Yes, they threw away several seats, but that was a simpler time when things mattered.

He DID eventually plead guilty though! Maybe he wasn't confident last summer that Trump would win and come through.

We also don't know if Musk isn't trying to use this initiative for leverage or won't simply get bored and walk away. All in all, many reasons to question whether much results from this.

3. What will the election-eve economy be? In 1992 Perot benefitted from a recession. If one developed, it might be easier for some Republicans to vote 3rd party than Democratic. But we're more polarized now, and it'd be harder for Musk to avoid blame if there are problems between now and then. 4)

2. Would this party have an agenda many voters care about and find absent in the major parties? There is always SOME interest in an anti-system protest, but Musk's association with Trump complicates this and his stated concerns (anti-debt+clean energy subsidies) aren't a focus for many. 3)

Bigger questions: 1. Is Musk a charismatic figure like Ross Perot? YMMV, but, unlike Perot, he can't run for President. That matters because this is a midterm election and 3rd parties get less attention at the sub-presidential level, where their candidates tend to be obscure. 2)

Such a claim must rest on the totality of her record. Did she sink anything that needed her support? It's hard to assess whether private objections result in withdrawn or modified proposals. But providing the key vote for Kavanaugh while insisting he wouldn't undo Roe is part of her reputation.

Also, while Trump's "specific authoritarian vision" differs from that of previous GOP leaders, at least in degree, we don't know yet if he is an outlier, or this is the new normal for his party. We'll only find out once he leaves the scene.

GOP doesn't trust/like universities anymore. That's a separate factor. "Only about a third of Republicans and Republican leaners express positive opinions about the impact of colleges (31%) or K-12 public schools (34%)." www.pewresearch.org/politics/202...

The context worth noting that she does this when they don't need her vote. That's a cynical, image-making exercise. The only important case when this was not true was ACA repeal, when she and Murkowski thought it was "safe" to vote no, but they were blind-sided by McCain.

Only GOP losses greater than normal, factoring in election day economic conditions would really support this interpretation. For that to happen, the provisions of the bill probably have to be an ongoing story and voters would need to feel them. Key provisions don't take effect immediately though.

In 2026 given normal midterm dynamics, a polarizing President and a tiny GOP majority, Democrats flipping the House is to be expected. So that alone would not be enough to say they paid a real price for pushing through this very consequential and unpopular bill. 4)

More imperfect comps: Studies suggest the ACA cost Democrats seats in 2010 and the Iraq War hurt the GOP in 2006. But the ACA was only passed in the election year and of course the war was ongoing. Even then there were maybe more swing voters than today 3)

Republicans House gains were less than expected and they actually lost a seat in the Senate, with Dems retaining control. It was a "could have been worse" result that helped Biden run again. But the GOP also had some poor Senate candidates, e.g. Herschel Walker, pushed on them by Trump. 2)