The News and Observer reports that “In what may be the closest presidential race in the state since 1992, Democrat John Kerry is within 3 percentage points of President Bush in a new poll”.
Thanks for signing up!
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
tds-wwc-roundtable
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
December 18: Democratic Strategies for Coping With a Newly Trumpified Washington
After looking at various Democratic utterances about dealing with Trump 2.0, I wrote up a brief typology for New York:
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.
If you can’t beat ’em, (partially) join ’em
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.
Join ’em (very selectively) to beat ’em
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.
Aim at the dead center
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.
Cut a few deals to mitigate the damage
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.”
Hang tough and aim for a Democratic comeback
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.
As of “flip-flopper”: Remember that it worked last time around. They called it “reinventing himself” and it was devastating. Dubya makes much of his “staying the course”. He never takes back anything, no matter how wrong or stupid it might occur. That’s the reason why he will never throw out Cheney or Rumsfeld.
The sad thing is: The electorate seems to have liked this stubbornness so far. Fortunately there are some indications that this is changing. But I wouldn’t bet on it. The “reinventing”-charge against Gore only fully blossomed in September und October.
It looks like someone finally polled Colorado but it is not yet on their web site. Survey USA says Colorado is tied 47-47. I saw this at 2.004k.com.
Looking at 2 sites that give good state by state data we find that Kerry is doing better than expected in AK, TN., VA, WVA, OH and now NC.
Kerry’s choice of Edwards could now be made to pay off big time if Chris Lehane would schedule Edwards on a continuous circuit of travel that covered AK., TN, NC, western VA, WVA and south east OH. Those are areas where Edwards’ populist politics flavored with his religious values will resonate.
Even if such a stategy were not entirely successful, it would move the numbers and grab enough media attention to force the Bush campaign to respond with money and Bush’s time. Bush doesn’t need that.
Ahh Ed..
You cant let the likes of Bush and the other “christians” in the white house determine your thoughts, feelings and perspectives on christianity. If you are a Bible reader or a reader of the life and times of Christ, you will quickly realise that Judas had his close moments with Christ too but… alas, the money. I dont think that many people deliberately fashion their christianity off of Judas’ but because of greed and a distinctly singular purpose in life, some become replicas of Judas. They will lie, cheat, steel and deceive to obtain their purpose. If you are following these elections, you will know exactly what I mean. I dont need to spell out anything here.
So Bush’s style should not affect your style, just like it didnt affect Peter and James and John and the other members of the crew.
And then there is the Thomas approach where a person need answers and evidence. In the eyes of some, this is a wishy washy christian, however in the eyes of others, Thomas might more fit the researcher/scientist mold. Its about perspectives, purposes and causes.
So naaaaaah…. dont let him make you wonder what christianity is… you didnt let Judas, so why Bush. We cant let people mislead us with this born again phrasing. The excellent thing about Christianity is that its a life style and hence you know people by how they walk. You also know how you are progressing by how you walk and what makes it even more excellent is that people walk differently and hence we will have differing approaches to the same subject. Ask Peter and Paul (EX-SAUL).
What I also love about Christianity is that it suits humble people really well, cause it allows you to make mistakes, to totally screw up and then take a step back, review the last move and try again.
For the arrogant and the fundamentals however, its a rigid, stiff, do or die thing. So you live in this proverbial straight jacket and you try to commit suicide everytime you mess up and in this life you will mess up billions of times. Ask Peter.
So keep trucking Ed.. Dont let your spiritual eyes rest on Bush and his “born again” phenomenon. Keep the focus… and you know where.
Cheers
“Its this brand of christianity which causes people to be sympathetic to evil and evil doers.”
This is so true with me! I thought things were going to be special with Bush because he was a “born again” Christian. And then, I guess it was a few months, after 911 my attitude changed about him and now I have serious questions about just what Christianity is?
Hey Mimiru… I catch your strong objection but it was meant to imply Bush’ style of christianity, where he shakes hand with the truth from an eternal distance.
I cant quite grip why they dont understand that thinkers wont hold fast to the flip/flopper thing on elections day.
Lets face it, who would prefer a perpetrator of terminological inexactitudes to a flip flopper? I am sure the filp flopper wins everyday. Its so hard to trust a person who lies constantly and its worse when that person juggles the lies perpetually and hence never confesses. You cant want a worse person… How frightening.
Is sure does amaze me though that the evangelicals who support the GOP so strongly are not “christian” enough to come out and declare that this administration does not wallow in the truth. I just cannot comprehend how they can sit so stoically on TV and proclaim the gospel, reaching souls for Christ and still support an administration and a person that appears so evil.
Its this brand of christianity which causes people to be sympathetic to evil and evil doers. Its because they cant find the line that divides the righteous from the unrighteous and as such they cant tell who they should be supporting. Its a pity.
