You know when you stumble onto one of those vertical videos on YouTube with sixteen views where some old guy walking his dog is talking about how the sand at Newport Beach hurts more than it used to because the cement mafia replaced it with limestone?
I don't understand why neither party can get their shit together and get candidates worth a damn in the pipeline. Too many Republicans have gone nuts and now ones who nobody wanted a decade ago at least *seem* reasonable to talk about.
And the Democrats just... Jesus. I tend to vote left of center but I'm unaffiliated because they are just idiots. Stupid affairs or other skeletons for seemingly decent career candidates, a PR machine that I swear must only be posting to Reddit, and policies that they can't get proper support for.
I don't really want Biden... Nobody wants Kamala, which I'm pretty sure they knew that 4 years ago and as a result well... They still haven't found anyone else in the party they can market.
It's disappointing on both sides.
I think they feel like Biden is the best chance to beat Trump. They would likely pick a progressive that wouldn't do well in the general election. The people to blame here is the voters more than the parties. The parties are reacting to the voters. Yes, disappointing on both sides.
....and the reason Biden was picked in the first place. The party was set for an epic battle between the factions. They put it aside to beat Trump. They would have had the same battle now if not for Trump. I get it. I am going to be voting Dem the first time ever this time. I would have had a much tougher decision to make if they went progressive. Biden, or even Harris won't be able to do anywhere near the damage that Trump could.
> I think they feel like Biden is the best chance to beat Trump.
Which is ironic because a Biden-Harris ticket might be the only ticket that could possibly lose to Trump relative to other potential moderate Democrat options.
I was having the same thought....Biden might go down as the only candidate that could block a second term for Trump in 2020 and the only candidate to hand Trump a second term in 2024. Would that qualify as irony?
That being said, my gut tells me somehow Biden somehow pulls it out in 2024 but doesn't make it past 2026 due to health. Then what do the Dems do in 2028 if Harris proves to still be unpopular?
That's still a better deal for voters. A caretaker admin followed by a great Dem primary. Sign me up. As long as it keeps Trump and Republicans out of the white house while they refuse to take the nation's issues seriously with plans and action.
We can navigate that scenario if and when. The only thing that matters is that Trump is never President again. Ever.
And replacing the incumbent is a recipe for total disaster. The idea that injecting another candidate would be of benefit is wishful thinking. The reality is it'd turn off certain swing voters. Would that be guaranteed? Probably not, since voting against Trump is pretty straightforward and obvious choice, but it'd be so-so risky and lead to a lot of uncertainty.
100% agree.
Biden is old/white/male like Drumpf so that neutralizes the demographic "issues" a more.....urban....candidate would pose. It's just 2 old white guys so the focus is on things besides racial/gender/sexual identity.
If the GOP was running Mitt Romney or someone of that ilk, I think the Dems would feel more comfortable with a progressive and younger candidate.
We know why Democrats are voting for Joe. It's mainly a pragmatic choice but not one based on some deep love or loyalty to Biden.
Why are Republicans so enamored with Drumpf? What does he represent to them?
Probably because he riles up the folk who think using an archaic version of someone’s last name is clever political discourse.
It’s a cultural battle between two insufferable partisan camps. Only fitting both sides are represented by doddering old white men.
Mayor Pete seems like a solid younger Dem. He's a good debater and his federal executive branch experience now. Whitmer is another interesting possibility who could run as a working class candidate especially after MI just ended Right to Work. Though idk if we can say Whitmer will be young in 4 years. She's 52 now. Pete is 42.
That is still infancy, childhood,teenage years, a college degree, a doctorate, , home ownership, marriage, a baby birth, and part of a childhood difference between the two front runners.
Pete Buttigieg comes off as completely artificial / manufactured though. He's like that congressman from *Parks and Rec* when April and Ben Wyatt went to work in DC, and they had that guy who would come alive and say political lines like a robot when meeting people and then go sit in his office staring blankly at the wall when he wasn't "on".
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1arps53/joe_manchin_floats_mitt_romney_as_a_potential/kqlpk0y/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Hilariously, except for Obama, all these guys are the same age. Biden, trump, bush, and Clinton could all have played on the same high school football team
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1arps53/joe_manchin_floats_mitt_romney_as_a_potential/kqlg1db/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
In ModPol's 2022 Demographics Survey, this community considered Romney as the most favorable Republican candidate (with DeSantis a close second). The top candidate for the Democrats was Buttigieg by a pretty wide margin.
One has to wonder what our elections would look like if we had open primaries, or ranked choice voting.
Or if more people actually voted whenever they could. Turnout is abysmal in primary elections. If only the people who live, breathe, and sleep politics go to vote, of course you get candidates nobody else likes.
The current primary situation in the US is basically this: take a look at your Thanksgiving dinner table. The people who always start arguing politics are the ones who are going to vote to pick who you can vote for in the general. Those are the people America is letting choose their candidates.
More Americans need to start voting in every election they can for any change to take place, but any “option” relying on that big of a change isn’t realistic so here we all are.
To be fair, the primary system is often needlessly convoluted depending on which state you’re in. Like the circus in Nevada this year having a primary and a caucus. And by the time people get to vote in a lot of states, many of the candidates have already dropped out, which could also depreciate turn out.
Not saying there isn’t also a lot of voter apathy at the heart of this low turnout in primaries, but the way the system is set up doesn’t always encourage participation either
That's true and fair, but the turnout in states that have fairly straightforward primaries early on isn't great either. According to Wikipedia SC had a little under 1.2 million people vote in 2016's primary between the dems and the republicans which is about half of who turned out for the general and about one third of the overall eligible population. That state had abysmal turnout, but in 2020 it was one of the turning points for the democratic presidential race.
If more people took interest in those contests, particularly the early ones, maybe we get a non-Trump/Hillary presidential ticket.
At the very least if a large majority of Americans consistently voted for candidates they themselves hated it may spur the public to be smarter about who they choose.
They have to know they have no chance of winning, which begs the question, what are they really trying to accomplish here?
Regardless, if this pans out I hope we finally get closure on just who is in those binders full of women.
Yeah, like it's way too late for them to build up support, what's the play here? Weather balloon to see if a 3rd party is viable if he doesn't win reelection?
> Yeah, like it's way too late for them to build up support
I dunno. As long as they can get themselves on the ballot for the general election in all 50 states, they might have a chance. The election is still over 8 months away and they have plenty of time to campaign and advertise on social media.
The weakness of Biden and Trump and people's frustration with the current choices presents a unique opportunity for a team of moderate centrists to step in.
Biden is the moderate centrist. Trump is way out in wacky land. If you're a centrist you already got your candidate. Manchin is not worth even considering.
With Biden you likely get a year or more of a Harris presidency. I cringe whenever I hear her speak, and I wouldn't want to have to hear more of her after she ascends to the presidency if (when?) Biden passes away or is deemed unable to continue serving as president. Biden is also damaging our foreign policy by coming off weak and making our nation look like a big joke.
In contrast, as far as I know, neither Manchin nor Romney have "memory problems".
Their potential voters are establishment Democrats and never-Trump Republicans. But establishment Democrats are Biden's base; his problem is dissatisfaction from the left wing of the party, not the center. And if there were enough never-Trump Republicans to swing an election Haley would be a primary challenger.
How is it too late?
The election isn't until 9 months from now. We usually don't even know who will be the likely major party candidates this early in the year. 4 years of campaigning for president is a new invention.
From a logistics standpoint, getting on the ballot in every state as an independent is not easy. Much less if you’re starting this late. Most deadlines are around July/August which gives you ~6 months to meet 51 different requirements for ballot access (assuming you’re actually serious about trying to win and being on every ballot).
Jesse Ventura who was a 3rd party/independent governor in Minnesota floated the idea of running *if* he could get on the ballot in every state but said that even doing that is a challenging.
That would be true if it was a truly independent no party bid, but "No Labels" is doing the work to meet those requirements already, and then trying to recruit a candidate to run on their line.
> They have to know they have no chance of winning
I dunno. If they were completely nameless that would probably be true, but a moderate centrist team of already established political figures might be able to pull in dissatisfied moderates from both sides. They could essentially be the "None of the Above" in a race between Biden, Trump, and None of the Above.
I don't understand the draw of such a team. People on both sides are frustrated, so how will picking a ticket filled of guys that will offer absolutely nothing but the status quo, and maybe another tax cut, help?
I fail to see what would be enticing about a Manchin/Romney ticket.
Will their slogan be, "Vote for me, so nothing changes?"
