The reaction among Democrats to Donald Trump’s return to power has been significantly more subdued than what we saw in 2016 after the mogul’s first shocking electoral win. The old-school “resistance” is dead, and it’s not clear what will replace it. But Democratic elected officials are developing new strategies for dealing with the new realities in Washington. Here are five distinct approaches that have emerged, even before Trump’s second administration has begun.
Some Democrats are so thoroughly impressed by the current power of the MAGA movement they are choosing to surrender to it in significant respects. The prime example is Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, the onetime fiery populist politician who is now becoming conspicuous in his desire to admit his party’s weaknesses and snuggle up to the new regime. The freshman and one-time ally of Bernie Sanders has been drifting away from the left wing of his party for a good while, particularly via his vocally unconditional backing for Israel during its war in Gaza. But now he’s making news regularly for taking steps in Trump’s direction.
Quite a few Democrats publicly expressed dismay over Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter, but Fetterman distinguished himself by calling for a corresponding pardon for Trump over his hush-money conviction in New York. Similarly, many Democrats have discussed ways to reach out to the voters they have lost to Trump. Fetterman’s approach was to join Trump’s Truth Social platform, which is a fever swamp for the president-elect’s most passionate supporters. Various Democrats are cautiously circling Elon Musk, Trump’s new best friend and potential slayer of the civil-service system and the New Deal–Great Society legacy of federal programs. But Fetterman seems to want to become Musk’s buddy, too, exchanging compliments with him in a sort of weird courtship. Fetterman has also gone out of his way to exhibit openness to support for Trump’s controversial Cabinet nominees even as nearly every other Senate Democrat takes the tack of forcing Republicans to take a stand on people like Pete Hegseth before weighing in themselves.
It’s probably germane to Fetterman’s conduct that he will be up for reelection in 2028, a presidential-election year in a state Trump carried on November 5. Or maybe he’s just burnishing his credentials as the maverick who blew up the Senate dress code.
Other Democrats are being much more selectively friendly to Trump, searching for “common ground” on issues where they believe he will be cross-pressured by his wealthy backers and more conventional Republicans. Like Fetterman, these Democrats — including Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — tend to come from the progressive wing of the party and have longed chafed at the centrist economic policies advanced by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and, to some extent, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. They’ve talked about strategically encouraging Trump’s “populist” impulses on such issues as credit-card interest and big-tech regulation, partly as a matter of forcing the new president and his congressional allies to put up or shut up.
So the idea is to push off a discredited Democratic Establishment, at least on economic issues, and either accomplish things for working-class voters in alliance with Trump or prove the hollowness of his “populism.”
Colorado governor Jared Solis has offered a similar strategy of selective cooperation by praising the potential agenda of Trump HHS secretary nominee, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as helpfully “shaking up” the medical and scientific Establishment.
At the other end of the spectrum, some centrist Democrats are pushing off what they perceive as a discredited progressive ascendancy in the party, especially on culture-war issues and immigration. The most outspoken of them showed up at last week’s annual meeting of the avowedly nonpartisan No Labels organization, which was otherwise dominated by Republicans seeking to demonstrate a bit of independence from the next administration. These include vocal critics of the 2024 Democratic message like House members Jared Golden, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Ritchie Torres, and Seth Moulton, along with wannabe 2025 New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Josh Gottheimer (his Virginia counterpart, Abigail Spanberger, wasn’t at the No Labels confab but is similarly positioned ideologically).
From a strategic point of view, these militant centrists appear to envision a 2028 presidential campaign that will take back the voters Biden won in 2020 and Harris lost this year.
We’re beginning to see the emergence of a faction of Democrats that is willing to cut policy or legislative deals with Team Trump in order to protect some vulnerable constituencies from MAGA wrath. This is particularly visible on the immigration front; some congressional Democrats are talking about cutting a deal to support some of Trump’s agenda in exchange for continued protection from deportation of DREAMers. Politico reports:
“The prize that many Democrats would like to secure is protecting Dreamers — Americans who came with their families to the U.S. at a young age and have since been protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program created by President Barack Obama in 2012.
