Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tesla's Fight With Car Dealers Could Help Decide the Next Presidential Election

Unknown Lamer posted about 4 months ago | from the single-issue-electorate dept.

Businesses 282

Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Marcus Wohlsen writes that the most recent ban against Tesla selling cars directly from the company instead of through third-party dealers was enacted in New Jersey with the support of Gov. Chris Christie, a possible contender for the GOP nomination. That prompted Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Christie rival, to heartily defend Tesla's direct sales model. 'Customers should be allowed to buy products that fit their need,' says Rubio, 'especially a product that we know is safe and has consumer confidence beneath it.' Perhaps even more surprising is the love shown by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the once and possibly future presidential hopeful whose oil-rich state bars employees in Tesla's two showrooms from even telling potential customers how much the Model S costs. 'I think it's time for Texans to have an open conversation about this,' says Perry, 'the pros and the cons. I'm gonna think the pros of allowing this to happen outweigh the cons.' The sudden GOP embrace of an electric car company once reviled as a symbol of Northern California enivro-weenies might seem ironic says Wohlsen, but the real irony is that conservative politicians ever opposed Tesla at all.

'The widespread franchise rules giving car dealers virtual monopolies in their territories epitomize the government-controlled marketplace Republicans purportedly despise,' writes Wohlsen adding that possible presidential contenders realize there may be political capital to be gained in supporting Tesla. But the real winner is Tesla. If the company can manage to associate its brand with all the positive qualities Rubio and Perry hope rub off on them, few politicians will want to take the risk to stand against them. Mitt Romney called Tesla Motors a 'loser' company during his 2012 run for president. In 2016 running against Tesla might seem about as smart as running against Apple."

cancel ×

282 comments

Rubio was doing so well (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587151)

And then he called them "consumers."

Protip: That's the derogatory term economists use for the general public when they're feeling especially sociopathic.

Re:Rubio was doing so well (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 4 months ago | (#46587765)

And then he called them "consumers."

Protip: That's the derogatory term economists use for the general public when they're feeling especially sociopathic.

Manufacturer, Distributor, Wholesaler, Retailer, Customer, Consumer

None of those terms are derogatory.
All they do is describe different roles in the chain of commerce.

To be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587153)

the company and their models have changed since 2012.
Also...it's not like the presidential hopefuls really care about the company, or honoring what they say before the election.

Re:To be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587231)

Or after the election.

Re:To be fair (5, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about 4 months ago | (#46587263)

the company and their models have changed since 2012.

Tesla is in an odd place in conservative conversations, because it hasn't sunk in yet that this is the first electric car that's not a joke played on hippies. The Model S really did change the landscape (and, hey, we wouldn't be conservatives if we embraced change quickly). Now people on the right are starting to realize that this could be the new American Car Company to rally behind, now that "Government Motors" is on the lifetime-ban list of many on the right after the bailouts.

Speaking of changing landscapes, people need to shed the silly notion that "oil companies" oppose electric cars. There are no large "oil companies" any more, they're all "energy companies" now, and they're just as happy to sell natural gas to electric companies as they are to sell oil at the pump.

Re:To be fair (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 4 months ago | (#46587303)

They'll make a heck of a lot more if they are selling gas at the pump than natural gas to the electric company.

Re:To be fair (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587467)

Not true. Distribution costs, refining costs, additives, marketing, etc make selling gasoline much more expensive than selling directly to an electric company. Not to mention we have a surplus of natural gas, where as we're importing oil, again making oil (and hence gasoline) more expensive.

Marketing spin (5, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about 4 months ago | (#46587397)

There are no large "oil companies" any more, they're all "energy companies" now

Exxon-Mobil is not an energy company in the general sense nor are most of their competitors. They make their money in oil and gas. They may call themselves an energy company but you are what you do and what they do is fossil fuels. Calling themselves an energy company is just marketing spin.

Re:To be fair (5, Informative)

macpacheco (1764378) | about 4 months ago | (#46587459)

The reality is electric cars are wayyyyy less profitable for "energy companies" than gasoline cars.
Mainly because you can put this thing called solar panels on your roof and charge your cars with your own generated electricity (either directly, or sell your surplus to the grid during the day and buy it back in the wee hours when your car is home charging).
Electric Vehicles + Solar panels are the kiss of death for all fossil fuel based energy companies.

Re:To be fair (1)

MrLeap (1014911) | about 4 months ago | (#46587813)

_all_ fossil fuel based energy companies? Surely someone wouldn't be engaging in hyperbole on the internet.

Re:To be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587885)

Electric Vehicles + Solar panels are the kiss of death for all fossil fuel based energy companies.

Please put your money where your mouth is and short oil companies. Especially the small ones and let me know what you are shorting. Thanks!

- Reality

Hint: no one cares about electric cars. All it will result is more cars on the road and even more carbon being unsequestered.

