SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Prince George's County executive Angela Alsobrooks wins Democratic nomination for open U.S. Senate seat over retail wine magnate David Trone, who self-funded his campaign with over $60 million.
Despite spending over $61 million of his own money in the Democratic Primary, wealthy business owner and state Rep. David Trone came up short in Maryland's Democratic primary race for an open U.S. Senate seat on Tuesday, bested by Angela Alsobrooks, executive of Prince George's County.
Due to the self-funding of Trone, co-owner of the Total Wine & More retail chain, the primary became the most expensive in state history. Despite polls showing Trone as the clear favorite leading up to Tuesday's vote, Alsobrooks won by a full 12 points. According to the Baltimore Sun, with 100% of precincts reporting, the final tally was 54% to 41.9%.
"For anyone who has ever felt counted out, overlooked, and underestimated, I hope you know that the impossible is still possible," Alsobrooks, who had the support of most major players in the Maryland Democratic Party apparatus, told supporters during a victory speech on Tuesday night.
She vowed to defeat the Republican nominee for the seat, former two-term governor Larry Hogan, and said the Democratic Party was "united in our focus to keep the Senate blue."
Political observers took note of the unexpected margin of victory as well as the dynamic of Trone's outsized spending.
"So…. Not a single poll had Alsobrooks winning by anywhere close to double digits, elections absolutely can break late, and campaigns matter," said Colin Seeberger, senior communications director for the Center for American Progress. "Feels like there are some lessons to be learned here for, I don't know, future elections."
Fight Corporate Monopolies, a progressive advocacy group opposed to concentrations of corporate power, opposed Trone based on his fealty to monopoly interests during the primary and called him "just another billionaire bully who thinks he can buy himself a Senate seat."
The group ran one ad comparing Trone to former president Donald Trump and documenting his attacks on rival small businesses and workers:
“I will f*#%ing end you. I will execute you!” - David Trone to a delivery worker.
That’s a billionaire bully for you. pic.twitter.com/cjyuJ3GAVq
— Fight Corporate Monopolies (@fightmonopolies) May 13, 2024
Following Tuesday's defeat, Faiz Shakir with Fight Corporate Monopolies, said: "I believe [our] ad against Trone—both in timing and in message—played a key role in changing the trajectory of the Senate race."
John Nichols, veteran political reporter for The Nation, said: "Maryland Democratic voters rejected mega-rich corporate monopolist David Trone in their Senate primary and instead chose highly qualified Prince George's County Executive Angela Alsobrooks to take on Republican Larry Hogan. Good move."
"Their decision to move forward with a dark-money, Trump donor-funded third-party fantasy bid is shameful and puts millions of Americans at risk," said one opponent.
With Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden expected to face former GOP President Donald Trump in the November election, No Labels on Friday confirmed it is pushing ahead with plans for a third-party "unity" ticket that critics fear could help the Republican return to the White House.
"The consequences of the next presidential election could not be more serious or more existential, and, despite this, No Labels has put their dangerous, reckless thought experiment ahead of the rights and freedoms of millions of Americans and the future of our democracy," declared MoveOn Political Action executive director Rahna Epting. "Their decision to move forward with a dark-money, Trump donor-funded third-party fantasy bid is shameful and puts millions of Americans at risk."
"Their own founder said they are 'not in it to win it,' and several current and past supporters of No Labels have implored them to stand down. And yet, they have decided to pump millions of dollars of dark money into a run that would swing the election to Donald Trump," she warned. "Any candidates who join the No Labels presidential ticket will be complicit in making it easier for Donald Trump and MAGA extremists to win a second term in the White House."
"Any candidates who join the No Labels presidential ticket will be complicit in making it easier for Donald Trump and MAGA extremists to win a second term."
Epting's comments came after No Labels national convention chair Mike Rawlings said in a statement that "earlier today, I led a discussion with the 800 No Labels delegates from all 50 states. These citizen leaders have spent months discussing with one another the kind of leadership they want to see in the White House in 2024. These are some of the most civic-minded, thoughtful, and patriotic Americans I have ever met. They take their responsibility seriously."
"Even though we met virtually, their emotion and desire to bring this divided nation back together came right through the screen. I wasn't sure exactly where No Labels delegates would land today but they sent an unequivocal message: Keep going," he added. "They voted near unanimously to continue our 2024 project and to move immediately to identify candidates to serve on the unity presidential ticket. Every one of our delegates had their own explanation for wanting to move ahead."
No Labels is a dark money group with secret far-right donors.
It’s not trying to find the so-called “middle ground.”
It’s trying to put Donald Trump back in the White House.
Be warned. pic.twitter.com/5cJgBTFGNj https://t.co/PCluXaWhBQ
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) March 8, 2024
While Rawlings provided some examples of delegates' statements from the call, so did journalists who obtained recordings of it. The New Republic's Greg Sargent—who got the audio from Matt Bennett, co-founder of the Democratic-centrist group Third Way—reported on concerns about a No Labels candidate being a spoiler for Trump:
For instance, a No Labels leader in Idaho said that while members are all for a run, they believe the ticket should "only" be offered to a candidate who has a "reasonable path to succeed and not be a spoiler." A leader in Iowa said the candidate must be "strong" and have "the ability to win."
