Poll: 14% of Americans would consider supporting Elon Musk's America Party
On July 4, Tesla CEO Elon Musk asked his followers on X — the social media platform he owns — whether he should 'create' something called the America Party to give them 'independence' from the country's 'two-party (some would say uniparty) system.'
More than 1.2 million users responded to Musk's snap poll: 65% said yes; 35% said no.
'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!' Musk vowed the following day.
Since then, however, Musk hasn't taken any visible steps to deliver on his promise. A new Yahoo/YouGov survey — which captures a representative sample of the U.S. population, in contrast to informal social media polls — suggests possible challenges ahead: Just 14% of Americans say they would be open to 'supporting a third party created by Musk.'
In contrast, 55% say they would not consider supporting Musk's party.
Why Musk wants a new party
The survey of 1,729 U.S. adults, which was conducted from July 24 to July 28, comes a little more than a month after Musk and President Trump had a public falling-out over Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.'
Trump claimed that Musk was 'upset' about 'losing his EV mandate' (the $7,500 federal tax credit that has made buying or leasing electric vehicles such as Teslas more attractive and affordable for consumers). Musk insisted he was concerned only with the legislation's effect on federal spending — namely, initial estimates that showed it would 'massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit ... and burden America citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt,' as he wrote on X.
'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk continued. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.'
When a revised version of Trump's bill passed the Senate in early July with a $3.3 trillion deficit projection, Musk unveiled his America Party idea. 'When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,' Musk wrote on X. 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.'
People don't love the 2-party system
Americans aren't opposed to having alternatives at the ballot box — in theory. The new Yahoo/YouGov poll finds that more of them approve (39%) than disapprove (28%) of the concept of creating a 'third major U.S. political party to compete with the Democratic Party and the Republican Party'; 33% say they are not sure.
Naturally, the idea of creating a third party is more popular with Americans who already identify as independents (56%) than with those who identify as Democrats (34%) or Republicans (32%). But the two parties themselves aren't especially well liked either. Majorities see both unfavorably (55% for the GOP, 56% for the Dems) rather than favorably (38% for the GOP, 36% for the Dems). And when respondents are asked how well each major party represents their views, more than half say 'not very well' or 'not at all' for both the Democrats (51%) and the Republicans (52%).
Yet the overlap between these two categories — individuals who say they don't like either party — is relatively small, which may pose difficulties for Musk. About a quarter (22%) have an unfavorable view of both the Republicans and the Democrats, and fewer (18%) say neither side represents their views 'very well' or 'at all.'
Musk keeps getting less popular
In the Yahoo/YouGov poll conducted immediately after Trump won reelection last November, Musk earned a net positive rating (49% favorable, 39% unfavorable). That made him the most popular of the eight incoming Trump Cabinet members and senior advisers respondents were asked to appraise.
Yet by April 2025 — following several months as the leader of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — Musk's ratings had flipped to 39% favorable, 55% unfavorable.
Today, he is further underwater (32% favorable, 59% unfavorable).
Musk is currently seen in a negative light by a clear majority of Democrats (9% favorable, 88% unfavorable) and nearly two-thirds of independents (30% favorable, 64% unfavorable). He still gets a net positive rating from a majority of Republicans (59% favorable, 30% unfavorable), but their enthusiasm has cooled; while 52% of Republicans saw Musk 'very favorably' last November, only 17% now feel that way about him.
Since March, the number of Americans who think Musk is 'mostly trying to help the country' has fallen from 36% to 23%, whereas the number who think he is 'mostly trying to help himself' has risen from 52% to 56%. The share of Republicans who think Musk is mostly trying to help the country, meanwhile, has declined by 30 points — from 73% to 43%.
The proposed policy focus of Musk's America Party — stopping the federal government from 'bankrupting our country with waste & graft,' as he put it — isn't people's top priority either. Asked what they would want a 'third major political party' to 'focus mostly on,' 26% of Americans said 'cutting government spending.' Significantly more (46%) said 'other issues.'
