Well — he’s running for something. Right now, Joe Manchin plans to run to New Hampshire to headline a No Labels event, along with former governor and politico from another era Jon Huntsman. Together they will make the pitch that Americans deserve another option if the two major parties decide on a rematch of 2020.

And while that argument may make sense in that specific circumstance, America would probably want a different choice than these two as the alternative, too:

Senator Joe Manchin is headed to New Hampshire next week for an event with No Labels as the group looks to run a third-party candidate in next year’s presidential election and frantic Democrats are trying to stop it out of fears it could siphon off votes from Joe Biden to hand Donald Trump a victory.

Manchin, a former honorary co-chair of the group, will be the headliner of the gathering along with former Republican Governor of Utah Jon Huntsman at the townhall meeting, which will take place Monday, July 17th, at Saint Anselm’s College in Manchester, No Labels told DailyMail.com.

Ironically or not, New Hampshire has a special place in Huntsman’s career — it’s where his presidential aspirations died in 2012. Huntsman had attempted to win the GOP nomination, and did poorly in a cycle mainly known for its weak candidates. Mitt Romney won by outlasting everyone else rather than creating a strong connection to voters. Even then, he still could have won in the general election with a campaign more grounded in field work, real data, and a strategy that listened to locals rather than rely on consultants at the national level.

You know …  like No Labels is doing.

At least Hunstman has attempted a national campaign. He’s also embodied a “No Labels” approach in his career, being a Republican who eventually worked for presidents of both parties. He incurred the ire of GOP activists and voters by taking a post as ambassador to China in Barack Obama’s first term, resigning that to run for the 2012 nomination, and then served as Donald Trump’s ambassador to Russia. At 64 next year, Huntsman at least would give his small cadre of voters a chance to vote against the gerontocracy of the moment, too.

Manchin, on the other hand, hasn’t ever run a national campaign, has never worked for a Republican administration, and has clung to his Democrat identity even when it would clearly benefit him to abandon it. He’s also turning 76 years old in six weeks, and would be 77 in the next general election. Manchin’s only value in a No Labels effort would be name recognition as the center of the Senate — which isn’t nothing, but it makes him a creature of the Beltway, and the Beltway is all about labels.

However, No Labels has a particular value to Manchin — as leverage. A Manchin-topped No Labels ticket would draw at least some voters away from Joe Biden. How many? It’s tough to say, but with Biden’s popularity in the basement and digging for a lower level, it wouldn’t take much to drain enough to matter in very close-run states. That would be even more true if Republicans nominated someone other than Trump, which might scotch a No Labels bid altogether, but it might also be far too late to withdraw at that point.

Manchin’s footsie-playing with No Labels appears intended to keep Democrats worried — and to keep them dealing. They will have to find some formula that keeps Manchin on the sideline. That would either be on policy in the Senate, or more likely, related to some other office that Manchin desires in 2024. He could run again for Senate against a very popular Jim Justice (and Babydog!), but that looks all but impossible to win. He might want the White House to start approving energy projects in West Virginia so as to build up a campaign for governor, which would be somewhat more realistic for Manchin if still a tough climb.

And as bad as Biden is performing at the moment, the administration would likely fall all over itself to get Manchin enough pork to buy him out of the No Labels effort.

That would leave No Labels with Huntsman, who hasn’t been politically relevant in years. That may or may not be lamentable for a man who has truly embodied a No Labels credo in his career, but it’s also a measure of its limitations and its conceit.

“No Labels” sounds good as a slogan, but ideology and philosophy matter to voters, and so does consistency, as well as practicality and accomplishment. Even center-leaning voters don’t expect unity as much as they want mutually beneficial cooperation based on clearly delineated principles. When they vote for a candidate, especially for president and governor, they want to know what that candidate stands for as well as what he’s willing to give.

“No Labels” is just another way of saying that nothing matters except consensus itself. And few voters will sign up for that, unless the other options are so awful as to require it. That’s the conundrum facing both major parties this cycle.