Connect with us

Business

Can Trump and Musk Convince More Conservatives to Buy Teslas?

Published

on

Can Trump and Musk Convince More Conservatives to Buy Teslas?

After climbing into a Tesla Model S last week, President Trump pledged to buy one. The next day, the Fox News host Sean Hannity said he had bought a Model S Plaid to support the embattled company, saying a Tesla “has more American parts in it than any other car made in our country.”

In a backlash to the backlash against the tactics of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, prominent conservatives are rallying to the side of the electric car company led by Mr. Musk. They are hoping to swing enough like-minded consumers to offset a boycott of the electric automaker by liberals and Democrats or anyone offended by Mr. Musk’s actions.

But how effective can such a rescue mission be? Analysts say it can help but only to an extent.

So many Democratic buyers appear to be fleeing Tesla that even Mr. Trump’s best sales pitch is unlikely to woo enough new customers to fill the vacuum, auto experts said. Analysts at JPMorgan predict Tesla will deliver its fewest cars in the first quarter than it had in three years.

“When you make your product unattractive to half the market, I promise you, you won’t increase your sales,” said Alexander Edwards, president of Strategic Vision, an automotive research and consulting firm.

Advertisement

Mr. Edwards has been surveying car buyers for decades. Since 2016, the surveys have found that electric-car owners were up to four times as likely to identify as Democrats or liberals as to identify as Republican or conservative. Among Tesla owners, the spread was consistently two to one.

The gap narrowed sharply through 2024. This year, as sales have fallen, slightly more Tesla buyers identify as Republicans than Democrats, at 30 percent versus 29 percent.

“Democrats are fleeing the brand and saying they won’t consider it in the future, so there is naturally a greater proportion of Republican and independent buyers,” Mr. Edwards said.

He said Democrats first started losing interest in Tesla when Mr. Musk bought Twitter, now X, in 2022. Then, last July, when Mr. Musk publicly backed Mr. Trump, the share of Democrats who said they would “definitely consider” a Tesla fell by half.

Overall, about 8 percent of car owners would now definitely consider a Tesla, according to Mr. Edwards’s surveys. That compares with 22 percent five years ago, when Tesla often topped rankings of luxury brands that buyers would consider.

Advertisement

Tesla’s slipping sales, he said, “are mostly, if not completely, attributed to the statements and behavior of Elon Musk.”

The automaker did not respond to a request for comment.

Tesla remains America’s best-selling electric vehicle brand by far with about 44 percent of the market, despite a 5.6 percent drop in U.S. sales, to about 634,000 cars in 2024, according to Kelley Blue Book. Many drivers are determined to stick with the electric vehicle pioneer, whose cars can travel several hundred miles on a charge and can be easily refueled at the company’s extensive charging network.

Josh Anders, 44, traded a gasoline-powered sport utility vehicle for a Tesla Model 3 in 2019. A resident of Fort Wayne, Ind., he was blown away by the car’s energy efficiency, technology and limited maintenance needs. He soon traded for another, and is about to take delivery of the latest Model Y S.U.V.

“Owning a Tesla was one of the best decisions I ever made, and I’m sticking by it,” Mr. Anders said. “I would love a Rivian R1S, but I can’t afford it. I’m a tech guy, and I love all the features and innovations.”

Advertisement

Mr. Anders, a father of four and creative director of a Christian nonprofit music and arts organization, said he leans conservative, and is uncomfortable with boycotts.

“Elon’s not perfect, and Tesla’s not perfect, but it’s a community of dreamers and doers. I appreciate a brand that’s constantly pushing the boundaries,” he said. “I don’t need every company to share my beliefs. I just need them to share a commitment to progress.”

Still, cars have a long history of becoming part of the political fray.

The Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid introduced in 2011 after General Motors received federal government assistance, was derided by some conservatives as the “Obamacar.” The fuel-sipping Toyota Prius and the gas-guzzling Hummer from G.M. were often lauded and attacked by people on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Isaac Seliger, a business owner and grant writer in Scottsdale, Ariz., said he’d had little interest in electric vehicles even though his son, who died recently, was a devoted fan of Tesla.

