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

Let me say up front, that my "opinion," is not just a justification for my preferred outcome; I have explained in post #2, that I would still vote for Biden. But I disagree with your overly assumptive, defeatist attitude, toward third parties. I think you are over generalizing. No Labels is different from any political "party" we've seen in the past. And there are elements of this particular race, if it ends up being, as it now looks as if it will be, Biden versus Trump, which make it more opportune for an outside challenge. Timing is a crucial element of politics, which you leave out of your analysis; it is the reason that Ross Perot, had he not temporarily pulled out of the race, WOULD HAVE WON.

Naturally, any third party will face resistance from both major parties, as well as from the impression of voters, that it can't win. That is one of the differences, though, with No Labels: it was founded by political insiders, and is funded by many of the same corporate type donors, as the major parties use. The choice of who will run for them, will not be decided by Primary, and will not be dependent upon one's adhering to specific, non-majoritarian principles, as are ascribed to by Libertarians or Greens; the choice is one that the group will make, presumably based on whoever is the biggest name conventional, mainstream candidate who they can line up. So a Hogan run, all things considered, may well feel, even early on, more like an alternate, Republican candidacy; as if a major party were sponsoring two entries, instead of only the one. Hogan was Chair of the National Governor's Association, through 2020. He will seem less of a dark horse candidate, as long as-- and this is key-- No Labels will be able to get ballot access, in all states. Here is an earlier post of mine, assessing all the points that another participant of the thread had brought up, like you, to cast doubt on a third party's chances:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...d-the-door-to-running.613513/#post-1074425714

It seems an erroneous analysis, to just write off a savvy mainstream politician, surrounded by an organization of savvy, well-known politicians, as if it was no different than Ralph Nader, running as the Green Party candidate. If Hogan were to be on all states' ballots, the establishment argument, that "a third party can't win," would largely fall on deaf ears. It only worked against Perot, in '92, after he spooked many, with his sudden, seemingly erratic pulling out of the race. That made him seem less stable, reliable, and safe, than a candidate vetted by one of the major parties. When I read that last sentence, today, with Trump atop of the GOP, I can't help but laugh. Times have changed; no one who prefers more moderate conservativism, is going to, nevertheless, vote for Trump, as the "safer" choice.

This brings me to my question for you. You had said that a third party run would predominantly take from the major party candidate who the upstart, most closely resembles. In this, theoretical case, which of the mainstream parties' candidates, do you see as most like Hogan? I mean, Hogan could, right now, be running in the Republican Primary-- so the answer should, obviously, be that he would take from Trump. But, in this case, style-wise, Trump is more the unpredictable one, as the third party option is usually seen, and it is Hogan & Biden who seem the more steady, conventional ones. So who loses more votes, to Hogan?


P.S.-- While this is a highly anecdotal data point: at the moment, those in this thread who have essentially "written in," the option of their voting "no question, for Hogan," which I had forgotten to offer, is about neck and neck with those choosing Biden. At the moment we have 3 for Hogan, and I see that Biden, who'd been trailing, has just surpassed him, with 4 votes. The only other vote, is the choice for Biden, but interested in hearing Hogan's pitch, and open to voting for him, instead. Oddly, there are not any votes, yet, for Trump (either definite supporters, or even Trump leaners, who'd also consider Hogan).

 

I completely agree with both your sentiments about the better way that debates were run, under the League of Women Voters, as well as your analysis of the reason that the major parties put an end to that practice. We might only differ, then, in our expectations of the possibility that the major parties would surrender their control, back to the League, because it "needs to."

 

I totally concur with your views, both about the important difference between electing a President of a non-major party, and having an actual Third Party (see post #2); as well the importance of such a party being built from the ground up, with local and state elected officials. But you are wrong, or at the very least are overstating the idea, that the Green and Libertarian Parties do not back candidates for local office. They have even achieved a limited amount of success, on the regional level, as on city councils, school boards, and mayorships. I remember, after my voting for Nader, being contacted by my state Green Party, with whom I was then associated for a little while, though I don't subscribe to all of their tenets. They did seem, however, not very well organized.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Green_politicians_who_have_held_office_in_the_United_States

<Snip>
As of September 2020, 117 officeholders in the United States were affiliated with the Green Party,[1] the majority of them in California, several in Illinois, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, with five or fewer in ten other states.[1][2] These included one mayor and one deputy mayor, and fourteen county or city commissioners (or equivalent). The remainder were members of school boards, clerks, and other local administrative bodies and positions.[2]
<End>

The Libertarian Party has, of course, been prominent here, far longer than the Greens, and so has had a bit more success, overall. They have even had a member in Congress, briefly, in Justin Amash. And there is an interesting fact about the first ever electoral vote cast for a woman-- a story of which I'd never heard-- in the wikipedia quote, below:

