Is Musk going to form a new party? Will it be successful?

After Musk had a falling out with Trump, he even directly expressed his idea of forming a new party.

So, does Musk have a chance?

Of course there is, and right now the United States is in a period of rapid political change, which presents a huge opportunity in terms of political prospects.

What is the basis of my judgment? It comes from my understanding of the essence of politics.

I believe that the essence of politics is public opinion.

When there is a huge change in public opinion in a certain place, politics will also undergo significant changes.

Let’s not talk about the United States for now; today I could even provide Musk with an accurate political roadmap. But before writing a political roadmap, let me first discuss the politics of a few other places.

First of all, we need to talk about the politics of the Taiwan region of China.

Ko Wen-je from Taiwan is the so-called “White Power” that has risen during a time of intense public opinion changes. He is a doctor from National Taiwan University and became an internet celebrity due to his statements in the health sector, subsequently entering the political arena.

As soon as he made his move, he first secured the position of Mayor of Taipei, defeating the Kuomintang’s Lien Sheng-wen, a traditional political family member.

After being re-elected, he began to launch larger political plans, forming the People’s Party. In the last election, a three-way competition emerged. Although he did not succeed in reaching the top, it is undeniable that the white force represented by Ko Wen-je has become a key influence in Taiwan’s politics.

In other words, in just over a decade, traditional two-party politics has been overthrown, and new political forces have emerged.

And Argentina has seen Milei.

Ten years ago, Mile was just an economic advisor at a commercial company and a university economics teacher, but he became a guest on various interview programs because he successfully predicted Argentina’s inflation.

Before Milei was elected as the President of Argentina, he spent only five years forming a party. The history of Milei being elected to public office (he was elected as a congressman five years ago) also spans just five years.

The two traditional parties in Argentina, Peronism and the center-right factions, have a history of nearly a hundred years, but they have been surpassed by Milei.

In the recent congressional elections held in the capital of Argentina, Milei’s new party successfully surpassed the influence of the traditional two major parties and achieved victory.

The political scene in Ukraine has also shown this scenario.

Zelensky, a political newcomer, is well known for gaining fame by starring in a political comedy. However, he quickly entered politics, formed a party, and won the election.

Trump is also an atypical politician and a political outsider.

Although he represents the Republican Party in the election, in reality, the current Republican Party has been restructured into the Trump Party through two elections. The traditional Republican establishment has either yielded or been marginalized.

So, what are the reasons for the above political changes?

It lies in the change of public opinion. With the arrival of the internet age, the traditional elite forms of public opinion have disintegrated, and we have entered an era where everyone has a mobile phone to freely create. Public opinion has shown a phenomenon of sinking globally, meaning it is no longer just a stage where traditional political elites, experts, and scholars perform; public opinion has become a playground where everyone can participate.

The above individuals, regardless of their age, are all extremely familiar with the internet and social media as political novices. They have bypassed the control of traditional elite media and directly built a strong reputation through social media networks, thereby breaking the traditional political pattern.

So Trump said traditional media are all FAKE NEWS.

Even these few individuals use Twitter or Facebook as their primary platforms for political propaganda, rather than relying on various mainstream media like traditional politicians.

This is the most important characteristic of this era: global media has ended the era of elite media and has entered an unknown future of mass media, which will also bring significant changes to politics.

Elon Musk himself owns the Twitter platform and has a strong influence in the United States. Although he is both praised and criticized, even now his negative reviews outweigh the positive ones. However, Musk already has all the foundations to become the next Trump-like figure.

Moreover, according to the political system of the United States, Musk has considerable potential to immediately change American politics.

This brings us back to a major BUG in the American political system.

In the United States electoral system, there is a clear BUG, which is the Electoral College system. Under this system, swing states arise, and it is the voters in these swing states who determine the final political choice.

In swing states, the difference in votes under the competition of the two parties can be as little as about 1%.

In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Trump was only about 1% behind Biden in the vote count in several swing states, but still lost the election. The populations of several notable swing states are as follows:

Pennsylvania: population about 13 million, Wisconsin: population about 5.9 million, Michigan: population about 10 million, North Carolina: population about 10.8 million, Georgia: population about 11 million, Arizona: population about 7.4 million; Nevada (population about 320 thousand).

