Date & Time: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 at 6:00 PM | Doors open at 5:30 PM
Where: Johns Hopkins Campus - Shriver Hall (Shriver Hall, 3400 N Charles St Ste 14, Baltimore, MD 21218)
Please note, the debater lineup has been updated as of April 29th.
Help us bring debate to communities and classrooms across the nation.
DonateThe centrist group No Labels is planning to host a bipartisan nominating convention in 2024. This is leading some people to speculate that they may promote a third-party candidate that better reflects the perspective of middle-of-the-line voters who don’t favor President Biden’s re-election bid or Donald Trump receiving the Republican nomination. Those who say it will help Trump argue the group doesn’t have enough influence to make lasting tangible change and worry that promoting a third-party unity ticket will give an unpopular candidate like Trump a lower threshold for votes that would’ve gone to Biden. Those who disagree say voters who are discontented with both major parties but particularly opposed to Trump, might turn out in support of the third-party candidate, indirectly reducing Trump’s chances.
With this context, we debate the question: “How Would A No Labels Presidential Candidate Change the Outcome in 2024?” This debate was a virtual event on Monday, October 30th for subscribers to join before the episode is released publicly.
John Donvan
This is Open to Debate. I’m John Donvan. America elects a president in 2024, and the strong likelihood seems to be that it’s gonna be a rematch, Joe Biden versus Donald Trump. A prospect that also seems to have a lot of voters saying, “Oh, please not that again.” This is captured in the polling. A CBS poll recently had 64% of voters saying that another Trump versus Biden election would be a sign that our political system is broken. Into this discontent steps a group that is the subject of today’s debate. No Labels is a nonprofit founded 13 years ago to encourage elected officials from opposing parties to work together. A lot of its effort has centered on Congress, but now No Labels is preparing to go presidential in a big way, laying the groundwork to get a third presidential ticket up and running in order, they say, to give voters a choice between the two main parties, which they portray as captured by extremists.
They have gained access to the ballot in 11 states so far, and they have raised close to $70 million. So that is certainly a start worth taking seriously. Also, worth taking seriously, is the question, could a No Labels ticket even win? Another more controversial question is, should No Labels even be trying? “Absolutely not,” is the answer from the Democratic Party and groups that align with them. These vociferous objections, the reason behind these objections and No Labels pushback to those objections are what we’re gonna get to into this debate. Here’s our question. How would a No Labels presidential candidate change the outcome in 2024?
So let’s meet our debaters. Here to answer those questions, we have, first, Ryan Clancy. Ryan is the Chief Strategist at No Labels, so presumably he has some insight on this question and definitely believes this is all a good idea. Ryan, welcome to Open to Debate. It’s great to have you.
And here to push back on the points that Ryan will be making, we have Rahna Epting. Rahna is the executive Director of MoveOn, a public policy organization and progressive grassroots campaign platform. Rahna, thanks so much for joining us at Open to Debate.
So before we get started, I just wanna get a sense of what motivates both of you even to participate in this debate in the sense what are the stakes for you, given where you are in, in, in, in your two movements. So Ryan, I’ll start with you. Just really, very, very bli- briefly, uh, why is this a debate for you worth having?
Sure. I mean, look, I, I came up in democratic politics. I, I worked in the Obama adm- administration, but this is not a party moment for me. Uh, this is a country moment. Uh, I just think, you know, the Americans who built this country and fought for it didn’t sacrifice so much so we could just destroy one another. And that’s what we’re doing. And, uh, I think we need to do better and, and that’s why I’m part of No Labels.
Well, we are nearly one year from the 2024 election, and many Americans are starting to tune in. Uh, so I think it’s important for us to make clear the ramifications of what a third party like No Labels means, and why it’s so important to prioritize defeating Donald Trump in 2024, protecting abortion access, protecting democracy against extremists, and so many other reasons. The stakes are incredibly high. And that’s so important and that’s why I’m here pushing back on No Labels today.
Thanks very much, Rahna, for that. And thanks to both of you. And now we’re gonna move on to our opening statements. That’s our first round. And in our first round, each of you gets up to four minutes to tell us why you’re taking the positions you’re taking. Uh, we’re gonna start with you, Ryan. You have four minutes to tell us how a No Labels presidential candidate would change the outcome in 2024 and why you think the effort might well be worth trying.
Thank you, John. Look, uh, let’s start with what you said at the top, which is you mentioned how some two-thirds of voters don’t wanna rematch of the 2020 election. I mean, they have different reasons for not wanting Biden or Trump to run, but most Americans badly want better choices. And the, unfortunately, the position of MoveOn and much of our political establishment is you can’t have those choices. Um, in fact, just this summer, uh, MoveOn’s communications director said, “The best way to beat Trump is to prevent voters from being distracted by other choices.” And I just think that statement is so wrong. It’s so undemocratic, it’s so contemptuous of American voters because it suggests that we can’t be trusted to think for ours- ourselves. It, it suggests the only way to save our democracy is to have less of it. And I don’t agree, and most Americans don’t either.
