Slashdot Mirror
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."
'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."
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.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
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).
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.
'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.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
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.
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.
I read the internet for the articles.
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.
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.
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
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.)
> 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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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, /. pedants even more.
but I definitely dislike incorrect
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!