<Snip>
As of 2021, it is the third-largest political party in the United States by voter registration.[18] In the 2020 election the Libertarians gained a seat in the Wyoming House of Representatives, giving them their first state legislative win since 2000.[19][20][21] As of August 2022, there are 310 Libertarians holding elected office: 193 of them partisan offices and 117 of them non-partisan offices.[10] There are 693,634 voters registered as Libertarian in the 31 states that report Libertarian registration statistics and Washington, D.C.[22] The first electoral vote for a woman was that for Tonie Nathan of the party for vice president in the 1972 United States presidential election due to a faithless elector supporter who eschewed his expected votes for President Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew in favor of the Libertarian ticket. The first and only Libertarian in Congress was Justin Amash, who joined the Libertarian Party in 2020 and left the U.S. House of Representatives in 2021 after choosing not to seek re-election.
<End>

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

My impression is that Libertarianism is more facing back toward the past, and that the Green philosophy is more forward-facing; that said, societal progress is often not traversed in straight lines, as I think we have been given ample evidence of, in recent years.

 

I'm not against 3rd parties, I just acknowledge that with the way our system is set up, it is set up as a 2-party system. It could, and should, be changed. But these facts make 3rd parties currently not viable: When candidates run for one office, and people can only vote for one candidate for one office, if there are 3 candidates, the will of the people will not be reflected because votes will, mathematically, be split between the two more similar candidates. I'm not even speculating on this particular guy. I'm saying any significant 3rd party contender will screw up the election in terms of the will of the people.

One could argue that some people would have stayed home and not voted if not for the 3rd candidate, but some people, particularly those who hate both of the other candidates, will vote for the 3rd party candidate when they otherwise would have voted for the lesser of the other two evils.

I think we should implement ranked choice voting. That should be the priority. Then we can run all the 3rd parties we want, and some of them may win, and almost certainly would improve the behavior of the major parties.

 

At the height of the Reform Party, we had over 300 state legislatures and one governor, Jesse Ventura of Minnesota before Pat Buchanan and his ilk hijacked the party in 2000. Then most of the original Reform Party members and founders left. Basically, after the presidential election of 2000 the Reform Party ceased to exist. But again, it was top driven and not grass roots. The Reform Party has been the only political party I ever belonged to and it will be the last.

 

The majority of Americans are too ducking stupid to vote outside the lines …

 

I don't know-- it is not unknown, for Americans to demonstrate their discontent, through action.

The question seems more to do, IMO, with the extent & degree of American dissatisfaction-- both overall, as well as with the specific options offered, at the juncture in question-- and, of course, the appeal of the alternate choice. Further, I make the case in the post, heading page 2, that a Hogan No Labels candidacy, is likely to feel much less "outside the lines" of normalcy, than most other third party bids.

 

Not a CHANCE...
That is an absolute Fantasy...
ZERO Chance that Perot would have Won...Dream on...
"had he not"

 

Embarrassingly, I guess you don't realize that your post offers ZERO Argument, as to why your memory, or whatever you're going by, is better than mine. Oh, I wonder if this might be considered "evidence"-- a WAPO article from June of '92, about a poll that put PEROT, AHEAD OF BUSH & CLINTON:

<Snip>

The new poll showed Perot leading both Bush and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, and it portrayed an electorate at the point of exasperation with Washington. The poll found Bush with the worst ratings of his presidency.
<End Snip>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...in-poll/5c0499dd-d5c5-42e4-bc63-e4c32ca083e7/


I followed this intently, dude. Ross was cruising to victory. Did you see the debates? He made a monkey out of both Bush & Clinton. After he dropped out, voters were disillusioned; and they had the willies about him, when he came back (yet he still got 19% or so of the vote).
Here is a NY TIMES article, on polling results (also June 1992):

<Snip>
In a three-way general election matchup, Ross Perot has moved to a clear lead over both President Bush and Gov. Bill Clinton in the latest Gallup Poll.

In the telephone poll of 815 registered voters nationwide, conducted June 4 to 8, Mr. Perot was supported by 39 percent, Mr. Bush by 31 percent, and Mr. Clinton by 25 percent. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.
<End>

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/11/...-the-trail-poll-gives-perot-a-clear-lead.html


And your counterargument?

Let me guess:



Am I close, or do you have anything more than that?

 

LOL-- you're citing an MSNBC article as an objective appraisal on this.

