Musk can spend a fortune on the 'America Party,' but it likely won't succeed
One thing we can say for sure: There's an appetite for just that among Americans.
A Gallup poll released Oct. 1, just 35 days before the 2024 presidential election, in a time of extremely heightened political tension and public awareness, found that 58% of American adults said a third party was needed. Americans had Donald Trump or Kamala Harris to choose from at that moment, and a majority wanted more options.
That polling number has fluctuated over the years, but Gallup has found majority support for the issue in polls going back two decades. But that's theory. What about practice?
What if the third-party movement at the center of attention now was being spearheaded by one of the most politically toxic people in America? Is Elon Musk, currently viewed unfavorably by 55% of Americans, the best face for the "America Party" he announced on July 5?
Musk, the world's wealthiest person, spent about $290 million to help Trump win a second term as president.
Now they're spitting social media venom at each other after Musk was ousted from Trump's administration and then became infuriated by the deficit-busting spending in the president's new budget bill.
Musk casts his new political party as an attack on the "uniparty," a common shorthand to suggest that the Republican and Democratic parties are more alike than different, especially when it comes to spending our taxes.
Opinion: Trump's tax bill will crush the rural voters who chose him
There's a glaring flaw in that claim ‒ Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act was crafted exclusively by his administration and Republican leaders in Congress. Democrats were locked out of the process and did not vote for the bill, which passed with thin Republican majorities.
But Musk, like Trump, is not the kind of politician who will let reality govern his rhetoric. So, in his framing, they're all bad guys in Washington, DC, and he's going to be the new sheriff who cleans up the town.
That's one way this might go. Another could be that political consultants squeeze Musk's fortune for as much juice as the America Party can produce, while not having much of an impact. Or, with Musk's businesses taking serious economic hits from his political combat, he might just talk a big game and then walk away.
Trump, in a long social media post on Sunday, July 6, said Musk was "off the rails" while noting that third parties "have never succeeded in the United States."
Then why did Trump need a 336-word post at all? He showed us his fear by adding that third parties are effective at causing "Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS" in American politics.
Here's what disruption and chaos probably looks like to Trump ‒ Musk's America Party impacts the thin congressional margins, tipping the House and Senate to Democrats, giving them the power of oversight or even impeachment (for a third time) to hold Trump to account.
Ryan Clancy, chief strategist for No Labels, told me that the "initial reaction from the Republicans suggests that they think (Musk) is more of a threat to them." And he would know.
No Labels, you might remember, was a significant concern for the Democratic Party and its allies in 2024 as the group tried, and eventually failed, to put on the presidential ballot a bipartisan centrist ticket. Will Musk's America Party be the threat to Republicans that No Labels was to Democrats?
Clancy said it's too early to say, and that will depend on what kind of candidates Musk recruits.
Musk has suggested that he might "laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts" in the 2026 midterm elections because the House and Senate have "razor-thin legislative margins," and that it might "be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws."
Opinion: Data centers are inevitable, but why should Indiana pay for their energy demand?
Clancy told me No Labels has not spoken to Musk or anyone close to him about the America Party. But the strategist hopes the new political party would inject a little competition into elections, which could pull some Republicans and Democrats back to the center of the political spectrum.
"I would encourage people to give it a chance, give it some runway, let it breathe a little," Clancy said. "Let's see what kind of candidates come around it."
Rahna Epting, executive director of MoveOn, a progressive policy group, spent part of 2024 criticizing No Labels as a potential "spoiler" that could have helped Trump win a second term. She told me that "another party, paid for by billionaires like Elon Musk, is not the answer for this country's challenges."
Where Clancy sees potential, Epting sees only vanity and self-interest as motivation for Musk. She noted that Republicans, from Trump on down the ballot, ran last year on making life more affordable for Americans. And she thinks Americans are still looking for solutions like that in the midterms.
The MoveOn leader is just as opposed to the Big Beautiful Bill as Musk is. And she's just as opposed to his America Party as she was with No Labels.
"No Labels was a tactic without a plausible strategy to win, and I think Elon Musk's effort is a tactic without a plausible way to win," Epting said. "And both were in it for themselves and not for the people of this country."
Clancy estimates that a competitive Senate campaign next will cost "easily nine figures," while a House seat "can easily be low eight figures." And then there is the complicated and costly infrastructure of getting on ballots, state by state.