Many others echoed these sentiments. At one point a party member from New Hampshire said: "We are in it to win it. But we also don't want to look like liars when we're telling people that we're not going to be a spoiler."
However, participants in the call expressed support for pursuing a unity ticket, according toPolitico's Shia Kapos and Daniel Lippman, who also obtained a recording and reported that "delegates compared what No Labels was doing to Abraham Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg Address and the Founding Fathers during the American Revolution."
Third Way's Bennett said in a statement Friday: "What part of 'no' is so hard to understand? Time and again, voters, candidates, and election experts have told No Labels that a third-party presidential ticket can't win and would help Trump."
Just in case you forgot: No Labels is not what they say they are. They\u2019re a political party masquerading as a non-profit to promote the interests of their wealthy donors.\n\nDark money has no place in politics. We\u2019re helping to lead the fight to hold No Labels accountable by filing\u2026— (@)
As Andrew Perez and Nikki McCann Ramírez detailed Friday for Rolling Stone:
Over the past year, the dark-money group has been leading a reported $70 million campaign to secure ballot access nationwide for a potential 2024 "unity" ticket. No Labels has refused to disclose who's funding this effort, claiming that this is to protect its donors from "agitators and partisan operatives." Thanks to a quirk in America's broken system of campaign finance laws, the group will never be required to disclose who funded its ballot access effort—and would only have to start reporting donors if it were to formally back candidates.
So far, No Labels has secured ballot access in 16 states, and is trying to do so in 17 other states. The group has given no concrete hints as to which two divide-spanning politicians might run on its unity ticket, or to what party they might belong.
Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)—a right-winger who weighed a run for president—suggested last week that a No Labels ticket would be a spoiler, saying that "right now, if you can't get on 50 states and you're going to basically hit in some of the battleground states that could be very detrimental to what the outcome would be."
During Biden's State of the Union speech on Thursday night, Trump said that it was "interesting" that Manchin and retiring Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)—the 2012 GOP nominee—were sitting together, "and nobody wants to talk to them."
"I think they'd make a great No Labels team!" added Trump—whose only remaining primary challenger, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, dropped out earlier this week. She has also publicly opposed running with No Labels.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, an Independent who ditched the Democratic Party shortly after the 2022 election, revealed this week that she is not seeking another term in November but she is also "not running for president."
Another potential No Labels candidate, former Republican Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, recently resigned from the group's board in frustration and has decided to run for Senate. He remains opposed to both major candidates, saying Thursday that "I'm like 70% of the rest of people in America who do not want Joe Biden or Donald Trump to be president."
While No Labels searches for candidates, the group's critics continue to warn of the consequences of its potential ticket.
"There is no path to victory for No Labels. They will only ensure a second Trump presidency that serves the interests of their billionaire and corporate special interest backers," End Citizens United president Tiffany Muller said Friday. "It's why they've fought every effort to play by the rules and disclose their donors."
While the goal of giving Americans more options to choose from on the ballot may seem well-intentioned, pursuing this strategy in the 2024 general election would have dire consequences for the future of democracy in America.
In recent months, the No Labels Party has made headlines for its $70 million effort to get on the ballot in all 50 states. The self-proclaimed centrist organization has been attempting to woo donors and centrist politicians alike in its bid to give voters an Independent presidential choice in the case of a Biden-Trump 2024 presidential rematch. While this drive to give voters more choices in the next election may seem innocuous, the actual fundamentals of the 2024 contest and No Labels’ own approach to it paint a different story.
A Biden-Trump rematch would represent a high-stakes presidential contest between a sitting president and a twice-indicted, twice-impeached, insurrectionist former president with a history of spreading spectacular lies about the 2020 election. Given the latter’s double-digit lead in early polling of a crowded Republican primary, this appears to be a not-unlikely scenario. Moreover, given that third-party candidates have historically performed poorly in presidential contests, any No Labels candidate would have to significantly outperform every Independent candidate who has ever run for president and, in doing so, siphon votes from Biden, Trump, or both. In fact, No Labels’ own mock-up of a path to 270 Electoral College votes shows a heavy reliance on winning states that Biden won in 2020.
That, along with No Labels’ commitment to dropping out of the 2024 election if Donald Trump loses the Republican Party’s nomination contest (even as other contenders like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis run to the right of an already far-right Trump), casts doubt on the organization’s goal of combating extremist politics and underscores the risk of a 2024 Trump electoral victory.
We find that in addition to enabling a Trump victory, neither third-party candidate would be a viable contender, trailing either major candidate by nearly 30 points even in their best-case scenario.
All these facts help explain concerns by Democratic groups and Never-Trump Republicans that a candidate supported by No Labels would act as a nonviable spoiler candidate that would lead to the election of Trump.
