Tesla Delivers Devastating News to Dems - Their Little Boycott Has Failed

It’s quite remarkable: Tesla, once a favorite among progressive circles, is now facing a push for boycotts and backlash from the same faction. Some critics on the left are either subtly or overtly encouraging people to steer clear of the company and even target owners of its electric vehicles. They are then reveling in the company’s declining stock value, assuming that Elon Musk’s political stance is the primary cause.

There are two major issues with this perspective. First, it amounts to a form of political coercion: Follow our ideology, or we’ll tank your stock—both metaphorically and literally—the left appears to be signaling. That alone is problematic. But secondly, and more importantly, this approach isn’t actually effective.

A prime example of this misguided gloating is former Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’ running mate, who remains a topic of discussion for reasons that are, frankly, difficult to comprehend (one might even call them “weird”). He recently took pleasure in Tesla’s stock struggles:

If you’re looking for a little morale boost, Walz seems to be suggesting, just take satisfaction in Tesla’s stock decline and the fact that those jobs will now benefit car manufacturers in Korea, Germany, and China. Not exactly a great look for a politician who was previously caught fabricating details about his presence in Tiananmen Square and allegedly had an affair with a Chinese Communist Party operative during a visit to China in his youth.

To borrow Walz’s own favored phrase, this particular display of schadenfreude seems rather “weird.” It also rests on some flawed assumptions about Tesla’s stock value that don’t hold up under scrutiny.

For one, Tesla’s decline is part of a broader market downturn. The stock market had been artificially inflated and, in general, isn’t the most reliable indicator of overall economic health.

Additionally, investor enthusiasm for EV stocks has cooled. The initial honeymoon phase is over, as it has become apparent that widespread adoption of electric vehicles beyond a few key markets will take longer than anticipated. Supply chain diversification—especially efforts to reduce reliance on China—further complicates matters.

Moreover, those who invested in Tesla’s IPO in 2010 at $1.28 per share have seen astronomical gains, with shares closing at $235.86 as of Wednesday. While this is a drop from its peak of $488.54 within the past year, it remains significantly above its 52-week low of $138.80—meaning anyone who bought at that low point would still be up by over $97 per share.

Now, let’s compare that to Rivian Automotive. Or, as Henny Youngman might quip if he were reincarnated as an ESG-focused investor: “Please, take Rivian’s stock.” Seen as one of Tesla’s primary competitors in the luxury EV sector, Rivian debuted on the market at $129.95 per share in November 2021. Since then, it has plummeted to $11.36—a staggering 91.26% drop.

If Tesla’s struggles were purely the result of a consumer-driven boycott and Musk’s so-called “toxicity,” then Rivian should be flourishing as a safer alternative. After all, Rivian produces a vehicle comparable to Tesla’s Cybertruck—the model that most encapsulates Tesla’s brand ethos. Yet, Rivian hasn’t benefitted from this supposed “boycott” either.

Then there’s X, the social media platform Musk allegedly destroyed. Remember when he supposedly drove users away? When verified users fled to Threads, Bluesky, or Mastodon? When his commitment to free speech was said to have ruined its financial viability?

Turns out, that narrative doesn’t hold up either. According to the Financial Times, X’s valuation has climbed back to $44 billion—the very same price Musk originally paid, a figure many had criticized as excessive.

The New York Post further reported that X recently secured $1 billion in equity funding, with Musk himself participating in the investment round.

“The valuation points to a major turnaround for Musk and his handpicked CEO Linda Yaccarino, who have set about remaking X as an ‘everything app’ with loosened content moderation standards and plans for an onsite payment platform,” the Post noted.

Boycotting X is far easier than avoiding Tesla stock, yet the platform’s valuation suggests that such efforts have not gained traction.

This isn’t to say that challenges don’t exist, particularly with left-wing activists implicitly endorsing sentiments akin to: “Nice car you’ve got there. Shame if anything were … to happen to it.” They then take satisfaction in the idea that rising insurance premiums—driven by concerns over vandalism—might become an added burden for Tesla owners.

This, in essence, is a form of voter intimidation. Yet, it doesn’t appear to be resonating with the broader public. Despite Walz’s odd enthusiasm for Tesla’s struggles, most Americans aren’t on board. And investors, for their part, don’t seem to be as rattled as Walz and his Democratic colleagues might have hoped. Nice try, though.