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.
In reply to Marcus’ post above, first, Kerry has been talking about particular aspects of homeland security, such as rail system security, that have obviously been neglected by Bush.
Re the threat of a terrorist attack, it’s a disconcerting subject to consider. But if one were in al qaeda’s position wouldn’t one want a second term for Bush?
He gives them the best of both worlds: he is the ideal, straight-from-central-casting villain whose presence in office has aided al qaeda recruiting immensely.
Yet at the same time he and his Administration are incompetent, permitting al qaeda to recover and grow as the US flounders in Iraq. His actions and words have created discord with many countries that would presumptively (under a competently managed campaign against al qaeda) be working hand in glove with us in a focused, top-priority campaign now. At the same time, his Administration’s actions have made it far more difficult for us to obtain the critically needed support of as many as possible of the governments and peoples of majority Muslim nations in that effort.
He is so widely and deeply despised and discredited around the world that there now appears to be no possibility that he would be able to effectively harness world governmental and public efforts to combat al qaeda in a second term.
So I’m ready if and when a Bush-leaner tries to snow me with the BS assertion al qaeda would want Kerry to win because he is supposedly softer on combating them than Bush.
The other points I may make in response to such an argument are twofold: 1) why would we think the people who got us into this awful situation are the ones to get us out, particularly when they appear to be incapable of acknowledging, let alone learning anything, from their mistakes? 2) Since when do Americans let al qaeda or the views of others outside of this country affect how we vote? If we believe Bush is a screwup, which he is, and that we can and must do far better, which we can, then we, as in we Americans, will vote for this change. We simply do not have to put up with inept leadership.
If al qaeda has an interest in helping Bush and they have the capability of doing so, why wouldn’t they try?
To my way of thinking the possibility of an Administration attempt to declare martial law in the wake of terrorist attacks which disrupt the election, while remote, is not beyond the realm of possibility. Why? Only because this is an Administration which combines a heavily authoritarian manner of governing (evidenced in so many ways over 3 1/2 years) with a messianic sense of itself and sense of certitude in the rightness of its decisions which is deeply removed from reality.
The other major potential wildcard factor that can at this time easily be foreseen is, by contrast, one where immediate action is necessary: a) an effective, coordinated effort to prevent tampering with election equipment and vote tabulation processes b) ensuring there is a backup paper trail for electronic voting machines wherever they will be used. If and where there are no backup paper trails, it should be obvious that anyone who seeks to challege the results via a recount is going to be SOL.
What would knowledgeable viewers recommend as specific courses of action we ordinary citizens can take to help ensure ballot integrity?
I hope the above is taken in a “failure is not an option” spirit stemming from a determination to prevail under any set of circumstances, rather than as a prediction that these grim scenarios will play out. I remain cautiously optimistic (counting myself in neither the “it’s ours to lose” camp nor the “it’s Bush’s to lose” camp at this point) about our chances to win a free and fair election while recognizing this is an unusual and highly dynamic time in our history.
QED, James. When you write, it’s always about the bad things that are about to happen to the Democrats. I don’t want good people to be discouraged by your constant negativity. If you’re not a troll, find something positive to say. If you are a troll, well, that would explain a lot.
> I’m really scared about, from both a human and a
> narrowly political perspective, is a large-scale
> terrorist attack in Sept or Oct; the rally effect will
> certainly exceed the feeling that Bush did not protect
> us, at least for the first few weeks– and that’s all he’ll
> need.
I worry about this too — although the negative impact could be somewhat alleviated if it turns out the Administration’s partly at fault e.g. by previously cutting budgets or neglecting the particular issue that was exploited by the terrorists.
If I were Kerry, I would already be screaming like crazy about the absurdity of spending hundreds of billions on INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE and invading Iraq. The real issue is homeland security, which “Shrub” hasn’t been that interested in.
Having said that, I agree the President probably would benefit from another spectacular terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Sigh.
MARCU$
Ron, who ever said they “minded” me in the first place? Why are you trying to stir up trouble and spread lies? Because you have nothing valuable of your own to say? That’s obvious whether I’m here or not. You totally destroyed this thread just to make yourself seem like you have a purpose. Why? What’s your agenda?
I’ve seen the media save Bush’s hide time and time again. All of this talk about Sadr’s fighters backing down in Najaf and about how momentous 6/30 will be and how the economy is wonderful and Americans will realize that once Iraq dies down, about how gay marriage is such a crucial issue, that Bush has trumped Kerry on Iraq, they’re exactly the same, why isn’t Kerry doing better in the polls, etc. all this is designed to tip the race to Bush. And slowly but surely, that seems to be happening. The election is so far away.
