Recently Elon Musk, owner of X/Twitter, state that if Trump is not re-elected it may be the last election the US has.
Mark Cuban used Musk’s own Grok app to debunk him! On X Cuban wrote:
Mark Cuban (@mcuban)
Hey @elonmusk truly appreciate the work you have done with @grok
It’s a great way to factcheck you
He then posted the answer Grok gave him to this question:
Is the following quote (something Musk had posted) accurate or plausible.
“Very few Americans realize that, if Trump is NOT elected, this will be the last election. Far from being a threat to democracy, he is the only way to save it!
Let me explain: if even 1 in 20 illegals become citizens per year, something that the Democrats are expediting as fast as humanly possible, that would be about 2 million new legal voters in 4 years.
The voting margin in the swing states is often less than 20 thousand votes. That means if the “Democratic” Party succeeds, there will be no more swing states!!
Moreover, the Biden/Harris administration has been flying “asylum seekers”, who are fast-tracked to citizenship, directly into swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Arizona. It is a surefire way to win every election.
America then becomes a one-party state and Democracy is over. The only “elections” will be the Democratic Party primaries. This already happened in California many years ago, following the 1986 amnesty.
The only thing holding California back from extreme socialism and suffocating government policies is that people can leave California and still remain in America. Once the whole country is controlled by one party, there will be no escape.
Everywhere in America will be like the nightmare that is downtown San Francisco.”
Answer
The quote you’ve provided contains several claims that need examination for accuracy and plausibility:
Last Election Claim: The assertion that if Trump is not elected, it will be the last election, is hyperbolic and speculative. It assumes an extreme scenario where democratic processes would completely cease, which is not supported by current evidence or the resilience of U.S. democratic institutions.
Immigration and Voter Demographics: The claim regarding the impact of new citizens from immigration on elections has some basis in demographic shifts but exaggerates the immediacy and scale of the effect:
Naturalization Rates: The rate at which undocumented immigrants become citizens and then voters is not as straightforward or rapid as suggested. The naturalization process takes time, requires meeting several criteria, and not all eligible immigrants choose to become citizens immediately or at all.
Voting Margins: While it’s true that voting margins in swing states can be narrow, the assumption that all new citizens would vote uniformly for one party oversimplifies voter behavior. Immigrants, like any demographic, have diverse political views.
Targeted Resettlement: The claim that the Biden/Harris administration is specifically flying asylum seekers into swing states to alter voter demographics is a significant accusation and would require concrete evidence. While governments do decide where to place refugees and asylum seekers, the strategic placement for voter manipulation as described would be highly controversial and legally questionable.
One-Party State: The fear of America becoming a one-party state due to demographic changes through immigration overlooks the dynamic nature of voter preferences, the cyclical shifts in political power, and the checks and balances within the U.S. political system.
California Comparison: The comparison to California post-1986 amnesty has elements of truth in terms of demographic shifts affecting political outcomes but suggesting that this leads inevitably to “extreme socialism” or that the entire U.S. would follow suit simplifies complex political transformations.
Escape from Policy: The notion that there would be “no escape” if the whole country were under one-party rule ignores the federal structure of the U.S., where states have significant autonomy, and people can indeed move between states for policy preferences, though this doesn’t address the core concern of national policy dominance.
Conclusion:
Accuracy: The quote contains exaggerated claims and speculative fears rather than factual analysis. While immigration does impact voter demographics, the immediate and deterministic political outcome described is not supported by current political science or demographic trends.
Plausibility: Some elements, like the potential for demographic shifts to influence politics, are plausible but are presented in an alarmist and overly deterministic manner. The democratic process in the U.S. has multiple mechanisms to prevent the kind of takeover suggested.
When discussing such topics, it’s important to critically analyze the claims, consider the complexity of voter behavior, and not reduce immigration’s political impact to a single narrative or outcome.