LARRY HOGAN Says He Has "NOT Closed the Door" To Running

Rest of article title: To Running For President Under A No Labels Ticket.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...bels-ticket-2024-face-the-nation/?bshm=rime/2

I heard the end part of the interview, on Face the Nation, which is when Hogan allowed that he hasn't closed the door, on the possibility. Make no mistake, Hogan was not trying to push this narrative, in the least. But if Trump is the Republican nominee, and if Hogan assessed he (Hogan) had a realistic chance if winning, he seemed as though he would seriously go for it. Still, his goal at the moment, is helping a Republican, other than Trump, to win the nomination.

So there is another, GIANT question mark, hanging over next year's race. A Hogan - Manchin ticket, for example, I would give a real chance of winning. Though I would think, No Labels would want to make their first offering of a Presidential pair, to be a little more diverse, than two (Midlantic coast) white men.


<Snip>
"If I believe that we can actually win the race, we might have to try to pull off something that's never been done," Hogan said in an interview that aired Sunday.

No Labels is a political organization that promotes bipartisanship in government. In 2017, it helped organize the Problem Solvers caucuses in the House and Senate to foster bipartisan cooperation on policy issues.

The No Labels website states that it is preparing for the possibility of nominating a candidate, but will run only under the "proper environmental conditions."

<End>

 

Here is a little bit more of the article, quoted:

<Snip>
Hogan said that he is still working to get a "good" Republican nominee, who he believes would make a No Labels ticket unnecessary.

"It has to be a good ticket that can actually win," Hogan said, in the event that No Labels put forward candidates. "Nobody's trying to spoil anything. This is about actually receiving a majority of the votes."

Hogan also said that in the event of a No Labels ticket, the organization would put out information about the group's donors to comply with election law. The group currently refuses to disclose its donors, fueling speculation over its funding.

"They're not a political party, they don't have a candidacy they're behind," Hogan said. "If in fact that became a campaign, they obviously would have to follow all the same rules that all the rest of the campaigns do."

When asked what the chances are that No Labels will put out a ticket, Hogan said "there's a good likelihood."

<End>

That last line is interesting. Hogan had said that he would only run, if it is Biden vs. Trump, or if Republicans don't nominate a "good" candidate. The No Labels website, also, states that their sponsoring of a Presidential ticket will be contingent upon "proper environmental conditions." Yet Hogan's prediction of a "good likelihood" that there will be a No Labels Ticket, suggests he may feel, understandably, that the chances of Trump v. Biden 2, is high, and that, in that "environment," a contest which 70% of the public says it doesn't want, he thinks that No Labels will probably jump in.

Now all I really know about Hogan is that, unlike some Republican governors, he had handled the Covid threat in a responsible way. But if he could support, for example, a Ron DeSantis candidacy, that gives me great pause. Were Hogan elected, he would still be working with the same Republican lot, presumably-- more or less-- as we now have. I can't ignore that the overall Republican establishment, with its denial of Climate Change, its draconian views on abortion, and extremist views on guns-- not to even mention any of the culture war nonsense, or its willingness to demonize those outside the mainstream, when it comes to transgenderism, for example-- has become too radical for me to support its agenda. Now, it may be that Hogan will not be onboard with any, or with most, of all that. But No Labels would not run a full slate of candidates; only the top spot. If Hogan won, he would not exactly have his own party, to work with, in Congress. He can therefore really put none of "his" agenda, up for a vote in Congress. He will have to work with the two major parties, regarding what conditions a bill would need comply with, to get his signature. Except, that he is a Republican, in good standing. So which party would he be likely to tack towards, on issues in which the divide is wide?

Here is the problem. Installing a No Labels type of bipartisan leader, only works, if it leads Congress, to then engage in sincere, bipartisan negotiations, on issues like immigration, to find consensus. But when it comes to any tough issues, the Republicans are having a lot of trouble finding consensus, even among themselves. There are also different factions in the Democratic Party, with widely differing views. So I don't see from where all this middle of the road, moderate compromise would come. I don't think that those truly in the middle-- that is, the swath of the political spectrum which would equally include moderate members of both parties-- is a large enough group, to actually win a majority vote, even aside from the question of whether they would be willing to split off from their own Parties' leaderships, in order to work with the other party, and with a President representing, nominally, neither of the major parties. Therefore, I would guess that this situation would be far more likely to pull Hogan to the so-called "Right," than for him to pull the entire Republican Party, back into the center. They have just crawled too far out, on those crazy ledges.

