Tag: 2024 presidential election
Ken Paxton

Elon Musk Wasting Hundreds Of Millions To Rescue Desperate Paxton

At the start of September, political analyst Nate Silver’s polling forecast had Texas’ Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico leading corrupt GOP candidate Ken Paxton by more than two points, 47.5 percent to 45.3 percent.

Today, Talarico’s lead has increased to nearly three points, 48.3 percent to 45.5 percent.

What’s amazing about that is Talarico’s numbers have gone up, while Paxton is mired in the same place he was six weeks ago—and all of that despite the right’s more than $134 million worth of anti-Talarico ads.

That’s a story in its own right, but it’s particularly noteworthy because a significant percentage of that spending has come from racist billionaire Elon Musk.

“Musk’s team reached out to Republicans in late August to discuss a train wreck they all saw coming: Unless the GOP poured more money into Texas immediately, the state’s Senate race could be lost in a matter of weeks,” Axios reported. “That chat set in motion a massive rescue operation for Republican Ken Paxton funded substantially by Musk, who gave $158 million to the GOP in September alone.”

That number accounted for 58 percent of all fundraising by the Senate Leadership Fund, which works to elect Republicans to the Senate.

Musk’s contributions in Texas allowed the GOP to keep spending in places like Kansas, South Carolina, and Nebraska as it hopes to stave off its worst-case scenario. But it also highlights just how ineffective TV ads are—especially when they’re mostly just attacks on transgender people.It’s been my thesis for several cycles that the late millions spent on top-of-ballot races where candidates have universal name ID is wasted money. Cycle after cycle, the numbers bear it out.

It did when Democrats dramatically outspent Republicans the last few cycles, and it appears to be bearing out this year as Republicans have the cash advantage.

Things might’ve looked different had Musk deployed those hundreds of millions earlier in the cycle, like in January, and used it to build voter outreach infrastructure. Or maybe it could’ve made a difference in the summer months, when Talarico had the airwaves all to himself.

Or maybe money isn’t the end-all of politics as many claim it to be. After all, the GOP wasted $134 million and Talarico’s numbers improved.

In 2024, Democrats vastly outspent Republicans before losing the election. The Democratic Party committees raised $2 billion, compared to Republicans’ $1.4 billion. Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris raised more than $1.15 billion, compared to President Donald Trump’s $463 million.And in Ohio that year, then-incumbent Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown raised nearly $94 million before losing to Republican Bernie Moreno, who only raised $26.7 million.

The same discrepancies played out in race after race.

Frankly, the role of money is overstated in elections. It certainly matters more in lower-ballot races, and you need a base amount to simply let voters know you exist. But beyond that, we have a system that runs on money that actually does very little to move the needle.

Democratic fundraising is down this year precisely because donors—both big dollar and smaller dollar—saw what Democrats raised in 2024 and decided it wasn’t worth pissing away all of that cash for a losing cause.

If the election results turn out as expected and Republicans lose bigly, expect them to face the same reckoning.And there would certainly be few things more satisfying on Election Night than seeing Musk realize that he set fire to hundreds of millions of his own money.

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Elon Musk

'Hit Piece': Brash New Documentary Unmasks Musk At Venice Festival

It has been three years in the making, but the documentary Elon Musk called a “hit piece” before it was even filmed will be available for public consumption this October.

And Ashley St. Clair, the mother of Musk’s 13th child, joined filmmaker Alex Gibney to tease some apparent bombshells in the four-hour flick all about Musk.

According to the former journalist, St. Clair turned down a huge sum in exchange for signing a nondisclosure agreement that would have silenced her for the film.

“I was offered the opportunity not to speak for $40 million,” St. Clair told reporters at the Venice Film Festival where it debuted.

“When you’re offered something like that [to stay quiet], it really causes a debate in your head about what your speech means and how valuable that is and why do they want to offer me this amount of money to not speak?”

And while we don’t have all the specifics on what is in the doc, there are a few revelations and insinuations that suggest Musk doesn’t want this to hit theaters at all. For one, the documentary uses a CGI avatar and artificial intelligence voice syncing to simulate an interview with Musk using responses he’s really given in past interviews.