The combined population of these states is over 50 million, with a voter turnout of only around 60%. The actual number of voters is about 20 million, and ultimately the choices of 1%-5% of the people determine the final outcome, meaning that the last swing of 200,000 to 1,000,000 voters decides the final political choice of 300 million Americans.

2000 Presidential Election ( decisive state: Florida ):

George W. Bush ® led Al Gore (D) by 537 votes.

The “key minority” here is extremely small. If about 269 voters who originally voted for Bush switched to Gore, the outcome would change.

2004 Presidential Election ( Decisive State: Ohio ):

George W. Bush ® leads John Kerry (D) by 118,601 votes.

If about 59,301 voters changed their votes, the outcome could be different.

2016 Presidential Election ( Key States: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin ):

Michigan: Approximately 10,704 votes

Pennsylvania: About 44,292 votes

Wisconsin: About 22,748 votes

Total: Approximately 77,744 votes

Donald Trump ® Total votes won in these three states:

These three states cast a total of about 13.8 million votes. Trump won these three states by less than 80,000 votes, thus winning the presidential election. If about 39,000 voters had strategically changed their votes in these three states, the outcome could have been different.

2020 Presidential Election ( Decisive States: Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin ):

Arizona: About 10,457 votes

Georgia: approximately 11,779 votes

Wisconsin: approximately 20,682 votes

Total: Approximately 42,918 votes

Joe Biden (D) total votes in these three states:

These three states cast a total of about 11.7 million votes. Biden won these three states by less than 43,000 votes, and the electoral votes from these states were crucial to his ultimate victory. If about 21,500 voters had strategically changed their votes in these three states, the outcome could have been different.

Conclusion: How many are the critical few? From the above analysis, it can be seen that the “critical few” is not a fixed number, but varies depending on the specific election and the circumstances of the specific state.

At the state level: The critical minority may be as small as a few hundred people (like in Florida in 2000), or it may reach tens of thousands.

At the level of multiple swing states that decide the national election:

In 2016, a difference of approximately 78,000 votes spread across three key swing states (MI, PA, WI) determined the presidency. This means that a shift of about 39,000 voters could have changed the outcome.

In 2020, the approximately 43,000 votes difference spread across three key swing states (AZ, GA, WI) was crucial for Biden’s victory. This means that the shift of about 21,500 voters could have changed the outcome.

Overall, among the tens of millions of qualified voters in swing states, it is often the total number of several tens of thousands to over a hundred thousand voters distributed across a few key states that ultimately decides the presidential election results. This number is a very small proportion relative to the total number of votes cast (usually less than 0.1% to 0.5% of the total votes).

As long as you understand the decision-making model of the critical few, you will understand why Trump would rather offend allies than impose tariffs on steel and the automotive industry, because the U.S. elections are decided by these people.

Well then, let’s further analyze Musk’s political opportunities.

Musk has the possibility of turning all states in the U.S. into swing states. In other words, if he can form a new political party in the U.S. with a new idea, it is entirely possible for him to first become a key minority in various states across America.

According to calculations, how many votes does Musk need to achieve this goal?

Required Vote Ratio at Most: Approximately between 15% to 19% (mainly occurs in states with a significant disparity between the two parties). Required Vote Ratio at Least: Approximately between 1% to 3% (mainly occurs in states that are already highly competitive). Median Required Vote Ratio: Approximately between 5% to 7%.

In terms of Musk’s reputation alone, he has this foundation.

About 30% of people in the United States identify with Musk, a proportion that far exceeds the number of votes needed.

Of course, this is still not enough.

What banner you raise and what call you make are the keys to converting fans into voters.

What philosophy does Musk use to achieve this goal?

This also involves an understanding of American politics, which is interventionist in nature. Under interventionist politics, both parties obey the interests of interest groups, while neglecting the interests of consumers.

The reason I predicted early on that Biden would definitely lose is because he caused rampant inflation in the United States, making the vast majority of people clearly feel that the difficulties in life are increasing and prices are rising, while Trump catering to the production interests of a few key state voters will also lead to the same result.