Re:To be fair (2, Interesting)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 4 months ago | (#46587605)

Too many of the general public confuse 'conservatives' with 'Republicans.' The Republicrat Party is a matched pair of umbrella organizations set up to protect given sets of special interests, which involve significant overlap, from real-world economics and public accountability. The left-hand half of this party just got through putting together a tax-supported national healthcare system that carefully avoids interfering with the legal armor that allows the pharma business and the hospital business to screw us blind. Rank-and-file leftists never got the healthcare cost controls they craved. Meanwhile, the right-hand segment of the party spouts capitalist rhetoric while being careful not to bring up the idea of subjecting the same set of big donors to the free-market competition that its own base has always wished for.

We of the dark side have been generally suspicious of electric cars because of the perception that most purchases are made with cushy tax subsidies, rather than inherent merit, in mind. There is also a cultural bias factor ("University hippies buy these, so they must be bad...") which works both ways. I recently had a relative profess shock that, despite my politics, I recycle. I had to explain to her that hating environmental activists doesn't have to mean hating the environment itself. We feel batter about Tesla than about the Leaf and its ilk because it's the first electric vehicle that is being successfully marketed to people who take economics seriously (still early-adopter pricing, but with decent range and performance), and that it comes from Silicon Valley rather than being an afterthought product, withdrawn at the first hint of technical difficulties, marketed to guilt-ridden academics. Tesla intends to make this product a success, and is putting in the infrastructure it will take to make it so.

Odd logic (4, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about 4 months ago | (#46587815)

Too many of the general public confuse 'conservatives' with 'Republicans.'

In most cases it is a distinction without a difference. Most conservatives self identify as republicans and vice-versa. There are some outliers but they are the exception that proves the rule.

We of the dark side have been generally suspicious of electric cars because of the perception that most purchases are made with cushy tax subsidies, rather than inherent merit, in mind.

Great logic, because obviously gasoline vehicles never get tax money [wikipedia.org] . Gas companies get TONS of tax subsidies and they are strongly supported by the political right. Lots of industries receive tax subsidies including agriculture, oil, gas, ethanol, coal, steel, aviation, construction, manufacturing, and many more. I find great irony when I hear some rural conservative farmer bitching about subsidies for solar power when he's getting subsidies for the crops he is selling. I guess subsidies are only good when it is for something that benefits you.

There is also a cultural bias factor ("University hippies buy these, so they must be bad...") which works both ways.

Are you really trying to justify hatred by saying "other people do it too"?

I had to explain to her that hating environmental activists doesn't have to mean hating the environment itself.

Why would you hate an environmental activist? Or any other kind of activist for that matter? Arguing passionately for a good cause is no reason to hate someone. Sure there are a few real looney-toons out there but most are basically just trying to push for a healthy planet and a nice place to live.

Gary Johnson! (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 4 months ago | (#46587159)

As a Gary Johnson fan, I'm curious what his stance on the whole deal with Tesla is. This is relevant since I may want to vote for him next election, and the implications of his opinions on this matter are going to reflect across his Presidential policies and how he encourages Congress and the American People to act.

Re:Gary Johnson! (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 4 months ago | (#46587363)

Unfortunately, the third party candidates never get any national coverage, so get very few votes. They need to do something majorly news-worthy if they want to be noticed in 2016.

See my sig for what I consider to be the most effective move they could make.

Re:Gary Johnson! (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46587639)

Unfortunately, the third party candidates never get any national coverage, so get very few votes.

They get very few votes because people are too lazy to look beyond the TV for information. Besides, most people will stick with the devil they know regardless. A simple youtube video could have the same clout as the big networks if not for that. If you want to take the money out of politics, you have to vote for people with no money. Then the whole idea of campaign financing and all its corruption will become moot. Any third party candidate drawing from the same trough as the big boys is just as worthless and will invariably be just as crooked. The tea party is a perfect case in point.

Christie has no chance to win anyway (2, Interesting)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#46587161)

not after the bridgegate fiasco
then add withholding funds from hoboken because they didn't let a developer run rampant
hiring friends and family for a state marketing campaign

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587247)

Hilary has no chance after the whitewater fiasco.
Vince Foster's death
Travel Gate
Filegate
Not to mention all the issues with her husband etc...

The point is controversies get forgotten or can be irrelevant. The democrats did a disservice exposing this scandal too soon. It will blow over.

Re: Christie has no chance to win anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587291)

If Christie's are as made up as Clintons's, sure. Else he won't survive the primaries.

Re: Christie has no chance to win anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587371)

The only people that give a shit about a candidates controversies are the people that weren't going to vote for that candidate anyways.