Referencing the 2024 election, St. Clair said that Musk had a “degree of certainty” about the results prior to their release that she “had never seen before.”

“He had told me [before the election] he was going to unleash the ‘anomaly in the matrix,’” said St. Clair—a main subject of the film—at the presser as text messages ran across a screen behind them. In one of the texts, according to the Hollywood Reporter, Musk says he has “ten thousand lasers in space.”

Musk has widely laughed off the meddling claims in Gibney’s film and has shared posts suggesting that it is a hit piece coming from the Democratic Party. Then again, the world’s first trillionaire has a track record of doing lots of meddling.

In Wisconsin, he offered million dollar checks to voters ahead of a key state Supreme Court election that he, despite pouring $20 million into trying to flip the state, lost by 11 points. Ultimately, his reach has gone further than the millions he has spent on statewide and presidential votes, with Musk having his hands in European elections as well.

In the film, which will be officially released on Oct. 19, Musk’s ex-wife, Justine Musk, and his father, Errol, also share some insight into his past. And there is plenty of dysfunction to go around.

From overcontrolling behavior with his first wife, referring to himself as the “alpha,” to alleged abuse from his father—who has previously said he’s not “proud” of his son—we are surely in for a wild, yet likely unsurprising ride, when it hits the big screen.

All of this is just the tip of the iceberg for describing Musk’s behavior. Gibney also comes for Musk’s Tesla empire, suggesting that he stole the credit from Martin Eberhard.

More than anything, though, the film seems to come for many of Musk’s self-inflating claims that rocketed him into his position today. Claims that, Gibney’s film suggests, are rooted in falsehoods or stolen valor.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Voters Wanted Change, And Now That's What They Will Get

Voters Wanted Change, And Now That's What They Will Get

"It isn't a hard choice," we said. On one side was a candidate who would abide by the Constitution and laws of the United States and accept the outcome of elections. On the other was a candidate refusing to accept a 2024 defeat even as memories of his attempted coup in 2020 remain fresh; vowing to punish the "enemy within"; and promising that mass deportations will be "bloody." That was what we meant by democracy being on the line.

Some are coping by pointing out that when an incumbent president is as unpopular as Joe Biden, it's a near impossibility for his party to retain the White House. Perhaps no Democrat could have escaped the Biden undertow, but it was particularly challenging for his vice president.

As to why Biden was so unpopular, some of us (myself included) wrongly attributed it mostly to his age. But exit polls suggest that the economy and the border were also anvils shackled to his — and then Kamala Harris' — ankles. As David Dayen of The American Prospect noted, 2024 saw half the world's population head to the polls, and "with a few notable exceptions ... virtually every party that was the incumbent at the time that inflation started to heat up around the world has lost."

Could Harris have done a better job of blunting the inflation issue? In 2012, the economy had not yet fully recovered from the great recession of 2008-2009. In his reelection bid, Barack Obama shifted blame for the lackluster performance backward toward George W. Bush. Perhaps Harris would have been well-advised to tell a similar story about inflation. Then again, recessions are not as politically lethal as inflation.

As for the border, how could Harris separate herself from Biden? Should she have declared that Biden's approach was a mistake that she would correct once in office? That's a dicey proposition politically. Why would voters upset about the border choose a reformed dove over an aggressive hawk? She might have had a rule-of-law argument — that the Congress must reform asylum law, and until they do, the president lacks the power to address the issue. But when Biden imposed executive orders in June, dramatically reducing border crossings, he vitiated that case.

According to this coping mechanism, the voters were in a sour mood (just consult the right track/wrong track polls) and did what voters always do: punish the incumbent by voting for the change candidate. Nothing more to see here.

But those of us who see a second Trump presidency as a hinge moment of history — a fateful departure from what made us a great nation — think there is a great deal more to see here. To follow Trump's behavior closely is to feel that this election is not like any other. This lying cretin was seen a few days ago pantomiming fellatio on a microphone (which is perhaps preferable to his usual vomit of lies). It's not as if his policy chops somehow counterbalance his vulgarity, cruelty, and self-absorption. His campaign promises consist of ludicrous proposals to magically balance the budget and eliminate the income tax through tariffs, to round up and deport 11 million or more people, and to solve foreign conflicts through his supposed power of intimidation (even as he contradicts this by constantly abjuring war).

