As for Democrats rushing forth to embrace him, . . . .
Has anyone suggested Democrats might rush forth to embrace Musk?
What has been said is that if Musk decides to make independent expenditures in support of Democratic candidates, there’s nothing they can do to stop him, and they probably like it that way. They can say things to distance themselves from him, while at the same time, benefiting from the money he’s spending.
Wll Democrats want to be associated with Elon musk?
I wouldn’t bet on politicians of any stripe turning down that kind of money. And if his support comes in the form of independent expenditures, which I think most of his donations in 2024 were, they can claim distance while still enjoying the benefit.
I think a fairly-likely scenario is for Trump to persecute Musk for a while, then graciously allow him back inside after appropriate grovelling. V. good for Trump as inspires fear in his other minions, indicates no-one is as bigly as the Donald.
Maybe not. But, if Musk, with his post-DOGE profile and his corporate interests, is publically known to be donating what would likely be astronomical sums of money to Democrats, with the usual perceived quid pro quo, that's gonna create a much stronger perception of an active alliance between Musk and the Democratic Party, than would stealthily undertaken independent expenditures.
Now, how widespread that perception would be in absolute terms, and how influential in swaying people's voting habits, is another question. My own view is that if the Democrats have enough money otherwise, they're better off not taking Musk's charity.
I think he’ll try that, but I think Elon’s ego is equal to his own and it won’t work.
I think it's basically over for the Trump-Musk alliance. Musk was brought into the administration to run DOGE, which is for now effectively defunct, and he's not a particularly popular individual with the general public(*). And I can't imagine Trump is overly thrilled about the pedophile insinuations.
So I don't really see that Trump would sense any pressing urgency to bring Musk back onto the team.
(*) A few weeks back, there was a road-rage incident in California, and at least one of the Big 3 networks insisted on reporting in several articles that the assailant was driving a Tesla, even though that did not seem relevant to the story.
You may be right, but you're far too sure of your opinions. The mistake you're making -- aside from mouthing off about things you don't know very much about -- is failing to recognize how fluid things are in US politics. We are in the midst a period of history when you can't predict what's going to happen based on what's been happening regularly for quite a while.
You may be right, but you're far too sure of your opinions. The mistake you're making...is failing to recognize how fluid things are in US politics. We are in the midst a period of history when you can't predict what's going to happen based on what's been happening regularly for quite a while.
Well, okay, but then couldn't you say the same thing about anyone who makes any prediction about US politics right now without throwing a dozen qualifications in?
And I am sincerely curious as to in what way you see the current situation in US politics as "fluid". Because I'm not sure if that's quite the word I would use, since I haven't really seen any major shifts in allegiance among the voters, except maybe for blue-collar workers going more solidly Republican, but that's been a developing phenom for decades now.
I think the word I would use to describe a lot of the stuff since the rise of Trump is "unprecedented", starting with the mere fact of someone of Trump's background becoming president, all the way to imposing major tariffs on the entire world overnight. Is that the sort of thing you mean?
I mean a year ago today Biden was still the Democratic nominee and the assassination attempt on Trump hadn't happened yet so Musk was not yet involved in helping his campaign. We're over 17 months away from the midterms. 17 months prior to the last election, neither you nor I had any idea how things would play out between July and November 2024. And no one a year ago was saying Musk was going to be allowed to take a machete to the US federal government.
You're assuming the midterm elections will be played by the same rules as the 2024 presidential elections, and this is not a safe assumption. Trump has federalized the California National Guard, sending the military to quell dissent in southern California. He has bypassed the governor's authority in doing so. This is a big deal, and very bad things could happen. Will Trump be satisfied by a show of strength and power? Or will protests provoked by ICE, the cops, and the National Guard escalate? What's next -- martial law? Will California be allowed to run its own elections next year?
People in Detroit are holding anti-ICE demonstrations in support of southern California protestors. Will that get out of hand? Will Trump send troops? How far will that escalate?
I'm not saying we'll be at a worst-case scenario in 17 months. But it's a possibility, as are many, many other things. No one can say what will actually happen.
Maybe not. But, if Musk, with his post-DOGE profile and his corporate interests, is publically known to be donating what would likely be astronomical sums of money to Democrats, with the usual perceived quid pro quo, that's gonna create a much stronger perception of an active alliance between Musk and the Democratic Party, than would stealthily undertaken independent expenditures.
