Is No Labels An Insurance Policy Against A Trump-Biden Rematch?

The political organization No Labels has been around for more than a dozen years with a core message to deliver sanity in the face of two-party extremism. Former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, who earned his stripes for largely moderate positions, is co-chair of the organization poised to field a presidential alternative in 2024 something that brings “spoiler” pushback depending on political viewpoints.

Civil rights leader Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr., co-chair of No Labels, authored a commentary for The Hill that sets forth plans for an alternative voice in next year’s presidential election. Here’s an excerpt:

Now, No Labels is adding new arrows to its quiver. We’re well on our way to establishing a ballot line in all 50 states that would allow independent and bipartisan policy solutions and candidates if necessary to engage in the 2024’s general election if the two parties nominate unpopular extreme candidates.

No Labels is on this path not because we want to “spoil” the election for either, but because our national polling research has uncovered some staggering realities. First, more than 60 percent of Americans do not want a rematch of the 2020 election. Second, a growing portion of the electorate is open to supporting a moderate independent or a bipartisan unity ticket, including a particularly marked interest among African American, Hispanic, Portuguese, East Asian, and South Asian voters. Third, our polling and modeling have revealed that an independent ticket could win an outright victory in the Electoral College if the two major parties put forth two unappealing extreme alternatives.

Those who have a stake in maintaining the old duopoly claim that insurgent tickets will only serve to spoil the results. But that’s an old way of thinking. When Ross Perot ran for president, 33 percent of Americans considered themselves independent or unaffiliated. Today, that figure is over 40 percent. If establishment figures in both parties don’t want an independent ticket to run, they can simply stop pandering to the loudest and most extreme voices in their respective parties. They can stop ignoring the vast majority of the country. And if they do, No Labels will continue to focus in on the amazing work we’re doing in the House and Senate.

To put it succinctly: No Labels is not looking to “spoil” an election–but nor should anyone assume that America can keep doing the same thing and get a different result. Perpetually vilifying the other side is no substitute for solving the country’s problems. Until the parties begin serving the general electorate and giving them the sorts of choices they clearly desire, the need for bigger innovative and transformative political changes will remain on the table.



  1. At a time when there may be little objective and fact-based discussions of our national priorities, issues, and achievements, NO LABELS has attempted to create such a space with folks who have partisan labels in governance with the Republican or Democratic party, currently or historically. Such discussions have made room in legislatures for the oversight of current conditions and legislative action, perhaps, if required after discussion by all representatives. If 40% or more of the voting public sees itself as unaffiliated, independent, and/or confused, the appearance of such a middle ground where facts and truth are substantial, where folks listen to others, and evaluate opinions or stories different from their own.
    I have listened in to several commentaries recently and to the Q&A sessions subsequently. Lots can be learned , I find, that shared expertise not yet currently available from other sources on the Silicon Valley Bank failure and its threat to the systems in which it operates, has some timely value to me.
    Reading history, about events in which the notorious and the famous are handed down to us, indicate that the current statement and belief by too many in Congress about the 2020 election , 2 years and five months ago, has paralyzed them from performing the good and necessary duties expected of all of them. How have we come to that? All politics are said to be local. Perhaps the fact that only one quarter of those registered and able to vote for representation as Bridgeporters do so with any regularity? The others feel uninformed or actually are, and believe they have no duty to use their voice as a vote. Why is that? Where is the self-discipline to use what is offered as a place at the table as a civil right earned by our governance documents and the actions of past representation locally, Statewide and Federally? 2023 is an election year in Bridgeport. Where are the voices? Time will tell.


Leave a Reply