At this time, a明显的真空地带 appeared in American politics, which is that no one represents the interests of American consumers. This has been a long-standing vacuum.

At this point, Musk’s political opportunity arose, which was to establish a new party centered around the demands of consumers’ interests, thereby gaining powerful political mobilization strength.

Consumers are often overlooked in political competition because they cannot clearly observe the damage to their long-term interests, and the extent of damage to their short-term interests is often not significant enough to generate strong political mobilization.

For example, increasing tariffs on American steel and automobiles harms every American who buys a car, causing prices to rise. Assuming the price of a car increases by two thousand dollars, the loss of consumer benefits is universal, but it is not significant enough.

Protecting the monopoly interests of a small number of steel and auto workers in the United States can allow them to increase their income by thirty thousand dollars a year.

Cars are bought once every few years, and the loss of consumer benefits is only two thousand dollars; consumers will not sacrifice their leisure for this to fight for the long term.

However, steelworkers and autoworkers will strive for this income, organize themselves, and continuously make a fuss.

In today’s America, a high-price consumption model has formed in countless fields, whether it is in healthcare, automobiles, small commodities, or services, prices are all rising. At this time, the pain index of consumers is extremely high, and Musk needs to mobilize them, as there is a realistic foundation for this.

I have already thought of political slogans for Musk.

Vote for your wallet!

Consumers First, America First! (

你的生活成本，我们的首要任务！ )Your Cost of Living, Our Top Priority!(

拒绝利益集团，拥抱普通民众！ )Reject Special Interests, Embrace Everyday People!(

不分左右，只为生活！ )Not Left, Not Right, For Your Life!(

真实的改变，真实的生活改善！ )Real Change, Real Life Improvement!(

受够了空谈？选择行动派！ )Tired of Talk? Choose Action!(

Lower Prices for Every Working American! )Lower Prices for Every Working American!(

**Take Back Your Buying Power from Washington! **

Stop Paying for Big Business, Make the Market Work for You!

为了下一代，建设一个负担得起的美国！ )For the Next Generation, An Affordable America!(

Fighting for Consumers! )Musk: Fighting for Consumers(

Specific political proposals are easy to write. There are too many pain points for Americans.

Bring down medical prices in the United States so that everyone can afford to see a doctor, eliminate all monopolies, blow up the Federal Reserve, implement zero tariffs across the board, and allow every American to afford more things…

As long as we avoid the political demands of the traditional two parties, such as the abortion issue, the gun issue, and the immigration issue, and advocate for these issues to be decided by each state on its own, we can steer clear of various left-right alignment problems. At that point, if Musk can gain more than 15% support from voters in the U.S. states, he would be enough to become a critical minority.

They can be the key minority not only in the presidential election but also in the Senate elections.

The congressional elections are conducted through single-member districts, which are difficult to change. However, the impact on the presidential election and the senatorial elections has already been sufficient to change American politics.

The result of political action does not necessarily have to aim for Musk’s election as president, but rather to influence the political outcomes in the United States; this is called winning.

Workers in several swing state steel mills and auto factories can decide American politics; if Musk can gain such a large proportion of support, is that not enough? Of course it is enough.

At this time, regardless of who wants to run for president, they must first align their policies with Musk’s propositions in order to have a chance of being elected.

Aiming to be elected as the President of the United States may be difficult for Musk. However, with the goal of changing American politics and making marginal improvements, now is the right time.

Of course, Musk has a huge flaw, which is that he is a part of the American interest group. His companies benefit from the distribution of American tax funds, which is his Achilles’ heel.

If he really wants to enter politics, then these corporate interests must be abandoned in order to win public support.

Whether the world’s richest person can achieve this still depends on actions, not on what they say.

Of course, in the long run, even if Musk advances along this political line, it will only be a marginal improvement and difficult to fully improve American politics. The only real way to improve American politics is to continuously eliminate all federal powers, or even to make the federal government non-existent.

Returning all political power to the states and counties is the correct direction for political improvement.

If the United States can split into dozens of states, it will have a chance for rebirth. As long as the federation exists, the motivation for the federation to seize power will be inexhaustible, making a large government difficult to avoid.