The Dictatorship

The only plausible outcomes of Elon Musk’s ‘America Party’

Published

12 months ago

July 8, 2025

The only plausible outcomes of Elon Musk’s ‘America Party’

The Musk-Trump split is back, for now. Dissatisfied with President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” after it squeaked through Congress, Elon Musk has announced he is launching a new political partythe rather uncreatively named “America Party.” As he tells it, under his leadership this new party will attract broad swaths of sensible moderates and elect several members of Congress. There are good reasons to doubt both those premises.

So far, the party of one seems to be nothing more than Musk tweeting about it. There are no candidates, platform or organization. Musk himself is the sole face of the ostensible party, but he’s not eligible to run for president, and it seems unlikely he’d want to seek lower office. Members of Congress, or those who want to become members of Congress, are not yet knocking down his door seeking to abandon the Republican label.

So far, the party of one seems to be nothing more than Musk tweeting about it.

Wanting to break up the two-party system is itself understandable, even laudable. I’ve worked with both the highest performing third-party presidential campaign in recent times (the high perch of 3.27%nationally) and one of the handful of third party candidates to actually defeat a major-party opponent (for a state house seat). I’ve been there, in other words.

Musk, not for the first time, underestimates the complexity and nuances of what he proposes to do. Even with effectively infinite money to burn, the practical, legal and political barriers are immense. It is likely the America Party will join the long list of ambitious “centrist” parties that flamed out, often without even running a single candidate.

No Labels, a similarly well-funded movement seeking to back a viable “centrist” third party candidate, made much the same pitch for itself last year, attracting large amounts of media attention, mostly on speculation about a potential presidential candidacy for conservative Democrat-turned-independent Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. But there were reasons to be skeptical. In the end Manchin didn’t run. No Labels folded without nominating anybodydespite spending millions of dollars to qualify for state ballots.

The same story, with minor variations, has been repeated in attempts such as Unity ‘08 Americans Elect In 2012, Andrew Yang’s”https://www.npr.org/2023/07/05/1185979624/forward-party-faces-uphill-battle-as-it-preps-to-run-its-first-slate-of-candidat” target=”_blank”>Forward Partyand Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s independent campaign. Even the long-established ideological minor parties, the Greens and Libertarians, have seen rapidly declining support since their high water marks in 2016.

The most famous example of a billionaire third party candidate, of course, was Ross Perot. He was the most successful presidential candidate outside of the two major parties in almost a century, winning 19% in 1992 and 8% in 1996. But Perot, using his own prominence and public persona, was able to run for president, which Musk is unable to do as a naturalized citizen. Even then, Perot’s attempts to turn his campaigns into a lasting Reform Party collapsed as soon as its celebrity leader was off the stage.

Musk has suggested he may instead target a small number of congressional races, aiming to pick up enough seats to hold the balance of power. That’s a marginally more realistic goal than winning the White House, but the odds are still slim to none. No third party candidate, running without the Republican or Democratic nomination, has been elected to Congress since 1970 (a few nominal independents in the Senate, such as Angus King and Bernie Sanders, have served as de facto Democrats). Third parties do still on occasion win state legislative seats, but these are few and far between, and Musk’s professed motives are more focused on federal policy than state and local issues.

Musk is effectively proposing to build a party on the right flank of the GOP, not in the middle.

There are good reasons to dislike America’s uniquely absolute two-party system and the uncompetitive, divisive politics it produces. Reforms such as proportional representation and fusion voting offer a way for alternative parties to play a more productive role, escaping the two-party trap known as Duverger’s law. But as it stands, the vast majority of voters simply vote “straight ticket” for their preferred major party, and they do so rationally under the system as it exists. That’s not going to change out of a groundswell of support for electing Elon Musk stand-ins.

Musk is also a singularly unlikely figure to lead a party branding itself as offering common sense moderation. The figure who’s become a champion of the extreme far rightand who spent the first few months of Trump’s second term as his “DOGE” hatchet manis hardly of the political center. He is effectively proposing to build a party on the right flank of the GOP, not in the middle. The predictable result is he would reliably pull in more Republican-leaning than Democratic-leaning voters, the infamous spoiler effect. The realistic best-case scenario for the America Party, if it ever gets that far, is it becomes the Ralph Nader of the right, peeling off crucial single digits in close races. Democrats would be delighted.

