For the past few years, the group No Labels has been raising money off the idea that Americans do not want to see a rematch between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. Its solution? Present 2024 voters with an alternative, independent “unity ticket.” But after nearly three years, the organization has failed spectacularly.
On Thursday, it said in a statement that “No Labels has always said we would only offer our ballot line to a ticket if we could identify candidates with a credible path to winning the White House. No such candidates emerged, so the responsible course of action is for us to stand down.”
The idea of a “unity” ticket always sounds good in theory. So why did this extremely well-funded organization crash and burn?
The idea of a “unity” ticket always sounds good in theory. So why did this extremely well-funded organization crash and burn?
While polls have reflected general frustration with both presumptive nominees, No Labels was unsuccessful in finding the promised “gladiator” candidate who would lead its so-called movement. For nearly a year, it looked like the centrist contrarian and ostensible West Virginia Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin could be that candidate, but he took a pass in February. Weeks later, Manchin even suggested that No Labels could become a spoiler, helping to ultimately elect Trump.
Manchin was not the only one to take a pass. The New York Times reported in March that many high profile individuals had similarly turned down No Labels. According to The Times, this list includes former Republican governors Nikki Haley, Larry Hogan, Jon Huntsman, Bill Haslam and most recently Chris Christie. Retired Adm. William H. McRaven, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former. Rep Will Hurd of Texas were also reportedly approached.
Several of these names have given reasons for pursuing a No Labels bid, notably Haley. The one-time GOP candidate said she refused to entertain a bipartisan ticket (although No Labels has noted it would be open to a Republican-independent option). But I can’t imagine any of the aforementioned politicians would want the first line of their political obituary to note their role in re-electing Trump.
Christie summed it up pretty well when he announced at the end of March that he would not run as an independent this year, after dropping out of the GOP primary. “While I believe this is a conversation that needs to be had with the American people, I also believe that if there is not a pathway to win and if my candidacy in any way, shape or form would help Donald Trump become president again, then it is not the way forward,” he wrote.
Putting aside this particular political trap, No Labels’ lack of transparency also likely doomed its endeavor. Money didn’t seem to be an issue, and the organization’s leadership seemed confident it could secure nationwide ballot access — and yet it refused to disclosed its donors.
In fact, the opacity was a selling point. The FAQ portion of the No Labels website warns “we never release the names of our supporters because it is essential to protect their privacy.” This policy protected big donors from both sides of the aisle, and presumably made them feel comfortable opening up their wallets. It is completely unrealistic to think any experienced political person would accept ballot access from an organization without knowing who is supporting it. But in my opinion, it is completely unrealistic to think any experienced political person would accept ballot access from an organization without knowing exactly who is supporting it. In addition, as of April 1, No Labels had qualified to be on the ballot in only 19 states. Getting on the ballot in all 50 states is expensive, but for a group that believed its PAC could raise $300 million for the general election, that goal should have been achievable. What you can’t buy is a movement. For all of the hype, No Labels failed to attract a groundswell of support from any group or demographic. It had no message and no leader. The people publicly supporting it were more establishment than maverick. A movement requires energy, recruitment, new ideas and, most of all, purpose. In the end, No Labels didn’t really stand for anything. Defining yourself as not Joe Biden or Donald Trump is defining yourself as nothing. And as the saying goes, you can’t beat something with nothing. Now, that’s all No Labels is.
Susan Del Percio is a Republican strategist and a political analyst for MS NOW. 