Put another way: Musk might be about to spend some serious money again. But I'm not sure if he can repeat his 2024 success. And it's worth pointing out that Musk himself no longer sees 2024 as a success.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
5 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
‘Beautiful' or ‘Ugly,' Trump's big bill shapes the battle for House control in 2026 midterms
WASHINGTON — Debate over President Trump's sweeping budget-and-policy package is over on Capitol Hill. Now the argument goes national. From the Central Valley of California to Midwestern battlegrounds and suburban districts of the northeast, the new law already is shaping the 2026 midterm battle for control of the House of Representatives. The outcome will set the tone for Trump's final two years in the Oval Office. Democrats need a net gain of three House seats to break the GOP's chokehold on Washington and reestablish a power center to counter Trump. There's added pressure to flip the House given that midterm Senate contests are concentrated in Republican-leaning states, making it harder for Democrats to reclaim that chamber. As Republicans see it, they've now delivered broad tax cuts, an unprecedented investment in immigration enforcement and new restraints on social safety net programs. Democrats see a law that rolls back health insurance access and raises costs for middle-class Americans while cutting taxes mostly for the rich, curtailing green energy initiatives and restricting some workers' organizing rights. 'It represents the broken promise they made to the American people,' said Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Washington Democrat who chairs the party's House campaign arm. 'We're going to continue to hold Republicans accountable for this vote.' Whether voters see it that way will be determined on a district-by-district level, but the battle will be more intense in some places than others. Among the 435 House districts, only 69 contests were decided by less than 10 percentage points in the 2024 general election. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has so far identified 26 Democratic-held seats it must defend vigorously, along with 35 GOP-held seats it believes could be ripe to flip. Republicans' campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee, has so far listed 18 GOP incumbents as priorities, plus two districts opened by retirements. There are a historically low number of so-called crossover districts: Only 13 Democrats represent districts Trump carried in 2024, while just three Republicans serve districts Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris carried. Both committees are busy recruiting challengers and open-seat candidates and more retirements could come, so the competitive map will evolve. Still, there are clusters of districts guaranteed to influence the national result. California, despite its clear lean to Democrats statewide, has at least nine House districts expected to be up for grabs: three in the Central Valley and six in southern California. Six are held by Democrats, three by the GOP. Pennsylvania features four districts that have been among the closest national House races for several consecutive cycles. They include a suburban Philadelphia seat represented by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, one of just two House Republicans to vote against Trump's bill and one of the three GOP lawmakers from a district Harris won. Fitzpatrick cited the Medicaid cuts. Vice President JD Vance plans on Wednesday to be in Republican Rep. Rob Bresnahan's northwest Pennsylvania district to tout the GOP package. Bresnahan's seat is a top Democratic target. Iowa and Wisconsin, meanwhile, feature four contiguous GOP-held districts in farm-heavy regions where voters could be swayed by fallout from Trump's tariffs. Beyond bumper-sticker labels – Trump's preferred 'Big Beautiful Bill' versus Democrats' 'Big Ugly Bill' retort – the 900-page law is, in fact, an array of policies with varying impact. Democrats hammer Medicaid and food assistance cuts, some timed to take full effect only after the 2026 midterms, along with Republicans' refusal to extend tax credits to some people who obtained health insurance through the Affordable Care Act. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law; 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps, also known as SNAP benefits. 'Folks will die here in Louisiana and in other parts of the country,' House Minority Leader Jeffries warned last week during a town hall in Republican Speaker Mike Johnson's home state of Louisiana. Jeffries singled out vulnerable Republicans like California Rep. David Valadao, who represents a heavily agricultural Central Valley district where more than half the population is eligible for the joint state-federal insurance program. California allows immigrants with legal status and those who are undocumented to qualify for Medicaid, so not all Medicaid recipients are voters. But the program helps finance the overall health care system, including nursing homes and hospitals. Republicans highlight the law's tightened work requirements for Medicaid enrollees. They argue it's a popular provision that will strengthen the program. 'I voted for this bill because it does preserve the Medicaid program for its intended recipients — children, pregnant women, the disabled, and elderly,' Valadao said. 'I know how important the program is for my constituents.' The law includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts. It makes permanent existing rates and brackets approved during Trump's first term. Republicans and their allies have hammered vulnerable Democrats for 'raising costs' on American households by opposing the bill. GOP campaign aides point to the popularity of individual provisions: boosting the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200 (some families at lower income levels would not get the full credit), new deductions on tip and overtime income and auto loans; and a new deduction for older adults earning less than $75,000 a year. 'Everyone will have more take home pay. They'll have more jobs and opportunity,' Johnson said in a Fox News Sunday interview. 'The economy will be doing better and we'll be able to point to that as the obvious result of what we did.' Democrats note that the biggest beneficiaries of Trump's tax code are wealthy Americans and corporations. Pairing that with safety net cuts, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz concluded, 'The cruelty is the point.' Immigration, meanwhile, was Trump's strongest issue in 2024. NRCC aides say that will continue with the new law's investments in immigration enforcement. Democrats believe the Trump administration has overplayed its hand with its push for mass deportation. The president is a titanic variable. Democrats point to 2018, when they notched a 40-seat net gain in House seats to take control away from the GOP. This year, Democrats have enjoyed a double-digit swing in special elections around the country when compared to 2024 presidential results. Similar trends emerged in 2017 after Trump's 2016 victory. Democrats say that reflects voter discontent with Trump once he's actually in charge. Republicans answer that Trump's job approval remains higher at this point than in 2017. But the GOP's effort is further complicated by ongoing realignments: Since Trump's emergence, Democrats have gained affluent white voters -– like those in suburban swing districts -– while Trump has drawn more working-class voters across racial and ethnic groups. But Republicans face a stiffer challenge of replicating Trump's coalition in a midterm election without him on the ballot. Democrats, meanwhile, must corral voters who are not a threat to vote for Republicans but could stay home. Jeffries said he's determined not to let that happen: 'We're going to do everything we can until we end this national nightmare.' Barrow, Cooper and Brook write for the Associated Press. Cooper reported from Phoenix. Brook reported from New Orleans. AP reporters Michael Blood in Los Angeles and Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pa., contributed to this report.