Another, perhaps more plausible outcome would be that Musk simply loses interest and the whole thing fizzles out. Depending on how much he’s willing to spend, he could start using paid petitioners to qualify for ballot access in some states. But the America Party will still struggle to attract viable candidates, who want a realistic chance of success, and actual members, who are essential to building a real organization.

Within all the factions of the American right and the GOP’s coalition, there’s no substantial voter bloc of dedicated Musk fans who would choose him over the party of Trump. Having millions of followers on X, or millions of dollars to spend, does not necessarily translate into millions of votes.

Andy Craig

Andy Craig is a fellow at the Institute for Humane Studies.

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Published

1 day ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In South Carolina’s gubernatorial raceDonald Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pam Evette last month. Last week, however, ahead of this week’s primary runoff election in the race, the president published an online item telling voters that “you can’t go wrong” with either Evette or state Attorney General Alan Wilson.

If this sounds at all familiar, it’s because Trump has done this before. Around this time two years ago, for example, he endorsed both Republicans running in a congressional primary in Arizona. And two years before that, he endorsed two leading contenders in a Senate primary in Missouri.

Only the president can say for sure why he ended up endorsing Evette and Wilson in the South Carolina race, though it’s worth emphasizing for context that GOP primary voters have already ignored his direction into two gubernatorial primaries this month, and it stands to reason that he hoped to avoid a third.

* We’re one day away from a variety of notable racesincluding but not limited to South Carolina’s gubernatorial race. There are also some congressional primaries in a handful of statesincluding Maryland, New York and Utah.

* In took a while, but the ballots have been tallied under Maine’s ranked-choice systemand we now know that Democrat Hannah Pingree, the former state House speaker, will face off against Republican Bobby Charles, who worked at the State Department during the Bush-Cheney era.

* As for Maine’s closely watched congressional racestate Auditor Matt Dunlap won the Democratic nomination in the battleground 2nd District, defeating state Sen. Joe Baldacci, who enjoyed the backing of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Dunlap will run in the fall against a familiar figure: former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who had moved to Florida a few years ago, but who returned to run for Congress.

* In California’s congressional special electiontwo Democratic candidates — state Sen. Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, a Bay Area Rapid Transit director — have advanced to an Aug. 18 special general election. The winner will fill the vacancy left by disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell, who resigned in April.

* In a new commercial shared first with MS NOWDemocrat James Talarico has launched his campaign’s first multimillion-dollar ad buy in Texas’ gubernatorial race. In the 30-second spot, Talarico focuses on affordability and the cost of living. The state lawmaker will face scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton in the fall.

* And in New Jersey, Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr.who has been missing from Capitol Hill since early March, will reportedly return to work on June 30according to a statement from his spokesperson. Neither Kean nor his office have offered any public information about why he has been away.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Published

1 day ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Jun. 22, 2026, 11:39 AM EDT

After President Donald Trump’s pick for governor in Iowa lost in the Republican primary earlier this month, the president argued that he “would have endorsed the other person” if he had “the proper information.”

Trump is taking no chances in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary. Over the weekend he rescinded his exclusive endorsement of Pamela Evette, the lieutenant governor, announcing instead that he would support both Evette and her runoff opponent, Alan Wilson, the state’s attorney general.

The move put Evette’s political future in jeopardy: Even before Trump’s dual endorsement, she trailed in limited public polling and was seen by political observers in South Carolina as a weak candidate with little to show besides the president’s coveted endorsement.

“Her chief distinction from Alan Wilson was that Trump endorsed her,” said Dr. Dubose Kapeluck, a professor of political science at the Citadel Military College of South Carolina.

Trump’s dual endorsement “was a kiss of death,” he told MS NOW.

Evette, who moved to South Carolina from Ohio to found a successful payroll and HR company in 2000, has been lieutenant governor since 2019, serving under Gov. Henry McMaster, who is term-limited.

In office, she has pursued meaningful but little-celebrated policies, like a key tort reform bill, according to Gil Gatch, a Republican member of the South Carolina state House and an Evette supporter.

But voters could be forgiven for knowing little about Evette besides the fact that Trump endorsed her, which he did just days before the June 9 primary. Visitors to her campaign website are greeted with a full-screen message labeling Evette as “Trump-endorsed.” The first line in her X bio states the same. Pro-Evette television ads are quick to tout the endorsement.