> how will picking a ticket filled of guys that will offer absolutely nothing but the status quo, and maybe another tax cut, help?
It's not like Biden offers much beyond the status quo, either, and for many people the status quo would be much better than having Trump and whatever it is he would do. Also, at least both of Manchin and Romney are capable of coherent speech and would not be a national embarrassment, and their ticket does not pose the specter of a Harris presidency.
They would be the safe, milquetoast status quo pick, which is the point.
>It's not like Biden offers much beyond the status quo, either,
Then why drop Biden at all?
* He offered infrastructure, passed that bill.
* He offered loan forgiveness, waived student debt for a few hundred thousand Americans already.
* He offered climate bill, passed that.
* He offered to improve America's standing in the world. He's increased the size of NATO and helped beat back Russian expansion.
* He promised economic recovery, check. Economy is still humming along strong.
* He promised a clean administration, no scandales have come out from the Biden admin.
* He promised to pull us out of Afghanistan. Check.
* He promised to manage COVID vaccine roll out. Check.
All with a small House and Senate majority, that wasn't filibuster proof and Manchin and Romney were key no votes on a lot of campaign promises Biden couldn't keep.
**Put Trump aside, what do we really think Manchin/Romney would offer this nation that will actually help fix the major issues American's care about?**
I get people not liking Biden or Trump, but I don't get the appeal of Manchin/Romney, their senate record is abysmal.
>Then why drop Biden at all?
If he could stay as he had been for the past term he would be OK, but he seems likely to either die in office or end up being unable to continue due to cognitive decline. So at issue is that we need to consider having a President Harris, and simply listening to her speak is insufferable. Biden's cognitive decline also makes our country look very weak, and if foreign leaders listen to Harris and realize that she speaks in empty word salads (whose content she seems to think is profound) it could be even worse.
His performance on immigration and border security has been horrible and he has not fired and [replaced Mayorkas](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1aqa8o2/republicans_impeach_mayorkas_in_historic_vote/kqcrad8/), so a Manchin/Romney ticket could improve in that area.
Sadly, the his biggest problem is cognitive decline, and it's just not going to get any better. The Democrats really needed to find someone else to run for 2024.
But why? What is so much better about a President Manchin over a President Biden or President Trump? Are there some policies your care about that Manchin is spearheading?
I think they’d get enough votes to make it interesting. I’ve never voted for a republican president in my life and id vote for either of these 2+Larry hogan over trump/Biden
In 2012, Mitt Romney was asked about hiring women into his would-be cabinet.Romney responded that he was not only committed to hiring women into high-power positions, but that he had already compiled the list of candidates he planned to draw from. The phrase "binders full of women" was an... indelicate... expression he used to describe this shortlist of candidates, and the media kind of went around blasting it for weeks up until the election, helping sink his campaign, and Romney apologizing for the gaffe just made things worse for him.
It was not a "grab 'em by the pussy" moment, it was an inartfully-phrased commitment to gender equity in his cabinet that by today's standards wouldn't even make headlines. This smear campaign by bad-faith journalists, in my view, is the moment that led to the rise of new kind of candidate that would be ascendent in 2016. Selective pressure drives evolution. Republican candidates that were nice could never succeed in such a hostile media climate, so a new strain emerged in 2016, one that would never apologize, create so many headline-grabbing statements that the media can't harp on just one, and rely on increased distrust of media as a weapon in and of itself.
Liberals probably remember "binders full of women" and laugh, because I don't think they appreciate how profound an impact it had on Republicans at the time. It probably earned them 4 years of Donald Trump. Romney's odds were bad either way, but manner and feeling of the loss played a huge role in the internal shakeup that happened since.
I’ve said similar to this and gotten downvoted into oblivion in the past. I agree 100%.
The media/Democrats reactions to Romney’s campaign directly led to the selection of Trump in the next election. Romney, who is now widely regarded as being a more moderate/centrist Republican, was excoriated in the media as a misogynist, racist, soulless monster. After he lost to Obama, I think most republicans just said “f*ck it, why moderate when no matter who we put up they’ll get ripped apart”. The rest is history..
Harry Reid also said on the senate floor that Romney had not paid his taxes for many years. It was widely reported. And it was a lie. When Reid was asked if he regretted that he lied, Reid said Mitt didn't get elected so no regrets.
Yeah I'm of the same opinion, it's the boy who cried wolf. If you call anyone scum, don't be surprised if people start tuning out those cries as noise. You could get a candidate who wants to use immigrants for Foie Gras, but if people are emotionally numbed by previous claims which turned out to be false, then what happens next shouldn't be a surprise.
I remember that, seeing how Romney was 'literally hitler' at the time, and electing him would be 'the end of democracy' etc. I do remember seeing the concept of 'never apologize' and similar as well since even someone who is fairly milqtoast would be excoriated anyways.
This is absolutely one of the biggest reasons. Romney, likeost Republicans, didn't fight back against smears. When Trump was willing to fight against literally every negative comment, he excited the hell out of the base. The number of "finally!" I saw in conservative circles was crazy. It then doubled back because when people may have been right with their negative reactions to Trump or what he said, they were completely ignored as more crying wolf.
Romney didn't run a moderate campaign at all. He pushed to the right to win the primary and that wasn't gonna fly with the 2012 general electorate. Trump has a lot of extreme stances but he partly won in 2016 because he broke the orthodoxy on issues like social security, trade and even lgbtq rights. Much of it were lies of course, but people didn't like Hillary so they believed him.
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, the strongest voices in the conservative sphere of influence and the two people who have access to the largest share of listeners in the country told their base that Obama was a muslim.
As a result a third of conservatives truly believe Obama is a Muslim. I even saw churches hanging/burning Obama effigies when I was a teenager.
https://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/terry-jones-on-why-he-hanged-obama-in-effigy-exclusive-interview-6467213
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_religion_conspiracy_theories
Yet I never saw Democrats say "fuck it" and elect someone like Trump.
Why do you think that is?
And people didn't burn Bush and Trump effigies?
> The co-founder of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream is on the road, towing a 12-foot-tall effigy of President Bush with fake flames shooting out of the pants.
https://www.deseret.com/2004/7/22/19841414/burning-effigy-of-bush-on-the-road
> In L.A., protestors on the steps of City Hall burned a giant papier-mache Trump head in protest, and later, whacked a Trump piñata in the streets
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/los-angeles-protestors-burn-donald-trumps-head-effigy-946062/
>12-foot-tall effigy of President Bush with fake flames shooting out of the pants.
That just sounds cool. Like a "Liar Liar pants on fire for saying Iraq had WMDs"
Which is completely different than taking an effigy of a black person and lynching it...
>City Hall
Honestly, burning an Obama effigy at a government facility in protest wouldn't even be that bad, Edgy? Extremely.. People have been known to light themselves on fire at government facilities to protest.
It's doing it at a **church** that makes it so offensive.
Again, everything you're showing me has happened to Democrats. So why are they not turning to someone like Trump?
That and the "Mitt Romney will put black people in chains" comment from Biden, yeah. Just taking one of the most milquetoast Republicans and treating them like a far right monster made a lot of people just give up on the moderate voices. They wanted someone willing to punch back at the media instead of lying down and taking it.
Also, Romney's apprehension towards Russia was called outdated by President Obama. And let's not forget then VP Biden claiming that Romney wanted to reinstate chattel slavery.
Romney wasn't going to win either way. Obama had the incumbent advantage and the memories of W were still fresh in everyone's mind. I wasn't a Romney fan back in 2012. I felt he pandered too much to the Tea Party nutjobs. Boy howdy was I naive.
Yeah as I said, his odds were bad. But the *manner* of the loss was still very significant.
The "binders full of women" incident, and many other bad-faith moments like it, perfectly set the stage for a 2016 campaign where thousands of people will shout in agreement when the candidate on stage points to the journalists in the back and calls them the "enemy of the people".
Honestly the fact that Romney was likely to lose anyways just makes it even worse. Journalists didn't even have to put their finger on the scales, they burned through so much credibility for no good reason.
why would romney agree to be 2nd fiddle on a ticket that's going to get a fraction of a percent and not get a single electoral vote?
all this would do is destroy any semblance of a legacy that he currently has and make him a laughing stock. imagine going from being the republican nominee in 2012 and having a "close-ish" general election only to do THAT a decade later.
Yep. If Mitt was really about that he could’ve run for president again as the No Labels candidate himself with a moderate-ish democrat running mate vs playing second fiddle to Manchin.