Now, how widespread that perception would be in absolute terms, and how influential in swaying people's voting habits, is another question. My own view is that if the Democrats have enough money otherwise, they're better off not taking Musk's charity.
I’m going to try this one more time.
If Musk makes independent expenditures, which it’s my understanding constituted the bulk of what he did in the 2024 election, there is no “charity” for any Democrats to refuse to take. Independent expenditures are not donations to the candidate. They cannot “turn it down.”
They can say things “we don’t want your help” or “please don’t.” But if he makes those independent expenditures—which by definition never go into any accounts belonging to, controlled by or coordinated with the candidates—there is nothing the Democratic candidate or the Democratic Party can do to stop him. Nothing. Nor is there any money for them to refuse or return.
And it is worth mentioning that contributions to campaigns are subject to limits, so “astronomical sums” cannot be donated to candidates. By contrast, there are no limits on independent expenditures, which is why they’re the route for someone wanting to pour in astronomical sums.
What I have been talking about is that while Democrats may publicly distance themselves from Musk if he does make those kinds of independent expenditures, they do so with the comfort that they still get the benefit of his spending.
You may be right, but you're far too sure of your opinions. The mistake you're making...is failing to recognize how fluid things are in US politics. We are in the midst a period of history when you can't predict what's going to happen based on what's been happening regularly for quite a while.
Well, okay, but then couldn't you say the same thing about anyone who makes any prediction about US politics right now without throwing a dozen qualifications in?
I would not say the same thing about someone who, in making predictions or analysis, demonstrates that they have a good understanding of American political structures and of the current American political situation, which informs their predictions and analysis.
What I have been talking about is that while Democrats may publicly distance themselves from Musk if he does make those kinds of independent expenditures, they do so with the comfort that they still get the benefit of his spending.
Maybe not. But, if Musk, with his post-DOGE profile and his corporate interests, is publically known to be donating what would likely be astronomical sums of money to Democrats, with the usual perceived quid pro quo, that's gonna create a much stronger perception of an active alliance between Musk and the Democratic Party, than would stealthily undertaken independent expenditures.
Now, how widespread that perception would be in absolute terms, and how influential in swaying people's voting habits, is another question. My own view is that if the Democrats have enough money otherwise, they're better off not taking Musk's charity.
I’m going to try this one more time.
If Musk makes independent expenditures, which it’s my understanding constituted the bulk of what he did in the 2024 election, there is no “charity” for any Democrats to refuse to take. Independent expenditures are not donations to the candidate. They cannot “turn it down.”
They can say things “we don’t want your help” or “please don’t.” But if he makes those independent expenditures—which by definition never go into any accounts belonging to, controlled by or coordinated with the candidates—there is nothing the Democratic candidate or the Democratic Party can do to stop him. Nothing. Nor is there any money for them to refuse or return.
And it is worth mentioning that contributions to campaigns are subject to limits, so “astronomical sums” cannot be donated to candidates. By contrast, there are no limits on independent expenditures, which is why they’re the route for someone wanting to pour in astronomical sums.
What I have been talking about is that while Democrats may publicly distance themselves from Musk if he does make those kinds of independent expenditures, they do so with the comfort that they still get the benefit of his spending.
Yeah, but I was talking about the possible effects of Musk making direct and identifiable donations to Democratic politicians, not the possible effects of him making independent expenditures(*).
I had composed a reply justifying my focus on the former type of funding to the exclusion of the latter, based on the previous direction of the discussion. However, it was pretty textualist(with this thread being the text) and self-referential, and I don't really have the mental energy for that right now. Anyone interested can scroll through the relevant posts and draw their own conclusions.
(*) And, yes, the relative sizes of both can be taken into account as a factor in determining the impact of either, but I'm not going to expound my opinions on that further.
Maybe not. But, if Musk, with his post-DOGE profile and his corporate interests, is publically known to be donating what would likely be astronomical sums of money to Democrats, with the usual perceived quid pro quo, that's gonna create a much stronger perception of an active alliance between Musk and the Democratic Party, than would stealthily undertaken independent expenditures.
Now, how widespread that perception would be in absolute terms, and how influential in swaying people's voting habits, is another question. My own view is that if the Democrats have enough money otherwise, they're better off not taking Musk's charity.