“Trump himself expressed an openness to ‘do something about the Dreamers’ in a recent ‘Meet the Press’ interview. But he would almost certainly want significant policy concessions in return, including border security measures and changes to asylum law that Democrats have historically resisted.”
On a broader front, the New York Times has found significant support among Democratic governors to selectively cooperate with the new administration’s “mass deportation” plans in exchange for concessions:
“In interviews, 11 Democratic governors, governors-elect and candidates for the office often expressed defiance toward Mr. Trump’s expected immigration crackdown — but were also strikingly willing to highlight areas of potential cooperation.
“Several balanced messages of compassion for struggling migrants with a tough-on-crime tone. They said that they were willing to work with the Trump administration to deport people who had been convicted of serious crimes and that they wanted stricter border control, even as they vowed to defend migrant families and those fleeing violence in their home countries, as well as businesses that rely on immigrant labor.”
While the Democrats planning strategic cooperation with Trump are getting a lot of attention, it’s clear the bulk of elected officials and activists are more quietly waiting for the initial fallout from the new regime to develop while planning ahead for a Democratic comeback. This is particularly true among the House Democratic leadership, which hopes to exploit the extremely narrow Republican majority in the chamber (which will be exacerbated by vacancies for several months until Trump appointees can be replaced in special elections) on must-pass House votes going forward, while looking ahead with a plan to aggressively contest marginal Republican-held seats in the 2026 midterms. Historical precedents indicate very high odds that Democrats can flip the House in 2026, bringing a relatively quick end to any Republican legislative steamrolling on Trump’s behalf and signaling good vibes for 2028.
If offering pie-in-the-sky is the sine-qua-non of electability; if maintaining that denial IS a river in Egypt by ignoring the fiscal nightmare that 40-year olds are going to face before our anticipated (illusionary?) retirement someday is what it will take; well than I guess I am gratified my candidate is judged unelectable.
I have only failed to vote for a Democrat for President on one occason. That was a long time ago. But I have to tell you, if some of these Democrats get nominated — Gephardt for one — then I see our social contract disintegrating just as under Bush. So under that circumstance, I have to say, if it become every person for herself in this country … then I might not vote … or maybe even vote for Bush. What the hell, if the whole thing is going into the dumpster, I will personally be less hurt with the Repubs. It’s disgusting, but so is the level of fantasy and delusion being propounded by some of the would-be leaders of my party.
I wouldn’t vote for Lieberman if he became the nominee after hearing him say (Hardball) that the reason for the war was “transforming” the Middle East. Thats Crusader talk and he’s not putting up his children and grandchildren for that craziness. I have a daughter (age 17), and a 3 year old niece and a 1 year old nephew. I don’t want them or any other young people sent off to the Middle East.
I think Kerry and Gephardt are really hopeless candidates. They have no message that will inspire people.
Gosh, I leave the room for a day and all hell breaks out. Nice to see some new names and a good discussion.
To Brilliant and Frankly, it has never been my intention to suggest that the electability question was off the table. Quite the contrary, as I stated in my lengthy post at the beginning of the “Bush’s Approval Ratings” thread (to those who have not read it I hope you will take the time), I believe electability is really the only question.
Let me try to summarize my arguments over the past few weeks:
1) If the point is to beat Bush, I think we should try to keep the character attacks to a minimum.
Why? Because character attacks (like snow) tend to stick and accumulate over time. These types of attacks tend to define our candidates in negative terms. I have encouraged us to try to focus our advocacy on values, positions, experience, and electability; and to try to limit comments about truthfullness, authenticity, decency and integrity.
I believe that Dean has been on the receiving end of an inordinate number of character attacks from Lieberman, Kerry, and Gep. These guys have tried to justify their attacks by saying Dean is also critical. But look at the nature of the attacks on each side. Dean is portrayed as a flip-flopping liar; as compulsively angry; habitually pessimistic; he and his supporters are even accused of trying to cheat in the caucuses. On the other hand Dean’s primary criticism of the other candidates is 1) they voted for the war, and 2) they have not effectively opposed Bush and the Congressional Reps. The difference between the nature of these attacks should be obvious.