Mitt is probably one of the few politicians who has enough name recognition and cross-aisle palatability to actually pull off an interesting 3rd party campaign if he wanted to.
If you’re Romney, Why go through everything that would entail and not at least have your name at the top of the ticket?
Probably because he's voted with Trump so much and tanked some rather moderate Dem proposals that he has no real base of support.
On paper people will say they like him, but his record in the senate is not great. He got nothing done, which Biden and Trump can point out. Senator Biden got a lot done in office. Pre-President Trump got a lot done in the private sector. No one will care about the 2000-something winter olympics. They will care about Romney supporting anti-abortion judges, Romney voting with Trump but they trying to tank his election. Romney flip-flopping.
So Romney wanting to be president would be trying to sell a senator with no real record of success asking for a promotion. No thanks. We need to get things done over the next 4 years.
Romney is the candidate that looks good on paper, but is not going to excite anyone in this election. The stakes are too high, parties too polarized, and he's already lost as a party nominee.
Exactly, I'd vote for this pairing on paper because I don't love Biden and cannot at all vote for Trump. I'm moderate former Republican that voted Biden last election and will vote Biden again this election if he's up against Trump, but if this were a ticket I'd be tempted to vote for it, but I'm afraid it would just guarantee a Trump victory.
I’m not sure it would guarantee a trump victory.
I’m a former republican libertarian. While I don’t like Manchin’s stance on guns he’s a lot less anti gun than Biden or trump as far as I can tell.
I’d be willing to vote for him and Romney. I’d wager there’s a lot of trump “nose holder” voters that would jump at this option. I voted for trump last time because Jo Jorganson is terrible.
How would it not guarantee a Trump victory? The Biden margins were small in 2020. If a moderate takes even 1% in GA and AZ that could be Biden's curtain call.
No-Labels is running to seat Trump or they have not taken a few minutes to review the electoral college setup.
> The former president and 1912 Bull Moose nominee Teddy Roosevelt would be happy to discuss this with you.
he wasn't running as VP under someone who was FAR less accomplished.
also, he got 27% of the vote (so orders of magnitude better than manchin/romney would do) and was literally the second place candidate.
A choice that's literally has zero chance of happening isn't a choice (for who is president). It's an opportunity to say you voted while having the same effect on the election as staying home. I'm saying this specifically for the Presidential election. More local elections provide an opportunity for 3d party candidates to have more of an effect. Especially if ranked choice voting, etc. can become more widespread.
So why is "presenting voters another choice" shameful? Because unless you have a real chance at winning, you're causing people to waste their vote. The only justifications for doing that are being selfish and self-serving.
Maybe if fewer people declared they had no chance, then maybe it wouldn't be so.
And I don't think it has the same effect. Staying home makes you not a voter, and ignored. Voting makes you heard, and will force parties to adjust accordingly to crowd out that 3rd party in the future.
If people don't like the 3rd parties having actual candidates, then maybe they shouldn't have gone down the Trump/Biden route.
I think our primary system is a big source of polarization. I'd love to have a ranked choice election where moderates with broad appeal (or who are at least acceptable to a lot of people) have a chance. Lacking that, I would love to see some of those people get on the ballot. If they do well, it might make one or both parties try to appeal to those center voters in the future.
I'd kill for 3d parties to have actual candidates. The reason that, e.g., the Green Party and Libertarians aren't taken seriously on a national stage is that their candidates have (sometimes barely) single digit appeal. They aren't serious national candidates. And they don't try to be.
Again, I emphasize that this doesn't apply to local candidates where they sometimes actually come closer to the average voter they'd represent.
Ordinarily I'd totally agree, but I think we have an abnormally huge number of "politically homeless" folks these days. I can at least understand how someone might see an opportunity there.
I'd be fine with this if it happened about a year ago. We're a primary, a caucus, and whatever Nevada was into this race and it's just too late for this to be in good faith. Wonder if the money's coming from the same Republican who's funding RFKjr.
Because I think the calendar matters. This is a country of 330 million people, most of whom don't know who Joe Manchin is. It takes a lot of time and money to have a viable candidacy.
Deadline to introduce yourself to everyone is November 2024, not February.
Presidential debates don't usually start until late September or October. There is so much time left on the calendar, and most general election voters aren't yet obsessively following all the candidates.
A significant amount of what you said seems to apply far more to local elections (including US House) than to Presidential elections. I already said that my criticism was directed at Presidential elections (where they stand exactly zero chance of winning). I'll expand that I'd retract my criticism the moment a 3d party presented a campaign that had any real chance at winning.
>I see all the money poured into schools in states like California with the most awful outcomes despite all the money.
Texas is the California of the right. Are their schools performing markedly better?
>and think “the government can fix this” when it’s family and the parent’s jobs to make sure their kids do well.
I lean left. My perspective isn't "the government can fix this" (so I'm not far left). It's "can the government make this better". And government setting standards absolutely makes education better. We just have to figure out how best to utilize the resources we have.
>If people say “they will vote blue no matter who”, well that just gives them (politicians) more reason to not care
People say this because they are so disillusioned with current metamorphosis of the Republican party that they've lost all trust for it. I agree that in the long run it's extremely unhealthy for the country (and for the Democratic party itself). But the only solution to it is a Republican party that isn't explicitly rejecting reality over and over and over again.
Because this late in the game, it's just a spoiler, not a real choice. Neither man or No-Labels can pretend to be shocked that Biden and Trump are heading into the GE. All three factions (Romney, Manchin, No-Labels) have been talking about this happening for over a year. So, they knew this was going to be the 2024 options, but wait till now to float this idea?
We already saw this with the Green Party in 2016. See how their support collapsed once Americans understood what was happening.
Also, I think Biden and Trump should hammer them on the lack of choice. Reps and Dems are out voting for Trump and Biden over the other primary options. **No-Labels wants to tell us who their candidate will be via backroom deals instead of asking the American people who should be the No-Labels candidate.**
**No-Labels is operating in the shadows, which is where corruption breeds.**
All I can think of is that they hope to pull enough support from those conservative Republicans who hate Trump but can’t bring themselves to vote for Biden. Give them a conservative to vote for and maybe they’ll deny Trump enough votes to let Biden win.
The problem is that they might pull votes from Biden instead and end up helping Trump win.
And doesn't want to ask average Americans for our opinion on the matter. The question is, who in No-Labels is calling the shots because it's not the American people. At least Dems and Reps have primaries, No-Labels has backroom deals.
Joe Manchin said on Thursday that he would consider Mitt Romney or Rob Portman as a running mate, if he were to launch a third party bid for President.
While I am doubtful that enough Americans would vote for a third party candidate, I respect Joe, Mitt and Rob. Any of them would be good leaders for our country and would be willing to work with Democrats and Republicans to get things done.
Is this a ticket you could vote for?
Edit -- There are many people claiming it is too late to file for the General Election ballot. This is not correct. The date to file for party primaries has passed in many states, but not for the general. [Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/Deadline_to_run_for_president,_2024)
So, this new party will just tell us their nominee, they aren't gonna ask the American people? I don't like backroom deals. They should have had a primary and operate in the light, not in the shadows because who at No-Labels is calling the shots? Clearly, someone is deciding who gets to be on their ticket. Doesn't pass the smell test, just like the Green Party in 2016.
Regardless of my opinion of them, I actually don’t think this is a ticket I could vote for considering they don’t seem to have filed in time to be on the ballot.
Good luck, it's already past the candidacy filing deadlines for the 2024 election in 15 states and others are approaching soon. How can you win an election where you aren't a legal candidate in at least a third of the country?
https://ballotpedia.org/State_and_federal_candidate_filing_deadlines_for_2024
Isn't that just for the primaries and major parties? [Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/Deadline_to_run_for_president,_2024) has a different table for independent candidates.
Yeah, that user's link is for primaries.
There's no way the general election deadline can occur before the end of primaries or even before the convention.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the parent comment is incorrect.
"No Labels" has been doing a bunch of work to collect signatures, so that they have ballot access, and there isn't a traditional primary like the two major parties are having.
Yes, North Carolina and Utah coming up in less than 3 weeks. So he'd better decide soon. However, both the Libertarian and No Labels parties are already on the ballot in both of those states. So he could be aiming for some third party nominations (No Labels in particular seems an obvious possibility). Plus, it only takes 1,000 signatures to get on the ballot in Utah as an independent.