Advertisement

Now, said Mr. Seliger, who described himself as politically independent, he is determined to buy a Tesla, because he wants to defy groupthink and polarization. A friend told him that she would stop speaking to him if he did.

“As a former lefty and antiwar guy, this all makes me want to buy a Tesla more,” Mr. Seliger, 73, said. “I’ll absolutely be making a political statement. But if I bought a Porsche Macan, that’s a statement, too, where people pigeonhole you as an obnoxious older Porsche driver.”

Mr. Seliger added that he found criticisms of Mr. Musk overblown.

“So Elon was a hero of the left, and now he’s a Nazi? That’s just crazy,” he said. “He strikes me as a smart guy who makes great stuff.”

To many people who have faith in Tesla and Mr. Musk, the company’s sales and stock price, which is down about 48 percent from a December high, will eventually recover. The stock was up 12 percent over the last four days of trading.

Advertisement

But some automotive experts say Tesla may struggle because the company has not regularly updated its cars or introduced new models. In addition, the company’s chargers, which once could be used only by Teslas, are opening access to nearly every major competitor, said Loren McDonald, chief analyst at Paren, an electric vehicle charging data firm. And other automakers are offering new electric models, often with notably affordable monthly payments.

“He’s rapidly losing the advantages in range, tech, value and convenience that drove people to Tesla,” Mr. McDonald said. “For a lot of people, it’s time to move on and try something new.”

Of course, most buyers don’t choose cars based on politics. But a brand’s image matters. Tesla sales slipped even as overall U.S. electric vehicle sales grew 7.3 percent in 2024, to 1.3 million. Mr. Edwards said Mr. Musk was making it too easy for people to shop elsewhere.

“People can love their Hyundai, G.M., Rivian or BMW just as much,” he said.

Republicans certainly buy electric cars, but fewer of them have made the plunge to fully electric models. Rural states, where Republicans outnumber Democrats, have fewer chargers than more urban states. Strategic Vision data shows Republicans are more likely to work outside the home, and are less willing to put up with inconveniences like long charging stops. And a 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that more Republicans than Democrats say electric vehicles cost too much and are less reliable than gasoline cars.

Advertisement

In the New York metropolitan area, the nation’s largest car market, new Tesla registrations fell 13 percent, to 47,000 cars, in 2024, according to S&P Global Mobility. That same year, more than 101,000 people registered a Tesla in Los Angeles, the second-largest market, a drop of 8 percent. Still, nearly one in eight new cars in Los Angeles was a Tesla. In the San Francisco Bay Area, where Tesla was founded, nearly one in five new cars was a Tesla. But sales tumbled 17 percent to 54,000 cars.

Consumers in the Houston area bought 12,000 Teslas. But Bay Area residents bought 4.5 times as many Teslas, in a smaller market for new cars overall. Some areas saw big increases, including Miami-Fort Lauderdale where sales jumped 32 percent, to nearly 23,000 cars, in 2024. Tesla sales also rose sharply in Salt Lake City, Las Vegas and St. Louis. But the company’s gains in these places could not offset steeper declines in larger, more liberal metro areas.

Experts say wealthy conservatives such as Mr. Hannity and Mr. Trump have the disposable income to make a personal automotive statement by opting for a Tesla. But they may not be able to persuade Americans of more modest means.

Mr. McDonald also noted that Mr. Trump and other conservatives had spent years vilifying electric cars, mocking climate change and criticizing former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s climate and auto policies.

“The messaging is inconsistent,” Mr. McDonald said. “Is the guy in Arkansas who drives a Ram pickup going to buy a Tesla now? How far can you go against your own beliefs to support Elon Musk?”

Advertisement

Business

Investor pleads guilty in criminal case that felled hedge fund, damaged B. Riley

Published

on

Investor pleads guilty in criminal case that felled hedge fund, damaged B. Riley

Businessman Brian Kahn has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud in a case that brought down a hedge fund, helped lead to the bankruptcy of a retailer and damaged West Los Angeles investment bank B. Riley Financial.