Christie will do just fine.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway (2, Interesting)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#46587347)

those didn't make people spend 3 hours in traffic and cause a few people to die because the ambulance couldn't get there

people in NJ hate Christie and no President has ever lost his home state

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway (3, Informative)

sjbe (173966) | about 4 months ago | (#46587461)

people in NJ hate Christie

Clearly, because we only elect people who are universally hated. [/sarcasm]

and no President has ever lost his home state

Would you care you try again using actual facts [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587469)

First of all not all of NJ hates Christie. It's only a small population that wasn't going to volte for him in the first place.

There were 9 presidents that lost their birth state or residential state.

Polk
Taylor
Lincoln Twice
Wilson
Nixon
Bush Sr.
Bush Jr. Twice

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway (2, Informative)

sudnshok (136477) | about 4 months ago | (#46587663)

No one died as a result of this traffic jam. The media tried to claim that one person died to sensationalize the story and the family of that person came out and said that was untrue. Source [nytimes.com]

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587361)

"The point is controversies get forgotten or can be irrelevant"

Vince Foster's death wasn't a Clinton-at-fault problem outside of Fox News
Travel gate isn't a real thing
File gate isn't a real thing - check the Bush email archival system @ Iraq war, oops?
Not to mention former President Bill Clinton, your nightmare

The point is you're going to have to stir the shit faster if you expect to float come 2016.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587429)

Missing the point entirely. Anyone that cares about or makes a stink about a candidates controversies was never going to vote for that candidate anyway.

Christie will be fine.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587611)

No one cares. Stop apologizing for assholes you've never met.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway (2)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 4 months ago | (#46587619)

The only thing Hillary was personally involved in was Whitewater which turned up absolutely nothing other than lies in a deposition and BJs from an intern.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway (1)

Megane (129182) | about 4 months ago | (#46587689)

Don't forget all his palling up to Obama after Sandy... which ended up not helping New Jersey at all. The feds still took their own damn time to clean things up. So he gets an image problem and nothing to show for it!

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587901)

please don't use -gate for that. any time -gate is attached to a word, it means its nothing but a manufactured scandal. him closing lanes on the bridge out of petty spite actually happened though, and is a real scandal.

Chris Christie? Is a dead whale in the water. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587173)

"Mitt Romney called Tesla Motors a 'loser' company during his 2012 run for president" Proof enough.

OMG I lost brain cells reading that (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587175)

I haven't read anything this stupid in a long time.

Dude, you need to go back to your kindergarden teacher and get a fucking refund.

Oh wait, you are no doubt either a Ca liberal or an East Coast liberal. Never mind.

Investments (1)

evendiagram (2789803) | about 4 months ago | (#46587185)

Sounds like a few politicians had just enough time to move some of their investments into Tesla before legalizing direct sales.

Interesting strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587191)

They gonna do the same thing with Women's rights? Take'm away for a couple years, so they can look good giving them back right before elections? Might work, assuming women trust they won't just take rights away again after getting elected.

Re:Interesting strategy (0)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 4 months ago | (#46587389)

Who is taking away women's rights? Please, be specific.

Re:Interesting strategy (0)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 4 months ago | (#46587743)

Wow. Asking a question for clarification is 'trolling' now?

How small minded some moderators are.

Re:Interesting strategy (0)

cbhacking (979169) | about 4 months ago | (#46587769)

I seem to recall news stories about the Texan state government attempting to ban feminine hygiene products in the capitol after a bonch of women got understandably upset over that same government trying to shut down many options for women's reproductive care in the state...

Doubt it. (4, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 4 months ago | (#46587193)

The governors will talk about how good Tesla is but their day job is still governor and that office is under the thumb of the National Automotive Dealers Association who could easily contribute to their rivals.

The state laws that prevent direct sales of automobiles should be criminal because it preserves the insane concept of "negotiating" the best price. Hopefully Tesla will go farther than cars.com did.

A layperson would think that the state laws would go against the US Constitutions commerce clause.

Re:Doubt it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587393)

A layperson would think that the state laws would go against the US Constitutions commerce clause.

Clueless people believe all manner of ludicrous things.

Re:Doubt it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587579)

The commerce clause of the US Constitution gives congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce between states. Therefore a state law that attempts to disrupt or regulate a transaction that originated outside of their state is unconstitutional unless that ability was expressly authorized by a federal statute.

The problem is that a law is constitutional until it ruled otherwise by the courts. The court system is hesitant to take up the issue because locally elected judges also get contributions from NADA affiliated car dealers.

Re:Doubt it. (5, Insightful)

macpacheco (1764378) | about 4 months ago | (#46587519)

This whole "negotiating best price" argument is a farce and you know it.
The reason you don't get to negotiate prices when buying a Tesla is there's a 6 week production backlog. They are not desperate to sell you the car, they have thousands of customers in line.
      It's an awesome car.
Perhaps if Detroit stopped innovating at a snails pace and started actually put brilliant, radically innovative designers to design cars, without lawyers and the overall poisonous corporate culture stepping on their toes all the time, perhaps they could make a car that will truly compete with Tesla. Until then, Tesla rules !
For decades, Detroit has innovated at a snails pace, catering to the most conservative customers the US has.
My message to car dealers is R.I.P. You are just dying an ultra slow, agonizing death, cause you don't care one bit about your customers.