You don’t beat Donald Trump by denying anyone their constitutional right to get on a voting ballot. The way you beat Trump, the way you’re supposed to beat anyone in our democracy is you put forward the best candidates with the best ideas. And No Labels have spent much of the last two years trying to create the opening for a candidate like that to emerge in, in 2024. We’ve had 800,000 voters who’ve already signed petitions or registrations to get No Labels on the ballot. Uh, we’re actually on the ballot in 12 states already on the way to 50 next year. And we’re headed toward a convention in Dallas in March. And if the conditions look like they do today, we expect to nominate a Unity presidential ticket that can win the White House. Yeah, like when No Labels started this effort, we knew we’d get pushback, um, from the, um, the establishment because incumbents in, in business and politics, they don’t, they don’t like competition.
And that’s exactly what happening, uh, right, is what is happening right now. MoveOn is part of a well-funded, very coordinated effort to keep No Labels off the ballot in 2024. They are attacking us in the media. They’re filing lawsuits. Um, MoveOn even sent a letter to every single Secretary of State in America calling on them to investigate No Labels. And we just think this is blatantly undemocratic. It violates most everything MoveOn claims to stand for, but they justify it by making two claims. They say, number one, that an independent can’t win. And they say, number two, that it can only spoil the election in favor of Trump. We don’t agree with that. And most importantly, voters don’t either. Uh, two years of No Labels polling. S- 60,000 registered voters we’ve talked to tells the same story, which is that an independent presidential candidate has a chance to win the support of about three in five American voters.
Now, I, I know that sounds unbelievable. I know independent presidential candidates have historically had a really steep climb in America, but this time is different. Americans have, have rarely, if ever, been this pessimistic about the future of our country or had less confidence that our current leaders can fix our problems. And the Democratic and Republican parties are set to sell Americans a product they don’t wanna buy in 2020- 24, with two candidates who are a combined 160 years old, one of whom may be a convicted felon. And in fact, today No Labels is gonna be releasing a memo to show just how weak the support base is for both Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Donald Trump does have a base of hardcore voters, um, the, the, the folks who he infamously said would support him even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue. But this base is way smaller than people think.
Uh, and many assume, in fact, we think it’s just about 18% or so of the overall American electorate. That should be great news for President Biden except for the fact that all the data we’re seeing today is that the biggest risk, risk factor for another Trump presidency may be President Biden’s candidacy. There’s not a single incumbent president whose one reelection with under 40% approval rating. President Biden’s current approval rating is 37. He’s losing to Donald Trump in national polls in five out of seven swing states. And this weekend, President Biden’s own advisors said things have never been worse politically for him since he’s been in office.
Now, look, maybe things will change in a couple of months. Maybe both parties can offer Americans a choice they feel good about or maybe they won’t. Um, and that’s why No Labels is here. If, if our two major parties are unable or unwilling to offer Americans a compelling and unifying presidential candidate, we’ll be here to do it. And, uh, and, and that’s why we’re here.
Thank you very much, Ryan. Now, Rahna Epting, it is your turn. You have pushback on all or most of this. And now here is your chance to tell us why you have four minutes.
Thank you, John, and to the Open to Debate team for having us here today. Um, so I’m the executive director of MoveOn. We are the largest member-driven, multi-issue, political campaigning organization in the country. And we’ve built a community of millions of people in every state and every congressional district. And day in and day out, our members are passionately sharing how concerned they are that Donald Trump could be back in the White House. Feels like we say this in every election, but the stakes could truly not be higher. Quite literally, our democracy, our fundamental freedoms and so much more are on the ballot in 2024. We have heard already, but I suspect we are going to hear a lot today about extremism. This is what No Labels asserts their third party effort is seeking to defeat. And I agree that extremism in politics is detrimental to our democracy.
But here is where we disagree. I believe Donald Trump is the most extreme and dangerous president we have ever had. And if given a second term, he would only be more extreme and dangerous. He has already told the world that’s his intention. And our question is, should it in organization dedicated to fighting extremism be laser focused on stopping Donald Trump? Every No Labels official will tell you that electing Trump is not their intent. But what I’m here today to say is regardless of whether that, whether or not that is true, regardless of that, the impact of their actions will be to get Donald Trump in the White House.
There’s a long list of reasons why I argue this effort is reckless. But I’ll just start with two. First, it’s undisputed that No Labels has no math and no path to win in 2024 in our current election system. In order to actually win the presidency, they would need to do what no third party has ever come close to accomplishing, win 270 electoral votes. Let me be clear, that is not going to happen. Instead, the only pathway they have is not the pathway to winning the presidency, but it’s the pathway to eating at Joe Biden’s vote share and swaying the election to Trump and MAGA extremists. It is highly irresponsible at this particular moment of great consequence for the future of our democracy.
And second, by electing Trump, they will clear the way for four more years of extremist Republican policies, not bipartisan, not moderate, but extremist policies that will seek to turn back the clock in all the progress we have made over a generation. And I wanna say one more thing ’cause I think it’s important to tens of millions of people out there, the No Labels party agenda does… is s- fails to address abortion adequately. One of the most animating and existential issues for the majority of people across this country. And the candidates they seem to be courting tells you everything you need to know.
Let me just give you an example. John Huntsman. Huntsman is on the record for supporting a total abortion ban. You can’t have a Unity ticket with an abortion extremist on the ticket. Since they have said they will likely nominate Republican at the top of their ticket, everyone should be concerned. No person in this country should assume that No Labels won’t nominate a candidate that will advance abortion bans. Simply put, this effort is not giving voters another choice. This isn’t about choice. They’re giving Donald Trump another chance to destroy our democracy. So I’m looking forward to having this conversation with Ryan and talking to you all about how high the stakes are in 24 and how we cannot afford four years of MAGA extremism.
John Donvan
Thank you, Rahna. And thanks to both of you as we now know where you stand and why. We’re gonna take a quick break and when we come back, we will get to the discussion portion of our program. Again, our question is, how would a No Labels presidential candidate change the outcome in 2024? I’m John Donvan. We’ll be right back with more Open to Debate.
Welcome back to Open to Debate. I’m John Donvan. We’re taking on this question, how would a No Labels presidential candidate change the outcome in 2024? We have heard opening statements from Ryan Clancy and Rahna Epting. We have heard Ryan say that the main purpose of, uh, the consideration that No Labels is giving to running a presidential ticket in 2024 is to provide voters who feel they have no choice between the two major parties to give them a choice. He’s arguing that that is more democracy, not less democracy.
He’s also making the argument that the public is ready to support an independent candidate. Even though such efforts have failed in the past, he is arguing that this time is different. That the two parties are selling voters, uh, a product that they don’t want to buy. There is no enthusiasm for either candidate on the part of No Labels, which brings us over to Rahna Epting, his… po- who’s pushing back, whose main focus is on the goal of making sure Donald Trump is not reelected. She also says that regardless of what, uh, No Labels may say its intentions are, which, uh, have been clearly stated not to get Trump elected, regardless of that, the outcome will be votes taken away from Joe Biden, hence giving the, uh, giving the, uh, the election to Donald Trump.
But she also says in realistic terms, that No Labels really has no serious path to win, cannot get to the 270 votes. And so the last thing she mentions is that, uh, she wants to discuss the implications of the fact that No Labels has indicated that they would be nominating a Republican, not a Democrat to put on their ticket. So I wanna get into discussion on all of these things, but I wanna take to you first, Ryan, that very first point. There’s a little bit of, a little bit of, uh, I think for the audience who isn’t following this and maybe even those who are, uh, a little bit of difficulty in picturing what happens in April when you nominate somebody, and then what-
… happens after that. So, uh, is it true that you would be, that No Labels is talking about re- nominating a Republican?
So we’re still working through our process for how we’re gonna put up a ticket. We’ll be out with the details, um, later this year. Um, I think one of the, a couple of the things Rahna said, um, as a starting point, she… that she claims are indisputable.
There could, there, there could be. Yeah. Um, so we’ve, we’ve put out some, we’ve, we, we’ve put out some polling about the different impacts that a Democrat or Republican could have to top their ticket, but we’ll be out with details later in November.
Well, yeah. Rahna’s point is, she says it is indisputable that an in- an independent can’t win and that would only spoil in favor of Trump. And, and we just don’t agree with that. We understand all the reasons why historically it’s been very different, uh, difficult for an independent to get traction. But every poll we’ve done over the course of the last two years shows three and five voters being at least open to voting for a moderate independent. And now look, that’s the ceiling. A ticket like that is never getting that mu- many votes, but it doesn’t need that many or even close to it. Uh, to win a plurality in the states and to get the electoral votes. And the kind of independent you choose will ultimately determine how it impacts the major party nominees.
And here’s a great example. With Bobby Kennedy and Cornell West in the mix, Cornell West was pulling more from Biden. Bobby Kennedy was pulling more from Trump. The takeaway from that is what kind of independent you put up determines where they pull the votes from. And Rahna and a lot of the folks who are against us just claim over and over again with no evidence that it’s like a cosmic law of the universe that an independent could only hurt Biden. That’s not true.
So Ryan is saying, um, the claim that the votes would likely come more from Joe Biden than from Donald Trump is not supported by the evidence or, or even by his expectations or predictions. Essentially, that votes could come from both sides. Uh, who knows what the proportions might be, but I just want you to take that on. The, the inevitability, you’re saying that they would come from Joe Biden and help Trump is what he’s challenging?
Well, first of all, I’ll say it’s very hard to keep track of what No Labels is intending to do. We have heard reports they intend to nominate a Republican at the top of the ticket. But then today I’m hearing Ryan say maybe, maybe not. We’ve also heard reports about them intending to nominate someone at their convention, but they’re still putting the process together. It seems like a thought experiment right now, the three fifth of voters that are open to voting for a third party, that’s interesting. When you poll with a f- unicorn candidate, they haven’t named someone, you know, three fifth of voters are open to having dessert, but when your name [inaudible
Even No Labels own reports that they’ve put out there show that there is no path to the 270 electoral votes. Any candidate will need to win a presidential election in our current election system. And that is… and they have the burden of proof to prove that. And right now we have seen nothing of the sort that says they can defy American history and they can defy the current constraints of our election system in order to elect a third party.
So Ryan, uh, you, you have made the case that this time is different, that despite the history that Rahna is talking about, that you do see a path. But o- other than saying it’s different this time because of the public’s, uh, sensibilities and expectations and frustrations, where is your logic for making the case, which I think you’re gonna have to make, that you can get to 270 electoral votes.
Because in any given state, you need a plurality of votes to get over the top. So, um, every state other than Maine and Nebraska is winner take all. So meaning you get one more vote than the other, uh, presidential nominees in a given state. You get all the electoral votes that come with it. And we’ve… when we’ve done our polling and our modeling, we see a path to victory in at least 25 states. Now, we understand that for people to hear that, that seems impossible given anything that we’ve seen historically. But the thing that I just think nobody in Washington is waking up to is how disgusted the Americans are with their choices. And I don’t, I don’t understand how we can claim to be the greatest democracy in the world when for two years the public says, “We do not want what you’re gonna sell us.” And the collective response of basically the Democratic and Republican Party is, “Too bad, that, that’s what you’re gonna buy.” And so I don’t think it should surprise anybody that there’s a unprecedented appetite for this.
Rahna, I, I wanna take a question to you. If, if Ryan’s right, if there were a path to victory, and, and I know you’re saying there isn’t, but I just wanna do this as a thought experiment to see where the rubber meets the road for you. I- if, if No Labels succeeded in putting together a Unity ticket Republican and Democrat, and they succeeded in defeating, uh, in, in getting to 270 votes, hence defeating Joe Biden and Donald Trump, uh, what would be so bad about that? If they, if they, if their dreams as stated come true?
Right. So I guess presuming there was a pathway to win for a third party in our current election system, I think we’d be having more of a discussion around the merits and the candidates that they’re putting up. And I would specifically really wanna hone in on the issue of abortion, which currently their common sense agenda fails to address adequately. And really when you read it, it just says this, this is hard, people need to act better. But really this is one of the most animating issues of my lifetime and millions of women in this country.
Rahna, this is what we said, because let’s talk about extremism. You are right to say that anybody who’s out there advocating for total abortion bans, that is extreme in the view of the American public. But so too is the position advocated by the far left of the party. The… where the common sense majority of America sits is they want it to be legal, but they want limits. And right now, neither base of the party will allow a conversation like that on this issue or every kinda other issue, be it immigration or energy and climate or anything else.
I, I think there should be a conversation about it. But I also think for 50 years, the woman’s right to make decisions over her own body were protected by the Supreme Court. And that is very concerning to millions of voters in this country. And if you’re going to be nominating a Republican to the ticket that really causes great concern and anxiety to the voters across this country, and it, it sounds like there’s so much uncertainty clouding who it’s gonna be. And depending on when you name a candidate who that is, that common sense agenda is gonna change ’cause that is a human being who has opinions for themselves as well.
Ryan, I wanna, I wanna come in with, um, for you to do a little bit of the same exercise. Say you did win. So you come into office with a Unity ticket, a, a Democrat and a Republican are sh- are somehow on, on the ticket together. One is president, one is Vice president, they’re sworn in on January 20th. I wanna know, how does that team govern on January 21st, 2025? They have no party, no organizing, no po- no, no policy predictability really, because you, your, your thing is, let’s, let’s talk about it. No party discipline to enforce. How do they get anything done with Congress? What happens?
So, uh, yeah, this is, this is the question of like, uh, you know, Robert Redford at the end of the candidate
laughs), what do we, what do we do now? So we’re not a third party. That was part of the reason we thought of this as a Unity ticket from the beginning is we want voters to basically have the permission structure to say, “Look, I’m a Democrat, I’m a Republican. I’m gonna vote for Democrats and Republicans for House or Senate, but I want a different choice to top the ticket.” And so if this ticket wins and they get in, you’re gonna have identifiable Democrats, Republicans on that ticket.
And don’t forget everything that No Labels has done in the decade prior. We’ve spent a decade trying to build a bipartisan coalition in the House, in the Senate, the Bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, the Senator. So the idea is when legislation comes to the floor, that that would be the locus of activity, that we’d have a president who would govern from the Center out instead of govern based on, you know, what the Freedom Caucus wants to do or the Progressive Caucus.
You’re still gonna have a Republican Party beholden to a very extreme MAGA base. They, the Republican Party in the United States, also representatives just elected one of the most extremist members of their caucus, Mike Johnson, to be Speaker of the House. This is a noted Christian nationalist, someone who attacks LGBTQ people who, who is for abortion bans. And, you know, and the Problem Solvers Caucus are part of the, part of the, um, House of Representatives. And we didn’t see them take very much strategic action to prevent the Republican Party from electing a very extremist at the top to cont- to run the party. So let’s say they win in November, but you’re still gonna have to deal with a challenging dynamic within the Republican and the Democratic Party, and then you will have no ability to navigate those because you’ll have no credibility with either.
You know, one of the things I keep hearing over and over when we talk about extremism and Rahna seems to talk about extremism as if it is a one-sided phenomenon, that the, to the extent there is extremism and intolerance in America, it exists with Trump, it exists with his MAGA base, if that’s what you wanna call it. I really think there’s a huge blind spot that exists as if we imagine extremism only exists on one side. Just look at the polling and you ask Americans, who… which party do you think it’s more extreme? And I know in the Acela Corridor where I live, it’s a, it’s an assumption that of course it’s Trump. Of course it’s MAGA. Look at what the public thinks. They see equal amounts of extremism on the left.
Rahna, what about that? You know, Ryan making the point that to many Americans, the Democratic left is, is really extreme, really scary, really dangerous, and they’re f- and they’re fearful of it?