UPI
6 minutes ago
- UPI
Trump threatens 100% secondary tariffs on Russia if no peace deal reached
July 14 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump warned Russia Monday that it may face "severe tariffs" if a peace deal with Ukraine isn't negotiated. Trump said the United States would impose 100% secondary tariffs on nations that engage in trade with Moscow. "We're very, very unhappy with them," Trump said. "And we're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days." Trump shared this during a meeting and press conference in the Oval Office Monday with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in which he also explained how American weapons will now head to Ukraine. "We've made a deal today where we are going to be sending them weapons and they're going to be paying for them," Trump said, reiterating what he had said Sunday to the press at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on the same subject. "The United States will not be having any payment made," Trump added. "We're not buying it but we will manufacture it and they're going to be paying for it." Trump also explained some weaponry, including Patriot missile systems, will be in Ukraine "very soon, within days," and that the arms would first arrive in NATO countries before being transferred to Ukraine. Rutte added that the process will run through NATO's system, and that Ukraine will receive what it requires. "It will mean that Ukraine can get its hands on really massive numbers of military equipment," he explained. "For air defense, missiles, ammunition, etc." "So if I were Vladimir Putin today," Rutte continued, "I would reconsider if I should take negotiations with Ukraine more seriously."
Miami Herald
6 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Miami Herald report on Alligator Alcatraz confirms what we suspected
When the Miami Herald/Tampa Bay Times published a list Sunday of more than 700 detainees held at the Alligator Alcatraz detention facility in South Florida, it confirmed what many have suspected all along: Despite political claims to the contrary, many of the migrants being detained have no U.S. criminal convictions or pending charges. According to the list, published by the Herald/Times in an urgently needed act of watchdog journalism, more than 250 of the detainees have immigration violations but no criminal convictions or charges in the U.S. Some are asylum seekers. Others arrived under humanitarian parole, or thought they were here with permission awaiting the result of ongoing legal cases. In other words, the portrayals by President Donald Trump, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and others that this detention center in the Everglades is a necessary tool for detaining 'vicious' people and 'deranged psychopaths' is a gross overstatement, underscoring the reasons that due process is so important. No doubt there are some bad characters in the bunch. A third of the detainees on the list, which fluctuates as the population of the detention center changes, have various criminal convictions, the Herald/Times reported, with charges ranging from attempted murder and illegal re-entry to traffic violations. Hundreds of others only have pending charges. But overall, the idea that more than a third of those being held had no pending U.S. charges or convictions should be chilling to Americans. Just how indiscriminate has the U.S. immigration system become? Democratic and Republican members of Congress from Florida and state legislators were given a guided tour of the camp on Saturday, after several Democrats were initially turned away during an unannounced visit earlier in the week. Those on the tour came away with varying conclusions on the conditions, ranging from some Democrats characterizing it as an abomination while some Republicans said the air-conditioned facility meets all prison standards. Conditions aside, the list published by the Herald offers some concrete information on who is being held at the detention center that cuts through the rhetoric surrounding Alligator Alcatraz, which is being run by Florida — the president's home state — and paid for by taxpayers. As Walter Jara, the nephew of a 56-year-old Nicaraguan man taken to the facility following a traffic stop in Palm Beach County, told the Herald: 'That place is supposedly for the worst criminals in the U.S.' The list indicates that his uncle, Denis Alcides Solis Morales, has immigration violations but makes no mention of convictions or pending criminal charges. Jara said his uncle came to the U.S. legally in 2023 under a humanitarian parole program, and has a pending asylum case. Are those people so dangerous that they should be housed in a place called Alligator Alcatraz? DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin insisted to reporters that the absence of a criminal charge in the U.S. doesn't mean migrants have done nothing wrong. She said in a statement that some are 'actually terrorists, human rights abusers, gangsters and more' who 'just don't have a rap sheet in the U.S.' And, she added, 'every single one of these individuals committed a crime when they came into this country illegally.' Trump was elected promising to deport illegal immigrants who committed crimes. Once in office, he revoked Temporary Protected Status ( TPS) and humanitarian parole from thousands of people from places like Venezuela, Nicaragua and Haiti, effectively creating a whole new class of people without legal status. According to polls, Americans overwhelmingly support deporting immigrants with violent criminal records. But the Herald/Times findings reveal a broader dragnet at work — one that ensnares farm workers, people stopped for traffic violations and those who simply attend their immigration hearings. In our state, they are being rounded up with the same zeal used for violent offenders. If we are holding undocumented people in an isolated camp who have no charges or convictions in the U.S., that's a moral and legal failure. Click here to send the letter.
