Yours is neither a dumb idea or pure hypothetical.
It could only work if she gets the No Labels nomination. That’s because it is too late for her to get ballot access any other way. A pure write-in effort will not happen or be significant.
So — I hope No Labels nominates a Cheney-Huntsman ticket.
However — the people behind No Labels would want a historical Democratic politician, as her running mate, to minimize the chances of her being a spoiler. They probably would want her as the veep, with Manchin or Sinema at the top, and there she will not spoil Trump’s chances.
Don’t forget the religionuts that love Trump because the think their interpretation of The Bible should run the United States. And it is not ‘sticking it to the man’ as often THEY are The Man. It is sticking it to liberals like Warren and AOC and by extension any Democrat.
Nobody wants Manchin or Sinema except the business interests who back them.
Yeah, don’t discount this. There are die-hard Evangelicals who are all in on Trump because he talks purty to them or because they literally believe he is the harbinger of Christian Biblical Apocalypse. Chris Hedges has talked extensively about the impact of Christian Nationalism and radical Evangelicalism has fed the MAGA movement and Trump’s ascendence, and even though some of the Evangelical contingent has become disillusioned with him they are in the minority.
I don’t watch TV, but she sure doesn’t sound like a Republican in the newspaper.
If she really could get GW Bush to say people shouldn’t vote for Trump, that would be something.
One problem with a third party run is that you start out with an idea — in this case, stop Trump — but then move to candidate mode. If she actually got to the point of debating Biden, it would be hard not to start feeling he was her opponent, and attack him — especially because Trump will probably refuse to debate.
I’m thinking a bit of Wendle Wilkie, who seemed to have almost nothing against FDR until the general election campaign back and forth led to mutual dislike.
Would it? George W. Bush has had a pretty low profile post-Presidency (I would, too, if my legacy was the biggest intelligence flop in modern history, the legal nightmare of extrajudicial imprisonment in Gitmo, and embroiling the country in the two most expensive occupations that did nothing but cause more disarray) and is mostly known for painting pictures of cute dogs and cultivating an unlikely friendship with Michelle Obama. He’s about as relevant to the modern GOP as Teddy Roosevelt, and arguably as even less influence than Cheney herself.
Gee, I hope she didn’t get the idea by reading this thread
I started the OP thinking that a hypothetical third-party run by Cheney would be the ultimate spoiler situation to trump’s reelection chances, but as pointed out by several in this thread, I’ve come to be concerned it could actually become a spoiler to Biden’s chances.
Given her appeal to independents, former Republicans and some Democrats, many Trump critics in both parties have noted that a presidential run by Cheney could undercut her stated goal of defeating Trump, because it could draw some votes away from President Biden. Cheney said those considerations would all be part of her analysis, and underscored that she would not do anything that would help Trump return to the White House.
IMHO, the vast majority of voters have made up their minds as to who they will vote for if the only choices are Biden and Trump, or that they will stay home, or that they will leave the presidential choice blank. So campaigning will not matter. But if there is a third party candidate, on their ballot, getting lots of publicity, some will reconsider.
As for who Cheney would help, I think that if her running mate was another recent Republican, that ticket would almost surely hurt Trump.
The word “almost” in the past sentence would not be good enough for those who think Biden is already on track to victory. Since I think Trump is the November favorite, and I’m strongly against his bid, shaking up the race is appealing.
But ref the snip “the vast majority” leaves a group that can be exhorted to change their behavior. If Cheney can be an effective spokesperson for the “anyone, even a senile chimp, will be superior to trump who will wreck the country for conservatives in service of looting it for himself”, she can move the needle in the small number of jusirdictions where it matters.
Whether she is campaigning as a candidate or “campaigning” as an activist with unusual ability to draw an audience, she could have a real effect.
What we really need is enough other Rs, and a bunch of the commentariat, to come out full-throated that trump would be a disaster even for conservatives.
Persuade enough Rs that they can win in 2028 IF there’s still a USA to be won, or they can stupidly hand the country to a klepto-tyrant in 2024 and lose everything for another 50 years, and maybe forever.
No, she won’t. But it is still quite a thing for her to say.
The Cheneys are beyond redemption in my view. It was the actions of her father during the time of Bush the Lesser, cynically decrying that “if you’re not with us, you’re against us!” that got this whole wretched ball of shit rolling.
That it was suddenly unpatriotic to require actual evidence for assertions made (yellowcake uranium, weapons of mass destruction, e.g.) before taking action in Iraq is largely what has brought us to the point where all Trump has to do is dribble out some disinformation to his uncritical fanbois, and he’s speaking “truth.”
However richly ironic it may be for both Cheneys to now feel they must exhort Republicans to look at the evidence, the irony in no way compensates for the very possible destruction of the country in the offing.
An award-winning Poly Sci article explaining what really got the Iraq ball unstoppably rolling – unfortunately behind paywalls – is summarized here:
Representing Wyoming, LIz Cheney gave conventional U.S foreign policy a right-wing spin. Now she has burnt her bridges there.
This does suggest that her running next year wouldn’t much hurt Trump. That’s especially true because the only way she could get any significant ballot access would be with No Labels, and the whole No Labels concept suggests that they would want her to run with a nominal Democrat. I predict she will not be a factor next year.