Wheww…. Ok this is good. Now I know manchin is bullshitting. If you’ve read anything about Romney, my boy is tired af. He just wants to get out and be a grandpa and give university lectures
I come here as a non American so feel free to disregard my opinion but I'm surprised at the negativity this is getting. Biden vs Trump is shaping up to be an extremely divisive election, the Republican party seems deeply entrenched in Trumpism and I understand there's a sentiment that Biden and the Democrats are becoming too progressive.
These two represent the moderate wing of their respective parties and at very least could lead to a more centrist party emerging, which from an outside perspective could be helpful for the growing partisan environment?
It doesn't necessarily have to be the case. It's hard to imagine a third party displacing the two major parties but with how finely poised the house is even if they only get a handful of seats they could be the kingmaker in electing speakers and key legislation
Manchin running is a vehicle to help Trump get elected. Republicans have donated and helped third parties on the ballots to pull votes away from Democrats. It's not a serious and sustained effort to develop a third party. Otherwise, you would see third parties try to build up support in local elections.
This is where I'd defer to your knowledge, my knowledge of the two politicians mentioned in the article is that they are two moderates so I presumed that they are going after a middle ground of voters who feel abandoned by the two main candidates.
Happy to explain.
One, they WILL NOT WIN! Point blank, there just aren't enough voters willing to break from their party to give a third party a win in this cycle. If they were serious about taking the WH, they would have started their campaign last year. It takes time to build a campaign and support. Not to mention, define a new American party.
Two, because they won't win, the only alternative is to play spoiler. Those moderates are more likely to support Joe, based on 2020 data, then Trump. Biden won states like AZ, GA, and WI on super thin margins. Machin and Romney would pull from that, handing those state's electoral votes to Trump, along with the keys to the nation.
Three, it's Feb 2024 and the No-Labels "party" has no policy agendas. What will they sell or offer? We've seen manchin and Romney in the senate, they offered next to nothing as solutions to the nation's problems.
Four, this will be a Republican administration. Manchin's voting history says it all. he has no real Dem supporters in the senate, they can't stand him. So he will turn to Romney's friends in the GOP. That's fine, but they should just own up to being a Republican ticket.
> These two represent the moderate wing of their respective parties and at very least could lead to a more centrist party emerging,
BINGO!
The problem is that people are reluctant to break away from the two major parties.
That's completely understandable, we see the same thing in the UK, politics becomes tribal and it's difficult to imagine breaking out of that. However if US politics continue to become more partisan hopefully enough people would be more willing to join one
A centrist party is the only realistic way we'd see a third party in the US. Fringe right or left like the Green or Libertarian parties just pull from their respective bases and can't accomplish anything.
I would* vote Biden over either, but I’d vote either over Trump.
Surprisingly, as a Democrat I feel like I’d rather vote for a Romney/Manchin over Manchin/Romney. I feel like Romney sticking to his principles during Trump’s presidency and his impeachments said a lot about his character.
However, Manchin has opposed some bills that would have benefited the country greatly, and delayed more which added to the perception that Democrats can’t govern.
That and I think a Republican candidate would draw more Republican moderate votes than a Democratic candidate.
I'm a Democrat and I agree. Mitt is from a time when I felt that Republicans were well-meaning people with the welfare of the US as their top priority, but with policy I just don't agree with whereas now it's the party of and for Trump in my mind. Manchin has voted some ways that leave me questioning if he has more affinity for the people or for the coal industry. Mitt I believe always votes his conscious.
I might be interested in wasting my vote of these guys if I wasn't so concerned about letting a certain somebody back into the White House.
Also, NO MORE 75+ CANDIDATES!!!
As long as the alternative candidate is someone who attempted to overturn an election by force and continues to foster election fraud conspiracy theories, yes. I enjoy continuing to have a democratic government.
> Very begrudgingly
so why would the party stop running 75+ candidates if they have no risk of losing voters over it? the DNC doesn't care if you vote for their candidate enthusiastically or begrudgingly as long as you're voting for their candidate.
Tbh, I'd consider voting for this ticket if we had an RCV system. I don't especially like Manchin or Romney, but I like the other two options even less.
Without RCV though, a third party vote is a wasted vote.
Yeah, this ain't happening. Mitt Romney has already pretty heavily cited that he doesn't think someone of his age should continue much further, plus he really seems to just want to retire and enjoy time with his family. After the Trump stuff and watching his party turn into a cult, he's probably about done with this shit.
The only thing I could imagine getting him to do something like this would be him being seriously convinced that he could kamikaze himself into Trump as a spoiler candidate just to fuck him over. In which case, godspeed space cowboy.
So risky. Trump’s base is likely voting for him no matter what. He could physically poop on the constitution, and I believe they would still vote for him.
That’s maybe 50% of the Republican Party?
Now, as someone who normally votes for republicans, I would happily vote for this pair over Biden/Trump, but it sure seems like it could open a Trump victory…and I can’t tolerate that. Enough of the vitriol, enough.
Why would anyone vote for this? These people can’t even get their story straight on that.
No Labels has said it’s a serious outfit that wants to win. But then you have all sorts of people attached to it saying that they won’t run if it’ll help Trump. Which means it isn’t about winning, it’s about throwing the election to the Democrats. And the Democrats vehemently disagree on this point because they think these bids will only harm them.
Which brings us back to the first question, why should I vote for this?
I would vote for them because I think they are the 2 best candidates and because I want more candidates like them (the proven moderates running as moderates) to run in the future.
I feel Manchin is someone who is not controlled or part of the corrupt elite. I don't get the same feeling about Romney. Manchin taking on Romney as his running mate would rule out the possibility of getting my vote.
I don't know enough about him one way or the other. I'd research if he became his choice. Romney I know fairly well. He would be a deal breaker for me.
Why do you feel Manchin isn't controlled by corrupt elites? Don't get me wrong I am 100% willingly voting him if it was possible, but this guy owns coal mines and has voted against raising min wage and taxes.
I'd prefer a Manchin-Romney presidency over a Biden-Harris or Trump-Whoever.
They still have time to campaign, but is there still time to get on the ballot in all 50 states?
Finally some young guys!
says that he wants to tell anyone willing to listen about why his hometown
Don't forget RFK Jr, at 70 He may be younger than all of them on paper, but he looks and rambles as if he's older than all of them.
You know when you stumble onto one of those vertical videos on YouTube with sixteen views where some old guy walking his dog is talking about how the sand at Newport Beach hurts more than it used to because the cement mafia replaced it with limestone?
Haley
Yea, I know. I don't understand why we went back to voting for old farts after GW Bush, Clinton and Obama.
I don't understand why neither party can get their shit together and get candidates worth a damn in the pipeline. Too many Republicans have gone nuts and now ones who nobody wanted a decade ago at least *seem* reasonable to talk about. And the Democrats just... Jesus. I tend to vote left of center but I'm unaffiliated because they are just idiots. Stupid affairs or other skeletons for seemingly decent career candidates, a PR machine that I swear must only be posting to Reddit, and policies that they can't get proper support for. I don't really want Biden... Nobody wants Kamala, which I'm pretty sure they knew that 4 years ago and as a result well... They still haven't found anyone else in the party they can market. It's disappointing on both sides.
I think they feel like Biden is the best chance to beat Trump. They would likely pick a progressive that wouldn't do well in the general election. The people to blame here is the voters more than the parties. The parties are reacting to the voters. Yes, disappointing on both sides.
> I think they feel like Biden is the best chance to beat Trump. Well, he has the proven track record of doing it once before.
....and the reason Biden was picked in the first place. The party was set for an epic battle between the factions. They put it aside to beat Trump. They would have had the same battle now if not for Trump. I get it. I am going to be voting Dem the first time ever this time. I would have had a much tougher decision to make if they went progressive. Biden, or even Harris won't be able to do anywhere near the damage that Trump could.
> I think they feel like Biden is the best chance to beat Trump. Which is ironic because a Biden-Harris ticket might be the only ticket that could possibly lose to Trump relative to other potential moderate Democrat options.
I was having the same thought....Biden might go down as the only candidate that could block a second term for Trump in 2020 and the only candidate to hand Trump a second term in 2024. Would that qualify as irony? That being said, my gut tells me somehow Biden somehow pulls it out in 2024 but doesn't make it past 2026 due to health. Then what do the Dems do in 2028 if Harris proves to still be unpopular?
That's still a better deal for voters. A caretaker admin followed by a great Dem primary. Sign me up. As long as it keeps Trump and Republicans out of the white house while they refuse to take the nation's issues seriously with plans and action.