I’m going to try this one more time.
If Musk makes independent expenditures, which it’s my understanding constituted the bulk of what he did in the 2024 election, there is no “charity” for any Democrats to refuse to take. Independent expenditures are not donations to the candidate. They cannot “turn it down.”
They can say things “we don’t want your help” or “please don’t.” But if he makes those independent expenditures—which by definition never go into any accounts belonging to, controlled by or coordinated with the candidates—there is nothing the Democratic candidate or the Democratic Party can do to stop him. Nothing. Nor is there any money for them to refuse or return.
And it is worth mentioning that contributions to campaigns are subject to limits, so “astronomical sums” cannot be donated to candidates. By contrast, there are no limits on independent expenditures, which is why they’re the route for someone wanting to pour in astronomical sums.
What I have been talking about is that while Democrats may publicly distance themselves from Musk if he does make those kinds of independent expenditures, they do so with the comfort that they still get the benefit of his spending.
Yeah, but I was talking about the possible effects of Musk making direct and identifiable donations to Democratic politicians, . . . .
You also specifically talked about him contributing “astronomical sums” to those Democrstic politicians. Contributions of astronomical sums can’t be made to candidates.
It is certainly, as you said upthread, your prerogative not to spend time reading up on and becoming familiar with the electoral and political systems of a country you don’t live in. But if you’re going to exercise that prerogative, I’m struggling to understand the point in nevertheless continuing to offer comments on a topic you don’t seem to know much about.
Maybe not. But, if Musk, with his post-DOGE profile and his corporate interests, is publically known to be donating what would likely be astronomical sums of money to Democrats, with the usual perceived quid pro quo, that's gonna create a much stronger perception of an active alliance between Musk and the Democratic Party, than would stealthily undertaken independent expenditures.
Now, how widespread that perception would be in absolute terms, and how influential in swaying people's voting habits, is another question. My own view is that if the Democrats have enough money otherwise, they're better off not taking Musk's charity.
I’m going to try this one more time.
If Musk makes independent expenditures, which it’s my understanding constituted the bulk of what he did in the 2024 election, there is no “charity” for any Democrats to refuse to take. Independent expenditures are not donations to the candidate. They cannot “turn it down.”
They can say things “we don’t want your help” or “please don’t.” But if he makes those independent expenditures—which by definition never go into any accounts belonging to, controlled by or coordinated with the candidates—there is nothing the Democratic candidate or the Democratic Party can do to stop him. Nothing. Nor is there any money for them to refuse or return.
And it is worth mentioning that contributions to campaigns are subject to limits, so “astronomical sums” cannot be donated to candidates. By contrast, there are no limits on independent expenditures, which is why they’re the route for someone wanting to pour in astronomical sums.
What I have been talking about is that while Democrats may publicly distance themselves from Musk if he does make those kinds of independent expenditures, they do so with the comfort that they still get the benefit of his spending.
Yeah, but I was talking about the possible effects of Musk making direct and identifiable donations to Democratic politicians, . . . .
You also specifically talked about him contributing “astronomical sums” to those Democrstic politicians. Contributions of astronomical sums can’t be made to candidates.
It is certainly, as you said upthread, your prerogative not to spend time reading up on and becoming familiar with the electoral and political systems of a country you don’t live in. But if you’re going to exercise that prerogative, I’m struggling to understand the point in nevertheless continuing to offer comments on a topic you don’t seem to know much about.
FWIW, I just did read through the wikipedia article on independent expenditures, and that's basically more-or-less what I had assumed you were talking about from the beginning. The article was relatively short, and seemed to focus more on exploratory commitees as a front for fundraising and campaigning, but I would assume the concept also covers stuff like eg. the most notorious of the Willie Horton ads from '88 being aired not by the Bush campaign itself, but by Roger Ailes on the payroll of a group of donors who had an interest in seeing GHW Bush elected?
And this has all gotten easier since Citizens United. Makes sense, though I honestly don't know all the details.
Comments
What has been said is that if Musk decides to make independent expenditures in support of Democratic candidates, there’s nothing they can do to stop him, and they probably like it that way. They can say things to distance themselves from him, while at the same time, benefiting from the money he’s spending.
Well...
Italics mine.