Re:Doubt it. (4, Insightful)

AaronW (33736) | about 4 months ago | (#46587621)

I think part of it is that Tesla is run by Elon Musk who thinks like a consumer. He decided not to do the whole dealership thing from his own experience with dealerships. When dealerships claim to offer consumers "protection" Elon hits back perfectly comparing their protection to the kind you get from organized crime. Dealership "protection" didn't really help most Fisker buyers when Fisker went under. The Karma owners must pay out of pocket for things that their warranty and pre-paid maintenance should have covered.

Re:Doubt it. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587623)

Who will repair or perform regular maintenance on the Tesla for you? Without a local dealer you may be hard pressed to find a qualified garage.

Re:Doubt it. (4, Informative)

cbhacking (979169) | about 4 months ago | (#46587817)

Repair? Tesla themselves, free of charge in many cases. They'll even come get the car for you if needed, most dealerships won't do that.
Regular maintenance? *What* regular maintenance? Les Schwab or your preferred local alternative can rotate the tires and check the brakes for you. Not much else is needed... no oil, no spark plugs, no transmission (in the conventional sense), etc.

Re:Doubt it. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 months ago | (#46587829)

Who will repair or perform regular maintenance on the Tesla for you? Without a local dealer you may be hard pressed to find a qualified garage.

In fact, you have to pay Tesla $600/yr for service. That includes roadside assistance and so on, and covers all of your service needs completely. It is a bit offensive though, and the news did lead to cancellations. It's a staggering amount of money compared even to a German car. On the other hand, I'd bet you a fairly large amount of money that it will simply have less failures in general than most other cars, simply by virtue of being an EV. On the gripping hand, there's no shortage of customers even with these terms.

It's unlikely that Tesla could be smacked down in this regard without also forcing other automakers to provide service information that even independent shops don't get now, so I don't see this changing soon. Maybe in California (if anywhere) they'll be forced to accept independent service. We have very strong warranty protection laws here. On the face of it, they do seem to conflict directly with Magnuson-Moss, but IANAL.

Re:Doubt it. (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 4 months ago | (#46587731)

The state laws that prevent direct sales of automobiles should be criminal because it preserves the insane concept of "negotiating" the best price.

What is insane about negotiating a price? Just because a price is posted doesn't mean it cannot be discounted or that at the least you cannot ask for one. The posted price is simply the ceiling for the negotiation.

People are hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587203)

I know you're surprised by that.

Bait and Switch (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587223)

I know someone who just tried to buy a Tesla. What they told him it would cost, what he would get, and so on sounded like a reasonable deal. He did the test drive and loved it and was all excited about getting it. Then the REAL numbers came up.

NO DEALERSHIP does a bait and switch even half as bad as Tesla does. They added $30K to the price and over doubled the monthly payment. The down payment also went from $2K to $35K.

If they had dealerships and one did this to you, at least you could go to another one to buy the car. With their model you either take their bait and switch or don't get their car. I think their business model is pure fail if they are doing the same to everyone else.

Re:Bait and Switch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587329)

I'ld like to see this written up someplace, plenty of main stream press would eat it up.

Re:Bait and Switch (2)

bbn (172659) | about 4 months ago | (#46587431)

Because it is unlikely to be true. Anyone can go to the Tesla website and check the prices. You will get the car at the price listed on the site, no more and no less.

If he is talking about financing, nothing forces you to finance the car through Tesla. In my part of the world one usually borrows the money in a bank and this is how it is done when buying from a dealer too.

Re:Bait and Switch (2)

hawguy (1600213) | about 4 months ago | (#46587637)

I know someone who just tried to buy a Tesla. What they told him it would cost, what he would get, and so on sounded like a reasonable deal. He did the test drive and loved it and was all excited about getting it. Then the REAL numbers came up.

So he went to a Tesla showroom where someone gave him some lowball numbers to get him to do a test ride, then when it came time to actually do the sale, the numbers were higher? How is this different than buying from a dealer?

NO DEALERSHIP does a bait and switch even half as bad as Tesla does. They added $30K to the price and over doubled the monthly payment. The down payment also went from $2K to $35K.

This part of the story doesn't really make sense -- I don't really see how adding $30K to the price *and* requiring an additional $33K downpayment requirement could have doubled the monthly payment he was expecting. Unless his credit warranted such a high interest rate that the monthly payment was higher than expected. Which may be what happened since they also upped the downpayment from the standard 10% advertised on their website to 30% - 50%.

I know someone that bought a Tesla a few months back and he said he paid the same price they list on their website. He didn't need to finance it, but I'd imagine that most shoppers for a $70 - $100K car don't need dealer financing.