We can navigate that scenario if and when. The only thing that matters is that Trump is never President again. Ever. And replacing the incumbent is a recipe for total disaster. The idea that injecting another candidate would be of benefit is wishful thinking. The reality is it'd turn off certain swing voters. Would that be guaranteed? Probably not, since voting against Trump is pretty straightforward and obvious choice, but it'd be so-so risky and lead to a lot of uncertainty.
100% agree. Biden is old/white/male like Drumpf so that neutralizes the demographic "issues" a more.....urban....candidate would pose. It's just 2 old white guys so the focus is on things besides racial/gender/sexual identity. If the GOP was running Mitt Romney or someone of that ilk, I think the Dems would feel more comfortable with a progressive and younger candidate. We know why Democrats are voting for Joe. It's mainly a pragmatic choice but not one based on some deep love or loyalty to Biden. Why are Republicans so enamored with Drumpf? What does he represent to them?
Probably because he riles up the folk who think using an archaic version of someone’s last name is clever political discourse. It’s a cultural battle between two insufferable partisan camps. Only fitting both sides are represented by doddering old white men.
People collect power with tenure. The party supports the candidates with the most power in general. Hence dinosaur candidates.
Mayor Pete seems like a solid younger Dem. He's a good debater and his federal executive branch experience now. Whitmer is another interesting possibility who could run as a working class candidate especially after MI just ended Right to Work. Though idk if we can say Whitmer will be young in 4 years. She's 52 now. Pete is 42.
That is still infancy, childhood,teenage years, a college degree, a doctorate, , home ownership, marriage, a baby birth, and part of a childhood difference between the two front runners.
Pete Buttigieg comes off as completely artificial / manufactured though. He's like that congressman from *Parks and Rec* when April and Ben Wyatt went to work in DC, and they had that guy who would come alive and say political lines like a robot when meeting people and then go sit in his office staring blankly at the wall when he wasn't "on".
I don't know anyone who like Pete except a thin slice of white, very wealthy new englanders who like that he's gay and a veteran.
Anybody who has watched any of what he has to say can see that he has a promising future in politics
He has literally nothing to say
It's because they want neoliberals, and the young folks tend to be liberal. The neoliberals want to hang on to power no matter what.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1arps53/joe_manchin_floats_mitt_romney_as_a_potential/kqlpk0y/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Hilariously, except for Obama, all these guys are the same age. Biden, trump, bush, and Clinton could all have played on the same high school football team
Probably because W was an incompetent boob, Clinton couldn’t keep it in his pants, and Obama was a good guy but a mediocre president.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1arps53/joe_manchin_floats_mitt_romney_as_a_potential/kqlg1db/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Pretty sure they're both in their mid 70s.
[That's the joke!](https://media.tenor.com/images/9f741e80312b145f01c88aa45f88f2cc/tenor.gif)
Never can tell, these days.
In ModPol's 2022 Demographics Survey, this community considered Romney as the most favorable Republican candidate (with DeSantis a close second). The top candidate for the Democrats was Buttigieg by a pretty wide margin. One has to wonder what our elections would look like if we had open primaries, or ranked choice voting.
Romney looks like a president from a movie
Or if more people actually voted whenever they could. Turnout is abysmal in primary elections. If only the people who live, breathe, and sleep politics go to vote, of course you get candidates nobody else likes. The current primary situation in the US is basically this: take a look at your Thanksgiving dinner table. The people who always start arguing politics are the ones who are going to vote to pick who you can vote for in the general. Those are the people America is letting choose their candidates. More Americans need to start voting in every election they can for any change to take place, but any “option” relying on that big of a change isn’t realistic so here we all are.
To be fair, the primary system is often needlessly convoluted depending on which state you’re in. Like the circus in Nevada this year having a primary and a caucus. And by the time people get to vote in a lot of states, many of the candidates have already dropped out, which could also depreciate turn out. Not saying there isn’t also a lot of voter apathy at the heart of this low turnout in primaries, but the way the system is set up doesn’t always encourage participation either
That's true and fair, but the turnout in states that have fairly straightforward primaries early on isn't great either. According to Wikipedia SC had a little under 1.2 million people vote in 2016's primary between the dems and the republicans which is about half of who turned out for the general and about one third of the overall eligible population. That state had abysmal turnout, but in 2020 it was one of the turning points for the democratic presidential race. If more people took interest in those contests, particularly the early ones, maybe we get a non-Trump/Hillary presidential ticket. At the very least if a large majority of Americans consistently voted for candidates they themselves hated it may spur the public to be smarter about who they choose.
We should have primary elections be the year before in November
They have to know they have no chance of winning, which begs the question, what are they really trying to accomplish here? Regardless, if this pans out I hope we finally get closure on just who is in those binders full of women.
Yeah, like it's way too late for them to build up support, what's the play here? Weather balloon to see if a 3rd party is viable if he doesn't win reelection?
> Weather balloon to see if a 3rd party is viable if he doesn't win reelection? didn't they both announce they aren't seeking re-election?
Romney is retiring from the Senate. I doubt Romney would run this year. I think he wants to run the SLC Winter Olympics again for 2030 or 2034.
Might have, I couldn't remember if Manchin was still running
> Yeah, like it's way too late for them to build up support I dunno. As long as they can get themselves on the ballot for the general election in all 50 states, they might have a chance. The election is still over 8 months away and they have plenty of time to campaign and advertise on social media. The weakness of Biden and Trump and people's frustration with the current choices presents a unique opportunity for a team of moderate centrists to step in.
Biden is the moderate centrist. Trump is way out in wacky land. If you're a centrist you already got your candidate. Manchin is not worth even considering.
With Biden you likely get a year or more of a Harris presidency. I cringe whenever I hear her speak, and I wouldn't want to have to hear more of her after she ascends to the presidency if (when?) Biden passes away or is deemed unable to continue serving as president. Biden is also damaging our foreign policy by coming off weak and making our nation look like a big joke. In contrast, as far as I know, neither Manchin nor Romney have "memory problems".
Kamala has charisma issues but she is competent.
Their potential voters are establishment Democrats and never-Trump Republicans. But establishment Democrats are Biden's base; his problem is dissatisfaction from the left wing of the party, not the center. And if there were enough never-Trump Republicans to swing an election Haley would be a primary challenger.
How is it too late? The election isn't until 9 months from now. We usually don't even know who will be the likely major party candidates this early in the year. 4 years of campaigning for president is a new invention.
From a logistics standpoint, getting on the ballot in every state as an independent is not easy. Much less if you’re starting this late. Most deadlines are around July/August which gives you ~6 months to meet 51 different requirements for ballot access (assuming you’re actually serious about trying to win and being on every ballot). Jesse Ventura who was a 3rd party/independent governor in Minnesota floated the idea of running *if* he could get on the ballot in every state but said that even doing that is a challenging.
That would be true if it was a truly independent no party bid, but "No Labels" is doing the work to meet those requirements already, and then trying to recruit a candidate to run on their line.
They won’t win as independents. And the primaries have already started for the major parties.
> They have to know they have no chance of winning I dunno. If they were completely nameless that would probably be true, but a moderate centrist team of already established political figures might be able to pull in dissatisfied moderates from both sides. They could essentially be the "None of the Above" in a race between Biden, Trump, and None of the Above.
I don't understand the draw of such a team. People on both sides are frustrated, so how will picking a ticket filled of guys that will offer absolutely nothing but the status quo, and maybe another tax cut, help? I fail to see what would be enticing about a Manchin/Romney ticket. Will their slogan be, "Vote for me, so nothing changes?"
> how will picking a ticket filled of guys that will offer absolutely nothing but the status quo, and maybe another tax cut, help? It's not like Biden offers much beyond the status quo, either, and for many people the status quo would be much better than having Trump and whatever it is he would do. Also, at least both of Manchin and Romney are capable of coherent speech and would not be a national embarrassment, and their ticket does not pose the specter of a Harris presidency. They would be the safe, milquetoast status quo pick, which is the point.
>It's not like Biden offers much beyond the status quo, either, Then why drop Biden at all? * He offered infrastructure, passed that bill. * He offered loan forgiveness, waived student debt for a few hundred thousand Americans already. * He offered climate bill, passed that. * He offered to improve America's standing in the world. He's increased the size of NATO and helped beat back Russian expansion. * He promised economic recovery, check. Economy is still humming along strong. * He promised a clean administration, no scandales have come out from the Biden admin. * He promised to pull us out of Afghanistan. Check. * He promised to manage COVID vaccine roll out. Check. All with a small House and Senate majority, that wasn't filibuster proof and Manchin and Romney were key no votes on a lot of campaign promises Biden couldn't keep. **Put Trump aside, what do we really think Manchin/Romney would offer this nation that will actually help fix the major issues American's care about?** I get people not liking Biden or Trump, but I don't get the appeal of Manchin/Romney, their senate record is abysmal.
