A Few Takeaways From Elon Musk's Utter Humiliation in Wisconsin
For the past several months, pick-me gazillionaire Elon Musk has been firing tens of thousands of federal workers in the most cartoonishly evil ways possible—gutting things like NIH cancer research and HIV prevention programs while bragging about feeding entire agencies of dedicated civil servants 'into the wood chipper.' The backlash has already started to hit him where it hurts, as 'Tesla Takedown' protests have turned his once edgy cars into pricey pariah boxes for toxic losers.
But Tuesday's Wisconsin state Supreme Court election might be Musk's most delicious comeuppance yet. Musk made the race his personal mission, saying that it 'will be important for the future of civilization' and spending $22 million in support of Republican Brad Schimel, turning it into the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history. That Schimel got trounced by Democrat Susan Crawford tells us a few things about the limits of money in American politics.
Neither Musk nor anyone in his orbit nor in the state GOP seemed to understand, before Tuesday night, that his presence in the race was having the opposite of its intended effect. 'I thought he was going to be an asset for this race,' the Outagamie County GOP chair told Politico in an instantly memeable quote. 'Maybe I have blinders on.' She wasn't alone.
Unfortunately for Wisconsin Republicans and their plot to stay in power forever through aggressive court-approved gerrymandering, Musk did not just quietly write checks to his favorite political action committees, like the most effective billionaire reactionaries have been doing since the Supreme Court unleashed Citizens United on the country. Instead, he decided to make himself the face of the Schimel campaign, planting himself in the Badger State, headlining rallies, and writing million-dollar checks to well-connected Republican supporters—a seeming display of flagrant vote-buying that the state attorney general challenged (though, as in Pennsylvania last year, Musk found a way to carry out the stunt without it being deemed an illegal lottery).
Musk has probably received undue credit for Republicans' stunning but extremely narrow victories in the November 2024 elections, and Donald Trump is reportedly already reconsidering his role in the administration. But one of the first and most obvious lessons to draw from Musk's Wisconsin fiasco is that there are real, tangible limits to the influence that money can buy in American politics. The GOP's victory last fall happened, after all, despite the party's being outspent by the Harris campaign and its affiliated super PACs. It's not even clear that the hundreds of millions of dollars that Musk himself poured into the election were a net positive for the GOP at all, since the party tended to do worse in states where Trump mounted a visible campaign than where he and his movement were mostly background noise and could more credibly pretend they weren't going to do all the horrific things they are now doing.
You also don't need multiple regression models to see that the big spender has lost two of the four post–Citizens United presidential elections. That doesn't make the orgiastic frenzy of millionaire and billionaire spending in those elections good for the country or really anything but an embarrassing stain on American democracy. While political science research suggests that campaign spending can drive turnout in generally lower-profile judicial races, Musk's face-plant in Wisconsin suggests that, happily, there are real limits to what can be accomplished by throwing stacks of cash at random Midwestern Republicans. It also helped that Crawford was not exactly a pauper and got only marginally outspent in a race that saw over $107 million in expenditures. According to political scientists John Sides, Daron Shaw, and Matt Grossman in Campaigns and Elections, in local races, 'a better-funded candidate can totally eclipse a relatively impoverished opponent,' and that just isn't what happened here. One obvious caveat, though, is that the current Democratic coalition (a group that includes high-propensity college-educated voters as a key bloc) seems to have a turnout advantage in midterm, off-year, and special elections that it has had trouble replicating in presidential elections over the past decade. In this case, at least, the outcome was not attributable to differential turnout, which was high across the board.
Given that his approval ratings are even worse than Trump's, Musk was always going to be a net negative in this contest. But he didn't help his case with his over-the-top rhetoric and actions. On X, his wild-eyed gibberish about, for example, how only the far-right Alternative for Germany party can save the country is signal-boosted by his algorithms and lauded mindlessly by his army of clout-chasing reply guys. Massively overpaying to acquire Twitter has given him a platform that reliably amplifies his incessant lies and feeds his porcelain ego.
In the real world, though, Musk unintentionally highlighted his own absurdity to people who may have previously paid him little mind. His extravagant efforts to boost turnout forced people who aren't terminally online to ask themselves why the world's richest dude wants Brad Schimel to be on the state Supreme Court so badly he's willing to risk legal action.
One negative result hardly spells the end of Elon Musk's threat to American democracy, nor should it give Democrats false confidence that they have somehow cracked the MAGA code and can bank on retaking the House in 2026. Republicans did, after all, manage to get Wisconsin voters to enshrine into the state constitution a requirement to show a photo ID when voting, a referendum that Musk has bragged about.
