No one knows how the Musk and Trump explosion will end.
Most commentary gives President Donald Trump an advantage. But his willingness to spend his wealth on Elon Musk's election gives him one clear advantage. It is the ability to drive and loosen the fragile party system into chaos.
So far, Musk has raised two election threats. First, his opposition to Trump's one big beautiful bill raised the illusion of a major challenge in his funding for Republicans who vote to support the legislation. Secondly, he increased his chances of starting a new political party. There are limitations to the extent that masks can actually change the political landscape, but the underlying conditions of our politics make it uniquely vulnerable to confusion.
The threat of musk-funded primary may sound a bit hollow. Trump will almost certainly be loved by core Republican voters in 2026. Musk can fund key challengers, but in low-information and low-rotation environments of loyal Trump-loving partisans, he is unlikely to succeed.
However, in the midterm elections in November 2026, masks could have more impact with less money. All he has to do is fund some important swing states and some spoiler third-party candidates in the district. In doing so, he exploits a vulnerability that has been hidden in obvious vision for a while.
In a straight battle for the soul of the Republican Party, Trump defeats his hands. It's not even nearby. Trump has been a party leader and a cult of personality for ten years.
But in the battle for balance of power, the mask may hold the card.
Today, the American political system is “calcified.” That's how political scientists John Said, Chris Tausanovich and Lynn Vavrek explained in their 2022 book. The bitter end: 2020 presidential election and the challenge of American democracy. Partisans continue to vote for their side, seeing only the reality that makes them heroes. Events may change, but the mind is not.
In countries 48-48, that means that either party has little opportunity to make a great profit. It also means that slight confusion can mean a lot.
Elon Musk doesn't have a victory coalition, but he may not be necessary to hurt Trump
For a while, let's imagine Musk is serious about starting a new political party and serving as a candidate.
He will soon find that despite his X poll, the party “representing 80% in the middle” is fantasy. The heart of that myth? generous here, it's probably 15% of Americans who have been politically checked out.
Realistically, the political coalition of masks – techno-libertarians, anti-systems, very online, axial-level companions – would be small. But even so, the Independence Party that drove Musk – calling it the “colonial Mars” party – will almost certainly attract voters who are totally disillusioned with both parties, the young men who went to Trump in the 2024 election.
Imagine that Musk will fund his colonial Mars party with all competitive races and recruit energetic candidates. He gives disillusioned voters the opportunity to flip through the system: Vote for us and you can panic across the Washington facility!
In fact, many seats in the medium period do not rise due to the grab. Realistically, the seats in the house of about 40 people will be real swing seats. In the Senate, there are only about seven competitive races realistically. But that means that a small party of chaos could potentially cause the effects of the exact explosion target to multiply with 5% of voters less than 10% of their seats. Quite a reward.
The short-term effect is to help Democrats. This isn't so strange as Musk was once a Democrat. If Musk and his technological allies are interested in immigration, trade and investment into domestic science, it may make more sense to support the Democrats. And if Musk cares mostly about sending chaos and Trump spirals, this is how he does it.
Mask is a mental engineer. His success emerged from him examining existing systems, finding their weaknesses, and asking, What if you do something completely different?
From an engineer's perspective, the American political system has a unique vulnerability. Every election falls on a narrow margin. The balance of power is weak.
Since 1992, we have been a long period of time where partisan control of the White House, Senate and House is continuing to vibrate between parties. The national election margin remains close to evil (there has been no landslide national elections since 1984). And as elections become more dependent on declining swing states and districts, target attacks in these pivotal elections could completely overturn the system.
A completely balanced, completely unstable system
It's a ripe system of confusion. So why did anyone confuse it?
First, it costs money – and there are plenty of masks.
There are limits to money. Musk's claim that his money helped Trump win the election is questionable. Our elections are already saturated with money. In an age of high partisan loyalty, the majority of voters make up their minds before candidates are announced. Most of the money is wasted. It hits and reduces marginal returns quickly.
That very thing makes our politics feel so stuck, what makes it so sensitive to the threat of musk.
But what money can make a difference is to reach angry voters who are disillusioned with both parties with protest options. Money buys consciousness more than anything else. $300 million (what Musk spent in 2024) allowed billionaires to use it in several close elections. At $3 billion (about 1% of Musk's fortune), the chances of success increase considerably.
Second, confusion is possible when there are enough voters who are indifferent to the final outcome. Why did Los Perro get better in 1992? Adequate voters saw no difference between the parties who found the protest vote to be great.
In recent years, the proportion of voters who have been disillusioned with both parties has steadily increased. The share of Americans with both parties' disadvantaged views was 6% in 1994. In 2013, it was 28%. A recent poll shows that multiple adults (38%) say neither party is fighting for them. Both parties (and Trump) are extremely unpopular. The overwhelming majority of voters (70%) describe themselves as disappointed in the country's politics. Voters are angry and eager to dramatically change.
We went through the same pattern in post-election elections. Throw away your old butt and bring in a new butt. However, in countries between 48 and 48, in countries with only a few competitive states and districts, a rounding shift of 10,000 votes (much less than a typical Taylor Swift concert) can award full government control. Think of elections as anti-service roulette.
This system is indeed “calcified” and Tausanovich, Vabrek, makes a convincing claim. Calcification means immobilization. But that can also mean brittleness. Certainly, that very thing that has made our politics so stuck, makes it sensitive to the threat of musk.
Most of the money in politics is wasted. But if you know how to target it, the possibility of serious confusion is very real.