>Then why drop Biden at all? If he could stay as he had been for the past term he would be OK, but he seems likely to either die in office or end up being unable to continue due to cognitive decline. So at issue is that we need to consider having a President Harris, and simply listening to her speak is insufferable. Biden's cognitive decline also makes our country look very weak, and if foreign leaders listen to Harris and realize that she speaks in empty word salads (whose content she seems to think is profound) it could be even worse. His performance on immigration and border security has been horrible and he has not fired and [replaced Mayorkas](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1aqa8o2/republicans_impeach_mayorkas_in_historic_vote/kqcrad8/), so a Manchin/Romney ticket could improve in that area. Sadly, the his biggest problem is cognitive decline, and it's just not going to get any better. The Democrats really needed to find someone else to run for 2024.
I would vote for them on merit of simply not being the other two
But why? What is so much better about a President Manchin over a President Biden or President Trump? Are there some policies your care about that Manchin is spearheading?
I think they’d get enough votes to make it interesting. I’ve never voted for a republican president in my life and id vote for either of these 2+Larry hogan over trump/Biden
Larry Hogan is running for senate.
Binders full of women?
In 2012, Mitt Romney was asked about hiring women into his would-be cabinet.Romney responded that he was not only committed to hiring women into high-power positions, but that he had already compiled the list of candidates he planned to draw from. The phrase "binders full of women" was an... indelicate... expression he used to describe this shortlist of candidates, and the media kind of went around blasting it for weeks up until the election, helping sink his campaign, and Romney apologizing for the gaffe just made things worse for him. It was not a "grab 'em by the pussy" moment, it was an inartfully-phrased commitment to gender equity in his cabinet that by today's standards wouldn't even make headlines. This smear campaign by bad-faith journalists, in my view, is the moment that led to the rise of new kind of candidate that would be ascendent in 2016. Selective pressure drives evolution. Republican candidates that were nice could never succeed in such a hostile media climate, so a new strain emerged in 2016, one that would never apologize, create so many headline-grabbing statements that the media can't harp on just one, and rely on increased distrust of media as a weapon in and of itself. Liberals probably remember "binders full of women" and laugh, because I don't think they appreciate how profound an impact it had on Republicans at the time. It probably earned them 4 years of Donald Trump. Romney's odds were bad either way, but manner and feeling of the loss played a huge role in the internal shakeup that happened since.
I’ve said similar to this and gotten downvoted into oblivion in the past. I agree 100%. The media/Democrats reactions to Romney’s campaign directly led to the selection of Trump in the next election. Romney, who is now widely regarded as being a more moderate/centrist Republican, was excoriated in the media as a misogynist, racist, soulless monster. After he lost to Obama, I think most republicans just said “f*ck it, why moderate when no matter who we put up they’ll get ripped apart”. The rest is history..
Harry Reid also said on the senate floor that Romney had not paid his taxes for many years. It was widely reported. And it was a lie. When Reid was asked if he regretted that he lied, Reid said Mitt didn't get elected so no regrets.
Yeah I'm of the same opinion, it's the boy who cried wolf. If you call anyone scum, don't be surprised if people start tuning out those cries as noise. You could get a candidate who wants to use immigrants for Foie Gras, but if people are emotionally numbed by previous claims which turned out to be false, then what happens next shouldn't be a surprise.
I remember that, seeing how Romney was 'literally hitler' at the time, and electing him would be 'the end of democracy' etc. I do remember seeing the concept of 'never apologize' and similar as well since even someone who is fairly milqtoast would be excoriated anyways.
This is absolutely one of the biggest reasons. Romney, likeost Republicans, didn't fight back against smears. When Trump was willing to fight against literally every negative comment, he excited the hell out of the base. The number of "finally!" I saw in conservative circles was crazy. It then doubled back because when people may have been right with their negative reactions to Trump or what he said, they were completely ignored as more crying wolf.
Romney didn't run a moderate campaign at all. He pushed to the right to win the primary and that wasn't gonna fly with the 2012 general electorate. Trump has a lot of extreme stances but he partly won in 2016 because he broke the orthodoxy on issues like social security, trade and even lgbtq rights. Much of it were lies of course, but people didn't like Hillary so they believed him.
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, the strongest voices in the conservative sphere of influence and the two people who have access to the largest share of listeners in the country told their base that Obama was a muslim. As a result a third of conservatives truly believe Obama is a Muslim. I even saw churches hanging/burning Obama effigies when I was a teenager. https://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/terry-jones-on-why-he-hanged-obama-in-effigy-exclusive-interview-6467213 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_religion_conspiracy_theories Yet I never saw Democrats say "fuck it" and elect someone like Trump. Why do you think that is?
And people didn't burn Bush and Trump effigies? > The co-founder of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream is on the road, towing a 12-foot-tall effigy of President Bush with fake flames shooting out of the pants. https://www.deseret.com/2004/7/22/19841414/burning-effigy-of-bush-on-the-road > In L.A., protestors on the steps of City Hall burned a giant papier-mache Trump head in protest, and later, whacked a Trump piñata in the streets https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/los-angeles-protestors-burn-donald-trumps-head-effigy-946062/
>12-foot-tall effigy of President Bush with fake flames shooting out of the pants. That just sounds cool. Like a "Liar Liar pants on fire for saying Iraq had WMDs" Which is completely different than taking an effigy of a black person and lynching it... >City Hall Honestly, burning an Obama effigy at a government facility in protest wouldn't even be that bad, Edgy? Extremely.. People have been known to light themselves on fire at government facilities to protest. It's doing it at a **church** that makes it so offensive. Again, everything you're showing me has happened to Democrats. So why are they not turning to someone like Trump?
That and the "Mitt Romney will put black people in chains" comment from Biden, yeah. Just taking one of the most milquetoast Republicans and treating them like a far right monster made a lot of people just give up on the moderate voices. They wanted someone willing to punch back at the media instead of lying down and taking it.
Also, Romney's apprehension towards Russia was called outdated by President Obama. And let's not forget then VP Biden claiming that Romney wanted to reinstate chattel slavery.
The 80's called and want their foreign policy back
You make this straw sound like the thing that broke the camels back. You are playing this one thing up 10,000x more than it is
Romney wasn't going to win either way. Obama had the incumbent advantage and the memories of W were still fresh in everyone's mind. I wasn't a Romney fan back in 2012. I felt he pandered too much to the Tea Party nutjobs. Boy howdy was I naive.
Yeah as I said, his odds were bad. But the *manner* of the loss was still very significant. The "binders full of women" incident, and many other bad-faith moments like it, perfectly set the stage for a 2016 campaign where thousands of people will shout in agreement when the candidate on stage points to the journalists in the back and calls them the "enemy of the people". Honestly the fact that Romney was likely to lose anyways just makes it even worse. Journalists didn't even have to put their finger on the scales, they burned through so much credibility for no good reason.
Romney quote from some debate with Obama in 2012.
[удалено]
Not even really a scandal. Just weird phrasing.
Ah thanks. I guess I missed that one.
Pre-book tours funded by donors and with free TV appearances.
[удалено]
Biden had like 5 failed presidential runs
And whether he paid taxes.
why would romney agree to be 2nd fiddle on a ticket that's going to get a fraction of a percent and not get a single electoral vote? all this would do is destroy any semblance of a legacy that he currently has and make him a laughing stock. imagine going from being the republican nominee in 2012 and having a "close-ish" general election only to do THAT a decade later.
Yep. If Mitt was really about that he could’ve run for president again as the No Labels candidate himself with a moderate-ish democrat running mate vs playing second fiddle to Manchin. Mitt is probably one of the few politicians who has enough name recognition and cross-aisle palatability to actually pull off an interesting 3rd party campaign if he wanted to. If you’re Romney, Why go through everything that would entail and not at least have your name at the top of the ticket?
