Not much.<p>First, don't underestimate the power of the auto companies along with their associated labour. There are many votes there.<p>Second, most of the country has no clue who or what Tesla is, and as an "issue" it's the least of their concern. They want jobs, a good economy, sometimes to know whether the president believes in god, and other things. Whether rich people can buy their expensive cars in New Jersey isn't a priority, and that's how this story can be sold.<p>These laws will fall, eventually, because they're stupid.<p>><i>Few capitalists today embody the Ayn Randian entrepreneur-as-hero persona quite as convincingly as Tesla CEO Elon Musk</i><p>I don't think John Galt would have taken government subsidies.<p><i>Edit: replaced "No it won't" with "Not much", since I'm sure there will be some sort of effect.</i>
From the article's first paragraph:<p><pre><code> Mitt Romney famously called Tesla Motors a “loser” company during
his run for president. He lost, of course, and Tesla is by any
measure winning. And so we see would-be presidential candidates
lining up behind the Silicon Valley carmaker as its fight against
auto dealers becomes a potential breakout issue in the 2016 election.
</code></pre>
I would say this sums up Wired's expertise on politics. I doubt there was more than a handful of people outside the valley who cared about this statement. This statement had a net zero on the election.
This article seems weak sauce.<p>Romney opposed Tesla, but that was because the President supported it. Presidential challengers, regardless of their views, <i>always</i> say that the incumbent President's policies are wrong. They have to give the public a reason to vote for them. You do that by creating contrasts in the public's mind between you and the incumbent.<p>If Obama hadn't supported Tesla, Romney would have. It's not because Romney is especially corrupt or venal or cynical. It's simply because that's how you try to unseat an incumbent.<p>When was the last time in a Presidential debate that one guy said "yeah, my opponent is right, and I would do things the same way"?
"Today the bans on Tesla stores are such a naked example of stifling innovative competition to protect an incumbent industry’s business model that they look positively French."<p>This remark is stupid regarding how much money the US government spent to protect companies like General Motors. I'm not saying it was a bad thing, just that this remark was too easy.
I think the fight that Tesla got into is rather an other example of businesses, the car dealers, that exist solely because of legal restriction allowing them to exist, not because there is a market need.
The added value of car dealers is extremely limited, and is rather an archaic leftover of previous times. Fighting for these business models is I believe completely ridiculous. It's like fighting for the CD industry or the Print/Paper industry.
My inclination is that it shows whose pockets the politicians are in. If you think they're a "loser" then you are pandering to Detroit and their unions, or the auto dealers. If you aren't in their pockets, it's easy to see why the direct model is preferable. It's hard to be called a small government conservative if you want to legally mandate middlemen.
The notion that Chris Christie could under conceivable circumstances win the Republican nomination--let's forget Fort Lee, pretend it never happened here--is plausible only to persons within Christie's reality distortion field. Romney wouldn't pick him to run as VP, because of concerns his staff had about the baggage he brought.
At first I thought this was a brilliant idea. Fight the stupid laws of the past; I'm on board.<p>However, as a casual follower, I haven't been convinced the problem is that big. Does a franchisee add a large markup? More that Tesla would already assume by opening their own stores? Maybe they want to control the customer experience?<p>Personally, I'd be happy to be a franchisee and only charge $100 per car sold. Because I believe these cars sell themselves. No negotiations, everyone pays MSRP seems to be the Tesla model and, I like that. I won't need a hoard of sales staff. Tesla can dictate/measure my customer service practices.<p>I won't carry a big inventory, I'd probably do setups similar to the Tesla shop in the Houston Galleria. Only a few models so people can see and feel the car, do test drives, then the order is placed with the factory. This is the part that is broken with the car industry. Dealers pre-order inventory then try to sell you the stuff they have on the lot. They all have "build your car" tools on the website, but consumers rarely get the opportunity to buy exactly the car they want.<p>I might not know the full scope of what is required of an auto franchisee. The costs and what-not. But, if Tesla where to give me a market and the rules which to operate. I'd gladly partner with them and provide a high level service at a negligible middle-man fee. I think many other people would too.<p>So why does this need so much disrupting? I'm starting to think, because there is an opportunity to disrupt is the right answer. This topic is generating a lot of buzz. Politicians are talking about it. Just look at the headline of this post, seriously... Tesla is pushing this to be a presidential candidate talking point? That type of PR would be priceless.
I run a startup in an entrenched industry. I see how many layers (fees, licenses, time for approvals) of bureaucracy have been created by lobbyists in favor of the oligopoly which controls my industry.<p>On the micro level, sure most people don't know the Tesla story. On the macro level, people are sick of government entitlement and lobbying. If the Tesla story most simply articulates the fact that companies are lobbying government to stand in the way of progress in the name of their cash cow, I think it definitely has the power to help shape the election.
I hope the next president focuses on more important things than Tesla.<p>Anyway this seems to be a battle at the state level I dont really know if the Federal Govt should get involved.<p>What exactly was the legal reason for the ban in NJ?
>"Of course, to suggest that opposing Tesla violates GOP principles is to assume that politicians are principled at all. More realistically, the politics of the Tesla bans reflect nothing so much as the truism that all politics are local."<p>-----<p>I think this is the crucial observation of this article and should be the key take home message. Of course the GOP will claim to champion principles such as innovation, free enterprise, individual choice, etc. but in practice they're ultimately going to pander to their local voter base and its special interest groups.
Elon Musk is an immigrant, environmentalist, scientifically minded and an entrepreneur. The GOP have to let go of their opposition to the first three and embrace the last even if it's a french word.