If they had dealerships and one did this to you, at least you could go to another one to buy the car. With their model you either take their bait and switch or don't get their car. I think their business model is pure fail if they are doing the same to everyone else.

Well, the difference is that the car's list price would be set higher so the dealer could "give" you $30K off the list price of the car so you think you're getting a good deal, then the finance guy in the back room will make you think that the 72 month financing at 20% interest is a fantastic deal but you have to buy today because when his boss comes in Monday he'll cancel the deal since the dealership is losing money on the sale.

Re:Bait and Switch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587717)

[Citation needed]

This is the first I've heard of such problems, not that I've bothered to find any. I'm gonna need a reference a little better than an anonymous /. post.

Don't EVs help both sides? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587229)

I can EVs helping both sides. The left benefits because shifting to solar/wind power as the primary means of a vehicle's propulsion is better for the environment and gives less fossil fuel waste.

The right benefits by EVs because they offer energy independence (something the Tea Party strongly pushes for), a nod towards Big Coal, and less reliance on oil.

This happened with solar last year... both the Tea Party and the far left greens have ended up agreeing on the importance on this... which is ironic because Congress didn't lift a finger when China hacked US solar companies, then started selling panels for cheaper than the rare earths it took to make them, thus causing most panels to be imported rather than made domestically.

Re:Don't EVs help both sides? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587339)

The tea party isn't for energy indepedence as a real thing that means what it should mean, they are for drill baby drill. Anything that is green is obviously evil.

Backroom "deals" (1)

Dripdry (1062282) | about 4 months ago | (#46587253)

I guess we know where Elon gets those ripped, cut jaw muscles now...

There is no irony (5, Insightful)

damicatz (711271) | about 4 months ago | (#46587273)

To anyone who actually understands how the Republican party operates, there is no irony because they are little more than two-faced hypocrites. They preach limited government but then try to regulate the bedroom, who can get abortions, who can get married and birth control. They preach freedom but use eminent domain to steal people's property (the Keystone Pipeline they are so fond of is built on stolen land) and funnel trillions of dollars into the military industrial complex so that more people can be bombed. They preach lower taxes but then raise taxes on everyone except the super-rich.

They (along with the Democrat party, which is the same shit but different rhetoric) are little more than corporate prostitutes who are available to the highest bidder. The stealerships in this case have more money combined than Tesla. So no, there is no irony because I expected nothing less from the Republican party than cronyist statism.

Re:There is no irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587401)

Please stick to the subject at hand.You threw in at least 5 completely unrelated issues which clouds any discussion on THIS issue.Try to forget the hatred and bias and speak to a single issue at a time.(ps. i support tesla and the keystone pipeline,go figure?)

Re:There is no irony (2, Insightful)

hamburger lady (218108) | about 4 months ago | (#46587451)

what's the "democrat party"?

Re:There is no irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587581)

what's the "democrat party"?

it's a tell that the user of the phrase is an idiot.

Re:There is no irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587697)

It's what conservative idiots call the Democrats. Why, I don't know.

Re:There is no irony (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 months ago | (#46587741)

It's what conservative idiots call the Democrats. Why, I don't know.

I consider myself a progressive liberal, but I've listened to enough conservatives (you might try it sometime, if only to know what's coming next — keep your friends close, but blah blah blah) to suspect that they don't believe that the democratic party actually embraces democracy. I don't believe that either party is really in love with it, at least not at the federal level, so I'd consider that to be a bit hypocritical. But there's no shortage of hypocrisy on either side.

Re:There is no irony (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587789)

Yes, that's their "reason" for it. But it's just childish name calling. Anyone who can't talk about politics without restoring to name calling should be ignored.

Also, it's no surprise that Republicans didn't like electric cars and now like Tesla. It's a rich man's car, not a green car.

Re:There is no irony (2)

number6x (626555) | about 4 months ago | (#46587707)

Its like the Republic party, except Republics like elephants I think.

It does always sound like the person speaking has some kind of learning diasability when I hear the term 'democrat party' spoken. It could just be that english is not the speaker's first language.

Re:There is no irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587515)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/21/the-tesla-battery-swap-is-the-hoax-of-the-year/

Here is the democrat party, making Tesla $100 million on ZEV credits.
Yunno, people who buy $75k cars do need help......

Re:There is no irony (1)

AaronW (33736) | about 4 months ago | (#46587699)

Tesla has since announced that battery swapping stations will be operational within the next couple months between the Bay Area and LA so I don't think it's a hoax at all.

Re:There is no irony (-1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 4 months ago | (#46587559)

Yep, no talking points coming from this guy. It's almost like you get your information directly from Media Matters and OFA. I actually liked the last two sentences in the last paragraph, in an attempt to give the "but really, it's the same but different..."

Of course I'm sure that you'd also be in lock step with the view that a group like the tea party is a bunch of racists, just like what the media tells you. Funny how an outsiders view of american politics and pick all this out fairly easily.