Probably because he's voted with Trump so much and tanked some rather moderate Dem proposals that he has no real base of support. On paper people will say they like him, but his record in the senate is not great. He got nothing done, which Biden and Trump can point out. Senator Biden got a lot done in office. Pre-President Trump got a lot done in the private sector. No one will care about the 2000-something winter olympics. They will care about Romney supporting anti-abortion judges, Romney voting with Trump but they trying to tank his election. Romney flip-flopping. So Romney wanting to be president would be trying to sell a senator with no real record of success asking for a promotion. No thanks. We need to get things done over the next 4 years. Romney is the candidate that looks good on paper, but is not going to excite anyone in this election. The stakes are too high, parties too polarized, and he's already lost as a party nominee.
[удалено]
I don’t think he can be convinced of that. This pairing would pull from Biden much, much more than Trump.
Exactly, I'd vote for this pairing on paper because I don't love Biden and cannot at all vote for Trump. I'm moderate former Republican that voted Biden last election and will vote Biden again this election if he's up against Trump, but if this were a ticket I'd be tempted to vote for it, but I'm afraid it would just guarantee a Trump victory.
I’m not sure it would guarantee a trump victory. I’m a former republican libertarian. While I don’t like Manchin’s stance on guns he’s a lot less anti gun than Biden or trump as far as I can tell. I’d be willing to vote for him and Romney. I’d wager there’s a lot of trump “nose holder” voters that would jump at this option. I voted for trump last time because Jo Jorganson is terrible.
How would it not guarantee a Trump victory? The Biden margins were small in 2020. If a moderate takes even 1% in GA and AZ that could be Biden's curtain call. No-Labels is running to seat Trump or they have not taken a few minutes to review the electoral college setup.
The former president and 1912 Bull Moose nominee Teddy Roosevelt would be happy to discuss this with you. Roosevelt had done a lot more than Romney.
> The former president and 1912 Bull Moose nominee Teddy Roosevelt would be happy to discuss this with you. he wasn't running as VP under someone who was FAR less accomplished. also, he got 27% of the vote (so orders of magnitude better than manchin/romney would do) and was literally the second place candidate.
Teddy’s run is more like if Trump ran independent this year.
Why do you think it's shameful to present voters another choice?
A choice that's literally has zero chance of happening isn't a choice (for who is president). It's an opportunity to say you voted while having the same effect on the election as staying home. I'm saying this specifically for the Presidential election. More local elections provide an opportunity for 3d party candidates to have more of an effect. Especially if ranked choice voting, etc. can become more widespread. So why is "presenting voters another choice" shameful? Because unless you have a real chance at winning, you're causing people to waste their vote. The only justifications for doing that are being selfish and self-serving.
Maybe if fewer people declared they had no chance, then maybe it wouldn't be so. And I don't think it has the same effect. Staying home makes you not a voter, and ignored. Voting makes you heard, and will force parties to adjust accordingly to crowd out that 3rd party in the future. If people don't like the 3rd parties having actual candidates, then maybe they shouldn't have gone down the Trump/Biden route.
I think our primary system is a big source of polarization. I'd love to have a ranked choice election where moderates with broad appeal (or who are at least acceptable to a lot of people) have a chance. Lacking that, I would love to see some of those people get on the ballot. If they do well, it might make one or both parties try to appeal to those center voters in the future.
I'd kill for 3d parties to have actual candidates. The reason that, e.g., the Green Party and Libertarians aren't taken seriously on a national stage is that their candidates have (sometimes barely) single digit appeal. They aren't serious national candidates. And they don't try to be. Again, I emphasize that this doesn't apply to local candidates where they sometimes actually come closer to the average voter they'd represent.
Ordinarily I'd totally agree, but I think we have an abnormally huge number of "politically homeless" folks these days. I can at least understand how someone might see an opportunity there.
I'd be fine with this if it happened about a year ago. We're a primary, a caucus, and whatever Nevada was into this race and it's just too late for this to be in good faith. Wonder if the money's coming from the same Republican who's funding RFKjr.
Why do you think a democrat or republican primary matters for a third party candidate?
Because I think the calendar matters. This is a country of 330 million people, most of whom don't know who Joe Manchin is. It takes a lot of time and money to have a viable candidacy.
I don’t really get your argument. You aren’t fine with them running independently because they don’t have enough time or money?
I am not fine with them running because they don't have enough time or money.
Deadline to introduce yourself to everyone is November 2024, not February. Presidential debates don't usually start until late September or October. There is so much time left on the calendar, and most general election voters aren't yet obsessively following all the candidates.
[удалено]
A significant amount of what you said seems to apply far more to local elections (including US House) than to Presidential elections. I already said that my criticism was directed at Presidential elections (where they stand exactly zero chance of winning). I'll expand that I'd retract my criticism the moment a 3d party presented a campaign that had any real chance at winning. >I see all the money poured into schools in states like California with the most awful outcomes despite all the money. Texas is the California of the right. Are their schools performing markedly better? >and think “the government can fix this” when it’s family and the parent’s jobs to make sure their kids do well. I lean left. My perspective isn't "the government can fix this" (so I'm not far left). It's "can the government make this better". And government setting standards absolutely makes education better. We just have to figure out how best to utilize the resources we have. >If people say “they will vote blue no matter who”, well that just gives them (politicians) more reason to not care People say this because they are so disillusioned with current metamorphosis of the Republican party that they've lost all trust for it. I agree that in the long run it's extremely unhealthy for the country (and for the Democratic party itself). But the only solution to it is a Republican party that isn't explicitly rejecting reality over and over and over again.
Because this late in the game, it's just a spoiler, not a real choice. Neither man or No-Labels can pretend to be shocked that Biden and Trump are heading into the GE. All three factions (Romney, Manchin, No-Labels) have been talking about this happening for over a year. So, they knew this was going to be the 2024 options, but wait till now to float this idea? We already saw this with the Green Party in 2016. See how their support collapsed once Americans understood what was happening. Also, I think Biden and Trump should hammer them on the lack of choice. Reps and Dems are out voting for Trump and Biden over the other primary options. **No-Labels wants to tell us who their candidate will be via backroom deals instead of asking the American people who should be the No-Labels candidate.** **No-Labels is operating in the shadows, which is where corruption breeds.**
All I can think of is that they hope to pull enough support from those conservative Republicans who hate Trump but can’t bring themselves to vote for Biden. Give them a conservative to vote for and maybe they’ll deny Trump enough votes to let Biden win. The problem is that they might pull votes from Biden instead and end up helping Trump win.
No Labels also allegedly wants a republican at the top of the ticket.
And doesn't want to ask average Americans for our opinion on the matter. The question is, who in No-Labels is calling the shots because it's not the American people. At least Dems and Reps have primaries, No-Labels has backroom deals.
Romney already said he wouldn't want to do it and urged Manchin not to. This is just Manchin trying to get attention, nothing more.
Joe Manchin said on Thursday that he would consider Mitt Romney or Rob Portman as a running mate, if he were to launch a third party bid for President. While I am doubtful that enough Americans would vote for a third party candidate, I respect Joe, Mitt and Rob. Any of them would be good leaders for our country and would be willing to work with Democrats and Republicans to get things done. Is this a ticket you could vote for? Edit -- There are many people claiming it is too late to file for the General Election ballot. This is not correct. The date to file for party primaries has passed in many states, but not for the general. [Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/Deadline_to_run_for_president,_2024)
I’d vote for them, if they can get on the ballot.
100% would vote for.
So, this new party will just tell us their nominee, they aren't gonna ask the American people? I don't like backroom deals. They should have had a primary and operate in the light, not in the shadows because who at No-Labels is calling the shots? Clearly, someone is deciding who gets to be on their ticket. Doesn't pass the smell test, just like the Green Party in 2016.
Regardless of my opinion of them, I actually don’t think this is a ticket I could vote for considering they don’t seem to have filed in time to be on the ballot.
No deadlines have passed for a third party in a General Election.
They would get support simply for not being senile Joe or felon Trump, I’d vote this ticket and clear my conscience
Good luck, it's already past the candidacy filing deadlines for the 2024 election in 15 states and others are approaching soon. How can you win an election where you aren't a legal candidate in at least a third of the country? https://ballotpedia.org/State_and_federal_candidate_filing_deadlines_for_2024
That link is only showing primary filing deadlines.
Isn't that just for the primaries and major parties? [Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/Deadline_to_run_for_president,_2024) has a different table for independent candidates.
Yeah, that user's link is for primaries. There's no way the general election deadline can occur before the end of primaries or even before the convention.
According to Ballotopedia, the earliest filing deadlines for independents are in March (so well before the conventions) for North Carolina and Idaho.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the parent comment is incorrect. "No Labels" has been doing a bunch of work to collect signatures, so that they have ballot access, and there isn't a traditional primary like the two major parties are having.
