Sign me up, I am with Musk. I don't care what Trump does with strippers, but harming children is WAY over the line. Trump is effectively "Bidens 2nd term" when it comes to foreign wars, and is another reason many will walk away from Trump. Trump endorsing warmonger Lindsey Graham????? MAGA been HAD!
I would, vote for a 3rd party candidate. I voted for Ross Perot as well. Everything the man said about the giant sucking sound came true. At least Musk would cut the budget, not just rearrange it like Trump did. And, I don't believe he'd break every campaign promise he made in the first 100 days like Trump did. After the Trump mess? Maybe this would be the perfect time for a new party. A place where Maga and Democrats could go.
I'm not sure of the above calculations but, if Musk were to get a few more low spending Republicans elected in the mid-terms, I don't see how that would hurt the GOP or Trump. Everything in the budget is a negotiation so, this would simply strengthen the fiscal responsibility faction of the party. I think Trump would be fine with that.
I don’t think the Musk party needs to win anything. With election win margins as close as they are, all that Musk needs to do is lure enough voters from Trump and Republicans to help Dems win.
I don't think you can so quickly dismiss that first 2/3 as "partisan." The Republican party isn't what it used to be — once upon a time they could at least claim to believe in small government and fiscal responsibility, but now they're just a cult. Democrats were embarrassed and humbled in last year's loss; if they're to have any hope of success in the future, they need a complete overhaul. I and millions of Americans would never vote for Chump but that doesn't make us Democratic loyalists. I'm almost as disgusted with the D loss in 2024 as I am by the R win. Therefore I / we don't belong in that first big "partisan" bucket.
There are a couple wildcards that throw off this methodology. One is money, one is influence. We're talking about the world's richest man with the world's biggest megaphone. Politics are (is?) defined by whoever draws the most attention and Elon's gotten pretty good at drawing attention. This is the guy who won the election for Chump — not just with his dollars but with social engineering. Elon owns the pipes that feed ideas into voters' heads. He can fill those heads — 222 million followers — with whatever version of truth he cares to cast out that day. He delivered enough targeted messaging to particular demographics in just the right swing districts to sway their opinions.
In the short history of billionaires aiming for the presidency, they may not always win but they certainly shake things up. Instead of 4 more years of Bush 1, we got 8 years of Clinton thanks to Ross Perot. The next billionaire to run actually won 24 years later. I guess it didn't work so well for Bloomberg in 2020 (which IMO is too bad... but that's an argument for another time).
Don't underestimate Elon. He's got more money and influence than any of the other puppeteers, and he knows how to use them. He entered US politics only a year ago and look at what he got out of DOGE in just a few months. Now he's planning his next game, and it's only just starting.
I'm skeptical of third-parties and their chances, but Forward at least has the right idea - focus on deep-blue and deep-red areas, and limit your ambitions to local/state-level elections. Not super-ambitious, but still more achievable than anything the Greens will accomplish.
I think that excluding people who are "non-partisan but pro-Trump" is a mistake. It is quite plausible that they are pro-Trump either personally or because they want to watch the world burn/"own the libs" by that answer, and America Party may well find itself supported by a large chunk thereof.
My father had a saying that 'figures don't lie, liers figure'. This is the most biased attempt at promoting an opinion that I have seen to date. Trump has won his two elections and without a change to the Constitution will not be running in the next election. Their is growing distrust in the two party system. The Republicans and Democrats have both been failing to produce compelling candidates. Most of the recent hate against Elon Musk has been linked to his support of Trump. We will see what happens, but I expect far more than your 2.5% turnout. Perhaps an election win is unlikely, but even 10 % of the popular vote would trigger major changes in the American democratic system.
Something I think worth addressing is actually strategic voting and party behavior in solid red and blue districts.
A good example is this: a deep red/blue seat had a fringe incumbent. The partisanship in their electorate is enough that the opposing party can't ever hope to win; however, if the opposing party didn't run a candidate and supported a "centrist" party instead, it's plausible the centrist can win.
I'm not sure if this is a viable thing in American politics, but situations like this are probably the best places for a "centrist" party to run in, and I think tackling that possibility will bolster your argument.
The problem with this analysis is that it assumes voters are truly free to choose, but under our current two-party system, that choice is an illusion.
The reality is: if you vote outside the Democratic or Republican parties, your vote often gets dismissed, minimized, or discarded altogether. This is exactly why so many Americans feel forced to pick the “lesser evil”, because posts like this reinforce the idea that only the two parties matter. That is not only biased, it’s harmful to democracy.
A real voice for the people won’t come from either major party. Their systems are already built, often through corruption, backroom deals, and decades of political entrenchment, to maintain their own power, not empower citizens.
True change comes from independent candidates or true outsiders — people who think for themselves, not ones who are installed or backed by parties doing the thinking for them.
We shouldn’t elect someone just because a party made it easy — we should elect someone based on their merit, their ideas, and their willingness to fight for fairness, transparency, and integrity. Let’s stop voting for pre-packaged politicians. Let’s start demanding real leaders.
The only part of your analysis I would quibble with is the level 4 for people who don't like spending. For example, I believe strongly we should do something about our debt, but I'm not anti-spending in general. After all most of govt spending these days is social security, Medicare, defense, and paying our Treasury debt. All of those are justifiable.
