No Labels' Failed Presidential Bid: 'Logistical Flaw' or 'Massive Grift'?

Why was the No Labels’ group unable to build its “unity” presidential bid?

Logistical Flaws? Jim Geraghty (Lean Right bias) wrote that running an Independent bid for the White House was “once again proven easier in theory than in practice.” Despite polls revealing many Americans want a third option in the race, Geraghty doubted any politician would be willing to endure the “criticism, grief, and aggravation, and struggle” that would come with challenging the major parties. Geraghty also highlighted a “logistical flaw” in No Labels’ proposed plan to run a presidential candidate from one party and a vice presidential candidate from the opposing party, writing that the two running mates would be ideologically opposed on key issues, preventing them from getting anything done. Geraghty concluded, “Hey, at least the cabinet meetings would be entertaining.”

Massive Grift? A writer in USA Today (Lean Left bias) stated that critics of No Labels’ on both sides of the aisle let out a “huge sigh of relief” upon hearing Thursday’s news. Highlighting criticism of No Labels, from the group’s secretive decision-making and unidentified donors, the writer asserted that “some critics started to wonder if No Labels was a massive grift masquerading as a centrist political party.” Expressing a belief that the group still has something to offer Washington, the writer concluded, “Good luck with the reset. Be more transparent going forward. Get back to the focus on bipartisanship that motivated No Labels 14 years ago. Give critics reasons to reconsider your motives.”