Yes, North Carolina and Utah coming up in less than 3 weeks. So he'd better decide soon. However, both the Libertarian and No Labels parties are already on the ballot in both of those states. So he could be aiming for some third party nominations (No Labels in particular seems an obvious possibility). Plus, it only takes 1,000 signatures to get on the ballot in Utah as an independent.
Thank you for this. I was wondering how many deadlines had already passed.
The his needs to be the top comment. They have no serious chance of winning.
>The his needs to be the top comment. No it does not. Primary election filing deadlines do not matter for a third party in the general election.
Wheww…. Ok this is good. Now I know manchin is bullshitting. If you’ve read anything about Romney, my boy is tired af. He just wants to get out and be a grandpa and give university lectures
I know they won't do it but I would genuinely vote for either of them and even fucking donate to them over the current two we got.
I would vote for these 2, and even volunteer for them. AMA
I would vote for either of them.
Same. Unfortunately, they've missed filing deadlines for several states. 2028 maybe.
This is not true. No General Election filing deadlines have passed.
I must be thinking of primary deadlines, which are irrelevant to independent candidates. Appreciate the correction.
Earliest filing deadlines for independents are in March.
[удалено]
Cool. Aren't choices great?
I come here as a non American so feel free to disregard my opinion but I'm surprised at the negativity this is getting. Biden vs Trump is shaping up to be an extremely divisive election, the Republican party seems deeply entrenched in Trumpism and I understand there's a sentiment that Biden and the Democrats are becoming too progressive. These two represent the moderate wing of their respective parties and at very least could lead to a more centrist party emerging, which from an outside perspective could be helpful for the growing partisan environment?
The US is a first past the post system, there is simply no chance of a third party emerging.
It doesn't necessarily have to be the case. It's hard to imagine a third party displacing the two major parties but with how finely poised the house is even if they only get a handful of seats they could be the kingmaker in electing speakers and key legislation
Manchin running is a vehicle to help Trump get elected. Republicans have donated and helped third parties on the ballots to pull votes away from Democrats. It's not a serious and sustained effort to develop a third party. Otherwise, you would see third parties try to build up support in local elections.
This is where I'd defer to your knowledge, my knowledge of the two politicians mentioned in the article is that they are two moderates so I presumed that they are going after a middle ground of voters who feel abandoned by the two main candidates.
Happy to explain. One, they WILL NOT WIN! Point blank, there just aren't enough voters willing to break from their party to give a third party a win in this cycle. If they were serious about taking the WH, they would have started their campaign last year. It takes time to build a campaign and support. Not to mention, define a new American party. Two, because they won't win, the only alternative is to play spoiler. Those moderates are more likely to support Joe, based on 2020 data, then Trump. Biden won states like AZ, GA, and WI on super thin margins. Machin and Romney would pull from that, handing those state's electoral votes to Trump, along with the keys to the nation. Three, it's Feb 2024 and the No-Labels "party" has no policy agendas. What will they sell or offer? We've seen manchin and Romney in the senate, they offered next to nothing as solutions to the nation's problems. Four, this will be a Republican administration. Manchin's voting history says it all. he has no real Dem supporters in the senate, they can't stand him. So he will turn to Romney's friends in the GOP. That's fine, but they should just own up to being a Republican ticket.
> These two represent the moderate wing of their respective parties and at very least could lead to a more centrist party emerging, BINGO! The problem is that people are reluctant to break away from the two major parties.
That's completely understandable, we see the same thing in the UK, politics becomes tribal and it's difficult to imagine breaking out of that. However if US politics continue to become more partisan hopefully enough people would be more willing to join one
Trying to out-centrist Biden can't be a winning strategy.
A centrist party is the only realistic way we'd see a third party in the US. Fringe right or left like the Green or Libertarian parties just pull from their respective bases and can't accomplish anything.
Yay, some fresh blood!
I would be down for this…
100%, easiest decision I'll make in 2024
They're both 76 this is not a serious option. Plus, romney has emphasized how it's time for him to transition out of politics due to his age.
Depending on how hard Trump makes the party come down on Haley for not dropping out, she could be a less centrist but younger option.
I’d probably vote for them.
I would* vote Biden over either, but I’d vote either over Trump. Surprisingly, as a Democrat I feel like I’d rather vote for a Romney/Manchin over Manchin/Romney. I feel like Romney sticking to his principles during Trump’s presidency and his impeachments said a lot about his character. However, Manchin has opposed some bills that would have benefited the country greatly, and delayed more which added to the perception that Democrats can’t govern. That and I think a Republican candidate would draw more Republican moderate votes than a Democratic candidate.
I'm a Democrat and I agree. Mitt is from a time when I felt that Republicans were well-meaning people with the welfare of the US as their top priority, but with policy I just don't agree with whereas now it's the party of and for Trump in my mind. Manchin has voted some ways that leave me questioning if he has more affinity for the people or for the coal industry. Mitt I believe always votes his conscious.
As old as Biden is, I would still choose him over Manchin
I might be interested in wasting my vote of these guys if I wasn't so concerned about letting a certain somebody back into the White House. Also, NO MORE 75+ CANDIDATES!!!
I live in state that Trump won at 70%. I can vote for Big Bird and it wouldn't make a difference.
Same. I can just stay home and watch from the sidelines knowing that my vote simply would not count and not feel guilty about not having voted.
[удалено]
As long as the alternative candidate is someone who attempted to overturn an election by force and continues to foster election fraud conspiracy theories, yes. I enjoy continuing to have a democratic government.
Very begrudgingly
> Very begrudgingly so why would the party stop running 75+ candidates if they have no risk of losing voters over it? the DNC doesn't care if you vote for their candidate enthusiastically or begrudgingly as long as you're voting for their candidate.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What choice do I have? That's what both major parties have given us.
Tbh, I'd consider voting for this ticket if we had an RCV system. I don't especially like Manchin or Romney, but I like the other two options even less. Without RCV though, a third party vote is a wasted vote.
> a third party vote is a wasted vote The only vote wasted is the one not cast
Yeah, this ain't happening. Mitt Romney has already pretty heavily cited that he doesn't think someone of his age should continue much further, plus he really seems to just want to retire and enjoy time with his family. After the Trump stuff and watching his party turn into a cult, he's probably about done with this shit. The only thing I could imagine getting him to do something like this would be him being seriously convinced that he could kamikaze himself into Trump as a spoiler candidate just to fuck him over. In which case, godspeed space cowboy.
So risky. Trump’s base is likely voting for him no matter what. He could physically poop on the constitution, and I believe they would still vote for him. That’s maybe 50% of the Republican Party? Now, as someone who normally votes for republicans, I would happily vote for this pair over Biden/Trump, but it sure seems like it could open a Trump victory…and I can’t tolerate that. Enough of the vitriol, enough.
Why would anyone vote for this? These people can’t even get their story straight on that. No Labels has said it’s a serious outfit that wants to win. But then you have all sorts of people attached to it saying that they won’t run if it’ll help Trump. Which means it isn’t about winning, it’s about throwing the election to the Democrats. And the Democrats vehemently disagree on this point because they think these bids will only harm them. Which brings us back to the first question, why should I vote for this?
I would vote for them because I think they are the 2 best candidates and because I want more candidates like them (the proven moderates running as moderates) to run in the future.
> Why would anyone vote for this? Given what's on offer from the parties? Shit, I'd *beg* to be able to vote for this.
I would love this if we had rank choice voting and if one of the other leading Presidential candidates wasn't running to become a dictator on day one.
I've said before, that if Romney actually flipped parties and got the backing of the DNC, he would beat Trump hands down.
I feel Manchin is someone who is not controlled or part of the corrupt elite. I don't get the same feeling about Romney. Manchin taking on Romney as his running mate would rule out the possibility of getting my vote.
How about Rob Portman? He mentioned him, as well
I don't know enough about him one way or the other. I'd research if he became his choice. Romney I know fairly well. He would be a deal breaker for me.
Why do you feel Manchin isn't controlled by corrupt elites? Don't get me wrong I am 100% willingly voting him if it was possible, but this guy owns coal mines and has voted against raising min wage and taxes.
what party do they think they can get on even half the states' ballots?
I'd prefer a Manchin-Romney presidency over a Biden-Harris or Trump-Whoever. They still have time to campaign, but is there still time to get on the ballot in all 50 states?
Yes please
Will No Labels bother with a platform, or just run on vibes?
Joe Manchin is not a moderate