__________________
The Yahoo survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,729 U.S. adults interviewed online from July 24 to July 28, 2025. The sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, education, 2024 election turnout and presidential vote, party identification and current voter registration status. Demographic weighting targets come from the 2019 American Community Survey. Party identification is weighted to the estimated distribution at the time of the election (31% Democratic, 32% Republican). Respondents were selected from YouGov's opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. adults. The margin of error is approximately 3.1%.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
C-suite access is the new divide in the hedge fund world
Corporate access has become the latest institutional shift for the largest hedge funds in the industry. The biggest firms have teams of people handling their relationships with companies and get the most access. Citadel, for example, does more than 30,000 meetings with executives a year. You can't buy time, but hedge funds are trying. Some of the most valuable time in the world is that of a CEO of a large public company like Jamie Dimon or Mark Zuckerberg, whose days are planned to the millisecond. They carve out time to speak to their companies' investors about strategy, expectations, and more, and it's those seconds that the biggest hedge funds in the world are increasingly monopolizing. Multistrategy giants like Izzy Englander's Millennium, Ken Griffin's Citadel, Steve Cohen's Point72, and Dmitry Balyasny's eponymous firm operate with dozens — sometimes hundreds — of investment teams under one roof, each running their own strategy. These firms' stock-picking teams compete with each other and rivals for face time with leaders at the world's biggest companies. In conversations with 15 portfolio managers, hedge fund executives, bankers, corporate access professionals, and investor relations heads, Business Insider found that access to C-suites — once a more level playing field — has become another area where the biggest firms dominate. The process is now a source of growing tension as smaller investment firms get edged out, companies are flooded with requests, and even top firms grapple with internal strains over who gets into the boardroom. A decade ago, the connection between these firms and corporations was run solely through brokers working at investment banks, also known as the sell-side. Now, while the sell-side has not been cut out of the equation, the biggest hedge funds employ large teams of corporate access pros themselves, with personnel based in the US, Europe, and Asia helping mega funds get their ever-growing investing team members face time with CEOs. Citadel boasts on its website that it does more than 30,000 meetings with corporate executives each year. Millennium's increasing allocation to externally run funds means more wallets to pay the sell-side, ensuring better access and preferential treatment from brokers. Balyasny has done educational events for corporate investor relations teams in Asia, India, and the US in the last 12 months to explain the firm's structure and introduce its broker relations leaders. Funds mentioned in this story declined to comment. "A big part of the job is keeping everyone happy," said one hedge fund executive who has managed stock-picking teams for more than a decade. 'Kids' table' Twenty-seven-year-olds in T-shirts. Cameras off during pandemic-era Zooms. Typing on laptops or phones while CEOs spoke. Twenty people on a call, all vying to ask a hyperspecific question, often related to next quarter's earnings. Companies, especially the largest ones with the busiest executives, were getting frustrated as the headcounts of the industry's elite swelled, according to two corporate investor relations executives. At bank-held conferences, alongside tenured portfolio managers from long-only funds and asset management giants like Fidelity and Wellington, "we were always the kids' table," one multistrategy executive admitted. It was "pretty common" between 2018 and 2021 for executives to say no to meeting with some of these firms, or sharply curtailing the number of seats allotted to these funds, said Christopher Melito, a former corporate access pro at Cowen, Citi, and Credit Suisse. Even with how much these firms paid the sell-side, "at the end of the day, a C-suite could say 'don't confirm that request, we aren't meeting with them,'" said Melito, who is now the head of investor access at consulting firm ICR. Though the industry started building corporate access teams as early as 2015, it took years for teams to get to their current efficiency. One early hire industry experts pointed to was when Citadel promoted Johnna Shields to the role of corporate relations manager within its Global Equities stockpicking unit. Now, these staffers play a critical role in smoothing the path for hedge funds, which aren't always trusted by CEOs who worry about potential short-sellers and capital that'll leave at the first sign of trouble. Similar to the growing importance of the business development role, those in corporate access have become a key cog within multistrategy firms, despite the fact that they don't manage capital themselves. Jain Global, for example, brought on Katie Vogt, a former Balyasny and Goldman Sachs staffer, to head its corporate access efforts, deeming the function important enough to hire someone pre-launch. There's now a much healthier two-way street between funds and corporates. For example, "a lot of top four funds stopped putting junior members in these meetings," Melito said, and started training younger investment team members on protocol. One former PM said that at Point72, blazers are required when meeting with an executive. At other large firms, Melito said, young analysts start by meeting with smaller-cap companies before shadowing more senior investors in meetings with large-cap corporations. Corporate access teams have shifted from booking agents to matchmakers, one person close to a big four fund said, pairing different teams and investors with the right executives. "The large four funds have been a lot more strategic about their asks," Melito said. Everything's political Although the relationships between funds and companies may be solid, there is still plenty of bickering internally at the asset managers. One portfolio manager at a large firm said the biggest fights he ever saw were between two teams wanting access to the same executive — and there would only be room for one. Firms often give more tenured teams the