If No Labels was sincere, instead of running someone for President, they would have taken their $70M and gone to 6-7 Rs in swing districts during this Speaker crisis saying "We've got your back - If you switch parties to No Labels, you're getting $5-10M from us to win your district in the next cycle." With those 6-7 votes, they could hav…
If No Labels was sincere, instead of running someone for President, they would have taken their $70M and gone to 6-7 Rs in swing districts during this Speaker crisis saying "We've got your back - If you switch parties to No Labels, you're getting $5-10M from us to win your district in the next cycle." With those 6-7 votes, they could have selected a moderate speaker, and would remain relevant (and newsworthy) in EVERY important vote for the next 2 years... giving them insanely valuable earned media attention. If they took this path, they would be (a) relevant -- controlling the swing votes in the House, and choosing the next Speaker, and (b) well positioned for even more significant gains and maybe some Senate races in 2024. Instead, they did nothing during perhaps the largest opportunity to seize the middle in recent history. This makes me question their intentions and also question if their goal is really to create a viable 3rd party or just to consume donor money.
The fact they didn't do this, since they were instrumental in forming the Problem Solvers caucus in the House meaning they had access to moderate GOP members, told me they weren't serious. They truly were nothing much more than campaign consultant grifters with access to stupid people with big money.
LOL - you might be right. However, with $70M No Labels has a powerful carrot and stick. Carrot: Let you run as a moderate in a swing district with more financial support than either other party could provide... and Stick: No Labels runs a moderate conservative against you in the general, and siphons off 5-10% guaranteeing that the Dem wins. I think your question is good though -- are there 6-7 Rs that care more about retaining power than sticking with the tribe? If it's a cult, maybe not... people would rather (politically) die than leave... but the evidence over the last 7 years seems to be that some people will do whatever it takes to stay in power even if it means "selling out."
If No Labels was sincere, instead of running someone for President, they would have taken their $70M and gone to 6-7 Rs in swing districts during this Speaker crisis saying "We've got your back - If you switch parties to No Labels, you're getting $5-10M from us to win your district in the next cycle." With those 6-7 votes, they could have selected a moderate speaker, and would remain relevant (and newsworthy) in EVERY important vote for the next 2 years... giving them insanely valuable earned media attention. If they took this path, they would be (a) relevant -- controlling the swing votes in the House, and choosing the next Speaker, and (b) well positioned for even more significant gains and maybe some Senate races in 2024. Instead, they did nothing during perhaps the largest opportunity to seize the middle in recent history. This makes me question their intentions and also question if their goal is really to create a viable 3rd party or just to consume donor money.
The fact they didn't do this, since they were instrumental in forming the Problem Solvers caucus in the House meaning they had access to moderate GOP members, told me they weren't serious. They truly were nothing much more than campaign consultant grifters with access to stupid people with big money.
You probably can't find 6-7 Republicans in Congress willing to leave the tribe.
Those that might, already left.
Agreed
LOL - you might be right. However, with $70M No Labels has a powerful carrot and stick. Carrot: Let you run as a moderate in a swing district with more financial support than either other party could provide... and Stick: No Labels runs a moderate conservative against you in the general, and siphons off 5-10% guaranteeing that the Dem wins. I think your question is good though -- are there 6-7 Rs that care more about retaining power than sticking with the tribe? If it's a cult, maybe not... people would rather (politically) die than leave... but the evidence over the last 7 years seems to be that some people will do whatever it takes to stay in power even if it means "selling out."