The most damning numbers for Bush might be the Red/Blue/Purple state breakdowns in the Gallup poll. Bush’s lead in the Red states–states that should be reliably Republican–is not very large, 51 to 43 without Nader, 48 to 42 with Nader (note that Nader, somewhat oddly, seems to help Kerry in the Red states). Kerry’s lead in the Blue Democratic states, however, stands at 55 to 38 without Nader, 54 to 37 with Nader. If Bush’s support in traditionally Republican states is as soft as the Gallup poll indicates, he might be in some real trouble because he will have to fight to keep those states (particularly states that have tended to be less Republican in recent years, e.g., Arizona, if it is not already considered a battleground) in his column, assuming these trends hold. And one should probably assume that the trends will hold, given the large numbers of voters who are firmly committed to one candidate or another. Kerry’s not finished yet, but you have to think that he’s looking pretty good.
about 50% of the polls i’ve seen are a dead heat, and the other 50% are Kerry w/ about a 5 point lead. i don’t think i’be seen one where Kerry is ahead by 2 or 3 points though.
So…why did I hear on MSNBC last night that the latest polls show Kerry and Bush stuck at 46-46. I don’t get it. Actually, Bush is sinking and Kerry is holding steady or pulling ahead, but according to MSNBC it’s a dead heat! Dead wrong. I’m sick of it.
Realclearpolitics.com says that the only reason that the CBS poll has such low Bush numbers is that CBS over-weights Democrats. And indeed the CBS methodology explanation on their poll detail page at http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/poll_052404.pdf assumes a 36/30/34 D/R/Ind split. Does anybody knowledgable have an opinion on this?
Has anyone looked at the Zogby Interactive battleground states poll? If it’s accurate, it’s great news for Kerry, but I wonder if it’s reliable given that the polling was conducted by e-mail.
I’d agree Bush is pretty near the GOP electoral floor — even Goldwater only did a few points below the CBS 41. The only thing that could reduce him further — and this is something that wouldn’t show up in polls, wouldn’t be apparent until Election Day — would be significant voter abstention by traditional (but disgusted) Republicans. When you hear Tom Clancy (and his ilk) saying how difficult it would be for him to support Bush, you don’t figure this foretells a switch to Kerry, but you might project he represents a certain percentage that simply doesn’t have the heart to turn out for Bush. Such a stay-home factor could skew the percentages by making Dem voters a far greater percentage of the electorate than usual; this could put Bush below the normal party-split numbers we assume govern most elections.
Keith,
most likely the nadir for Bush, but there is a tipping point Bush could reach. If it appears that Bush is sinking the ship (and 41% is sinking the GOP ship) regional congress critters might jump off the SS Bush, which would lead to lower numbers I believe.
Not likely, but at this rate not impossible.
Don’t mind James–he’s always there with his pessimistic point of view. He’s not an overt troll, just a guy who consistently attempts to decrease morale by predicting that events will soon break Bush’s way. Maybe he’ll be right one of these days–a stopped clock is right twice a day.
If independents are leaning so strongly towards Kerry and all he needs is a much smaller margin among indies to almost guarantee that he will win the election, then why is Kerry running barely ahead overall?
Make that “kicking and screaming” although I like the other one better.
One of the problems we have is that the media insists on representing all of these polls as problems…for Kerry! With all this bad news, why isn’t he further ahead?
On local DC TV last night, Derek McGinty did a segment on “Kerry Disconnect”. He had a local Dem pollster as a guest and, frankly, the guy wasn’t very good. McGinty kept going after the lack of Kerry lead and even represented Iraq as a negative-“why should we change horses, now that Bush is calling for international involvement, too?”
The Dem had little ability to respond. I kept screaming at him to point out that Bush had been dragged kinking and screaming to Kerry’s position, but McGinty’s belief that Kerry has to change his position solely because Bush took it ruled the conversation.
The exchange was something that Bob Somerby would have a field day with on his site had it occured in a national forum.
Since no incumbent has ever been blown out this early in a campaign; I don’t understand the belief of many that these numbers are horrible for Kerry. The lack of traction is due to the vacuum Iraq creates. The news is all Bush all the time. If Kerry were actually sniping constantly, I think he’d run the risk of appearing to “hate America” and his negatives would rise.