Well, I, I think there’s a distinction between extremism in our political rhetoric across the country among millions of people that live in this country and extremism within the halls of power of Congress and the Oval Office. And I think there is a significant difference in the fact that what we’ve seen in the Republican Party is more, they have been moving more and more to the extreme, but most notably they have elevated people into power that embrace these ideas such as the New House, Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. And then on the Democratic side, you have a president who is navigating a big tent of a big coalition that helped get him into office and he’s listening to everyone and trying to figure out how to govern to bring Republicans across the aisle, pass hundreds of bipartisan legislation. It’s just a very different dynamic here.
Okay. It sounds to me that we’re at a situation in this conversation where extremism is in the eyes of the beholder. Rahna, I, I wanna come back to the thrust of your critique of No Labels so far has been the likely impact that you think their participation in 2024 would have. But do you, do you have any critique of the organization in terms of its, uh, practices, its, um, its character, they’ve been accused of a lack of transparency? Is that in any way part of your critique? And, and I, and as part of that, I want to acknowledge your group and other groups are, are engaged in a very, very fierce fight against No Labels. So can you take that on? And then I wanna let Ryan respond to it.
First of all, they’re legally filed as a C4, meaning they don’t have to disclose their donors, um, which legally you don’t have to. However, by all practical purposes, despite, you know, are, I mean, Ryan and I have to argue with you about this. Like I, despite what you say, I think practically you are operating as a political party. And I think we can talk about the legal nuances of that. But you are creating a ballot line in states. You are running not through the Democratic ballot line or the Republican ballot line. So practically speaking, you are a party. And I think any party does have a responsibility to disclose who is funding it, who is fueling this effort. And that’s not what’s happening now. And I think the voters deserve to understand that and know who is behind it.
And then lastly, I’ll say the primary process or lack thereof in this is also concerning. I understand your earnestly trying to build something that you all believe in, but I think this… it feels, and it appears, and what I observe is that you are building the plane as you fly it in a very precarious moment for the future of our country.
Right. So, I mean, Rahna, you talked about the, the primary system. Part of the reason there’s such an opening for what No Labels is doing is ’cause both parties have shut off any possibility of competition. So you look at the Democratic side, more than half of Democratic voters want something different. The response from the DNC is no debates, no primaries. You look at the Republican side, their state parties have been rigging the rules to make it easier for Trump to get it. So they’re not doing proportional representation of delegates, which is great for, for the incumbent. We’re not a party. A p- a party is running candidates up and down the ballot for city council and, uh, state legislature.
We are working to get on the ballot one ticket, one time for this unique moment in history. And there’s a very specific reason we haven’t put out our donors because the opponents who are coming after us have made very clear one of their strategies is to lean on and intimidate our supporters to walk away from us. We have employees and consultants who have got phone calls from people who work in the major parties to say, in effect, “You will never work in this town again if you keep doing this.” The point being is that why as a supporter of No Labels, would you want your name out there if you know that the intent of the people trying to keep us off the ballot is to just intimidate you and bully you to walk away from us.
Just as a journalist, the thing that comes to my mind is why wouldn’t you do it? It’s because it’s a bad look. It’s, you know, it, it suggests dark money. And, um, one of the main, main concerns left and center, and I think to some on the right as well, is where does the money come from in American politics?
And I, I understand your argument, but how do you weigh the protecting your donor’s participation and reputations and names and privacy against the perception that you’re dealing with dark money?
So I would say two things. If you really wanna know what No Labels stands for, look at the Common Sense Policy Booklet we released over the summer. And, and I challenge you to find any of that, anything in that booklet that suggests like, here’s No Labels advocating for some special interest corporate benefit for somebody. We don’t take corporate money. That’s number one. Number two, if… when we put up a ticket next March and that ticket is off and running, that ticket will be subject to all the disclosure lu- rules that a normal candidate would be and everybody will be able to see who’s getting behind that ticket. In the meantime, No Labels job is to get on the ballot, and that’s where we’re gonna be focused for the next six months.
I just think not disclosing your do- donors is a non-starter and it raises a lot of questions and it… I’m… just makes me even more suspicious that you’re not, that you’re adamant that you won’t do it. And secondly, I think you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t claim you’re not a party, but then act like a party. And then when you name somebody, then you are a party.
Let, let me ask you to, to, to address the point that Ryan made that, that it, it would, it, it could very well ha- disclosure of the names could very well lead to pressure on their donors to back off. And that does seem like a, a plausible scenario.
As someone who works in politics as well I understand the, the hate mail and the, the intimidation is a thing and I don’t wish that on anyone. And I, you know, I, I to- completely understand that. But being in this line of work requires us to courageously, you know, take… step out there. And I think that if No Labels wants to be taken seriously, they need to be disclosing and their donors and having more transparency so the voters of this country understand who is propping up this, this effort.
All right. We’re gonna take a break and when we come back, we’re gonna bring in some more voices to the conversation, journalists who cover politics and, uh, have been writing about and thinking about No Labels and its impact. The question we’re debating is how would a No Labels presidential candidate change the outcome in 2024? I’m John Donvan, and we’ll be right back.