The only alternative I see to that-- if Hogan holds to the view of a centrist Republican, willing to work with Democrats-- is a lot of gridlock, with not much getting done in Congress and, when something does make it to the President's desk, it often getting vetoed. Or at least, I would imagine that the bills most likely to get there, just as now, would be ones not that are especially bipartisan, but that are predominantly either Democratic or Republican bills, depending on who controlled Congress. Yet, of course, in some cases a distasteful bill, might be better than no bill at all-- as for a Budget, for example.

All in all, not what I would call a pretty picture. So, while I would be interested in gaining a more in-depth understanding of Hogan's vision, I am going to vote for sticking with Biden.

 

ZERO Chance that a No Labels Candidate Could Win...NONE...
IF No Labels ran a Pres. Candudate (and it was Biden v Trump) it would only serve to hand the Election to Trump...

 

A lot of certainty, you have in those opinions, but not any reasonable explanations, behind your views. 70% of the country is not happy about a Biden - Trump rematch; how do arrive at the conclusion then, that any No Labels candidate would have 0% chance of winning?

A great many in the country, also, regularly complain that they wish we had another serious party; and they tend to define that desired party to be more moderate than either Dems or Repubs. So a moderate Republican and moderate Democrat ticket, would seem tailor made, for what a large portion of the electorate, say they want.

Moving on to the effect on the two major party candidates. Hogan is a Republican-- so why would you think, if he doesn't win, he would take most of his votes from Biden, and not from Trump? I know that around three quarters of Republicans would stick with Trump, but not every Republican has their face up Donald's ass. If you were a moderate Republican, who did not particularly care for Trump, and had the option to vote for another moderate Republican, who was much younger than the other candidates, and who seemed as if he had a chance to win, why would you not vote for him? I don't foresee a Republican candidate getting more than a quarter of the Democratic vote, either. But Hogan would draw heavily from the Independent vote. And he could conceivably draw more from Trump leaning Independents, than from Biden leaners. It doesn't really seem predictable, though, at this point-- so what makes you so sure?

 

I'd vote for Larry Hogan without pause. Better than any potential Democratic candidate right now, unless Joe Manchin were to run, and far FAR better than Trump or a MAGA clone. He's a thoughtful moderate. He would definitely be a candidate that could get me to cast a vote for a Republican in a presidential race for the first time in my life.

 

There is speculation that Huntsman and Manchin on a third party ticket. It's been a few months though.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/man...bels-platform-unity-ticket/story?id=101213331

 

Sorry I messed up, by not including a category for "definitely for Hogan." I guess I'll have to manually keep track of those, and add them in, with the final tallies. Right now, then, we're at one vote for Biden; one Biden leaning, but who would consider Hogan; and one definitely Hogan. So, at the moment, it's still a two-man race. But I'm sure we'll eventually start seeing some Trump supporters-- I guess they're just not as fond, of early voting.

 

I'm with you. Two term governor here in very blue Maryland. Was very popular despite democrats controlling the legislature. Would definitely vote for him over ANY other candidate.

 

I think Joe Manchin just likes the attention. Your article, itself, said these two were not supposed to be thought of as the No Labels candidates. So any speculation you'd heard, I would just regard as idle talk.

Hogan had probably not initially shown interest-- he'd initially been thinking of running in the Republican Primary, but then didn't want to overcrowd it with alternatives to Trump, who is the person he wants off the ticket. Obviously, neither Manchin nor Huntsman were considering campaigning for their own Party's nomination, so they were available for the No Labels' event.

I remember liking Jon Huntsman, but he is far too moderate for today's GOP. I think a Hogan -- Manchin Ticket would be a stronger one, anyway. Hogan seems to be the new No Labels' favorite, and he seems to be warming to the idea.

I will have to download the pamphlet of the No Labels policy positions, your article mentions:

<Snip>
The 30 policy ideas outlined in the manual are organized into 10 categories, offering brief solutions to issues regarding Social Security, the national debt, abortion access, guns, education and more.