If Dean wins the nomination, inspite of the astounding abuse he has taken from the other candidates and the media, he will drag all these accusations along with him into the campaign against Bush. Given that Dean remains the most likely nominee of our party (although it has becoming increasingly likely to be a knock-down, drag-out fight), I consider character attacks to be disloyal to the party and destructive of our common goal of beating Bush.
2) Let’s argue electability, but let’s do it intelligently. Over the past few months, I have seen far to many people here and elsewhere simply assume that Dean is a general election disaster without making a thoughtful case. This superficial analysis has congealed into a type of conventional wisdom.
Ruy, makes it clear that he accepts this position, but has never presented a fully developed argument. Even in this post he suggests that Gep is “less likely to get creamed” than Dean. I think such an assertion is extremely wrong-headed and misses the country’s mood and key aspects of the electoral picture.
I am trying to get Ruy and the rest of you to make, rather than assume, your argument.
3) I have tried repeatedly to explain the reasons I believe the conventional wisdom may very well be wrong. Again, I would ask you all to read my lengthy post at the beginning of the “Bush’s Approval Ratings” thread below.
Let the debate continue, and try to treat each other with respect.
Those of us here are not representative of the public’s degree of interest.
The true campaign won’t start until W, who has plenty to answer for, stands up and debates the Dem nominee.
Joe Lieberman is routinely booed at campaign events yet the magazine endorsed him. The GOP has been mopping up the floor with Dick Gephardt for almost 15 years and now he’s being challenged for missing 90% of the votes in Congress last year. Wesley Clark was fired from the job that supposedly makes him such a giant killer. John Edwards seems to have a voodoo curse on him that prevents him from making any progress despite doing everything right. And the guy who was everyone’s dream candidate a year ago, John Kerry it turns out couldn’t campaign his way out of a wet paper bag.
Howard Dean is the only potential nominee that DOESN’T give me nightmares when I think about the general election.
When I look at the success of the GOP in over the last fifteen years the names Gingrich, Norquist, Delay, Reed and Rove come to mind. Who are the Democratic analogues.
With the exception of Clinton, they are only recently emerging: Steve Rosenthal, Eli Pariser and Joe Trippi. The minds on our side that show effective strategic thinking and dynamism equal the strategists on the other side aren’t coming from the Lieberman wing of the party. And Dick Gephardt hasn’t done much more than play punching bag to Gingrich and then Delay – on defining the issues, on legislation, on Congressional elections, on fundraising, on controlling K-Street, etc. Why would I think he could out hustle (in the Pete Rose sense) Bush/Rove?
Sure I’ll close ranks no matter who our nominee is, but that doesn’t mean I think that any one but Dean or maybe Edwards could pump life into the party.
Cheryl and the others: don’t conflate all anti-Dean supporters with the DLC and some Clinton bogeyman. It’s not accurate. I bet 90% of the supporters of other candidates don’t even know what the DLC is. This is inside baseball. And all the DLC can do nowadays is write policy briefs, anyway.
You and other Dean supporters have created a scapegoat. And if Dean wins, we’ll all be behind him. And if he doesn’t, the party will not die. Come on, lighten up.
http://www.tnr.com/deanophobe.mhtml
This hits the nail on the head!
So if Dean weren’t the Democratic nominee, who would you vote for? Nader, or?
This has got to be the biggest misconception for the Democratic Party.
all Democrats should realize that, whether or not he gets nominated and, if nominated, whether or not he gets elected, his campaign has made a signal contribution to revitalizing the Democratic party.
If Dean is offed, no will revive what Dean had, not even Clark. Dean was right, many of voters were not transferable.
Thus, if Dean did not exist, the party, if it really wanted to move forward, would have to invent him.