Kahn, 52, admitted in a Trenton, N.J., federal court Wednesday to hiding trading losses that brought down Prophecy Asset Management in 2020. The Securities and Exchange Commission alleged the losses exceeded $400 million.

An investor lawsuit has accused Kahn of funneling some of the fund’s money to Franchise Group, a Delaware retail holding company assembled by the investor that owned Vitamin Shoppe, Pet Supplies Plus and other chains.

B. Riley provided $600 million through debt it raised to finance a $2.8-billion management buyout led by Kahn in 2023. It also took a 31% stake in the company and lent Kahn’s investment fund $201 million, largely secured with shares of Franchise Group.

Advertisement

Kahn had done deals with B. Riley co-founder Bryant Riley before partnering with the L.A. businessman on Franchise Group.

However, the buyout didn’t work out amid fallout from the hedge fund scandal and slowing sales at the retailers. Franchise Group filed for bankruptcy in November 2024. A slimmed-down version of the company emerged from Chapter 11 in June.

B. Riley has disclosed in regulatory filings that the firm and Riley have received SEC subpoenas regarding its dealings with Kahn, Franchise group and other matters.

Riley, 58, the firm’s chairman and co-chief executive, has denied knowledge of wrongdoing, and an outside law firm reached the same conclusion.

The failed deal led to huge losses at the financial services firm that pummeled B. Riley’s stock, which had approached $90 in 2021. Shares were trading Friday at $3.98.

Advertisement

The company has marked down its Franchise Group investment, and has spent the last year or so paring debt through refinancing, selling off parts of its business and other steps, including closing offices.

The company announced last month it is changing its name to BRC Group Holdings in January. It did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

At Wednesday’s plea hearing, Assistant U.S. Atty. Kelly Lyons said that Kahn conspired to “defraud dozens of investors who had invested approximately $360 million” through “lies, deception, misleading statements and material omissions.”

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp released Kahn on a $100,000 bond and set an April 2 sentencing date. He faces up to five years in prison. Kahn, his lawyer and Lyons declined to comment after the hearing.

Kahn is the third Prophecy official charged over the hedge fund’s collapse. Two other executives, John Hughes and Jeffrey Spotts, have also been charged.

Advertisement

Hughes pleaded guilty and is cooperating with prosecutors. Spotts pleaded not guilty and faces trial next year. The two men and Kahn also have been sued by the SEC over the Prophecy collapse.

Bloomberg News contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Business

Podcast industry is divided as AI bots flood the airways with thousands of programs

Published

on

Podcast industry is divided as AI bots flood the airways with thousands of programs

Chatty bots are sharing their hot takes through hundreds of thousands of AI-generated podcasts. And the invasion has just begun.

Though their banter can be a bit banal, the AI podcasters’ confidence and research are now arguably better than most people’s.

“We’ve just begun to cross the threshold of voice AI being pretty much indistinguishable from human,” said Alan Cowen, chief executive of Hume AI, a startup specializing in voice technology. “We’re seeing creators use it in all kinds of ways.”

AI can make podcasts sound better and cost less, industry insiders say, but the growing swarm of new competitors entering an already crowded market is disrupting the industry.

Advertisement

Some podcasters are pushing back, requesting restrictions. Others are already cloning their voices and handing over their podcasts to AI bots.

Popular podcast host Steven Bartlett has used an AI clone to launch a new kind of content aimed at the 13 million followers of his podcast “Diary of a CEO.” On YouTube, his clone narrates “100 CEOs With Steven Bartlett,” which adds AI-generated animation to Bartlett’s cloned voice to tell the life stories of entrepreneurs such as Steve Jobs and Richard Branson.

Erica Mandy, the Redondo Beach-based host of the daily news podcast called “The Newsworthy,” let an AI voice fill in for her earlier this year after she lost her voice from laryngitis and her backup host bailed out.

