Katie Phang, a news anchor for MSNBC, explains that the D.C. establishment fears that a third party, like the Green Party or No Labels Party in 2024, will take enough votes from Brandon to prevent him from winning.
Former Senator Doug Jones, her guest on the show, explains that “a vote for No Labels means a vote to Donald Trump.” In addition to his former Senator status, Doug Jones has also worked as a lobbyist. This fact is not acknowledged when he’s asked to comment on public issues in state corporate media.
They then indulge in a blatantly hypocritical discourse on the immorality that No Labels is allegedly receiving financial support from unsavory groups and individuals. The duo then demands that the donors of No Labels be revealed.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Let’s start with the Democrats and see who the donors are for each political party.
The establishment is afraid of having more choices on the ballot. No one likes the Brandon entity. It was created not by the voters but by party technocrats, who forced other candidates to withdraw and unanimously endorse Biden as president, quarterbacked Obama.
Jill Stein ran a third party in 2016 and was a notorious figure. She earned the enduring anger of Clinton Inc. for it due to Hillary’s accusations that Stein had colluded or whatever with Russia (the Russiagate conspiracy is a confusing, amorphous concept) to rig her election.
The statistical analysis of the post-mortem showed that, even if Stein’s voters switched sides and voted for Hillary, the tiny percentage they represented in the electorate wouldn’t have been enough to defeat Trump in those few swing states which were most important.
Via Reason:
There are national exit polls that shed some light. CBS News, for example, asked Stein voters how they would vote if presented with a ballot that only included Clinton and Trump. Results: 61 percent said they would not vote, 25 percent said they would vote for Clinton and 14 percent said Trump. This formula would not be sufficient to close the gap of 10,704 votes in Michigan.
What are the facts for the Democrat Party and its corporate media colleagues? It is much easier for them to blame something other than the poor performance of their own candidates.
What if – and I realize this is a crazy, naive suggestion – the Democrat Party offered attractive candidates with attractive policy platforms to which normal people without purple-colored hair would be willing to vote?
