they wanted to do nothing to help the former president. Still, perceptions stuck, and resistance mounted.
The group explored candidacies with politicians from both parties, among them Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), one of the country’s leading voices on behalf of bipartisanship who has often quarreled with members of his party; former two-term Maryland governor Larry Hogan, a Republican who has said he will not vote for Trump and is now running for the Senate; and former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, a one-time Trump supporter who failed in his effort to bring down Trump in the Republican primaries.
All three decided to pass up the opportunity to mount a third-party challenge, presumably concluding there was no viable path to victory. They were not the first in recent years to come to that conclusion. Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg, who has been a Democrat, a Republican and an independent over his political career, did extensive research on prospects for a third-party run. He determined he couldn’t win that way. In 2020, he ran in the Democratic primaries, losing that bid to Biden.
The concept of a moderate middle of the electorate has long existed. Some politicians have called it a “sensible center” or a “radical middle,” as if it were some kind of sleeping giant within the electorate just waiting to be awakened by the right idea or a charismatic leader.
Ross Perot seemed to fit that when he ran in 1992. His quirky personality, that of a non-politician and outsider, combined with a focus on budget deficits and anti-free trade agreements (remember his “giant sucking sound” description of trade with Mexico?) proved compelling to many voters. At one point he led the polls. In the end, he captured 19 percent of the national vote — and more than 25 percent in eight states. But he did not capture a single state.
Later, he sought to turn that campaign into a more sustaining movement. He ran again in 1996, but by then, his following had fractured, its ideological cohesion never having been that strong. He won just 8 percent of the vote nationally and did not win more than 15 percent in any state.
Since then, American politics has become more and more polarized and voting patterns have become more and more tribal. Whatever people call themselves ideologically, party allegiance has generally dictated voting behavior.
One example of that is the now almost rigid pattern of states backing presidential nominees and Senate candidates of the same party, after years of split-ticket voting in those races. Red states have become redder, blue states have become bluer, leading to recent elections in which just six or seven states are competitive presidentially.
American voters are not just polarized — they have grown further apart ideologically. In 1994, according to Gallup surveys, 25 percent of Democrats identified themselves as liberal, equal to the percentage who…
This article was originally published by a www.washingtonpost.com . Read the Original article here. .