She fed her script into a text-to-speech model and selected a female AI voice from ElevenLabs to speak for her.

“I still recorded the show with my very hoarse voice, but then put the AI voice over that, telling the audience from the very beginning, I’m sick,” Mandy said.

Advertisement

Mandy had previously used ElevenLabs for its voice isolation feature, which uses AI to remove ambient noise from interviews.

Her chatbot host elicited mixed responses from listeners. Some asked if she was OK. One fan said she should never do it again. Most weren’t sure what to think.

“A lot of people were like, ‘That was weird,’” Mandy said.

In podcasting, many listeners feel strong bonds to hosts they listen to regularly. The slow encroachment of AI voices for one-off episodes, canned ad reads, sentence replacement in postproduction or translation into multiple languages has sparked anger as well as curiosity from both creators and consumers of the content.

Augmenting or replacing host reads with AI is perceived by many as a breach of trust and as trivializing the human connection listeners have with hosts, said Megan Lazovick, vice president of Edison Research, a podcast research company.

Advertisement

Jason ⁠Saldanha of PRX, a podcast network that represents human creators such as Ezra Klein, said the tsunami of AI podcasts won’t attract premium ad rates.

“Adding more podcasts in a tyranny of choice environment is not great,” he said. “I’m not interested in devaluing premium.”

Still, platforms such as YouTube and Spotify have introduced features for creators to clone their voice and translate their content into multiple languages to increase reach and revenue. A new generation of voice cloning companies, many with operations in California, offers better emotion, tone, pacing and overall voice quality.

Hume AI, which is based in New York but has a big research team in California, raised $50 million last year and has tens of thousands of creators using its software to generate audiobooks, podcasts, films, voice-overs for videos and dialogue generation in video games.

“We focus our platform on being able to edit content so that you can take in postproduction an existing podcast and regenerate a sentence in the same voice, with the same prosody or emotional intonation using instant cloning,” said company CEO Cowen.

Advertisement

Some are using the tech to carpet-bomb the market with content.

Los Angeles podcasting studio Inception Point AI has produced its 200,000 podcast episodes, accounting for 1% of all podcasts published on the internet, according to CEO Jeanine Wright.

The podcasts are so cheap to make that they can focus on tiny topics, like local weather, small sports teams, gardening and other niche subjects.

Instead of a studio searching for a specific “hit” podcast idea, it takes just $1 to produce an episode so that they can be profitable with just 25 people listening.

“That means most of the stuff that we make, we have really an unlimited amount of experimentation and creative freedom for what we want to do,” Wright said.

Advertisement

One of its popular synthetic hosts is Vivian Steele, an AI celebrity gossip columnist with a sassy voice and a sharp tongue. “I am indeed AI-powered — which means I’ve got receipts older than your grandmother’s jewelry box, and a memory sharper than a stiletto heel on marble. No forgetting, no forgiving, and definitely no filter,” the AI discloses itself at the start of the podcast.

“We’ve kind of molded her more towards what the audience wants,” said Katie Brown, chief content officer at Inception Point, who helps design the personalities of the AI podcasters.

Inception Point has built a roster of more than 100 AI personalities whose characteristics, voices and likenesses are crafted for podcast audiences. Its AI hosts include Clare Delish, a cooking guidance expert, and garden enthusiast Nigel Thistledown.

The technology also makes it easy to get podcasts up quickly. Inception has found some success with flash biographies posted promptly in connection to people in the news. It uses AI software to spot a trending personality and create two episodes, complete with promo art and a trailer.

When Charlie Kirk was shot, its AI immediately created two shows called “Charlie Kirk Death” and “Charlie Kirk Manhunt” as a part of the biography series.

Advertisement

“We were able to create all of that content, each with different angles, pulling from different news sources, and we were able to get that content up within an hour,” Wright said.

Speed is key when it comes to breaking news, so its AI podcasts reached the top of some charts.

“Our content was coming up, really dominating the list of what people were searching for,” she said.

