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
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Judge in US crosshairs warns Brazil banks not to apply sanctions locally
By Ricardo Brito and Brad Haynes BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who recently had sanctions imposed on him by the U.S. government, told Reuters that courts could punish Brazilian financial institutions for seizing or blocking domestic assets in response to U.S. orders. Those remarks raise the stakes in a standoff that has hammered shares of Brazilian banks caught between U.S. sanctions and the orders of Brazil's highest court. In a late Tuesday interview from his office in Brasilia, Moraes granted that U.S. law enforcement regarding Brazilian banks that operate in the United States "falls under U.S. jurisdiction." "However, if those banks choose to apply that law domestically, they cannot do so — and may be penalized under Brazilian law," he added. His remarks underscore the potential consequences of a Monday ruling by fellow Supreme Court Justice Flavio Dino, who warned that foreign laws cannot be automatically applied in Brazil. That ruling was followed by a sharp rebuke from the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, which warned on social media hours later that Moraes was "toxic" and that "non-U.S. persons must tread carefully: those providing material support to human rights abusers face sanctions risk themselves." The U.S. Treasury Department slapped the sanctions on Moraes last month under the Global Magnitsky Act, a law designed to impose economic penalties on foreigners deemed to have a record of corruption or human rights abuse. The order accused him of suppressing freedom of expression and leading politicized prosecutions, including against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a staunch Trump ally on trial before Brazil's Supreme Court on charges of plotting a coup to reverse his loss in the 2022 election. Bolsonaro has denied any wrongdoing and denounced the case as politically motivated. In his interview, Moraes said decisions by foreign courts and governments can only take effect in Brazil after validation through a domestic process. He said it is therefore not possible to seize assets, freeze funds or block the property of Brazilian citizens without following those legal steps. The global reach of the U.S. financial system means foreign banks often restrict a wider range of transactions to avoid secondary sanctions. Moraes said he was confident that the sanctions against him would be reversed via diplomatic channels or an eventual challenge in U.S. courts. But he acknowledged that for now they had put financial institutions in a bind. "This misuse of legal enforcement places financial institutions in a difficult position — not only Brazilian banks, but also their American partners," he said. "That is precisely why, I repeat, the diplomatic channel is important so this can be resolved quickly - to prevent misuse of a law that is important to fight terrorism, criminal organizations, international drug trafficking and human trafficking," he added. The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to request for comment. Moraes had "engaged in serious human rights abuse," said a Treasury Department spokesperson. "Rather than concocting a fantasy fiction, de Moraes should stop carrying out arbitrary detentions and politicized prosecutions." NO CHOICE The clash could have serious consequences for Brazilian financial institutions, said two bankers in Brazil, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. Most large banks are supervised by the U.S. government in some way due to their international presence or exposure, either through a foreign branch or issuance of foreign securities, said the former director of an international bank in Brazil. The choice for these banks, under pressure from the U.S., may be to invite sanctioned clients to seek a different institution to keep their assets, the banker added. The director of a major Brazilian bank said that, in practice, Monday's court ruling means any action taken by Brazilian banks based on rules involving the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which oversees U.S. sanctions, will need approval from Brazil's Supreme Court. At the same time, he added, failing to comply with an OFAC decision could cut a bank off from the international financial system. "Brazil doesn't really have a choice," said the banker. "Given how interconnected everything is, and the disparity in economic power between the U.S. and Brazil, we're left in a position of subordination. There's not much we can do." He stressed that the court would need to come up with a solution "that doesn't put the financial system at risk." Shares of state-run lender Banco do Brasil, where most federal officials including judges receive salaries, fell 6% on Tuesday, the largest drop among Brazil's three biggest banks. The bank said in a Tuesday statement it was prepared to deal with "complex, sensitive" issues involving global regulations. Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Post
19 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democrats facing crisis as more than 2M voters leave party in four years: analysis