The country already has an anti-woke party that wants to cut government spending and cut regulations on business - the Republican Party. But if Elon wants to start a new party and split that vote, I’m all for it
Sign me up, I am with Musk. I don't care what Trump does with strippers, but harming children is WAY over the line. Trump is effectively "Bidens 2nd term" when it comes to foreign wars, and is another reason many will walk away from Trump. Trump endorsing warmonger Lindsey Graham????? MAGA been HAD!
lll
I would, vote for a 3rd party candidate. I voted for Ross Perot as well. Everything the man said about the giant sucking sound came true. At least Musk would cut the budget, not just rearrange it like Trump did. And, I don't believe he'd break every campaign promise he made in the first 100 days like Trump did. After the Trump mess? Maybe this would be the perfect time for a new party. A place where Maga and Democrats could go.
I'm not sure of the above calculations but, if Musk were to get a few more low spending Republicans elected in the mid-terms, I don't see how that would hurt the GOP or Trump. Everything in the budget is a negotiation so, this would simply strengthen the fiscal responsibility faction of the party. I think Trump would be fine with that.
Elon may be the worst at politics I’ve seen in my lifetime.
Rather that, than the Zionist Jew liar in chief.
I don’t think the Musk party needs to win anything. With election win margins as close as they are, all that Musk needs to do is lure enough voters from Trump and Republicans to help Dems win.
But his goal isn’t to help democrats win.
But he probably will end up helping them, whether he wants to or not.
I don't think you can so quickly dismiss that first 2/3 as "partisan." The Republican party isn't what it used to be — once upon a time they could at least claim to believe in small government and fiscal responsibility, but now they're just a cult. Democrats were embarrassed and humbled in last year's loss; if they're to have any hope of success in the future, they need a complete overhaul. I and millions of Americans would never vote for Chump but that doesn't make us Democratic loyalists. I'm almost as disgusted with the D loss in 2024 as I am by the R win. Therefore I / we don't belong in that first big "partisan" bucket.
There are a couple wildcards that throw off this methodology. One is money, one is influence. We're talking about the world's richest man with the world's biggest megaphone. Politics are (is?) defined by whoever draws the most attention and Elon's gotten pretty good at drawing attention. This is the guy who won the election for Chump — not just with his dollars but with social engineering. Elon owns the pipes that feed ideas into voters' heads. He can fill those heads — 222 million followers — with whatever version of truth he cares to cast out that day. He delivered enough targeted messaging to particular demographics in just the right swing districts to sway their opinions.
In the short history of billionaires aiming for the presidency, they may not always win but they certainly shake things up. Instead of 4 more years of Bush 1, we got 8 years of Clinton thanks to Ross Perot. The next billionaire to run actually won 24 years later. I guess it didn't work so well for Bloomberg in 2020 (which IMO is too bad... but that's an argument for another time).
Don't underestimate Elon. He's got more money and influence than any of the other puppeteers, and he knows how to use them. He entered US politics only a year ago and look at what he got out of DOGE in just a few months. Now he's planning his next game, and it's only just starting.
I'm skeptical of third-parties and their chances, but Forward at least has the right idea - focus on deep-blue and deep-red areas, and limit your ambitions to local/state-level elections. Not super-ambitious, but still more achievable than anything the Greens will accomplish.
Not if Mark Cuban is incolved
I think that excluding people who are "non-partisan but pro-Trump" is a mistake. It is quite plausible that they are pro-Trump either personally or because they want to watch the world burn/"own the libs" by that answer, and America Party may well find itself supported by a large chunk thereof.
Still, thanks for the detailed analysis.
My father had a saying that 'figures don't lie, liers figure'. This is the most biased attempt at promoting an opinion that I have seen to date. Trump has won his two elections and without a change to the Constitution will not be running in the next election. Their is growing distrust in the two party system. The Republicans and Democrats have both been failing to produce compelling candidates. Most of the recent hate against Elon Musk has been linked to his support of Trump. We will see what happens, but I expect far more than your 2.5% turnout. Perhaps an election win is unlikely, but even 10 % of the popular vote would trigger major changes in the American democratic system.
I wouldn't vote for or against ""We need to reduce entitlement spending". I would want more concrete details first.
Something I think worth addressing is actually strategic voting and party behavior in solid red and blue districts.
A good example is this: a deep red/blue seat had a fringe incumbent. The partisanship in their electorate is enough that the opposing party can't ever hope to win; however, if the opposing party didn't run a candidate and supported a "centrist" party instead, it's plausible the centrist can win.
I'm not sure if this is a viable thing in American politics, but situations like this are probably the best places for a "centrist" party to run in, and I think tackling that possibility will bolster your argument.
The problem with this analysis is that it assumes voters are truly free to choose, but under our current two-party system, that choice is an illusion.
The reality is: if you vote outside the Democratic or Republican parties, your vote often gets dismissed, minimized, or discarded altogether. This is exactly why so many Americans feel forced to pick the “lesser evil”, because posts like this reinforce the idea that only the two parties matter. That is not only biased, it’s harmful to democracy.
A real voice for the people won’t come from either major party. Their systems are already built, often through corruption, backroom deals, and decades of political entrenchment, to maintain their own power, not empower citizens.
True change comes from independent candidates or true outsiders — people who think for themselves, not ones who are installed or backed by parties doing the thinking for them.
We shouldn’t elect someone just because a party made it easy — we should elect someone based on their merit, their ideas, and their willingness to fight for fairness, transparency, and integrity. Let’s stop voting for pre-packaged politicians. Let’s start demanding real leaders.
The only part of your analysis I would quibble with is the level 4 for people who don't like spending. For example, I believe strongly we should do something about our debt, but I'm not anti-spending in general. After all most of govt spending these days is social security, Medicare, defense, and paying our Treasury debt. All of those are justifiable.
Would you vote for someone who says we need to reduce entitlement spending?
The country already has an anti-woke party that wants to cut government spending and cut regulations on business - the Republican Party. But if Elon wants to start a new party and split that vote, I’m all for it