The proposals include universal background checks for gun purchases, limits -- but not bans -- on abortion and securing the southern border while protecting so-called "Dreamers," or young immigrants who were illegally brought to the country as children.
<End>

The fact, though, that Joe Lieberman was one of the founders of No Labels, makes me a little suspicious, since I know Lieberman as my former Senator, and I think he's crooked; I don't trust him. As I'd explained in my 2nd post, though, I would be sticking with Biden, regardless, because of the Congressional dynamic. BTW, just to let you know, I am manually counting any votes, straight up, for Hogan if you hadn't voted because I'd neglected to list that choice. I would guess, however, that you were our Biden leaner, but who would consider Hogan (and then, that AJ hadn't bothered to vote-- though he clearly would have voted for definitely Biden, the same as me).

 

Wow-- that's two definite Hogan votes, already. I'm just noting it, in posts, since I'd forgotten to include Hogan as a top choice. But he leads this little poll at present, with only 1 definite vote for Biden, and 1 other Biden leaner, but who would also consider Hogan. I am interested to see if that pattern holds up.


EDIT:
If you don't mind telling me-- your vote for Hogan, would be instead of a vote for Biden or for Trump, in that two man race?

 

A Hogan/Manchin or Manchin/Hogan ticket wouldn’t stand a chance unless well financed along with receiving plenty of media attention. Third Parties like the Libertarians, Green and others have no money and get no media coverage. They’re doomed before they start because of the lack of that. It takes a couple of billion to run for the presidency 2024 along with media coverage to have a chance. Billions are spent on elections.


2020 election to cost $14 billion, blowing away spending records


https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/cost-of-2020-election-14billion-update/


Look at just the official presidential campaign. Biden spent 1.6 billion, Trump 1.1 billion rounding off. Third place on the money list was Libertarian Jo Jorgensen at less than 3 million. $2,930,266 to be exact.


https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race


You’re not going win being outspent 2.7 billion to less than 3 million. Then there’s the media coverage, the presidential debates, etc. I love the idea of the No Labels Party, I would definitely vote for them if there is a rematch of Trump vs. Biden. But I must wonder on how many state ballots the No Label candidates can get on, Republicans and Democrats have automatic ballot access, all third parties must jump through a million and one hoops just to get on most states’ ballots. How much advertisements they can afford, how much media attention will be given to them, how they can organize their organization in all the different states and on and on.


Since 1964 the candidate with the most money has won the presidency with one lone exception, 2016 when Clinton out spent Trump 1.191 billion to 646.8 million.


https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/


Having the most money to spent usually means you win. With no money, No Labels even with a couple of proven candidates will be nothing more than another third party on the ballot like the Libertarians, Green party, constitutional etc.

 

Yes

I’m thinking of declaring a party so I can vote in our primary depending on who the nominees are.

 

No Labels appears to be a well funded operation, with connections to big money donors, many who might prefer a more conservative/moderate candidate than Biden; some who might prefer a more stable candidate, than Trump.

<Snip>
No Labels, the political outfit preparing to run a “unity” ticket in 2024 that Democratic strategists and Never-Trump Republican operatives fear will siphon votes from President Joe Biden, is what’s known as a dark-money group. Unlike political parties, political action committees, and House, Senate, and presidential candidates, it is not required to reveal who is funding it. And No Labels, which says it intends to raise $70 million to possibly place a third-party candidate on the presidential ballot next year, refuses to disclose who is financing this project. But Mother Jones has obtained a list of 36 wealthy contributors and corporate high-rollers who last year wrote big checks to support No Labels’ effort to win 2024 ballot lines in states across the nation. This roster includes past and present chief executives of major companies, including Loews Corporation (a vast conglomerate), Fluor (an engineering and construction giant), Abry Partners (a private equity firm), SailPoint (a tech firm), and Fortress Investment Group.