Welcome back to Open to Debate. I’m John Donvan, I’m joined by Ryan Clancy and Rahna Epting. And we’re debating this question, how would a No Labels presidential candidate change the outcome in 2024? And at this point, we’d like to bring in some other voices, members of our audience to ask questions. First, I’d like to welcome Alexi Mc- uh, McCammond. She’s a journalist and MSNBC contributor. She’s opinion editor at the Washington Post. Lexi, thanks so much for joining us and, um, come on in with your question.
Thanks, John, and good to see you, Ryan and Rahna. As I’m known to do, I’m gonna ask two quick questions. The first, uh, for you, Ryan, is, are you guys considering at all any candidates who are currently running in the Republican presidential primary or folks who have dropped out? And then the second question for both of you, we talk a lot about polls showing dissatisfaction with both nominees, we see the partisanship across so many different issues, beyond polls and this idea of, of Unity, what can you both tell us that voters do want? If they don’t want Biden, they don’t want Trump, they don’t want the chaos, what do they want? Especially when it’s often difficult for voters to name, you know, another lawmaker or elected official who they even know, let alone someone they’d like to run the country.
Uh, yeah, we’re not talking to anybody right now, um, who’s, um, currently running for Republican president. That doesn’t mean we, we wouldn’t in the future, depending on, on where things go. Um, we’ll be doing a lot of diligence and vetting as we get to the back half of the year and release more details on our nomination process.
What do they want? Yeah. So it’s interesting. We did a bunch of focus groups over the summer, and, um, of course our Common Sense Policy Booklet, that didn’t just come out of nowhere, that was based on our polling and research that we did over the course of two years to get a sense of where do most Americans want to go on most issues. And you can really find it in there. What was fascinating is in the focus group we were asking voters what are, what are the specific kinds of pledges that we wanted them, uh, they wanted to make of a candidate? And we expected it to be policy-based. I wanted them to do this on immigration, this on energy that was part of it. It was amazing the degree to which voters said, I want a president who’s gonna unify the country and operate fundamentally differently than the previous presidents have. And a lot of them even said, I’d be willing to vote for somebody I disagree with on an important issue for me if they got that one big thing right.
Yeah, I mean, I don’t, I don’t dispute some of that. And I think the voters are looking for stability. They’re looking for someone to govern for everyone, not just those that voted for them. They’re looking for someone to unify the country, to work across the aisle to solve the problems of America. And I would argue that is something that Joe Biden has done since he got in office. Um, they’re looking for someone to prioritize reproductive freedom, to ensure the wealthy pay their fair share so that we can, you know, have a vibrant country again, uh, to ensure healthcare is affordable for everyone, to ensure there’s, there’s common sense gun policies passed.
And I would also argue Joe Biden has done a lot around these issues. He’s passed over 300 bipartisan bills. He’s really done what he can to take the political temperature down, but he doesn’t control the entire electorate. He doesn’t control the entire country. And this extremism in the, in the populace that, that all of, that individuals as humans embody. He, he can’t control that. But the best he can do is govern for everyone and really listen and try to figure out what Americans need and that’s what he’s doing.
Lexi, thank you so much for your question. Thanks for joining us on Open to Debate. Um, I now wanna bring in, uh, Nina Burleigh. Uh, Nina is an investigative journalist and a contributing editor to the New Republic, also has a Substack, um, American Political Freakshow. Nina, welcome to Open to Debate. Thanks for joining us, and please, come on in with your question.
Thank you, John, and thank you, Ryan and Rahna, for a really, really interesting conversation. I was gonna ask, uh, Ryan about the, um, the donor situation. Um, it’s been covered a little bit, but I just wanna, I guess I’m gonna drill down on you. Sorry, Ryan.
Harlan Crow is a, is a Texas real estate developer. He’s sometimes called the Texas Trump, and he has given quite a bit of money to the No Labels, um, organization. And he’s also very involved in, in, uh, you know, the scandal that’s, that’s erupted around Clarence Thomas. He’s been Clarence Thomas’s friend who’s done him a lot of, uh, financial favors. Um, and he’s, he’s on your donor list of, of the, the one of the names that has actually made the, made the news. So, um, my question to you is really, um, what’s he doing in the No Labels operation?
You know, the subtext to that question is, and we now hear this a lot ’cause Harlan Crow has identified himself as a No Labels donor and we’ve got a ton of Democratic donors, but the subtext to that question is really getting at attacking the intent of what they’re doing, right? So, and we see this in MoveOn’s emails. They cite this all the time as if this is evidence of some secret plot that No Labels, our intent is actually to help Trump. And what I would say to this is I would ask people to look at our three co-chairs, which includes Dr. Ben Chavis, who went to work for Martin Luther King when he was 14 years old and spent 60 years in civil rights. Governor Larry Hogan, who’s probably been the single most vociferous critic of Trump, and Senator Joe Lieberman, who was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000.
[NEW_PARAGRAPH]And I would ask people, do you think those three leaders are throwing away everything they’ve ever done in their life so they can help Donald Trump? And I think we all know the answer to that. We’ve been very clear about our intent in this election, and we don’t ever wanna see Donald Trump in the White House again. And we’ve been unequivocal about that.
Um, all right, and thank you. And, and for Rahna, um, Ryan is, is openly stating that, that he doesn’t wanna see Trump get elected. And when I hear you say to him, um, well, you’re, you know, you’ve got Huntsman on and Hunt- Huntsman is a, uh, is a, um, an anti-choice candidate. Um, when I hear that, I think, well, isn’t that about the smartest thing that you could possibly do if you’re running a national election against Trump to try to pull away those “pro-life” anti-choice voters with an anti-choice candidate? That, that, that candidate does not pull away votes from Biden. That candidate pulls away all those evangelicals who may be sick to their stomach voting for Trump, but are doing it because they wanna save babies.
Right. So, but, but that is not what No Labels says it wants to do. They say they wanna run a Unity ticket that pools equally from both parties. So, um, that, that is not the issue that, that we are discussing. But I would say in terms of, you know, I think just if they just disclose their donors, we can stop talking about this. But in terms of intent, which I think was your original question, how can I question their intent? It’s because there’s a lot that they’re hiding in terms of who funds them. And what we do know about who funds them is donor, our donors from the far right, which causes concern.
I think one way to put this to bed is just to disclose the donors and we can be done with it. The second is that these are a bunch of political operatives that work for the No Labels team, folks that understand presidential politics. And they know that given the constraints of our current election system, a third party candidate has no shot at winning the presidency. They know this. So it’s hard for me to believe that they, although I will give it to them, but when I do question the intent, that’s what it’s about. Like, they know that there’s, there’s in the history of the United States of America, no third party candidate has ever won the presidency, let alone a single electoral vote, and they have no path to win. So that’s what, that’s why I question the intent.
Nina, thank you very much for your question. Really appreciate it. Uh, we have one more questioner and, uh, uh, that is Shia Kapos. She’s a reporter for Politico and author of their newsletter, uh, newsletter, Illinois Playbook. Welcome, Shia, to Open to Debate. Thanks for joining us and come on in with your question.
Thank you so much for your time, all of you. Uh, Ryan, your own representatives have said that efforts to deny Joe Biden’s certification in 2020 were inexcusable. With that in mind, what does No Labels make of Speaker Mike Johnson’s work on the amicus brief to deny Biden’s certification as well a his… as well as his public remarks pushing conspiracy theories around the 2020 vote?
Yeah. I… we’ve been unequivocal since the beginning. Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Anybody who’s saying otherwise is not speaking the truth.
Um, l- look, I know about as much as about Mike Johnson as most Americans do,
laughs) which is not a lot. So what we’re hoping is that over the next month, somehow, some way Congress can find a way to end this train wreck that we’ve had for the last couple of of weeks, precipitated by Matt Gaetz and the lunatics on the far right, and that they can avert a government shutdown and, and get some really critical aid to our, to our allies.
It’s my understanding that the chair, one of the chairs of the Problem Solvers Caucus, which you, which No Labels helped create, like applauded Mike Johnson on a call and sa- and, and tried to normalize the fact that he’s now the New House speaker, even though he’s a very right wing extremist in the house.
Look, he’s the speaker of the house. So he, he’s the speaker of the house now we’re gonna have to work with him. No Labels has been very clear, we thought what happened when they tore down the speaker was idiotic. It was destructive to the country, but we weren’t able to find any kind of consensus until recently. There is a speaker now and the focus now should just be on getting things done. We’re, we’re not really interested in, um, you know, any commentary on what Mike Johnson might or might not have said in the past. He’s, he’s what we got and we gotta find a way to work with him.
Thank you very much for your question and we very much appreciate it. Uh, we have one question that we wanted to bring in from, uh, you in our audience. What happens if No Labels runs a third candidate and no one does get to 270 votes? Where would those Unity votes go? What happens to them?
So I wanna be just really clear about two things is, um, No Labels, if we put up a ticket, it’s only because we think it has a path to 270. Now, there’s been some stuff that came out that we didn’t put out suggesting No Labels has a more elaborate strategy to just pick up a couple electoral votes and the electoral college and use that as a way to, to, to bargain with one of the major party nominees. That is not the plan. Um, what we were trying to tell people is that is a possible outcome. That, that if no- if nobody gets to 270, um, it is possible if you win some electoral votes, you can negotiate with one of the major party n- nominees, um, to give them those votes.
I think what also could happen, so, so yes, they could use their electoral votes as bargaining chips and decide who they wanted to swing the election to. So they’re giving a lot of power, uh, to, to this situation. And then secondly, it could end up going into, um, the house, the hands of the House of Representatives for a vote by state delegation, which would be massively problematic to send the decision of who the next President of the United States is back to this House of Representatives, um, which we know is in this fragile moment for democracy, with the excessive distrust of our election system. We cannot afford some nebulous path towards the presidency. We have to play this by the book.
Our plan is not to throw things to the house. But I do wanna make clear this house wouldn’t be the one that would decide, so it would be whatever house is elected after this coming election.
All right. We are now gonna go down the home stretch by going to our closing round. And our closing round is comprised of brief closing statements from each of you in turn. These will be two minutes each. Ryan, you go first in this one. It’s your last chance to convince our listeners, our listeners of your argument on the question, how would a No Labels presidential candidate change the outcome in 2024? Here you go.