Really — some how that’s not reality. Kerry couldn’t have invented the gift that Dean.
The party should think long and hard before dumping Dean…
The Party won’t recover if they do. As for me, this is not an anybody but Bush campaign. Clark is Clintons control device-I want no part of it.
It’s like Pat Buchanan said -there is a need for new Party. DLC chairman Al From and Clinton don’t represent me anymore…
They don’t represent a lot of us.
Great article from Confessore. Couldn’t agree more. I am a Dean supporter almost entirely because Dean’s campaign makes me feel like there is hope for the Democratic party. The attacks on Dean by the Democratic Legislator candidates seems to me their dying gasps. And they are not doing Rove’s job for him. If Dean survives this, they have taken away most of the Republican’s ammunition, since by the time this primary is over, all these attacks will be tired old news to the peasant liberal majority (of which I am a proud member!) and the independent and moderate swing voters will likley have already made up their minds before the Democratic Convention. And as for electibility of Dean, well, as someone else already said here, who’s got a better shot? (I am particularly happy, however, to see Lieberman crash and burn so spectacularly.)
Hey, Frankly0 and BrilliantIdiot:
I don’t see where Upper Left argued that Dean’s electability should be offf the table. Instead, he argued that character assassinations should be off the table. I’m not sure I agree with him, but it’s a legitimate claim.
What he does say about electability is that he doesn’t see much rational argument or evidence brought to bear in the claims about Dean’s unelectability. I would add that this is especially true in the real question: electability in comparison to the other candidates. Before Clark got in the race, this argument just seemed laughable to me: What, Kerry or Lieberman or Geppy are more electable?
With Clark in the race, I can see how one could make the argument that the good general is more electable, but I still think that Dean is more likely to beat Bush.
Indeed, this is the only reason I support Dean.
Yeah, upper left is off base completely – I am impervious to spin – I’m a spinmeister myself, professionally – and I personally thought (before coverage) that Gore was stiff, and I think Dean is often a sourpuss, and yes, frequently too angry, which turns people off. Anger does not persuade, it only motivates the converted. And it feels so good to the angry. Most people aren’t angry – but I digress…..
Of course most journalists are part of the problem; their performance is inexcusable. But GOP attacks wouldn’t work if they weren’t somehow believeable. You couldn’t attack Clinton as being stiff.
Upper left,
You really make no case for your notion that the issue of Dean’s electability should, essentially, be off limits.
I think it’s obvious enough that there have been candidates, both Democratic and Republican, who won their primaries, and lost the general election in a landslide that might easily have been predicted and prevented. In California, Republicans have won primaries by engaging the support of the fairly extreme party base, only to lose the general precisely because of the ideological tilt of the candidate. McGovern and Dukakis are widely regarded as similar examples for the Democrats.
Are you saying that this apparent phenomenon is not real? That we shouldn’t discuss it, except retrospectively? That “electability” is inherently unknowable? Could the defeat of McGovern have been predicted in advance? If so, should it have been prevented if possible?
What are you saying?
I just got through reading one of the best articles I have seen on the coverage (insert “pummeling”) Dean has gotten from the media. The piece is by Eric Boelhert at Salon.com and is titled “Howard Dean vs. the Media” (www.salon.com/news/index.html).
One of the things I find most interesting is the degree to which accusations and psuedo-analysis that starts with the RNC ends up infiltrating the thinking of Democratic activists. I don’t know how many people I have read here and on blogs across the net repeating the same distortions and theories. Karl Rove is inside our brains, which is a very scary thought.
The Reps have raised character assasination to an art form. What they did to Gore was truly amazing. What irks me is seeing Lieberman and so many other Dems doing Rove’s job for him. I have said it repeatedly on this site, and I will continue to say it everywhere I post: it is fine for the Dems to fight over values, policy, and experience, but we should be careful about engaging in attacks on character.