Re:There is no irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587837)

are you insinuating that republicans don't try to legislate people's bedrooms (gay marriage and birth control), women's bodies (abortion), higher taxes for the poor (something they bluntly talk about on fox news) while constantly claiming to be anti-government and anti-regulation? they are also very clearly bigots (just listen to how they talk about mulims). the facts speak for themselves.

Re:There is no irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587787)

You must be a Libertarian.

Because you're too dumb to be able to tell the difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

Re:There is no irony (2)

dcollins (135727) | about 4 months ago | (#46587819)

Mostly agreed. But admittedly the Republican party has long been a gluing-together of different and not totally compatible factions, such as fiscal conservatives (business) and social conservatives (religious). On some issues they agree, like military adventurism abroad (for their own reasons). Other times, it looks more like a confused back-and-forth run around, like that recent crowd-controlled video game (whatever it was). Even without many individuals in the electorate being themselves hypocritical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_%28United_States%29

There is only one thing you need to know (0, Flamebait)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 4 months ago | (#46587287)

Republicans BAD! Vote for the people who are in your own economic self-interest. Vote for those who promise you free money!

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

Democrats 2016!

Re:There is only one thing you need to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587381)

I don't know about "Republicans Bad!", but "DNS-and-BIND PLAGIARIST" is certainly true.

Fear leads to anger.... (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 4 months ago | (#46587409)

From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

Thanks for the insight Yoda

Re:There is only one thing you need to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587635)

Nah, if you hate Mexicans and others, vote for us. We've demonstrated our commitment to those values time and again.

Republicans 2016 - don't believe anything anyone says but me, you can't trust everyone, they might be commies.

Re:There is only one thing you need to know (3, Interesting)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 4 months ago | (#46587651)

I keep trying to vote myself more bennies, but I never seem to find it.... I know, I know, you think Democrats give away Money to Poor People. I think our government gives away money to Rich People. As someone who got government help with food and education when I was younger, I think I've more than paid back in taxes from the fancy job that helped me get. Hooray for a Hand Up. Everyone benefited.

And frankly, you're pissed that people are trying to vote themselves more benefits from the public treasury? Isn't that kind of how it works? Isn't that a democracy in action? What are you complaining about? Would you rather people NOT be able to vote in their own best interests? What do you think is better? The alternative looks a lot like a dicatorship to me.

I don't think you can actually say that every democracy collapses due to loose fiscal policy, followed by dictatorship. I'd like some examples. Democracy is relatively new. Empire isn't, but democracy is. Where are all these failed democracies that are now dictatorships? I can name many dictatorships in the world. None of them started as democracies. North Korea? Syria?

I think that's what you WANT to believe, but I don't think you have any examples to back up what you just said.

I am actually horrified and disgusted by your weird little history lesson on greatest civilizations. What does spiritual faith have to do with it? bondage? They ALL rose up from bondage? courage? What courage? Empires arise from many things. Greed. Lustful economics. Courage rarely has anything to do with it. Liberty? What liberty did the Roman slaves have? What liberty did the United Kingdom bring to the world? What liberty have we? Oh, and THEN we got selfishness, riiiiight. We were all courageous pious people of spiritual faith, but THEN we got all selfish?

I think you're making all of this up so you can be mad at Democrats (which really, has nothing to do with anything. ) I think you don't have any REAL reasons to be mad at them, so you have to make up this claptrap so you can feel properly outraged. I'm not a Dem. I'm independant. But if you're going to hate someone, at least hate them for REAL reasons....

Would you like some real reasons to hate Dems? I can give you plenty.

Also, keep the patriotic spiritual marching bullshit to yourself. It's all fake, and we know it. Rah Rah Rah! We're #1! Don't Look Behind The Curtain!

Running against Apple a losing proposition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587327)

Someone better notify Google and Microsoft.

Uh No (4, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 4 months ago | (#46587341)

Demographics, not electric car business models are going to decide the next Presidential elections.

Republicans have won the Presidential popular vote only ONCE since 1988 (Bush v, Kerry, and that was an incumbent).

Winning streaks (3, Interesting)

sjbe (173966) | about 4 months ago | (#46587645)

Republicans have won the Presidential popular vote only ONCE since 1988 (Bush v, Kerry, and that was an incumbent).

And the democrats only won it once between 1968 and 1992. What's your point? Most of the elections were fairly close and the losses had less to do with demographics than the candidates who were running. Bush Sr kind of blew it against Clinton but that election could have gone either way. Clinton loses and I'm not sure the democrats had anyone who would obviously have won in 1996. Bush Jr could easily have lost in 2004 and arguably did lose in 2000. Neither of Obama's wins were blowouts either. The only real blowouts I can remember are Reagan's wins, particularly in 1984 against Mondale. It wouldn't be shocking to see a republican in the white house in 2016. Just depends on who's running and how things play out.