But Musk's flop in Wisconsin should serve as a reminder of two things. First and most important, the MAGA-era GOP is not some unstoppable godlike force, despite recent capitulations from craven bootlickers at law firms like Paul Weiss and universities like Columbia. The nation's political thermostat is not broken, and Susan Crawford didn't need to join the pile-on against trans folks or clap while Trump's goon squads disappear immigrants who are here legally into Salvadoran gulags in order to win this election. Political gravity did a lot of the work here, and it is still very real.
The second is that the utility of both Musk's infinite bullshit machine and his towering piles of money is not limitless. Even Trump now seems to realize that Musk is dragging his administration down with him. And while it isn't happening as quickly as many Democrats would hope, given the administration's constant and shocking abrogations of the constitutional order, many Americans seem to be slowly realizing that the government they unwisely elected in November isn't invested in their well-being after all. There are some things even Elon Musk can't buy his way out of.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
23 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Gov. Newsom criticizes Trump's use of National Guard after removal of some troops
A day after the Pentagon ordered the withdrawal of half of the National Guard troops deployed in Los Angeles, Gov. Gavin Newsom criticized President Trump for wasting hundreds of millions of dollars to appear 'tough' by punishing immigrants. Newsom also accused the president of trying to preserve Republican power in Washington by pressuring Texas to redraw congressional districts to elect GOP representatives. The governor repeated a threat to launch a similar effort in California to favor Democrats. 'Everything has changed, and it's changing in real time,' Newsom told reporters Wednesday. 'I'm not going to be the guy that said I could have, would have, should have. I'm not going to be passive at this moment. I'm not going to look at my kids in the eyes and say I was a little timid.' The comments came at a news conference outside Downey Memorial Christian Church, where Newsom met with the Rev. Tanya Lopez, the senior pastor, to discuss an incident in June where she watched as plainclothes federal agents swarmed and detained a constituent in the parking lot of her church. Newsom criticized the administration's immigration crackdown, saying its only goal was to terrorize families and communities — not to pursue violent criminals, which Newsom said he would support. Newsom said the crackdown was also harming family-owned businesses as immigrants who work and shop at stores stay home out of fear. The governor called the president's decision to deploy about 4,000 National Guardsmen part of Trump's 'rule of cruelty' and said the decision to remove half the troops came after the Pentagon realized the absurdity of its deployment. The government wasted of hundreds of millions of dollars on the deployment, Newsom said. He added that the 'utilization rate' of the National Guard troops was only about 5%, meaning only that percentage was actively engaged with duties while the rest were held in reserve. 'They're a solution right now in search of a problem,' he said of the National Guard. The move to send home some of the troops comes after a legal battle over whether the administration could deploy the troops. A federal appeals court ruled that the president had broad — though not 'unreviewable' — authority to deploy the military in American cities. State and local leaders said the National Guard was not needed to deal with protests over immigration raids that have led to around 3,000 arrests. On a separate issue, Newsom repeated the threat that California could redraw its electoral maps to help Democrats pick up more congressional seats in response to Trump's call for Texas and other states to redistrict to benefit Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections. Republicans currently hold power in both the Senate and House of Representatives, which have been instrumental in enacting the president's policy agenda, including cuts to healthcare and food assistance for Americans in need. 'They can't win by the traditional games, so they want to change the game,' Newsom said. 'We can act holier-than-thou. We can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be, or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment.' California voters in 2010 gave an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission the power to determine the boundaries of state voting districts for the U.S. House of Representatives instead of leaving that authority with the state Legislature. Newsom said the California Legislature could pass a bill in the regular session or in a special session that places a proposed constitutional amendment before voters to change state redistricting laws through a special election held in a tight window before the 2026 primaries. The governor said he's also exploring a potential legal loophole that could allow the California Legislature to redraw the congressional maps themselves now with a two-thirds vote and avoid going to the ballot. 'That is an option that is also being considered and both of those are being advanced in real time, not only with members of the Legislature, but others that are interested, because they feel the same pressures I do about the existential threat of what Donald Trump and some of these Republican states are trying to do,' Newsom said.