Given that Dean is running only 6-10 points behind Bush in head-to-head polling (Clinton was 20 points behind at this point in ’92), and that he is doing as well or better than any of the other Dems in such polls, it would be nice if everyone (this includes you Ruy) would be a little more circumspect in their pronouncements of Dean’s lack of electablity. Let the debate on these issues continue.
QUESTION FOR RUY: Have you seen any polls that break out demographics and geography on Dean vs. Bush and Clark vs. Bush?
Matty, the Brown-Black debate was sponsored by the Iowa Black and Brown Forum, a non-partisan minority group. The Black and Brown Forum was founded and named by Latino community leaders, not by the Democratic party.
The Forum invites presidential primary candidates to speak in its debates every election, though Republican candidates have historically turned down the invitation.
People miss the hope in Dean because he’s fairly dry and sometimes sour in his tone.
He has the “words” of hope and optimism (read his speeches) – but not the “music”. Dean fans I communicate with never seem to agree that there’s a distinction there. I think this accounts for a lot of the misunderstanding between pro and anti Dean factions.
Another way of saying it is not seeing the distinction between projection and reality – in other words, the candidate emotionally moves *you* — that doesn’t mean others are moved. Or want to be moved. Or want to be moved in the same way. Etc. And there are regional and cultural differences in these preferences
Thanks, for the link to two very interesting articles. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed, but feel that Confessore misses a crucial point:
Yes, the grassroots is angry at Bush, and angry at how ineffectual the “Democratic establishment” has been in opposing Rule-by-the-Right. Yes, Dean has been the best at articulating and appealing to that anger. However, Dean does more than express anger; he offers hope. He speaks of restoring our democracy; taking back our country from the corporate elite; returning moral purpose to our foriegn policy; and, as corny as it sounds, he even offers us a chance to take back the flag and restore a sense of patriotism.
The media gets the anger, but they seem to miss the hope. The anger stirs the Dem base, but the message of hope is a powerful beacon to middle Americans that cuts across left-right idealogy. This positive, populist message is the single most important reason I think the CW on electability is quite possibly wrong.
Bless Carol Mosely Braun. She’s the only one who seems to understand that he healing and unifications needs to begin. Did they cut away to commercial last night or did the other candidates fail to answer her question as to whether they would all support the Dem candidate, regardless of who he or she is?
At this point, we haven’t had the first vote (except Michigan?) and I’m pretty much fed up with all the candidates except Braun. Too many freaking debates. Get on with it. And may the last man standing be able to sit down despite buck shot up his ass.
Ruy: Thanks for linking to those two terrific articles. What’s amazing to me is that it took until recently (the Medicare debacle) for most Washington professionals and insiders to figure out how bad things were for Democrats. Howard Dean likes to say something like “If I could figure out from way up in Burlington that Iraq was no threat to America, why couldn’t the Washington Democrats figure it out?”
I’d suggest a parallel: “If all of us rank-and-file Democrats out here (and Dean) could figure out that our leadership was useless a year ago, why did it take all the professionals this long to figure it out?”
I mean, seriously. Maybe this isn’t the smartest approach, but whenever the insiders (including you, Ruy, no offense) talk about how Dean is unelectable, I just think, “Well, why should I listen to you people? You don’t even recognize today’s reality, so why would I think you have any standing to predict the future?”
Thanks, Ruy, for the links. The meta-message of your post is more important, however, which is that Dean very well may get the nomination and therefore it is now time to for the party to mend its wounds and stop the extreme carping. The Democratic nominee must have the enthusiastic support of everyone in the party and the independents to get Bush out.
Ruy,
Would love to know what you think about the Laura Blumenfeld article in today’s Post about Grover Norquist, who’s sort of your mirror in this world, since he’s pushing for a “permanent Republican majority” and you’re pushing for an EDM.
One of you must be wrong. If the Dems lose big in the fall, they’ll have gotten slaughtered three Novembers in a row (altho 2003 was only a mini-slaughter).
Comments? Can a party be a majority when it holds an offensively named, divisive “Iowa Black and Brown Debate” that starts off in the Spanish language? Discuss.