Maybe not. But, if Musk, with his post-DOGE profile and his corporate interests, is publically known to be donating what would likely be astronomical sums of money to Democrats, with the usual perceived quid pro quo, that's gonna create a much stronger perception of an active alliance between Musk and the Democratic Party, than would stealthily undertaken independent expenditures.
Now, how widespread that perception would be in absolute terms, and how influential in swaying people's voting habits, is another question. My own view is that if the Democrats have enough money otherwise, they're better off not taking Musk's charity.
I think it's basically over for the Trump-Musk alliance. Musk was brought into the administration to run DOGE, which is for now effectively defunct, and he's not a particularly popular individual with the general public(*). And I can't imagine Trump is overly thrilled about the pedophile insinuations.
So I don't really see that Trump would sense any pressing urgency to bring Musk back onto the team.
(*) A few weeks back, there was a road-rage incident in California, and at least one of the Big 3 networks insisted on reporting in several articles that the assailant was driving a Tesla, even though that did not seem relevant to the story.
Well, okay, but then couldn't you say the same thing about anyone who makes any prediction about US politics right now without throwing a dozen qualifications in?
And I am sincerely curious as to in what way you see the current situation in US politics as "fluid". Because I'm not sure if that's quite the word I would use, since I haven't really seen any major shifts in allegiance among the voters, except maybe for blue-collar workers going more solidly Republican, but that's been a developing phenom for decades now.
I think the word I would use to describe a lot of the stuff since the rise of Trump is "unprecedented", starting with the mere fact of someone of Trump's background becoming president, all the way to imposing major tariffs on the entire world overnight. Is that the sort of thing you mean?
You're assuming the midterm elections will be played by the same rules as the 2024 presidential elections, and this is not a safe assumption. Trump has federalized the California National Guard, sending the military to quell dissent in southern California. He has bypassed the governor's authority in doing so. This is a big deal, and very bad things could happen. Will Trump be satisfied by a show of strength and power? Or will protests provoked by ICE, the cops, and the National Guard escalate? What's next -- martial law? Will California be allowed to run its own elections next year?
People in Detroit are holding anti-ICE demonstrations in support of southern California protestors. Will that get out of hand? Will Trump send troops? How far will that escalate?
I'm not saying we'll be at a worst-case scenario in 17 months. But it's a possibility, as are many, many other things. No one can say what will actually happen.
If Musk makes independent expenditures, which it’s my understanding constituted the bulk of what he did in the 2024 election, there is no “charity” for any Democrats to refuse to take. Independent expenditures are not donations to the candidate. They cannot “turn it down.”
They can say things “we don’t want your help” or “please don’t.” But if he makes those independent expenditures—which by definition never go into any accounts belonging to, controlled by or coordinated with the candidates—there is nothing the Democratic candidate or the Democratic Party can do to stop him. Nothing. Nor is there any money for them to refuse or return.
And it is worth mentioning that contributions to campaigns are subject to limits, so “astronomical sums” cannot be donated to candidates. By contrast, there are no limits on independent expenditures, which is why they’re the route for someone wanting to pour in astronomical sums.
What I have been talking about is that while Democrats may publicly distance themselves from Musk if he does make those kinds of independent expenditures, they do so with the comfort that they still get the benefit of his spending.
I would not say the same thing about someone who, in making predictions or analysis, demonstrates that they have a good understanding of American political structures and of the current American political situation, which informs their predictions and analysis.
It's a form of plausible deniability.
Yeah, but I was talking about the possible effects of Musk making direct and identifiable donations to Democratic politicians, not the possible effects of him making independent expenditures(*).
I had composed a reply justifying my focus on the former type of funding to the exclusion of the latter, based on the previous direction of the discussion. However, it was pretty textualist(with this thread being the text) and self-referential, and I don't really have the mental energy for that right now. Anyone interested can scroll through the relevant posts and draw their own conclusions.
(*) And, yes, the relative sizes of both can be taken into account as a factor in determining the impact of either, but I'm not going to expound my opinions on that further.
It is certainly, as you said upthread, your prerogative not to spend time reading up on and becoming familiar with the electoral and political systems of a country you don’t live in. But if you’re going to exercise that prerogative, I’m struggling to understand the point in nevertheless continuing to offer comments on a topic you don’t seem to know much about.
Fair enough.
And this has all gotten easier since Citizens United. Makes sense, though I honestly don't know all the details.