The Democratic Party is bleeding registered voters, suffering a 4.5 million swing against it that could take years to recover from, according to a new report. Between the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections, Democrats lost about 2.1 million voters across the 30 states that track registration by political party, according to a New York Times analysis of data gathered by the L2 tracking firm. Over the same period, the Republican Party gained 2.4 million registered voters. Officially, there are still more registered Democrats than Republicans nationwide, but that number is incomplete because blue states like California and New York allow voters to register by party — as does the District of Columbia — while reliably red states like Texas, Missouri and Ohio do not. Most alarmingly for Democrats, the decline is nationwide, with the US seeing more new voters registering with the GOP in 2024 for the first time in six years. Democrats also saw their registered voter advantage dwindle in four 2024 battleground states — Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania — all of which President Trump carried this past Nov. 5. Democrats lost about 2.1 million registered voters in the 30 states that track registration by political party. AP Michael Pruser, who tracks voter registration closely as the director of data science for Decision Desk HQ, warned that the numbers not only help explain Trump's victory last year — in which he became the first Republican presidential candidate to win the popular vote in 20 years — but also forecast significant headwinds for Democrats in next year's midterm elections as well as the 2028 presidential vote. 'I don't want to say, 'The death cycle of the Democratic Party,'' Pruser told the Times, 'but there seems to be no end to this.' 'There is no silver lining or cavalry coming across the hill. This is month after month, year after year,' he added. In North Carolina, Democrats lost 115,523 voters between the 2020 and 2024 election, with Republicans gaining more than 140,000 members and erasing the Dems' registration advantage, according to the L2 data. More new voters registered to be Republican than Democrat last year, the first time since 2018. Michael Nagle Democrats suffered similar losses in Arizona and Pennsylvania, while in Nevada — a state whose politics were long dominated by the Las Vegas-based Culinary Workers Union — the share of registered Democrats suffered the second-steepest plunge of those states measured between 2020 and 2024. (Only deep-red West Virginia saw more precipitous losses.). Even Democratic bastions like New York and California were not safe from voter erosion, with Dems losing 305,922 registered voters in the Empire State in between the two elections. In California, Democrats lost 680,556 voters between 2020 and 2024. All in all, Democrats went from enjoying an advantage of nearly 11 percentage points over Republicans in registered voter numbers in 2020 to just over six percentage points across the 30 states and DC in 2024, the Times found. Experts believe that the fall of new Democratic registrations can be linked to the growing number of voters choosing to be independents or unaffiliated, a trend that is sapping both parties' rolls. In 2018, more than one-third (34%) of new voter registrations nationwide were Democrats, while registered Republicans made up just 20% of new voters. As of last year, however, Republicans had erased that gap, with party supporters making up 29% of new voters, while Democrats made up 26% of new voters.
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Stephen Miller blasts ‘stupid white hippies' protesting DC crackdown
Deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller on Wednesday railed against what he called 'stupid white hippies' who were protesting the federal crackdown on crime in the nation's capital and argued they did not represent the citizens of Washington, D.C. Miller, Vice President Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth visited Union Station on Wednesday, where National Guard troops have been stationed outside for days in a show of force near the transportation hub. 'We are not going to let the communists destroy a great American city, let alone the nation's capital,' Miller told the crowd near Shake Shack inside Union Station. 'And let's just also address another thing. All these demonstrators you've seen out here in recent days, all these elderly white hippies, they're not part of the city and never have been. And by the way, most of the citizens who live in Washington, D.C., are Black.' 'So we're going to ignore these stupid white hippies that all need to go home and take a nap because they're all over 90 years old,' he added. 'And we're going to get back to the business of protecting the American people and the citizens of Washington, D.C.' The Trump administration earlier this month began surging federal law enforcement across parts of the district to crack down on what the White House said was an unacceptable level of crime, despite statistics showing violent crime has declined in the city. Last week, Trump took federal control of the Metropolitan Police Department and deployed hundreds of National Guard troops across the city to further the crack down on crime. The White House has said officers across the district have made more than 550 arrests since the surge in federal resources began on Aug. 7. But local residents have largely expressed disapproval with the aggressive moves from the federal government. A Washington Post-Schar School poll of 604 D.C. residents published Wednesday found 65 percent do not think Trump's actions will make the city safer. Roughly 80 percent of residents said they opposed Trump's executive order to federalize the city's police department.