Axios
23 minutes ago
- Axios
Here are the 3rd-countries where the Trump admin is deporting migrants
Expelling migrants to third-countries that are not their place of origin is becoming a cornerstone of President Trump's deportation strategy. The big picture: The administration's increasing number of third-country deportation agreements showcases a dogged desire to pursue every possible avenue to fulfill Trump's promise to deport record numbers of noncitizens. Catch up quick: The Trump administration restarted deportation flights after the Supreme Court ruled last month that the Department of Homeland Security could resume sending migrants to countries that were not their place of origin. The decision put a lower court order that required the government to give immigrants adequate time to challenge their deportations on hold. State of play: Border czar Tom Homan said the U.S. aims to sign third-country deportation agreements with "many countries" to support the administration's deportation plans. The administration has either approached or plans to approach roughly 51 countries to accept non-citizen deportations from the U.S., per a June report New York Times report. At least two of those countries, Eswatini and South Sudan in Africa, have accepted flights from the U.S. since the report came out. The DHS did not immediately respond to Axios' Wednesday evening request for comment on how many of the countries have been approached. Thought bubble via Axios' Dave Lawler: The administration has reportedly discussed safe third-country agreements with many countries for which the "safe" description is very much in question. Take Libya or South Sudan, both of which have been wracked by instability and violence for years. Several other countries involved in these deals are among the poorest in the world. The prospect of deporting migrants thousands of miles away to unfamiliar and often unstable countries has raised alarm among human rights groups, but the idea has strong support within the administration. Here are the countries that have already accepted deportees who are not their citizens: Eswatini Five migrants from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen were deported to the tiny African nation of Eswatini on Tuesday, the DHS announced. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote on X that the flight was carrying individuals who had been convicted of a range of crimes that included murder, homicide, and child rape. El Salvador The Trump administration sent at least 238 Venezuelan migrants to a notorious El Salvadorian maximum security prison under the Alien Enemies Act in March, claiming that they were terrorists and members of a violent gang. By the numbers: An April CBS News report found 75% of the migrants sent to the prison had no criminal record. Mexico Mexico has received roughly 6,000 non-Mexicans from the U.S. as of late April, per Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. Sheinbaum said the non-Mexicans her country was accepting for "humanitarian reasons" comprise a small number of the nearly 39,000 migrants the U.S. has deported to Mexico since Jan. 20. Guatemala Guatemalan President Bernardo Arevalo announced in February that his country had agreed to accept third-country nationals from the United States and would be ramping up deportation flights from the U.S. by 40%. Arevalo told NBC News that the agreement was not supposed to provide a pathway for people to seek asylum in Guatemala. Rather, the country would serve as a pit stop in the process of sending people back to their home countries. Costa Rica Costa Rica accepted roughly 200 third-country nationals from two different U.S. flights through the end of February, per a May Human Rights Watch report. On the planes were at least 81 children and two pregnant women. What they're saying: After announcing the expulsion agreement, Costa Rican President Rodrigo Chaves said his country was helping its "economically powerful brother to the north." Costa Rican officials have said the U.S. will cover the costs of the deported people's stay in the country, and that the arrangement was expected to be a temporary stop in the repatriation process. Panama The U.S. has deported hundreds of people to Panama since February as part of a deal for the country serve as a "bridge" while the U.S. bears the financial costs, per AP. The migrants are from countries including Iran, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. Rwanda The U.S. paid the Rwandan government $100,000 to accept an Iraqi citizen in April and agreed to take 10 more deportees, the New York Times reported. Negotiations reached over the Iraqi citizen "proved the concept for a new removal program, according to the report. South Sudan The U.S. deported eight men to South Sudan in July, after a legal battle diverted their deportation flight to Djibouti for several weeks. Some of the men deported were from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam. Kosovo This landlocked Balkan nation in Europe agreed to host 50 noncitizen deportees from the U.S. in June. The deal would allow noncitizens to be "temporarily relocated" before being sent back to their home country. The intrigue: Kosovo reportedly agreed to accept the noncitizens from the U.S. in the hope that the administration will continue to lobby other nations to recognize the small country's independence.
Axios
23 minutes ago
- Axios
Republicans call Schumer's bluff on cuts to PBS and foreign aid
The Senate is plowing ahead Wednesday evening on $9 billion in cuts to PBS, NPR and foreign aid, threats from Democrats be damned. Why it matters: Democratic leaders — and some high-level Republicans — say budget rescissions undermine the trust they need to pass the annual bipartisan spending deals. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has warned Republicans they'll be left to figure out a potential government shutdown on their own if they keep the partisan cuts coming. But GOP leaders insist they aren't worried. Between the lines: Democrats have a "valid concern" about making spending deals just to be undone through rescissions, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) told reporters Wednesday. "We've actually shared with folks from the administration that the bigger challenge for them is — appropriations take 60 votes," Rounds said. The other side: Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told Axios he didn't think the appropriations would be any more difficult because of the rescissions package. "I think we can have a bipartisan process," he said, pointing to the appropriations bills that have already been voted out of committee with Democratic support. He said the Senate could even start voting on appropriations bills or the National Defense Authorization Act as early as before the August recess. "I think our first markup went well. The second one was mixed, but we've reported bills out of committee. I expect we're going to report more tomorrow," Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said on whether rescissions will complicate her job. The simple math: Government spending bills require 60 votes to advance in the Senate. But rescission packages — which cut specific spending from a budget — can be passed with a simple majority, as they're set to tonight. "This is beyond a bait-and-switch — it is a bait and poison-to-kill," Schumer said earlier this month.
