Podcast Summary: The Political Scene | The New Yorker

Episode: A Mysterious Third Party Enters the 2024 Presidential Race
Date: July 17, 2023
Host: David Remnick
Guests: Pat McCrory (Leader, No Labels; Former Governor of North Carolina), Sue Halpern (Staff Writer, The New Yorker)

Overview

This episode investigates “No Labels,” a self-described centrist political movement gearing up for a potential third-party presidential run in the 2024 U.S. election. Host David Remnick interviews Pat McCrory, a leading figure in No Labels, to clarify the group’s motivations, ideology, and strategy. Remnick then speaks to journalist Sue Halpern, who has reported on No Labels’ structure, funding, and the logistical and political challenges facing any third-party movement. The episode probes the entity’s true intentions, its financial backers, and the possible consequences of its entry into the 2024 race.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What Is No Labels and What Are Its Aims?

• No Labels is actively securing ballot access across the country but has not yet announced a candidate (01:17).
• Pat McCrory characterizes No Labels as a grassroots organization involving volunteers, staff, former/current officials, and community activists (03:07).
• McCrory insists No Labels does not intend to become a permanent third party (02:51).

Quote:

“No Labels is not planning to stick around as a third permanent political party…after we select candidates. We are not going to run the campaign.”—Pat McCrory (02:51)

2. Positioning and Ideological Ambiguity

• Remnick repeatedly presses McCrory to clarify the group’s ideology, suggesting it seems “center-right” (03:36).
• McCrory rejects ideological labels, aiming for a ticket comprising both a Republican and a Democrat (05:31).
• The platform remains vague; a “common sense agenda” will be released, focusing on compromise and broad appeal (07:07).

Notable Exchange:

Remnick: “You’re giving me the most generic outline... Are you looking for a conservative?” (06:14)
McCrory: “We’re looking for people can work together and understand that when you have a divided country, you have to compromise to get things done.” (06:41)

3. Lack of Policy Specifics

• Remnick pushes for specifics on issues like abortion and guns; McCrory refuses to discuss details, promising an agenda rollout soon (07:31).
• No Labels claims it will leave some latitude for its candidate rather than demanding allegiance to a rigid platform (10:52).
• Remnick expresses frustration about the lack of substance in No Labels’ beliefs beyond dissatisfaction with the major party frontrunners (08:09).

4. Ballot Access Challenges

• The primary focus and immediate challenge for No Labels is nationwide ballot access, which is hindered by state-specific laws and resistance from established parties (08:37).
• At present, No Labels was on the ballot in only a handful of states (09:35); by year’s end, it hopes to be on 20 ballots (08:37).

5. No Labels’ Candidate Selection Process

• The group will have a nominating convention with delegates from each state (10:02).
• McCrory notes a “search committee” and “nominations committee” will be involved, but specifics are minimal (10:02).

6. The Spoiler Question and True Motivations

• Remnick and Halpern detail how third parties have traditionally played spoiler roles in U.S. elections (13:13), citing historical examples like Ralph Nader and Ross Perot.
• Halpern suggests No Labels’ primary effect may be to block Democrats, particularly those favoring social welfare, rather than offering a true middle-ground alternative (13:32).

Quote:

“I think that the idea here is that they are really opposed to the Democrats who are interested in public policy that helps the middle class, that helps the poor. I think that they’re really interested in blocking Democrats as opposed to electing Republicans.”—Sue Halpern (13:32)

7. Funding and Leadership

• Funding is intentionally opaque; McCrory says donors fear retaliation and their names are kept private (03:54).
• Halpern reports that No Labels is backed by private equity, finance, and billionaire donors such as Nelson Peltz and Harlan Crow (16:45).
• The group is led and heavily influenced by Nancy Jacobson (CEO) and her husband Mark Penn, a former Democratic pollster who has drifted rightward (17:14–17:43).
• No Labels' main pollster, Harris Poll, is owned by Mark Penn’s holding company, suggesting insider dealings (18:02).

8. Potential Candidates and Public Perception

• No Labels resists naming potential candidates. Media speculation includes Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and Larry Hogan (15:40).
• Manchin and Sinema are described as conservative Democrats who align with No Labels’ approach and have ties to industries such as fossil fuels and private equity (15:40).
• Halpern asserts that much of No Labels’ public messaging is “disingenuous” and possibly designed to shield conservative interests (14:13).

9. Criticisms and Grift Accusations

• Critics, including Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson, allege that No Labels is a political “grift,” raising money, maintaining opacity, and never intending to meaningfully nominate a candidate (18:02).
• Halpern contends the real agenda may be more about blocking Democratic policies, especially those raising taxes on the wealthy (14:13, 15:40).

Memorable Moments & Quotes with Timestamps

• On Ideological Vagueness:
  “Nobody runs against common sense. Common sense is a pretty generalized phrase to be charitable.”
  —David Remnick (07:19)

• On Agenda Secrecy:
  “We will be rolling out our agenda in July as our time goal... we’re doing this a very strategic rollout and a very studious rollout of the issues of today.”
  —Pat McCrory (07:31)

• On Spoiler Potential:
  “If a third party candidacy conspires to and succeeds in sinking Joe Biden, well, the Republican will be elected. And that inevitably, it seems at this point, would be Donald Trump.”
  —David Remnick (14:13)

• On Funding Source Secrecy:
  “Where the money comes from is from all over the nation... there are some people who do give money and they’re afraid of retribution... That’s why their names are allowed to be protected in the current system.”
  —Pat McCrory (03:54)

• On the Real Power Players:
  “It’s really being driven a lot by this woman named Nancy Jacobson, who’s married to a guy named Mark Penn... Mark Penn was one of Trump’s advisors during impeachment.”
  —Sue Halpern (17:14–17:49)

Key Segment Timestamps

• [01:17] — Remnick introduces No Labels, its ambitions, and the third-party legacy.
• [02:51] — Pat McCrory on No Labels’ non-permanent party intentions.
• [05:31] — McCrory emphasizes goal for bipartisan ticket, hints at candidate background.
• [07:07 – 08:09] — Remnick presses for policies and ideology; McCrory remains non-committal.
• [13:13] — Discussion with Sue Halpern on historical third-party spoilers.
• [14:45 – 17:49] — Halpern details No Labels’ funding sources and key personalities.
• [18:02] — The Harris Poll’s link to Mark Penn and criticisms of No Labels’ motives.

Summary & Takeaway

This episode unpacks the mystery of “No Labels,” a well-funded group presenting itself as a centrist alternative to Biden and Trump. Despite high-profile organizers and significant fundraising, their refusal to provide policy specifics or transparency about funding stokes skepticism about their intentions. Critics argue that their most likely impact is to spoil the election in favor of Republicans, especially given their connections to finance, private equity, and conservative Democrats.

The show leaves listeners with a nuanced, questioning view of No Labels: is it a genuine attempt to break party gridlock, or a strategic spoiler masquerading as a political breath of fresh air? As their “common sense agenda” remains unrevealed, the group’s true role in shaping 2024 remains, for now, unresolved.