Don't look now, but the New York Times sounds worried, too. Thus far, Democrats have a lot more billionaire money to fund their operations and those of their assorted super-PACs. Arabella in particular leverages massive contributions from the ultra-wealthy Left to fund all sorts of progressive storefronts, as Scott Walter explained almost exactly four months ago in a podcast interview. 

Now that the world's wealthiest magnate may join the other side, though, suddenly it's time for Panic in the Demsco:

Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, has hired a Republican operative with expertise in field organizing to help steer his political work, a move that suggests that Mr. Musk is preparing to become even more involved in Republican politics and get-out-the-vote efforts specifically.

Chris Young, most recently a senior political official at PhRMA, the trade association of the pharmaceutical industry that does some grass-roots organizing, is joining Mr. Musk’s team, according to three people briefed on the move. They spoke on condition of anonymity because it was not public. ...

Mr. Young was once the head of Engage Texas, a voter-registration nonprofit in the state funded by major Republican donors. Field organizing has been a priority of Mr. Musk, who like Mr. Young lives in Texas, during his recent foray into campaign politics. Mr. Musk, for instance, at one point privately dismissed television advertising and argued that donors should simply fund programs that convince voters, two at a time, to back Mr. Trump.

Elon, you magnificent b*****d, you read my book!

(Or maybe not. I have a few dozen extra copies if you'd like one.)

This is very good news for the GOP, at least in terms of focused resources. The reporting around Musk's funding of a super-PAC dedicated to GOTV has been mainly speculative and often inaccurate, at least according to Musk himself. He scoffed at the initial reporting from the Wall Street Journal six weeks ago that he would spend $45 million a month to fund a massive grassroots effort, but his pushback was on the amount, not the effort itself. 

This move seems to indicate that Musk will take control of America PAC more directly. Young will liaise with the new leadership at the super-PAC that has rolled out a second version of a ground-organizing team. Last month, Musk declared that the super-PAC would not be "hyperpartisan," but the hiring of Young now suggests otherwise. The group is now being led by people who helped build Ron DeSantis' GOTV operation in the primaries as well as in Florida ahead of the 2022 red wave in the Sunshine State. If it wasn't partisan oriented before now, it certainly appears aimed in that direction now ... or at least is operating in some coherent direction.

This is good news for the Trump campaign, which has taken GOTV and grassroots activities more seriously in this cycle than in either of the previous two elections. But it's not necessarily a panacea either, not if that effort isn't well integrated into the campaign and its messaging. In Going Red, I wrote extensively about that genius in Barack Obama's 2008 campaign and how it allowed for plenty of message fine-tuning, as well as local context for the campaign agenda that built an incredible amount of loyalty among followers. 

Musk seems to have that in mind, at least according to the NYT's reporting. Mitt Romney relied too heavily on national themes in local markets rather than advertising that directly addressed local concerns held by voters. The Obama campaigns used local relationships to get those messages put in context and to persuade voters to join their cause. Team Obama used Facebook and other social media platforms to find those local influencers and recruit them to do exactly what Musk suggests here -- use peer-to-peer communications to generate support.

Even if the effort doesn't immediately connect to Team Trump in terms of message calibration, though, it's a good way to generate sustained and reliable support, especially where more persuadable voters can be found. And if Musk plans to put a significant amount of money into this effort, then the New York Times has good reason to worry.