Elon Musk's 'Third-Party Intervention' In US Politics: Will It Help Or Hurt Donald Trump?
Musk's entry into the political arena through the formation of the America Party introduces a complex dynamic with significant implications for Trump
Billionaire Elon Musk has launched a new political party, weeks after a dramatic falling out with US President Donald Trump.
Musk announced on his social media platform X that he had set up the America Party and billed it as a challenge to the Republican and Democratic two-party system.
May snatch votes from Trump
Musk's entry into the political arena through the formation of a formal political party introduces a complex dynamic with significant implications for Donald Trump. A Musk-backed party could potentially undermine Trump by attracting vital votes from his base. Musk has a distinct following, particularly among tech-savvy, libertarian-leaning, and anti-establishment voters, who often overlap with Trump's supporters. These groups share a common disdain for traditional political structures, perceived governmental overreach, and a desire for disruptive change.
If a 'Musk party" gains traction and fields candidates in key races, it could draw away independent voters, disillusioned Republicans, and new participants in the political process who might otherwise support Trump. In closely contested elections, even a slight shift in votes can be decisive, possibly preventing Trump from securing a clear majority. This development could further fragment the conservative or populist vote, complicating the path to victory for any major party candidate.
Could be 'release' for conservative dissent
By offering an alternative for those feeling unrepresented by traditional Republicanism, it might prevent them from disengaging from politics entirely or casting protest votes for a more ideologically distant third-party candidate. In a general election, if a 'Musk party" draws more support from the anti-establishment or populist wing that Trump has cultivated, its presence might dilute opposition to Trump's main challenger rather than eroding Trump's core support significantly.
Vehicle for experimentation?
Additionally, a new political entity backed by Musk could experiment with innovative political strategies, technological integrations, or fundraising models.
If successful, these approaches could be adopted, adapted, or even co-opted by Trump's campaign or the broader Republican Party, enhancing their capabilities.
The ultimate impact depends on the new party's platform, the calibre of its candidates, Musk's level of financial and public involvement, and the prevailing political climate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
18 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Technology to drive consolidation in broking and asset management: Saurabh Mukherjea
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads , Founder,discusses his views on the AMC space, potential tariffs on India and China, and the impact of technology on broking and asset management. Mukherjea says the Reserve Bank of India's banking regulations favour incumbents. However, broking and asset management are experiencing tech-driven disruption. Zerodha and Groww exemplify this shift. Digitization allows even smaller players to thrive. Technology will drive consolidation in broking and asset management. New AMCs may use fintech to disrupt the space.I would like to say that as a shareholder in my own AMC, I have to be realistic here. Given that some really big boys are entering the AMC space with lots of capital, many billions of dollars, I have a feeling that we are going to see profit margin compression in the years ahead. This is a classic capital cycle playing out where lots of AMCs are coming up and plenty of capital is coming in. So, coming back to our portfolios, we have sold out on our stock market plays, whether it is AMC, wealth management, the infrastructure which is the stock market. So caution is a relevant part of investing and looking at the juicy valuations in that space, we have sold out on the stock market related to the wealth management, asset management related plays in our reading is much of this is negotiation and hardballing of India. The critical negotiation here as you are alluding to is the Putin-Trump negotiation. Clearly to my mind, the American president is putting pressure on Russia by punishing India for buying Russian the Putin-Trump negotiation ends up in something fruitful whether it is Ukraine, whether it is some sort of broader deal between Russia and America. Once that piece is off the table, tariffs will come down. A 20% tariff on India and 30% on China will be a decent outcome. It will give India an advantage vis-à-vis China. It will give China plus one theme a fillip. It will allow America to reduce its dependence on China. So, 20% tariff on India and 30% on China seems to be the steady state that we will end up say four-five months out once the Putin-Trump negotiations reach some logical banking, the RBI does in a way helped the incumbents by blocking new entry. So, AU Finance got the first universal bank license in 10 or 11 years. In 30 years, India has had three new universal banks. But the RBI blocks entry into banking and that in a way makes the job of the incumbents slightly easier. But in broking, in asset management, there is no such blocking of entry and the sweeping up of the broking asset management space on the back of tech disruption of asset management and broking is upon have seen the impact of firms like Zerodha, Groww. The digitisation of broking and asset management is reasonably easy to fathom and even small players like us have not built a single branch and yet we have been able to grow the business reasonably smoothly just by focusing on high net worth the tech broking, tech asset management space, the use of fintech to drive broking and asset management will be a big theme for the next decade. In any such construct, where technology is being used, the big will get bigger and better and therefore, the smaller players, especially the players who do not have technology, will fall behind. We will see consolidation in broking and asset management driven by technology and it will be very interesting to see that the newer entrants into the AMC space will be able to use fintech to disrupt the have not seen much of this interestingly in America and the broking that we saw Robinhood do in America. In a way, Robinhood's counterpart here would be a Zerodha, but in American asset management, we have not seen tech play a disruptive role in consolidating American asset management. It will be interesting to see whether the new-age Indian AMCs are able to do that. But broking seems relatively clear and I think AMCs will also consolidate on the back of fintech.