The biggest problem the republicans have is that they push for policies that tend to repel anyone who isn't older white and usually male. Women, blacks, hispanics, LBGT, and most other minority groups tend to vote democrat. Some very strongly so. The republicans have also tied their mast to conservative religious groups who tie their hands on social issues. They have gotten away from the idea of sensible fiscal policy in order to wage a futile jihad on taxes and have shut the government down twice over the issue.

Re:Uh No (0)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 4 months ago | (#46587851)

Republicans have won the Presidential popular vote

There is no "Presidential popular vote". It's a myth created by ... who knows? People who can't read the Constitution to see how the President is actually voted for. or people who were unhappy that their pet candidate lost the election but they needed something to whinge about. It is pushed by "news" organizations who think that the common man is too stupid or has too short an attention span to understand the real voting process. Joe Sixpack is happier, they think, being able to see that his candidate is winning! because the "popular vote" percentages say so (have another beer and go to bed), but then that creates the arguments when the truth comes out otherwise.

The interesting tidbit that the winning Republican President did not get the largest sum total of all the votes cast in all the states combined is irrelevant, just as the fact that Democrats can win without getting the largest sum total of all the votes from all the states. The relevant tidbit is that the winning Presidential candidate is the one who gets the majority of the Electoral College votes. Period.

You want to argue that this process should be changed? Fine. You'll also need to argue that the composition of the Senate needs to be changed, because the two systems are related by the Federal nature of our government, and were designed at the same time by the same people for the same reason. But until it is actually changed, your "fascinating data" means nothing. It's fodder for flames and nonsense is all. "X won the popular vote, oh noes, there's corruption and fraud!"

Non story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587345)

I thought Slashdot was about tech, not politics. Enough with the articles to stimulate debate. Tell us something cool about the car!

Re:Non story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587513)

Enough about the car, let's talk about the henge!

Give me a Tesla for $20,000 or less (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587359)

Give me a Tesla for $20,000 or less.  Right now, Tesla S's going for for $70,000.

Re:Give me a Tesla for $20,000 or less (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#46587421)

I think even the Nissan Leaf is more than 20 000$, so it might take a while for Tesla to offer something in that price range.

Re:Give me a Tesla for $20,000 or less (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#46587445)

Unless of course Tesla has the smart idea to make electric motorcycles and/or scooters.

Re:Give me a Tesla for $20,000 or less (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587883)

Hmm. Get Telsa to make a motorcycle based on some of the old BMWs, and I'd be tempted to drop my four wheels down to two.

That just sounds too sexy to not comment about.

Re:Give me a Tesla for $20,000 or less (1)

macpacheco (1764378) | about 4 months ago | (#46587587)

Never gonna happen. But if you buy the base Tesla and drive it a lot for 15 years, in the end, the cost of the car is fully paid by savings in gas and maintenance.
That's right, the car comes out essentially free if you drive it a lot (and keep it for a really long time).
Electrical battery prices will drop but not that much. They will always keep EVs significantly more expensive than normal gas cars, but you can save $5K / yr in gas and maintenance costs if you drive a lot (and put solar panels in your house).

"conservative politicians" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587433)

"real irony is that conservative politicians ever opposed Tesla at al"

Conservatives never opposed Tesla. Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) opposed Tesla because they are beholden to lobbyist and corporate interest (the same as many democrats). True conservatives, libertarians, tea party, etc were never opposed to Tesla.

well (5, Insightful)

hamburger lady (218108) | about 4 months ago | (#46587441)

'The widespread franchise rules giving car dealers virtual monopolies in their territories epitomize the government-controlled marketplace Republicans purportedly despise,' writes Wohlsen

yes, but they also epitomize the lobbyist-controlled cash funnel republicans love. money is by far more important than having actual values.

Re:well (3, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#46587463)

"If they love money more than actual value, they'll love Bitcoins!" - Anonymous Slashdot Troll.

Re:well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587749)

values != value

Take the pulse (-1, Troll)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 4 months ago | (#46587455)

The libertarian impulse on this is clear. It's the (purported) conservatives and (purported) liberals who are all over the map.

Something tells me the liberal impulse is fully on board the dealers-only rule...until it gets in the way of a beloved pet project. Hate to companies...except the ones we love.

Plase, not Slashdot too (5, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | about 4 months ago | (#46587481)

In case anybody is curious, the next Presidential election is over two years away, none of the horse race talk means a goddamn thing right now. This is just talking heads needing to fill airtime with inane babble because covering the events in Crimea would be too depressing.

Irony (4, Insightful)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 4 months ago | (#46587487)

but the real irony is that conservative politicians ever opposed Tesla at all.

Republicans are more interested in established businesses and their business models. Tesla is trying to break the dealership business model and big GOP contributors do not like that.

Re:Irony (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587727)

exactly. tesla demonstrates what they really think about the 'free market' - they don't actually want a free market, they just want a way to funnel money to themselves and their friends.