I, I just, I wanna start by, John, thank you for, for coming on. Rahna, thank you for coming on, uh, to d- to debate me and, and thank you everybody for listening in. But you know, when I think about the single biggest reason why Americans are losing faith in our democracy, I, I really think what it is, is people in power don’t have the courage to say what they think. So right now, behind closed doors in DC, Republicans will tell you Donald Trump should never again see the White House. And Democrats will tell you, President Biden should not run again. And then they will come out in front of the camera and say something totally different. And that’s how we find ourselves towards this train wreck of an election that no one wants. That’s gonna make us more divided at home, even as these dangers grow abroad.
And I don’t understand why we should just accept this. Everywhere in America, we embrace innovation and new ideas, except politics, where we keep trotting out the same failed ideas and candidates and expect a different result. I mean, we can do so much better than this, but we cannot be ruled by fear, which is really what both parties are selling right now. The, the language is different, but the appeal is the same, which is basically vote for us or the country is gone forever. And what they’re really selling is emotional blackmail. And no one should be surprised that Americans are not buying it.
So, you know, our opponents claim they’re protecting their… our democracy. What, what we think is they’re protecting their turf and they’re demying, denying Americans a choice to decide for themselves who they want to represent our country in 2024. Uh, I, I don’t know where the country’s gonna be six months from now. And, and no one does. And that’s kind of the point. The only thing we know today with absolute certainty is that Americans want better choices in 2024, and they have every right, constitutional right to sign petitions to give themselves better choices in ’24. And No Labels is gonna work to protect that right and to put up a Unity ticket that we think can win the White House in 2024.
Thank you, Ryan Clancy. And now, um, Rahna Epting, you get the last word in this one. Um, your closing statement on, uh, once again, the question, how do you think a No Labels presidential candidate would change the outcome in 2024?
Thank you, and thank you for having me. So I’d like everyone to close their eyes and imagine it’s January 20th, 2025. It’s inauguration day, it’s gray, it’s cold outside, and there is Donald Trump twice impeached and criminally indicted with his hand on the Bible, getting sworn in for a second term. Standing close outside to the very building his mob attacked just four years earlier. He has an agenda of nothing but revenge and vengeance against his perceived enemies. He’s ready to take a wrecking ball to our democracy and attack once again our communities, an unstable and erratic authoritan- authoritarian figure, again, in the most powerful position in the world, four more years unchecked to finish what he started. Imagine.
Because despite No Labels rhetoric and whatever their intent, which we can debate, but whatever their intent, that will be the impact of the No Labels party in our current election system. They have no path to victory. This experiment that the No Labels party is pushing might seem quaint and harmless and good arguments to support the theory, but until you consider the clear existential threat that Donald Trump and MAGA pose to the future of our democracy, that is the issue. Our country cannot afford another four years of systemic tear down of our democratic norms. But that’s exactly what they’re risking. It’s misguided and it’s dangerous. So thank you, John, and the open debate team for having me today. And thank you, Ryan, for the conversation.
Thank you, Rahna. And that is a wrap on this debate. I wanna thank both of you, Ryan and Rahna, for taking part in a way where it was clear you were actually listening to one another, addressing one another. I can’t think of a single question dodged in this conversation. We very, very much appreciate that and for being open to debate. Oh, and just one more note since we recorded this program, West Virginia’s Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, has announced he is not running for reelection next year. Instead, he will be, as he put it, traveling the country to see if there’s an interest in creating a movement to mobilize the middle. Given that Manchin had already made an appearance at a No Labels event, the speculation is hot that perhaps he may end up on a No Labels presidential ticket. We’ll see.
I want to thank our guests, Alexi McCammond, Nina Burleigh, and Shia Kapos for contributing your probing questions. And thank you, our audience, uh, for tuning into this episode of Open to Debate. You know, as a nonprofit, our work to combat extreme polarization through civil and respectful debate is generously funded by listeners like you and by the Rosenkranz Foundation and by supporters of Open to Debate. Open to Debate is also made possible by a generous grant from the Laura and Gary Lauder Venture Philanthropy Fund.
Robert Rosenkranz is our chairman. Clea Conner is CEO. Lia Matthow is our Chief Content Officer. Alexis Pancrazi and Marlette Sandoval, our editorial producers. Gabrielle Mayer is our editorial and research manager. Andrew Lipson is head of production. Max Fulton is our production coordinator. Damon Winmore is our engineer. Gabrielle Iannucelli, our social media and digital platform’s coordinator. Raven Baker, Events and Operations Manager. Rachel Kemp is our Chief of staff. Our theme music is by Alex Clement. And I’m your host, John Donvan, from Open to Debate. We’ll see you next time.
You must be LOGGED IN or be a member to comment. BECOME A MEMBER to Join the Conversation.
You must be LOGGED IN or be a member to comment. BECOME A MEMBER to Join the Conversation.
You must be LOGGED IN or be a member to comment. BECOME A MEMBER to Join the Conversation.
FIND OPEN TO DEBATE ON YOUR LOCAL NPR STATION
A nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, Open to Debate, formerly known as Intelligence Squared U.S. addresses a fundamental problem in America: the extreme polarization of our nation and our politics.
Our mission is to restore critical thinking, facts, reason, and civility to American public discourse.
Sign up for weekly new releases, exclusive access to live debates, and Open to Debate’s educational newsletters.
Notifications
JOIN THE CONVERSATION