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

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."

Comments

Doubt it.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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.

[macpacheco]

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.

[AaronW]

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.

[cbhacking]

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.

[tlhIngan]

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.

That $600/yr service is optional. It's recommended, and Tesla will cover all consumables except tires for it. And it's flat rate, too - it's just $600 a year for all the service you need.

Most cars require a "major service" every couple of years, which can easily run into a couple thousand bucks, and service on German luxury vehicles can easily be $500 per visit, twice a year or more.

Tesla, OTOH, charges $600 for it all inclusive. And it includes a loaner (for a few more bucks, they'll let you take out a Roadster instead) for the duration.

It's a steal to get service for $600 all in, especially with all the perks. Dealers HATE Tesla because of it - they don't make much off selling new cars, the make it up selling service.

Re:To be fair

[lgw]

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.

There is no irony

[damicatz]

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.

Uh No

[the eric conspiracy]

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).

Marketing spin

[sjbe]

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.

well

[hamburger lady]

'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

[ArcadeMan]

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

Re:To be fair

[macpacheco]

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:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[sjbe]

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?

Plase, not Slashdot too

[jandrese]

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

[jklovanc]

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.

Winning streaks

[sjbe]

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:Winning streaks

[jedidiah]

> And the democrats only won it once between 1968 and 1992. What's your point?

It's not 1955 anymore, or even 1985. The same old rhetoric won't work because most of your base is dying of old age.

You can't even depend on the "white middle aged male" demographic anymore. Society has changed along with the demographics. You can't depend on crackers to get you elected.

Antagonizing EVERYONE else certainly is not a winning strategy.

Re:There is only one thing you need to know

[whistlingtony]

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!

Elon Musk = Greatest Republican Troll Ever

[werepants]

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.

Re:Rubio was doing so well

[TubeSteak]

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.

Odd logic

[sjbe]

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. 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.

Re:Odd logic

[blue9steel]

Maybe because environmental activists are often the worst offenders in helping to ensure we destroy the environment? They get so worked up on "the perfect solution" that they block vastly improved but imperfect ones. For example anti-nuclear activists are pretty much responsible for global warming, if it wasn't for them killing the whole atomic energy industry after three mile island we'd be using uranium instead of coal. I find that particularly hilarious because radioactive carbon-14 gets spewed into the atmosphere without any form of control while spent fuel rods are pretty much contained safely on site. (and wouldn't exist at all if we had a proper reprocessing infrastructure)

Re:Rubio was doing so well

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Your chain-of-commerce should have ended at "customer". Any further actions do not qualify as commerce.

"Customers" are people who pay you to do your job well. They buy your products and services, and if you don't provide what they need, they will drop your ass and find someone who does. These are "informed buyers" who will do pesky things like "demand warranty service" and "enforce contract terms".

"Consumers" are people that marking folks envision buying your product because they want it and will buy it without questioning whether they need it or not. These are "mindless automatons" who will "take what they're given" and "stand in line for days in the freezing cold to get the next minor upgrade of your product".

(If you want a good laugh, envision Chris Farley doing the air-quotes-guy skit in those last two paragraphs.)

Re:To be fair

[rsborg]

You are going to need a LOT of solar panels to do this and also note most people are home at NIGHT when this is not going to work out so well ;)

Note: using solar to power your car is through offsetting your daily electricity use and powering at night - you don't actually have to use the *specific electrons collected by photonics deposits on your solar panel* to power the electric car.

The end result is the same - car gets juice (usually the cheaper variety if you're hooked up with a smart meter) and you pay less.

Hell, Musk even has a company that helps homeowners do just that - SolarCity - without all the overhead of buying the panels and installing them yourself.

Re:Rubio was doing so well

[TubeSteak]

No. Your chain-of-commerce should have ended at "customer". Any further actions do not qualify as commerce.

1. There's more to commerce than the exchange of money.
2. Your definition of consumer is a transparently biased straw man you've built up specifically so you can beat it down.

For this conversation to be meaningful, we need a common definition.
Heck, it'd probably help if you even read the fucking article

"It's an established product," Rubio said. "Customers should be allowed to buy products that fit their need, especially a product that we know is safe and has consumer confidence beneath it."

3. Rubio isn't even using "consumer" in the way that's got you Anonymous Cowards all hot and bothered.

Is "consumer confidence" derogatory?
Does it imply "mindless automatons?"
Or maybe you ACs are just full of shit.

Fuck. I don't even like Rubio's Tea Party politics,
but I definitely dislike incorrect /. pedants even more.