In new polling on the 2024 election, Data for Progress finds that these concerns are substantiated. The poll finds that while Joe Biden is ahead of Trump in a hypothetical head-to-head contest, the introduction of a No Labels candidate siphons votes away from Biden, leading to a Trump victory. Specifically, the poll tested voter support for a realistic contender for a No Labels ticket, Larry Hogan, popular former governor of Maryland, as well as an unnamed moderate Independent candidate, a hypothetical candidate free from political baggage. We find that in addition to enabling a Trump victory, neither third-party candidate would be a viable contender, trailing either major candidate by nearly 30 points even in their best-case scenario.
First, voters were asked about their general opinion of the No Labels Party itself. Our poll finds that the No Labels Party is a largely unknown quantity among a vast majority of likely voters: Across party lines, 80% of voters have not heard enough about the organization to have an opinion. This trend is largely consistent by party, with 79% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 80% of Republicans not having heard about No Labels. In this way, we see that only a small fraction of highly engaged voters are even aware enough of them to have an opinion.
Worse still for No Labels, among those voters who do report having heard of them, few have a particularly high opinion of the organization. Across all likely voters, we find that the No Labels Party has a -4-point net unfavorable rating, with Democrats, Independents, and Republicans reporting having -3-point, -3-point, and -10-point net unfavorable ratings of the party, respectively. This alone calls into question the party’s claim that it would be able to form a strong cross-party coalition of voters under its banner. Instead, any presidential hopeful thinking to run with this party’s backing would be starting off their campaign fighting an uphill battle with public opinion.
As things look right now, a hypothetical rematch between Biden and Trump would already be a relatively close race. In a two-way race between the candidates, we find that Biden beats Trump by a +2-point margin across all likely voters. Importantly, while both candidates expectedly win the lion’s share of their own party’s voters, Biden’s victory in this head-to-head is largely driven by a +6-point advantage among Independent voters, where he beats out Trump 43% to 37%. Given the candidates’ matching leads among their own voters, successfully appealing to Independent voters of all stripes becomes an even more critical deciding factor in this hypothetical race.
This fact only grows more apparent when introducing a No Labels candidate into the mix. When asked to select between Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and Larry Hogan, we find the race narrows to a tie between the two major parties’ candidates. This outcome runs largely counter to the narrative that the No Labels Party seeks to push forward, in which a moderate centrist candidate representing “actual American voters” would form an overwhelming bipartisan coalition that would secure it the White House. Far from running away with the election, a Hogan candidacy only manages to garner 6% of the vote overall. However, we also find that 42% of these would-be Hogan voters would instead have voted for Biden in a Biden-Trump head-to-head, compared to only 14% of Hogan voters who would have supported Trump. Thus, despite providing no realistic competition for the presidency, we can already see how such a campaign would likely pull more voters away from Biden than from Trump and pose a serious risk of handing the election to right-wing extremists.
Furthermore, the poll finds that there is likely no plausible path to victory for any third-party moderate candidate. In our survey, we presented voters with a three-way election that included an unnamed moderate Independent candidate. With no additional information provided, such a candidate is free from the accountability faced by actual presidential candidates for things like their voting record or perceived partisan leanings, scrutiny of which would likely be doubly intense for candidates attempting to run as centrists. Instead, respondents were free to envision exactly the moderate candidate each would hope to vote for. In doing so, these horse-race numbers provide the most optimal, albeit unrealistic, hypothetical outcome for anyone hoping to run a No Labels-style moderate challenge, as the unnamed candidate can maximize their vote share among Independents by alienating none of them with actual policy stances that a real candidate would have to defend.
Even in such an unburdened environment, the unnamed moderate still trails the candidates from either major party by nearly 30 points, with Trump narrowly defeating Biden 42% to 41%, and the moderate candidate only receiving 13% of the vote. Despite soundly losing the election overall, we find that, similarly to a Hogan candidacy, the unnamed moderate disproportionately draws voters away from Biden, with 41% of voters supporting the unnamed moderate having previously supported Biden in the two-way race, compared to 24% who were previously in Trump’s camp.
Given these numbers, it’s evident that even under the best of conditions, a moderate third-party candidate is highly unlikely to secure the vote share needed to win the White House, further underlying the nonviability of a No Label candidacy. With no feasible path to victory, such a campaign would only serve to split Independent voters, undermine Biden’s reelection campaign, and likely spoil the election in favor of Trump.
The 2024 presidential election is already shaping up to be one of extreme consequences. The leading Republican contender for president has a record of undermining democracy and pandering to the ultra-right-wing fringes of the Republican Party. This latest Data for Progress poll underscores the danger of a No Labels candidate who could not only help get Trump re-elected but would likely fail to secure even 15% of the vote for president.
While the goal of giving Americans more options to choose from on the ballot may seem well-intentioned, pursuing this strategy in the 2024 general election would have dire consequences for the future of democracy in America. If his previous term was any indication, a second Trump administration would not be an ally to the type of policy change or values No Labels professes to champion. Furthermore, beyond hindering its own ability to enact policy change, backing such a futile presidential challenge would run counter to No Labels’ stated mission of electing non-extremist candidates. Allowing Trump to return to the White House would legitimize the former president’s anti-democratic values and those of the violent few who attempted to overturn the will of the people on January 6, 2021.