Among the No Labels backers are donors who contributed millions of dollars to Republican causes, such as past GOP presidential candidates and super-PACS connected to Republican congressional leadership, and several who have poured money into the Democratic presidential campaigns of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. One donor provided a big chunk of political cash to Donald Trump. Generally, these No Labels supporters, who mostly made contributions of $5,600 to its 2024 project, appear to favor conservative candidates, though many have played both sides of the aisle, financing Republican and Democratic politicians.
<End>
https://www.motherjones.com/politic...-funding-its-effort-to-disrupt-the-2024-race/

Of course, Hogan mentioned, that if they sponsor a Presidential ticket, No Labels would comply with all donor transparency laws; they just do not apply, before that point, because No Labels is not a political party. They have though, got ballot access, thus far, in 10 states, including two of the states most up for grabs, in Arizona & Nevada. Also, on the list, are the technically Purple States of Colorado (seems more Blue), Florida (seems to be getting more Red), and North Carolina (in which Blue is slowly gaining, but still a good ways from challenging). From their news release:

<Snip>
Washington, DC – No Labels, a groundbreaking movement giving a voice to America’s commonsense majority, is thrilled to announce that our movement has successfully won ballot access in 10 states, with a 4-1 decision by the North Carolina Board of Elections approving a new No Labels party in the state this weekend.

The ten states are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Utah.

“The No Labels movement has achieved a significant milestone, winning ballot access in 10 states,” said civil rights leader Dr. Benjamin J. Chavis, National Co-Chair of No Labels...

Since its founding in 2009, No Labels has been unwavering in its dedication to breaking down the barriers of hyper-partisanship...The organization is focused on common-sense policy solutions, practical compromise and cross-party collaboration, aimed at addressing the pressing challenges facing the nation.

“The No Labels movement winning ballot access in 10 states is a milestone and there are many more to come, because the American people so clearly want more choices on the ballot in 2024. Our message of commonsense resonates in communities across the nation,” said former North Carolina governor Pat McCrory, National Co-Chair of No Labels.

In a survey released last week of registered voters in the top eight presidential battleground states, 63%, said they are open to voting for a moderate independent ticket in the event of a Biden-Trump rematch. 69% supported groups like No Labels getting on the ballot in case an independent wants to run for president.

Since its founding in 2009, No Labels has spent 13 years working to give voice to America’s commonsense majority. Now, No Labels is working to get ballot access in states across the country, and we may offer our ballot line to an independent Unity presidential ticket if that’s what the American people clearly want. www.nolabels.org.
<End Snip>

 

Obviously...
Most astute political.observors universally agree that any serious attempt by No Labels to field a Presidental Candidate would be an absolute Fool's Errand (which would only serve to hand the election to Trump in a Biden/Trump Rematch).
Which is exactly WHY the idea of a No Labels Pres. Candidare is a Fantasy which would elect Trump:
No Labels' third-party fantasy may elect Trump
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc...4-republicans-third-party-no-labels-rcna96723

 

I have no idea how any of this will play out, but I was intrigued by the Huntsman Manchin ticket. I too liked Huntsman, but as you said, too many MAGAs don't care for moderates, but as a third party, this may not be a bad time to give it a shot.

 

Interesting. It’s not surprising that 60% or so folks would be open to voting for a no labels candidate, third party. Most Americans don’t want the rematch. According to an Economist/YouGov poll 63% of all Americans don’t want Biden to run again which includes 39% of Democrats, 67% of Independents, 84% of Republicans. Question 13. 57% of all Americans don’t want Trump to run again either which includes 84% of Democrats, 55% of independents, 28% of republicans. Question 14.


https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/eqlqwyoypg/econTabReport.pdf


There’s been several articles I’ve read on some past mega republican donors refusing to donate to Trump. That also that they would jump on a no labels presidential run is not surprising in the least. 270 to win consensus forecast list only 5 tossup states in their predictions.


https://www.270towin.com/maps/consensus-2024-presidential-election-forecast


Nevada and Arizona are two of the tossup states with Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia being the last three.


Where the no labels party gets their funding isn’t of interest to me. I already know that according to open secrets 43% of all money received by both major parties come from individual mega money donors. Here’s a list of Top Individual Contributors to Outside Money Organizations, 2021 – 2022.


https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors?cycle=2022&view=om

 

The way I look at this is that both major parties insist on running candidates that most Americans don’t want them to run. 63% of all Americans don’t want the democrats to run Biden again, 57% of all Americans don’t want the republicans to run Trump again. Questions 13 and 14.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/eqlqwyoypg/econTabReport.pdf

If Trump were to win, being 63% of all Americans don’t want Biden as their next president, that would be on the democrats. I view it the same if Biden were to win, that would be on the republicans since they are going to run Trump against the wishes of 57% of all Americans.