right of first refusal for a meeting, but sometimes big-name new hires will jump the line, causing a rift, another PM said. All jobs have an element of internal politics to them, but in the cutthroat hedge-fund world, where a right call could mean a life-changing annual bonus and a wrong call could mean a pink slip, the stakes are magnified. The growing staff at the biggest managers means that a potential meeting with a Fortune 500 CEO will have plenty of interested parties. At Citadel alone, there are roughly 300 stockpickers, Griffin said at a talk at his former high school in Florida earlier this year. While the biggest funds can offer eye-popping sign-on bonuses and larger books of capital to manage, smaller funds that haven't been able to keep up with the big boys on corporate access resources are leveraging the internal tiffs to help their recruiting. "We can say 'You're our tech guy,' and while we can't compete on upfront guarantees, we can give them better long-term incentives," said one individual who runs a smaller multistrategy firm. These incentives include automatic IPO distributions, he said, which can be hard to come by if you're lower down the totem pole in one of the bigger firms. In the ongoing war for talent that has top moneymakers getting offers of tens of millions of dollars in total potential compensation, an important question for candidates is how many other teams trade their specialty or sector, one recruiter said. "It's a make-or-break kind of question," he said. No one wants to be one of 20 investing in technology companies "unless the money's just stupid," he added. Is it 'something AI could do' or a differentiator? The reason these firms have been able to build up these teams and pay out such large commissions to the Street is because of the pass-through fee agreements that put their backers on the hook for business costs. The question limited partners need to ask: Is it worth it? Several PMs at firms with large corporate access teams told Business Insider they could do without. One European equity investor said CEOs have become more scripted than ever, so meetings are basically a rerun of what they've previously said on earnings calls or at conferences. Another, based in the US, said the biggest value from these meetings used to be a sentiment check on how other teams were thinking about the stock — but now questions are often too specific and narrow to give any kind of indication into their thinking. For one founder of a smaller activism fund, the meetings are a prime example of something that firms could eventually save money on by automating away. "All these young analysts are asking questions off a sheet of paper their PM gave them and then typing into their models right there," the activist said. "It's something AI could do." It's hard to quantify how much a 30-minute conversation with a CFO is worth to a fund's bottom line. One industry consultant believes the push for funds to adopt cash hurdles — which would require their net returns to be over that of a Treasury bond to earn performance fees — might lead to some firms cutting costs in different places, including payments to the sell-side. Still, longtime stockpickers appreciate time with executives, and the old guard believes there's value in it. Tiger Global's billionaire founder, Chase Coleman, sees merit in these meetings and still attends them, a person close to the firm said, and funds have brought in former CIA interrogators to help investors dissect body language and read between the lines of a prepared statement. Even beyond the informational advantages mega funds can glean from these meetings, corporate access is also a zero-sum game. The more meeting slots and conference registrations the industry's largest firms take up, the fewer everyone else can get. "It's a finite resource," said one sell-side broker. "They don't want to share." Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats Schumer, Jeffries demand meeting with GOP to avert government shutdown
Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Monday called on their Republican counterparts to meet immediately to avert a government shutdown looming as soon as the end of next month. The Democratic congressional leaders, both of whom are from New York, called on Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, and Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, to sit down this week to discuss a plan to pass next year's budget, which would normally require negotiation with the minority party to secure the 60 votes needed in the Senate to avoid a filibuster. 'We have the responsibility to govern for all Americans and work on a bipartisan basis to avert a painful, unnecessary shutdown at the end of September,' Schumer and Jeffries wrote. The Democratic leaders noted they are willing to work with Republicans on a bipartisan basis to negotiate a budget deal that would keep the government open past Sept. 30. But they accused President Donald Trump and GOP leaders of plotting to govern without any input from Democrats and shut down the government if they don't get their way. 'Many within your party are preparing to 'go it alone' and continue to legislate on a solely Republican basis,' the Democratic leaders wrote. Government funding will expire Sept. 30. Lawmakers say to prevent a shutdown Congress will likely need to pass a stopgap funding measure when lawmakers return to Washington, D.C., after Labor Day. In exchange for their cooperation in passing new budget measures, Democrats want Republicans to agree not to turn around later in the year and pass a rescissions package cutting some of that same funding. Republicans recently voted to claw back $9 billion in previously appropriated funding and defunded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, taking advantage of the legislative loophole that rescissions only require a simple majority in the Senate, not a 60-vote bipartisan supermajority. Schumer and Jeffries are also pressing for the administration to release funding it has unilaterally held up even though it was allocated by Congress last year. Republicans have suggested they may seek to pass one or more policy bills before the midterm elections using the arcane reconciliation process, like they successfully did with Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill. That measure, which polls say is very unpopular with voters, enacted draconian cuts to health care spending to bankroll tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations. _____
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can Super Micro's AI Demand Outpace Profit Margin Fears?