Not gonna happen (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587491)

No matter how much Elon Musk's fanboyz dream of it, the Tesla is not going to effect the election.

Musk climbed into bed with Obama long ago (when it aided him in his interactions with NASA for Space-X and with "green energy" loan guarantees for Tesla), so what SHOULD have been his natural allies (the small-government, free American markets, pro-entrpreneur, made-in-America tea party-ish wing of the GOP) will hold him suspect. To win these people over, Musk would have to make some grand gesture to show he was getting out of the crony-capitalist game. GOP governors who WOULD have been inclined to help Musk fight the "big auto companies" (who tend to bed with Dems) and the dealer franchise rules (Obama wiped-out most GOP-owned car dealers while protecting Dem dealers as part of his car company take-over) are similarly going to be less-inclined to side with him given his current footsie playing with Obama. As a result, Musk, who's a smart guy, will probably choose to stay and dance with the party that brung him... and most of his fans are probably going to vote Democrat (for totally unrelated reasons) anyway. The result? No impact in GOP primary and no impact in November. To have an impact, he and Tesla would need to cause a CHANGE (simply being on the side you're expected to be on causes no change and therefore means "no impact").

No effect in the primary, followed by ne effect in November = NO Tesla impact on presidential electoral politics.

Battery Factory in TX? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587525)

Perry wants Musk to choose Texas as the next location of their 'GigaFactory'.

It is a good reason to support Tesla's marketing model.

Govt. vs people, not govt. vs Tesla (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587617)

Elon Musk, if you're reading this, here's some advice on how to loosen up state restrictions on Tesla dealers: Don't make it seem like a fight of "state governments versus Tesla". Make it seem like a fight of "state governments versus the rights of the states' citizens".

Most people don't care about letting an out-of-state car dealer sell cars in their state. They have other things to worry about. Also, they might root for their own state vs. California. Also, some people have a knee-jerk reaction against high-tech people.

You should put the argument in terms of the "state governments vs their people". Tell the people in New Jersey, Texas, etc. that their state governments are infringing on their people's freedom. In order to protect a special interest, your government won't let you buy a car that you might want to buy. Doesn't your government believe in freedom and in competition?

And if a state makes it hard to get a Tesla repaired, ask the people if they've had any problems in auto repair. Ask, "Wouldn't you like some competition in auto repair, to show the repair places that they can't take customers like you for granted?"

Romney! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587659)

Romney was quoting a friend, if you actually bothered to read the quote before pulling the trigger.

That said, as a somewhat right-leaning individual, the apprehension from various politicians, who claim to be fiscally conservative and want a truly free market, to products like those made by Tesla have always disgusted me. The only breath of fresh air, in regard to a less regulated and more free economy, is coming from the libertarian and tea party camp as opposed to any main stream party.

Elon Musk = Greatest Republican Troll Ever (5, Interesting)

werepants (1912634) | about 4 months ago | (#46587711)

Seriously - Tesla and SpaceX have both turned republican ideology on its head.

Case 1: republicans love the military-industrial complex and always protect their cost-plus pork for defense contractors, while simultaneously claiming to support fiscal responsibility and free-market competition. Once someone shows up actually wanting free market competition in these giant aerospace contracts, the republicans are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Case 2: the republican stance is that all regulation is bad. So is environmentalism, and government loans. Rich people are awesome though, and deserve tax cuts and celebration for all the glorious good they do for the economy. Enter Tesla - a product targeted squarely at the upper end of middle class and higher, which is environmentally minded, got started with renewable energy loans, and which is stirring up areas where regulation legitimately is disrupting market efficiency.

The contortions the republican party has to go through to try to reconcile the inconsistencies highlighted by these companies are hilarious, and representative of the entire redefinition the party is going through. I'm hoping they'll get trounced by the dems another time or two and then emerge as something worthy of sharing a name with the party of Eisenhower, Roosevelt and Lincoln.

biz as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587797)

Christie is taking the fall for his party. He is already finished thanks to the bridge; nobody in America could ever possibly trust a person like that. He's posing (well, ok not just posing; he's taken action against the people of New Jersey, but in the big picture you have to break some eggs to make an omelet) in a radical far-left position (far lefter than most Democrats) so that Rubio can come in with a moderate/conservative position and contrast, rather than blending in with everyone else. Republicans are almost certainly tired of everyone seeing them as the anti-American crackpot mystic weirdos, so Rubio wants to score some "mainstream points" and look normal. Christie gets something (whether it's a bag of coke or some money or whatever) and does the job for him.

Tesla (and who likes their cars and who doesn't) is irrelevant. This is about bizarre blatantly-corrupt anti-market laws, not portable-energy-storage techs.

Streisand effect in Play (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46587803)

I had never considered buying a Tesla. Now, after reading daily stories about it, it seems quite good. Of course, there's the price...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...