The voters have chosen to elevate a cartoon character to the highest office in the land. From that perch, he will close down the federal cases against himself; pardon the January 6 "hostages" or "political prisoners" or whatever he's calling them these days; appoint a series of toadies, fantasists, and low-lives to lead other agencies; and then set about firing most of the capable, responsible civil servants in the government to replace them with the likes of Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Boris Epshteyn, and other loyal goblins.

Trump often derides the United States as a Third World country. Now he will start to transform us into one.

To be sure, many of the people who voted for Trump were not voting for what they will get. And still, it's their fault for not doing their duty to shun him.

Perhaps the voters have never prioritized democracy, the rule of law or fair play. What, then, has changed? This is an elite failure of the first order. The opinion shapers have signally failed to perform their function. In a healthy polity, it falls to entities like political parties, churches, newspaper editorial boards, radio hosts, business executives and news analysts to shape public opinion, not follow it. If not for the excusers and explainers; if not for the whataboutism at places like The Wall Street Journal and National Review; if not for the craven capitulation of Wall Street wizards and Silicon Valley prima donnas, if not for the cowardice of 95% of elected Republicans, ordinary voters would not have felt comfortable voting for a clown with a flamethrower.

If he succeeds in imposing tariffs that spark inflation and a trade war; if his deportations, firings, abuse of the justice system, corruption of law enforcement and degradation of the health care system cause America's quality of life to decline, what then? Will the voters do what voters always do and vote for the change candidate next time? Perhaps. Or will the elites who greased the skids for Trump's second election also excuse and explain away every failure as the work of the "deep state" or "saboteurs"? We are about to find out.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.


James Carville

'I Am Certain': James Carville Predicts Harris Will Defeat Trump

With the United States' 2024 presidential election less than two weeks away, many polls continue to show a very close race. Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris has small single-digit leads in some national and battleground state polls, while her GOP rival, former President Donald Trump, is slightly ahead in others.

The Hill's Amie Parnes', in an article published on October 23, takes a look at Democratic insiders who privately fear that the campaign is "slipping further away" from Harris. But in a New York Times guest op-ed/essay published the same day, veteran Democratic strategist/consultant James Carville lays out three reasons why he is "certain" Harris will win.

A different Democratic strategist, presumably interviewed on condition of anonymity, told The Hill, "Everyone keeps saying, 'It's close.' Yes, it's close, but are things trending our way? No. And no one wants to openly admit that. Could we still win? Maybe. Should anyone be even slightly optimistic right now? No."

Another Democratic strategist, also quoted anonymously, told The Hill, "If this is a vibe election, the current vibes ain't great."

But the 79-year-old Carville doesn't see it that way at all.

In his New York Times op-ed/essay, Carville argues, "There is a palpable anxiety wailing on the winds of American life right now. More than in any other election in my lifetime, I've been consistently asked by people of all stripes and creeds: 'Can Kamala Harris win this thing? Are we going to be OK?' This sentiment is heard over and over from sweaty Democratic operatives who all too often love to run to the press with their woes."

Carville continues, "While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."

According to Carville, Harris is headed for victory because: (1) "Mr. Trump is a repeat electoral loser. This time will be no different," (2) "Money matters, and Ms. Harris has it in droves," and (3) "It's just a feeling."

Carville acknowledges that #3 is "100 percent emotional" but points out that Harris has a very broad range of support — from Republican former Vice President Dick Cheney and his equally conservative daughter, former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), to self-described "democratic socialist" Rep. Alexandria-Occasion Cortez (D-NY).

"If the Cheneys and AOC get that the Constitution and our democracy are on the ballot," Carville writes, "every true conservative and every true progressive should get it too. A vast majority of Americans are rational, reasonable people of good will…. For the past decade, Mr. Trump has infected American life with a malignant political sickness, one that would have wiped out many other global democracies."

Carville adds, "On January 6, 2021, our democracy itself nearly succumbed to it. But Mr. Trump has stated clearly that this will be the last time he runs for president. That is exactly why we should be exhilarated by what comes next: Mr. Trump is a loser. He is going to lose again."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World