Super Micro Computer (NASDAQ:SMCI) is navigating a complex market landscape as it prepares to report its fiscal fourth-quarter earnings with a significant long-term growth narrative in the AI server space tempered by immediate concerns about market visibility and sustained pressure on profit margins. The company's heavy reliance on key suppliers and a competitive environment, where large-scale deals and component costs weigh on profitability, creates a cautious outlook despite its strong position as a leading beneficiary of rising AI infrastructure spending. Analyst Matt Bryson of Wedbush, in a note released on Monday, reiterated a Neutral rating on Super Micro with a $30 price forecast ahead of the company's earnings report scheduled for August the analyst acknowledged Super Micro's positioning as a key beneficiary of accelerating AI infrastructure spend, particularly in the server market, he expressed caution over near-term visibility and uncertainty around actual demand strength. Bryson noted that Super Micro stands to benefit from secular trends that align with its core strengths. Spending from neocloud providers, AI model builders, and sovereign buyers continues to grow, and these customers are increasingly turning to OEMs like Super Micro and Dell Technologies (NYSE:DELL) to meet their AI server requirements. He added that Nvidia's (NASDAQ:NVDA) apparent prioritization of GB200 deliveries to OEMs, rather than directly to hyperscalers, could serve as a tailwind for Super Micro. Peer company Gigabyte, for example, recently reported a 50% quarter-over-quarter sales surge, a result Bryson attributed to increased AI server shipments. If current market dynamics hold, Bryson sees a long-term path for Super Micro to potentially reach $10 billion in quarterly sales, echoing targets previously laid out by Super Micro CEO Charles Liang. This would be a significant leap from the $5.9 billion revenue consensus for fiscal fourth quarter and the $6.4 billion projection for calendar first quarter. However, Bryson underscored that visibility into Super Micro's actual build and demand trends remains limited. The company's heavy reliance on related parties for component sourcing and manufacturing complicates tracking real-time activity. Additionally, data from third-party sources has yet to reflect the level of demand surge expected from recent AI server trends. While strength in Taiwan-based suppliers like Wistron suggests a robust upstream environment, Bryson's team has not been able to confirm that Super Micro is directly seeing similar momentum in its own sales funnel. Margins also remain a key concern. Gross margins are expected to stay under pressure in the near term due to an increasing share of Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) content in Super Micro's bill of materials. According to conversations with ODMs and OEMs, GB200-based designs leave little room for differentiation, further compressing vendor margins. Management has guided fiscal fourth-quarter gross margins to remain around 10%, roughly in line with the 9.7% margin reported in the previous quarter. The analyst characterized this conservatism as prudent, citing the lower-margin profile of large-scale deals, rising Nvidia component costs, and a lack of meaningful relief in memory pricing. For the fiscal fourth quarter, Super Micro management projected revenue in the range of $5.6 billion to $6.4 billion and adjusted earnings per share between 40 cents and 50 cents. Operating expenses are expected to reach $245 million, with an adjusted tax rate of 16.5%. The fully diluted share count is projected at 642 million, and capital expenditures are guided between $45 million and $55 million. Despite Super Micro's significant share price appreciation over the past few months, Bryson remains on the sidelines. Price Action: SMCI shares were trading higher by 3.88% to $58.84 at last check Monday. Image via Shutterstock Latest Ratings for SMCI Date Firm Action From To May 2021 Susquehanna Maintains Positive May 2021 Northland Capital Markets Maintains Outperform Jun 2020 Northland Capital Markets Initiates Coverage On Outperform View More Analyst Ratings for SMCI View the Latest Analyst Ratings Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? SUPER MICRO COMPUTER (SMCI): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Can Super Micro's AI Demand Outpace Profit Margin Fears? originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
