Yesterday, 'No Labels' announced that it would not be fielding a presidential ticket in 2024 after all, even though the country is hurtling toward the Trump-Biden rematch that the organization had cited as a reason to offer voters an alternative. It seems they couldn't find someone who was prominent enough to make the proposition even conceivably quasi-viable, and who was willing to run. 'No Labels' is dominated by anti-Trump sentiment, and the conventional wisdom holds that third party bids will enhance Trump's electoral prospects (I'm not necessarily sold would hold true for a large number of would-be 'No Labels' voters on the center-right, but that's now a moot point), so it's not too surprising that they didn't encounter many takers. Self-appointed 'pro-democracy' leftists are celebrating this development, openly rooting for other candidates to avoid running, or be denied ballot access. They are staunchly against too much democracy -- "for democracy," of course:
NO LABELS is out--not running a POTUS candidate. One down, three to go.
— Larry Sabato (@LarrySabato) April 4, 2024
This 'No Labels' development is significant because unlike some other non-major-party options, they are well-funded and organized, having already secured ballot slots in 19 states -- including key ones like Arizona, Nevada and North Carolina. Whether they're correct in their analysis or not, Democrats clearly believe the 'No Labels' no-show is a win for them. They aren't just openly rooting for fewer voter choices; they're engaging an army of lawyers to sue to block other 'threats to democracy' from gaining access to ballots all across the country. It looks like they're also reconsidering their supposedly "principled" push to register as many new voters as possible. For years, the mantra on the Left was, 'when more people vote, Democrats win.' Now, it seems, they're not so confident about that, and may be pumping the breaks on their voter registration zeal. Here's why:
Democrats are feverishly debating whether they should fine-tune voter registration efforts among young people and minorities, saying efforts that traditionally worked for their side risk boosting former President Donald Trump’s numbers in November. The debate was sparked by a memo from Aaron Strauss, a data scientist who worked on progressive spending at OpenLabs, and polling that shows unregistered breaking toward the Republican side. “If we were to blindly register nonvoters and get them on the rolls, we would be distinctly aiding Trump’s quest for a personal dictatorship,” Mr. Strauss argued in the memo obtained by The Washington Post...The memo hits on a simmering fear within the Democratic Party that it is losing its grips on core voting blocs that, historically, have fueled Democratic victories, including President Biden’s win in 2020...
The Strauss memo warned that drawing out non-Black minority and young voters cost more than $1,200 per net vote in 2020 versus $575 per vote among Black Americans, meaning “only African American registration is clearly a prime opportunity.” The memo was circulated to major Democratic donors in January, sparking an internal clash among groups charged with signing up new Democratic voters. Some organizations told The Post that the memo would stoke division between voting blocs and cause donors to withdraw money from critical efforts to register minority voters the party desperately needs. Others said the party should focus on making sure already-registered Democrats show up to vote in November.
The "personal dictatorship" fear-mongering and hyperbole (checks and balances, and institutions -- even ones Democrats undermine for political reasons -- constrain all presidents) is meant to convey a sense of urgency about not registering too many now-unreliably-blue voters, lest they vote the 'wrong' way. So now we have ostensibly pro-democracy voices warning against registering too many voters -- "for democracy," of course. From a pure power politics perspective, the left-wing data scientist who circulated the memo in question may not be wrong to be worried. Check out these fresh national numbers from Marquette's pollster:
expect Democrats to very subtly stop talking about how important it is to register new voters and increase turnout, and how actually voting is sort of lame if you think about it pic.twitter.com/YFjJJMtx0O
— Logan Dobson (@LoganDobson) April 4, 2024
Biden leads Trump by four points among the likeliest voters, as Democrats now have a systemic advantage among the most reliable voters in the US electorate. But among registered but unreliable voters, Trump leads by double digits. Among non-registered eligible voters, Trump leads by nearly a 2-1 margin. It's not hard to imagine Democrats looking at these figures and saying, yeah let's cool it on the whole 'register everyone' concept. A well-funded, organized, professional Republican Party should be focused intensely on (1) ensuring that their low-propensity voters submit ballots one way or the other (rather than limiting options by stubbornly raging against mail balloting), and (2) moving heaven and earth to enroll these legions of Trump-friendly unregistered but eligible voters. Does anyone have confidence in their abilities to execute either of these tasks effectively?
I'll leave you with the aforementioned Marquette survey showing Trump and Biden tied among registered voters (as opposed to likely voters, among whom Biden leads 52-48), with Trump surging ahead by three percentage points in a multi-candidate ballot scenario. Based on these results, it makes total sense for Democrats to root for both fewer voters and fewer options for those voters -- all "for democracy," of course:
🇺🇲 2024 GE: Among registered voters
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) April 4, 2024
🟦 Biden 50% [+1]
🟥 Trump 50% [-1]
.
Independents
🟦 Biden 54% [+10]
🟥 Trump 46% [-8]
——
🟥 Trump 41% [-1]
🟦 Biden 38% [-1]
🟨 RFK Jr 14% [+1]
🟨 West 5% [+2]
🟩 Stein 2% [=]
[+/- change vs February]@MULawPoll | 3/18-28 | 868 RV | ±4.3% https://t.co/JI5uIO2PUt pic.twitter.com/WOfvHYqlMw
Join the conversation as a VIP Member