Hans India
20 minutes ago
- Hans India
US tariffs don't deter India's growth story: S&P
New Delhi: Trump tariffs will not have any impact on India's growth, as it is not a trade-oriented economy, and its sovereign ratings outlook will continue to remain positive, S&P Global Ratings Director YeeFarn Phua said on Wednesday. In May last year, S&P had upgraded the outlook on India's sovereign rating of 'BBB-' to positive, citing robust economic growth. On August 6, US President Donald Trump announced an additional 25 per cent tariff on all Indian imports, on top of an existing 25 per cent duty, taking the total to 50 per cent from August 27. The White House said the measure responds to India's continued purchase of Russian oil. Replying to a query on whether the tariff imposition poses downside risks to the positive outlook on India, YeeFarn said: 'I don't think the tariffs imposed on India will have an impact in terms of economic growth, largely because India is not a very trade-oriented economy. And if you look at India's exposure to the US in terms of exports to GDP, it is just about 2 per cent'.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
20 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump admin's lawsuit against Maryland federal judges critised in court
US District Judge didn't issue a ruling after a hearing in federal court in Baltimore, he was cynical about the admin's legal manoeuvre, which Maryland judges' attorneys called unprecedented AP Baltimore A judge on Wednesday questioned why it was necessary for the Trump administration to sue Maryland's entire federal bench over an order that paused the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals. US District Judge Thomas Cullen didn't issue a ruling following a hearing in federal court in Baltimore, but he expressed skepticism about the administration's extraordinary legal manoeuvre, which attorneys for the Maryland judges called completely unprecedented. Cullen serves in the Western District of Virginia, but he was tapped to oversee the Baltimore case because all of Maryland's 15 federal judges are named as defendants, a highly unusual circumstance that reflects the Republican administration's aggressive response to courts that slow or stop its policies. At issue in the lawsuit is an order signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III that prevents the administration from immediately deporting any immigrants seeking review of their detention in a Maryland federal court. The order blocks their removal until 4 pm on the second business day after their habeas corpus petition is filed. The Justice Department, which filed the lawsuit in June, says the automatic pause impedes President Donald Trump's authority to enforce immigration laws. But attorneys for the Maryland judges argue that the suit was intended to limit the power of the judiciary to review certain immigration proceedings while the administration pursues a mass deportation agenda. The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government, said Paul Clement, a prominent conservative lawyer who served as Republican President George W. Bush's solicitor general. There really is no precursor for this suit. Clement listed several other avenues the administration could have taken to challenge the order, such as filing an appeal in an individual habeas case. Cullen also asked the government's lawyers whether they had considered that alternative, which he said could have been more expeditious than suing all the judges. He also questioned what would happen if the administration accelerated its current approach and sued a federal appellate bench, or even the Supreme Court. I think you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism, Cullen told Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Themins Hedges when she stood to present the Trump administration's case. Hedges denied that the case would open the floodgates to similar lawsuits. She said the government is simply seeking relief from a legal roadblock preventing effective immigration enforcement. The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed, she said. Cullen, who was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2020, said he would issue a ruling by Labor Day on whether to dismiss the lawsuit. If allowed to proceed, he could also grant the government's request for a preliminary injunction that would block the Maryland federal bench from following the conditions of the chief judge's order. The automatic pause in deportation proceedings sought to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense, according to the order. Russell also said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive. Habeas petitions allow people to challenge their detention by the government. The administration accused Maryland judges of prioritizing a regular schedule, saying in court documents that a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law. Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who found the administration illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March - a case that quickly became a flashpoint in Trump's immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia was held in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison, where he claims to have been beaten and tortured. The administration later brought Abrego Garcia back to the US and charged him with human smuggling in Tennessee. His attorneys characterised the charge as an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation. Xinis recently prohibited the administration from taking Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he's released from jail pending trial. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