Myself, I voted third party in 2016 as both Clinton and Trump disgusted me. I have no qualms in voting third party in 2024 either although I did vote for Biden to get rid of Trump in 2020. But I viewed Biden as a transition president between Trump and whoever comes next. In my book, transition presidents don’t run for reelection. Here’s an article that lets you know how most Americans view Trump and Biden.

Poll: Most Americans say Biden and Trump are not 'fit' to serve as president

https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-mos...-not-fit-to-serve-as-president-133443536.html

Whoever wins or loses, the blame will rest solely on the shoulders of the party who lost by nominating a candidate most Americans dislike and don’t want as their next president be that either Biden or Trump.

 

As to the issues you raise.
1) The No Labels candidates would seem to have a good start, in financing. If they actually looked to have a chance, because their politics are very middle of the road, and conventional, I feel there would be no problem, turning up those spigots.

2) Again, as this group is already known to media, and associated with numerous well known politicians, I think this third party challenge would be exceptional, in getting a good share of attention. Also, of course, the more it looked like No Labels was going to draw a large share of voters, the more attention it would get.

3) If this thread/poll, at this early point, is any indication, a Hogan, third party candidacy would draw a substantial percentage of voters in polls, which are the basis used as the debate qualifier. So it would appear this would not be a difficult hurdle, as it has been for other candidates, but who'd only had support in the low single digits.

4) What it all comes down to, as you'd mentioned, is ballot access. If they are only on 10 or 12 state ballots, they can't win, which is going to reduce their donor capital-- both of which would will lessen their media attention. However Hogan had emphasized that he would only run, if he thought he could win. I surmise from this, that No Labels plans a concerted effort, in all states, to get on the ballot. It is a little bit of a chicken & the egg thing, as once they have a popular candidate, like Hogan, getting signatures to access the ballot becomes much easier. But if Hogan is waiting to see full access before he commits, that would slow down the process. Still, given the funds, and this early start, I don't think it would be an impossible task.

 

Yeah most people want younger candidates, albeit there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, the front runners right now are not that popular. Again it seems we have another third party that could change the landscape, not sure how it would play out, since these campaigns are a marathon.

For that possibility, those potential candidates must make their move soon, unless the bases are still heavily undecided.

We got 14 months to see how these dice will play out. !!

 

The only thing I’d like to point out is than in 2016 when Johnson looked like he’d reach the 10% threshold to be included in the 2016 presidential debate the so called bi-partisan debate commission raised the threshold to 15%. Those debates should have never been taken away from the League of woman’s voters. But the League made the big mistake of allowing Perot into their debates. That was a huge no, no for both major parties.


Since Trump and the RNC has hinted at if not said that they wouldn’t participate in the presidential debates for 2024, perhaps the League ought to get back to sponsoring them between Biden and whoever is the no labels party candidates. Regardless, I think the presidential debates needs to go back to the League.

 

Exactly. To the question - In your view, do the Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job of representing the American people, or do they do such a poor job that a third major party is needed? 56% say no, 40% say yes.

Also saying the Republican and Democratic parties do such a poor job that a third major party is needed, 75% of independents say a viable third party is needed, 45% of republicans along with 40% of Democrats.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/402515...utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

But a viable third party won’t happen. Republicans and democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. If there’s one thing both major agree on, it’s no viable third party will ever rise.

 

If there are only three choices: Biden, Trump, or Hogan; I choose Hogan every time.

 

It is a long shot, but I don't think it is impossible for a third party ticket.

 

It's just reality that 3rd party has no chance given the rules in place. The conditions that would give them a chance would be something like ranked choice voting. Otherwise, they would simply split the vote of whichever major candidate they most closely resemble, and give the election to the other major party.

 

By a viable third party I mean more than just at the presidential level. Viable candidates for the house and senate, for governors, for state legislatures, for county commissioners and mayors etc. But for a viable third party to come into existence, it must first start at the grass roots level. Skipping the grass roots level and running candidates just for the presidency doesn’t cut it. Look at the Libertarian, the Green Party etc. They run candidates for the presidency, but not for any other office. Although the Libertarian Party has run candidates for the senate and for governorships. But they still skip all local and most state offices.