Across Apple and Spotify, Inception Point podcasts have now garnered 400,000 subscribers.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Business

L.A. County sues oil companies over unplugged oil wells in Inglewood

Published

on

L.A. County sues oil companies over unplugged oil wells in Inglewood

Los Angeles County is suing four oil and gas companies for allegedly failing to plug idle oil wells in the large Inglewood Oil Field near Baldwin Hills.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court charges Sentinel Peak Resources California, Freeport-McMoran Oil & Gas, Plains Resources and Chevron U.S.A. with failing to properly clean up at least 227 idle and exhausted wells in the oil field. The wells “continue to leak toxic pollutants into the air, land, and water and present unacceptable dangers to human health, safety, and the environment,” the complaint says.

The lawsuit aims to force the operators to address dangers posed by the unplugged wells. More than a million people live within five miles of the Inglewood oil field.

“We are making it clear to these oil companies that Los Angeles County is done waiting and that we remain unwavering in our commitment to protect residents from the harmful impacts of oil drilling,” said Supervisor Holly Mitchell, whose district includes the oil field, in a statement. “Plugging idle oil and gas wells — so they no longer emit toxins into communities that have been on the front lines of environmental injustice for generations — is not only the right thing to do, it’s the law.”

Advertisement

Sentinel is the oil field’s current operator, while Freeport-McMoran Oil & Gas, Plains Resources and Chevron U.S.A. were past operators. Energy companies often temporarily stop pumping from a well and leave it idle waiting for market conditions to improve.

In a statement, a representative for Sentinel Peak said the company is aware of the lawsuit and that the “claims are entirely without merit.”

“This suit appears to be an attempt to generate sensationalized publicity rather than adjudicate a legitimate legal matter,” general counsel Erin Gleaton said in an email. “We have full confidence in our position, supported by the facts and our record of regulatory compliance.”

Chevron said it does not comment on pending legal matters. The others did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

State regulations define “idle wells” as wells that have not produced oil or natural gas for 24 consecutive months, and “exhausted wells” as those that yield an average daily production of two barrels of oil or less. California is home to thousands of such wells, according to the California Department of Conservation.

Advertisement

Idle and exhausted wells can continue to emit hazardous air pollutants such as benzene, as well as a methane, a planet-warming greenhouse gas. Unplugged wells can also leak oil, benzene, chloride, heavy metals and arsenic into groundwater.

Plugging idle and exhausted wells includes removing surface valves and piping, pumping large amounts of cement down the hole and reclaiming the surrounding ground. The process can be expensive, averaging an estimated $923,200 per well in Los Angeles County, according to the California Geologic Energy Management Division, which notes that the costs could fall to taxpayers if the defendants do not take action. This 2023 estimate from CalGEM is about three times higher than other parts of the state due to the complexity of sealing wells and remediating the surface in densely populated urban areas.

The suit seeks a court order requiring the wells to be properly plugged, as well as abatement for the harms caused by their pollution. It seeks civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each well that is in violation of the law.

Residents living near oil fields have long reported adverse health impacts such as respiratory, reproductive and cardiovascular issues. In Los Angeles, many of these risks disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color.

“The goal of this lawsuit is to force these oil companies to clean up their mess and stop business practices that disproportionately impact people of color living near these oil wells,” County Counsel Dawyn Harrison said in a statement. “My office is determined to achieve environmental justice for communities impacted by these oil wells and to prevent taxpayers from being stuck with a huge cleanup bill.”

Advertisement

The lawsuit is part of L.A. County’s larger effort to phase out oil drilling, including a high-profile ordinance that sought to ban new oil wells and even require existing ones to stop production within 20 years. Oil companies successfully challenged it and it was blocked in 2024.

Rita Kampalath, the county’s chief sustainability officer, said the county remains “dedicated to moving toward a fossil fuel-free L.A. County.”

“This lawsuit demonstrates the County’s commitment to realizing our sustainability goals by addressing the impacts of the fossil fuel industry on front line communities and the environment,” Kampalath said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending