There’s been a lot of buzz about the world’s wealthiest man pledging to start a third party, so I addressed that dubious proposition at New York:
The feud between Donald Trump and his onetime deep pocket and henchman Elon Musk keeps bubbling up in unpredictable ways. But one fracture point that is potentially bigger than an exchange of insults and conspiracy theories is the Tech Bro’s musings about creating a third national political party. Not because there’s any real popular demand for another party but because Musk’s wealth could give even the dumbest idea wings.
This angle is interesting in part because Trump has himself flirted with third-party talk when it suited his purposes. But you wouldn’t know that from his categorical put-down of Musk’s fantasies over the weekend at Truth Social:
“I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely ‘off the rails,’ essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks. He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States – The System seems not designed for them. The one thing Third Parties are good for is the creation of Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS, and we have enough of that with the Radical Left Democrats, who have lost their confidence and their minds! Republicans, on the other hand, are a smooth running “machine,” that just passed the biggest Bill of its kind in the History of our Country.”
He went on to brag some more about his megabill and to spitball about why Musk might have opposed it, without mentioning Musk’s own argument that it is a debt and deficit nightmare.
The third-party threat was clearly weighing on the 47th president’s mind this weekend. When asked about it by a reporter earlier on Sunday, Trump said, “’I think it’s ridiculous to start a third party,” later noting, “He can have fun with it, but I think it’s ridiculous.”
Musk has fleshed out his fantasy a bit after getting the inevitable endorsement of his efforts from his personal echo chamber on X:
“One way to execute on this would be to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts.
“Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people.”
The idea, then, isn’t to launch a new party through some big, splashy presidential campaign that will capture what Musk has called the “80 percent in the middle” of voters alienated by the Democratic-Republican “uniparty.” That, as it happens, was the vision of the last real third-party builder, Ross Perot, who never made much of an effort to create an alternative ballot line at the state level. Perot failed in no small part because winning or even threatening to win elections in a first-past-the-post system requires the sort of regional voting base he never enjoyed. The more limited strategy Musk seems to be talking about doesn’t require displacing a national party but instead simply exploiting the close competitive balance of the existing two major parties and seizing the margin of control in Congress for leverage purposes. It’s a down-ballot version of what southern segregationists tried to do with regional tickets in the 1948 and 1968 presidential elections: prevent either major-party candidate from gaining a majority in the Electoral College and then shake the parties down for policy concessions. They didn’t fail by much.
So what would Musk’s new party, which he has dubbed the “America Party,” make its be-all-and-end-all demand? Best we can tell, he wants massive reductions in the size and cost of the federal government, along with the attendant public debt. That’s not only a slender reed for a disruptive third party but it’s at least rhetorically identified with the GOP despite that party’s own spotty fiscal record. From a practical point of view, why would some aspiring deficit hawk in any given state or congressional district want to take a flier on a candidacy under the America Party banner when they could just as easily run as a Rand Paul–Thomas Massie fiscal hard-liner in a Republican primary? The only answer I can think of is that it may be a way to gain access to Musk’s money. And it’s unclear at this point how much of his fortune Musk is willing to devote to this effort.
As Nate Silver points out, if Musk could lavishly finance a new party with a broader agenda than bringing back DOGE — say, developing a national AI strategy that could prevent rather than accelerate demolition of the workforce — it might gain some purchase, particularly with young voters who dislike both major parties. But it would require the sort of patience and political sophistication Musk has not in any way displayed up to this point in his career.
More likely, Musk is just the latest in a long list of political amateurs who look at unhappiness with the two-party system and make two major mistakes: (1) they don’t grasp that most self-identified independents are what Silver calls IINOs, independents in name only, who routinely vote for the same major party even when given alternatives; and (2) they assume all these people share the same grievances with the current party system.
The only demonstrated template for third parties in the U.S. is to address an entirely unmet demand. When Republicans broke through in the late 1850s, they were exploiting a situation in which one major party (the Whigs) had already died and the other could not stake out a national position on slavery. At this point, Musk isn’t offering anything voters can’t find in the right wing of the Republican Party or, barring that, in the Libertarian Party. So Trump is correct to argue that his frenemy has “gone off the rails.”
I’d welcome the passage of the Colorado initiative this year, as it would probably ensure Kerry at least a couple of electoral votes in the state (the Denver and Boulder-based areas.) Although it would also ensure Bush a couple (Colorado Springs and Eastern CO).
But I’m reluctant, on the other hand, to embrace this system for the whole nation, especially if it were keyed to congressional districts (as in Maine and Nebraska). Gerrymandering of districts has had generally negative effects on congressional elections; we don’t need it determining the presidency as well.
in other news, race2004.net reports a poll showing that Colorado initiative might just pass.
I still don’t like it, regardless, and I’d think that Colorado voters wouldn’t want it. It should make candidates less interested in working on Colorado.
It’s also not clear what the influence would be on this year’s vote. If it passes and only, say, New Hampshire and Colorado go from Bush 2000 to Kerry, then if Kerry loses Colorado, he’s still a vote short; if he wins, it’s a tie. In contrast, if it doesn’t pass, New Hampshire and Colorado (if they’re the only shifts) give Kerry the win.
On the other hand, if Kerry holds the Gore states and takes New Hampshire and Nevada, the Colorado states that would come in a loss would put him over the top.
Weird.
Keep watching this race. It’s gonna be interesting all the way.
pempel-
I’d attribute this to chance variation. There’s not much going on there, and a 4% Bush lead is in keeping with a good number of polls.
I agree with Wilbur about Ohio. There’s NO WAY that Bush is ahead by 11%. The Ohio Poll is notoriously pro-GOP. In 2000 Bush only won by 50-49% (combined Gore-Nader) and since then the Ohio economy has declined more than almost any other state.
In live near Dayton and the normally GOP suburbs in my area have as many Kerry signs as Bush ones. I’ve lived in the same neighborhood for over four decades, and I’ve NEVER seen so many Democratic signs. Frankly, the poll showing Bush up by 2% is probably optimistic for Bush!
Unless something drastic occurs, I think Kerry will win Ohio!
Good state polls lately for Kerry-Edwards, but can anyone explain the widening national gap in favor of Bush on Rasmussen’s daily poll? The last four days show Bush moving up from 47.8% to 48.8% while Kerry’s numbers drop from 46.1% to 44.8%. Granted, small changes, but to me a worrisome trend. T.J.
The ARG polls are tremendous news for Kerry (how could polls be so different? Something wierd is going on this year). Here’s the reason they are even better than they look. For anybody who has ever done any political work in Iowa you know that this state is almost completely dependent on how you are organized on the ground – maybe more than any other state in the country. A month ago I saw an interview with somebody from the Des Moisnes register – who really knows this stuff – who said he has never seen the type of organization he’s seeing with Kerry (not the fake stuff there was with Dean, but real professional). So my take is if Kerry is with MOE he is probably ahead. You also have to believe that New Hampshire swings back to Kerry. Again, if you know anything about New England culture you know the whole “neighbor” thing runs deeper than political affiliation. It will be astounding if New Hampshire doesn’t go for Kerry in the end no matter what the polls.
Also, I live in Ohio and the organization here for Kerry is the best I have seen in my lifetime. In the Columbus area you see more K/E bumper stickers and lawn signs than B/C. Also many neighborhoods have organized so well they have their own unique signs like Upper Arlington for Kerry. I have never seen that before. I you have lived in Columbus for the last decade you would know how amazing this is.
Looking over the ARG results…first, they note a 47-46 Bush lead, across the country. They see Bush up 133-132 in states outside the margin of error. They see Kerry up 270-253 in states with any lead. Um, I keep saying this, but this race is gonna be close.
Here are the 27 states with single digit differences, starting with the most pro-Bush, ending with the most pro-Kerry:
Mississippi Bush +9
Louisiana Bush +8
Tennessee Bush +7
Arizona Bush +6
Missouri Bush +6
Virginia Bush +6
North Carolina Bush +5
Arkansas Bush +3
Iowa Bush +2
Nevada Bush +2
Ohio Bush +2
New Hampshire Bush +2
Colorado Bush +1
West Virginia tie
Wisconsin tie
Florida Kerry +1
Pennsylvania Kerry +1
Minnesota Kerry +2
Oregon Kerry +2
Maine Kerry +4
New Mexico Kerry +5
Illinois Kerry +6
Washington Kerry +7
New Jersey Kerry +8
Michigan Kerry +8
Delaware Kerry +9
Maryland Kerry +9
If you do the cut at states being within 3% one way or the other, that includes (12):
Bush 2000 states–Arkansas, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, West Virginia
Gore 2000 states–Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin
For a 4-6% difference (7):
Bush 2000 states–North Carolina, Arizona, Virginia, Missouri
Gore 2000 states–Maine (and that danged distict…), New Mexico, Illinois
For a 7-9% difference (8):
Bush 2000 states–Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi
Gore 2000 states–Washington, Michigan, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland
I’d think those first dozen states are the main battleground these days, with Maine and New Mexico added given recent polls by other organizations. That yields 7 Bush 2000 states and 7 Gore 2000 states.
But keep an eye on some of those other states to see if there is a discernible shift in the near future.
Just a heads up. The ARG list of all 50 states is now up. I’ve not looked at it yet.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
I agree that “Shrub” probably is leading, but there’s no reason for Democrats to despair. For example, Florida and Pennsylvania recently swung back (barely) to Kerry although the Rasmussen polls admittedly did not include Nader.
—
It is fascinating to compare the four vote projection sites out there: Electoral Vote Projection Map &
Race2004.net (run by Dems) and FederalReview.com & ElectionProjection.com (both right-leaning). I would love to see a retrospective “fact check” analysis after Nov.3 to find out which methodology proved most accurate in the end. To me, the probabilistic methods favored by FederalReview.com & ElectionProjection.com seem unnecessarily complicated; I suspect Race2004.net gets it right by simply putting states in a “tossup” column if the difference is small. Nobody really knows how PA and FL will work out, for now. It would be premature for “Shrub” supporters to start gloating now, just as it was foolish of Kerry supporters to think last month’s electoral vote tally of ~300 EVs was “safe”. A lot will depend on some very close state races.
MARCU$
Is there any detail available on the Ohio poll? Not good news there. Also, I just saw a report of a poll in Colorado showing a 12% Bush lead, from Ciruli Associates. That’s very different from everything else. ARG, Zogby, Rasmussen, and the Republican POS group all have had the race at only a 1% difference.
The state polls are more evidence that Kerry is in deeper trouble than Ruy thinks.
1. Ohio is basically a swing state- so if the race is even nationally Bush should be leading by no more than 4 or 5 points. Instead Bush leads by 11 – suggesting a 6-8 pt lead for Bush.
2. Iowa should be a Democratic state. Bush’s 5 point lead suggests that he has a big lead nationally.
On the other hand, Kerry’s leads in Michigan and Oregon suggest that this is not as bad for Dems as 1984- but certainly it is comparable to 1988, where Dukakis carried a decent number of states but still not enough to make it close nationally.
Bottom line: Bush doesn’t have the double digit lead that some national polls suggest- but it isn’t dead even either. If it was, Kerry would be leading in Iowa, and Bush’s lead in Ohio would be much smaller.