An accomplishment like tort reform, while noted on Evette’s website, “maybe could have been something that was highlighted more heavily,” Gatch told MS NOW.

The political makeup of South Carolina nearly guarantees the next governor will be whoever emerges on Tuesday between Evette and Wilson. They survived a crowded primary field on June 9, and nearly every challenger who fell short of the runoff publicly endorsed the attorney general.

“She’s just not a good candidate,” Josh Kimbrell, a state senator who failed to make the runoff and has since said he’d back Wilson, said of Evette.

“She kind of assumed this was a coronation, and that was never going to go over that well,” he added.

Even some pro-Trump voters were confused by the president’s initial endorsement of Evette, whom he called “a good friend, fighter, and WINNER” in a social media post in May.

“I have no clue why Trump would endorse Pamela Evette,” Leland Lemmons, a 30-year-old Trump supporter told MS NOW as he exited a polling site in the Greenville suburb of Easley on June 9.

“She’s served, you know, a decent time. I just haven’t seen much fruition of what she’s done in office,” he added.

In a post on Truth Social Friday announcing his dual endorsement, Trump wrote, “I can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other, so, therefore, I am going to Endorse, for Governor of South Carolina, both Pam Evette and Alan Wilson!”

In a subsequent statement on X, Evette said, “I was proud to come in first as [Trump’s] endorsed candidate for Governor on June 9th. Looking forward to doing it again on June 23rd.”

After The Washington Post foreshadowed the dual endorsement last Tuesday, allies of Evette were quick to denounce the possibility.

“I would guess that’s fake news,” Suzanne Pucci, a member of Evette’s finance committee, told MS NOW of the chance Trump would also endorse Wilson. “She’s probably not real worried about it.”

Another close ally and supporter told MS NOW at the time the report was “a total, fabricated lie.”

“[Trump] is invested in Pamela Evette because she invested in him. He’s a loyal guy. That kind of stuff is important to him,” added the supporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“With or without Trump, I think she is going to win,” they said.

On Thursday, a senior campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, brushed off the idea of a dual endorsement, telling MS NOW in a statement, “Pamela Evette has earned the complete and total endorsement of President Trump. She is the only Trump-endorsed candidate in this race and we look forward to delivering a big win for the president on Tuesday.”

Roughly 24 hours later, Trump retracted the exclusive endorsement.

Will McDuffie is a reporter for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

Published

1 day ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

As last week’s G7 summit in France got underway, a reporter asked Donald Trump whether his purported deal with Iran was final. “No, it’s not final,” the president replied. Later that day — during a visit to Versaillesof all places — he signed the framework anyway.

But moments after signing his name to the memorandum of understanding, Trump offered an unsubtle hint about what he was thinking at the time. Amid applause from those around him, the American president pointed down and then up while saying“Oil down, stocks up.”

In other words, Trump’s focus had nothing to do with natural security and everything to do with the economy. What’s more, the four-word phrase was part of a larger and underappreciated pattern. The Washington Post reported:

In the more than 100 days since President Donald Trump launched a war with Iran, he has offered a shifting list of reasons for why he started the conflict. But in explaining his push for peace, he named a priority much closer to home: protecting the stock market.

“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump told reporters gathered in the Alpine spa town of Évian-les-Bains, France, after the Group of Seven summit.

As the summit wrapped up, the Republican similarly said“I’ve studied presidents, some good, some bad, some great. Not too many are great and some really bad. … And the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover. I didn’t want that and who knows what would have happened.”

He pushed the same point in an interview with Axios, which was released over the weekend.

“If I went further, the stock market would be much lower,” the president said. “Now think of this: I have one primary wish as president, in terms of people: I never want to be the late, great Herbert Hoover.”

The comments came days after Trump similarly argued“The alternative to this deal was a global recession. There are stupid people who want to see a global recession. They are just stupid people.”

Whether the president fully appreciates the implications of his own rhetoric, this string of comments doesn’t just shed light on his motivations for accepting a defeat, it also suggests he saw his failed policy in Iran as pushing the global economy toward a dangerous cliff.

In other words, based on Trump’s own comments, the war he started was poised to create an “economic catastrophe,” which he was desperate to avoid — and which led him to accept a framework that empowered Iran to get what it wanted in exchange for effectively no concessions at all.