My only fear, and it’s a big one, is that Kerry won’t have a big enough lead to offset the Gore-ing the media’s going to pull on him later in the campaign. Th RNC will leak some insignificant item, and the press will give it the same play they’re currently giving Iraq.
pangolin, the Rethugs are already whipping up the fear-mongering over unknown, unnamed terrorists again. That will drive up Bush’s support. Bush’s speech got very good marks from the Joe Sixpack crew. That will help his numbers. The media has never really let him be seen as losing or slipping anyway, they always say that Kerry is in a worse situation. Kerry hasn’t given a strong policy on Iraq, and even if he did, the media would ignore or distort the policy. The public knows Bush and already seem to be flocking back to him to some degree.
The closer we get to 6/30 and after 6/30 the less the media focuses on the negatives in Iraq and the more willing the public is to ignore the issue, or accept it as some kind of muted victory. Meanwhile, Bush and the media can reframe the debate on issues that will suit Bush, like bullying people into believing the economy is fantastic, and like getting people scared to death over same-sex marriage.
We’re entering a period very soon where Bush will most likely rebound in all the major polls. I hope I’m wrong but it seems like the worst has passed and Kerry and the Democrats are still going nowhere fast.
Hmmm … the two 47s actually drag up the moving average on the approval rating, don’t they? Kerry’s been doing very well at the Iowa Electronic Markets (he’s on 0.493), but my guess is that he tops out there. My guess is that we should be looking for a couple of polls giving Bush approval >50 in the pretty near future; I’d agree with Ruy that the long-term momentum is looking pretty sick for Bush, but things appear to have overextended themselves on the downside for the near term.
Hey this is just the start. Kerry wins big Demo’s get congress back. The gop is only in control of the supremes and time is not on there side CrazyR
Blogs: the Kerry campaign can and should do what it likes with its wholly owned blog; we should hold it to different standards from those of partisan, but unaffiliated, blogs and fora.
Horse race: yeah, the numbers will bounce around; what we need is for people who have already realized that Bush can’t do the job not to go back on that realization. A couple more weeks of negative news may be all it takes.
Future events: if we stay in Iraq, we keep getting hit; that’s horrible news for the country and for our brave soldiers, but good news for our chances of firing the misleader who got us into this mess. If we leave, Bush looks weak, and people who think we’re out of danger feel free to vote on domestic issues; if Bush wants an election based entirely on those, bring it on. What I’m really scared about, from both a human and a narrowly political perspective, is a large-scale terrorist attack in Sept or Oct; the rally effect will certainly exceed the feeling that Bush did not protect us, at least for the first few weeks– and that’s all he’ll need.
Permit me to interrupt the squabbling around the sand box. We’re talking about polling numbers here and in the previous post it was all about the Pres’ speech of last night.
I believe Bush’s numbers are going to go back up and probably pretty soon. Everything I hear and read tells me that the “sovereign” Iraqi government is going to tell the US and Britain to take a hike; probably before our election in Nov.. Bush and Blair will hear that and run like thieves. The neo-cons will probably go nuts that we’re cutting and running but most of the GOP will breath a huge sigh of relief.
Kerry has to be ready for that. He should now be getting to the right of Bush regarding the situation in Afghanistan. When Bush announces his premature withdrawal, he should jump on him with both feet for creating a mess then leaving it for the Iraqis to clean up. The middle will like that, even if the far right and left don’t.
Mencken,
Actually, I visit a number of conservative blogs, and find that there are a few brave liberal souls who come to debate us. They are not banned or deleted unless they use obscene language, and I have fun debating the liberals who don’t curse. To be fair, I have encountered many conservatives who use foul language as well, and I avoid associating with them.
of course republicans silence dissent w/i their own blogs/party. dems are supposed to be better.
not sure what the deal w/ neofascist was, but I do know that the kerry campaign is systematically deleting posts as well as bloggers who have the ultimate temerity to criticize it.
Well, take a look at the conservative blogs, my friend.. pure democracy, just like Florida 2000.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/25/eveningnews/main619558.shtml
Are there any limits to the conservatives greed and corruption? If this leaks out to the American people I’d say Bush is toast.
I heard Neo’s back. You’re forgiven.
You banned NeoFascist?. So this is how you handle opposing viewpoints; you silence and eliminate them. Looks like someone’s spent too much time reading the Communist Manifesto.