Secondly, the astute "experts" have shown that even with reams of poll data, at the end of a long campaign, just before an election-- they can still blow the call. So please don't say I should believe the MSNBC political observers to be able to accurately predict the future, for the possibilities of a situation that hasn't even occurred yet. I notice from the title, it does NOT say that No Labels cannot win; only that it may help Trump. Also, their calling it a "fantasy," at this point, shows that they are not even giving it serious consideration. Such pompous pretense in one's knowing it all, does not usually make one invulnerable to error.

There are too many question marks, at this point, to make any credible predictions. Or, if such things as the election results could be foretold, this far in advance, then certainly these savvy political junkies also make the relatively simple, and nearer term predictions of whether or not No Labels fields a Presidential pair, and who those candidates will be, right? What do they say, about that?

I will guess, in advance of your avoiding giving an answer, that they make no definitive prediction on this-- am I right? And yet your claim is that they can be definitive about the result of a contest, without even knowing who its participants will be? Does that really sound reasonable, to you?

Now, I am not saying that, with stipulations, one could not make predictions-- the most important among them, concerning the number of states in which No Labels gets on the ballot. At present, it is only 10. If we stipulate that it will ultimately be in the neighborhood of say 18 or 20 states, then obviously, the candidate can't win, and it is a completely wasted effort; no talking head needed, to figure that out. But does the article stipulate a certain limit, of the number of state ballots to which No Labels will gain access? I mean, how could one possibly make a prediction about the effect of a candidate, w/out knowing who the candidate will be, or even in which states, they will be running? Such a "forecast," clearly has little basis, other than assumptions, made from the speculators' biases & conventional expectations. YAWN.

This thread is specifically about a Hogan candidacy. Hogan asserted that he would not run, unless he could win. But there is no way he could win, if he wasn't on nearly all the state ballots. Therefore, any of my comments about his chances, are assuming (if he's running) that he is on most state ballots. Maybe your experts don't see that happening. But if it doesn't, then according to Hogan, he wouldn't run-- so the question of his effect, becomes moot. If I have correctly guessed the nature of the general situation that they are discussing in your article, then it clearly is not at all the specific situation, I am considering.



EDIT: All that said, I have not yet looked at things, state by state, and I will agree with the likelihood that, among 3 candidates, all with a good degree of popularity, the odds of any one reaching 270 electoral votes, of course, are considerably lower, than with two candidates. If, then, this causes the decision to move to the House-- then that would be what your article may be pointing to.

 

The Republican party lets the voters decide in Primary elections who is to be the candidate. The Democratic party not so much. Such as what they are now doing with Kennedy in this election and Bernie in the last election.

 

Kennedy has ZERO Chance, and his candidacy is a total joke (only supported by Trumpsters who want to disrupt the Dem Primaries)...
Bernie had NO CHANCE in 2020 (S. Carolina and Super Tuesday proved that)...
So...Dream On...

 

And what is the Democratic Party "doing with Kennedy?" He is not popular, with Democratic voters. All the Democrats are doing, is not letting the Republicans decide, who their nominee, should be.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rfk-jr-democrat-republican-primary-favorability/amp/

<Snip>
A certain presidential candidate has been very popular lately. He appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast. House Republicans invited him to testify before Congress on censorship. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, also a Republican, has suggested that if he becomes president, he might nominate him to lead the Food and Drug Administration or Centers for Disease Control. GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said he’d consider him to be his running mate.

The only problem? This candidate is running in the Democratic primary
<End>


In seven of the eight opinion polls cited, in this article, Kennedy's popularity is higher among Republicans, than it is with Democratic voters.

<Snip>
But one thing pollsters have consistently found is that Democratic voters are souring on Kennedy. Morning Consult, Harris, Quinnipiac, Echelon Insights and Marquette all saw Kennedy’s net favorability among Democrats decrease since their previous polls, conducted in either May or June (although in Marquette’s case, the decrease was small enough that it was within the margin of error).
<End>



As for Bernie, whom I had supported, it is known that the head of the DNC, at that time, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz did let Hillary's people control the debate schedule, and so forth. And her replacement, Donna Brazille, actually gave Clinton a question in advance, of a debate. Further, it is easy to see that some influential members of the Dem Party establishment were hostile towards Bernie. But none of this proves that he would have otherwise won the Primary in 2016. And certainly not in 2020. Considering how Trump now calls the shots, with the RNC, it is ridiculous for you not to direct your criticisms, closer to home.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/

<Snip>
So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.

By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.

***

The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

“What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”

That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.
<End>

 

The post you responded to specifically referred to Bernie's situation in 2020 "Bernie in the last election"
So?
Why waste so many keytrokes discussing the events of 2016?

 

Quite a lot of copypasta and wasted keystrokes for someone who missed the point entirely...
Carry on...