I have posted a few times that this brand of Christianity is such a debgerous tool in the hands of a master like Bush. It makes it even more dangerous because the evangelicals support him and they have such huge followings in the US and across the world that they can quite easily create a mass following which can make this earth and even more dangerous place to live.
Change is essential. It cant be pleasant to have this kinda thing happening to the world. I support Christianity but I like the style that Chirst portrayed. So until we get someone with that level of balance lets keep Bush away from being a perpetrator.
“but directly with Bush’s christian approach to truth”
I object to that pretty strongly. Don’t tar all Christians with a single Bush, er brush. Many of us object to Bush, its just the vocal crackpots who get all the press.
Bel,
Re “flip/flopping” – you are taking the rational, adult attitude. The sorry truth is that any dumb ass negative label will do – the point is to find something that sounds bad, not to find a reason that stands up to rational analysis. I remember when I was eleven years old and our whole class was calling each other “nose-breather!” “oh, yeah? well you’re a mouth-breather!” That, unfortunately, is often the level of debate we will get in american politics.
I could never understand this “Flip/flopper” thing either. I remember GW’s Daddy doing that with Clinton, weeks upon weeks of staged rallies with everyone waving little American flags and daddy Bush calling Clinton a flip/floppper. It didn’t work then either. I seem to remember, during Kerry’s primary campaign, Barbara Bush saying something to the affect that she is seeing the same thing happening to her son that happened to her husband in the loss to Clinton. I don’t know what exactly she meant by that but maybe she knew something that we will find out.
I am always examining Kerry’s approach and wondering this and that about his campaign. While I may only comment on Kerry’s approach, I do take good long looks at Bush’s approach too.
From what I have seen for the past 6 – 8 months, I am of the distinct impression that Karl Rove and crew are actually painting Bush into a corner. They are removing his attack capability and are not providing any defense for him.
They have limited Bush to attacking Kerry on small and almost insignificant issues, have not taken the time to hoist any new programs onto the political platform, have not created the positives out of Bush’ record and have not given him something about himself to market. When I do the analysis, I can see that their approach is going to leave Bush doing a hop scotch in order to move himself from the acute and sharp angles of that corner.
I am not sure why they decided to brand Kerry as a flip flopper because people reserve the rights to change their minds on any issue as many times as they see fit. Especially if conditions and times warrant such. So targetting Kerry’s voting patterns over the past 20 years cannot be a genuine reason not to vote for him. He must have won his senate term on more than one occassion over the past 20 years and as such, people must know how he votes by this time. I dont think its possible to find a single candidate who voted in exactly the same manner over the past 20 years. If such a person can be found, I would be bold enough to declare that such a person could not be representing the people’s interest unless the electorate never changed, times never changed etc.. etc.. In this regard every candidate would have voted in different modes from time to time and in some instances in a non-partisan manner. To me therefore, its wasted energy to keep harping on a flip flopping Kerry. It seems elementary, infantile and blatantly childish.
With regard to Iraq, I am sure that the electorate recognised a long time ago that Iraq is indeed a complex issue. Notably, they will have recognised that its complexity has nothing to do with Saddam or WMDs but directly with Bush’s christian approach to truth. In this regard, then the electorate does not expect Kerry to act in any manner contrary to the information given. I am pretty certain that his vote is reflected in the varying degrees of indecision exhibited by most of the other senators. So I am sure that when the analysis is done, it will show that he voted in similar vein to the core of senators.
Its really an insult to challenge the record of someone who actually found themselves in the line of fire because the Commander in Chief sent them. Its almost reprehensible that those who didnt get the opportunity to serve in the way that Kerry served can find the courage to challenge his record of service in the military. There will come a point when the electorate will recognise the “red-herring” that this challenge really is and will move on, leaving Bush with the red-herring in his hand, wondering what really happened.
I have also noted in another post that the anti-kerry issues which Bush has raised over the past 8 months have not really taken hold on the ground. In the recent past, the swift boat issue has not really taken off and it has left Brit Hume on Fox lamenting that the main stream media did not take up the swift book story and run with it. Of course they did take it up but they did not do the kinda home run which he was expecting.
In like manner, the direct question that Bush posed on Iraq to Kerry seems to have fizzled also. I agree that Kerry’s answer is still being deciphered, translated, extrapolated, studied etc.. etc. but the focus is no longer on Bush as a challenger but on Kerry in trying to clear his position on the issues. From just about every report that I have read, the writers all seem to be wanting Kerry to give a simple answer and move along. Alas, Kerry has not yet had his meeting with simple answers, so for now, he muddles things, smile and walk away.
I also think that Karl and crew did not make plans for a stalwart challenge from groups such as move-on.org and hence they are not responding to these groups successfully.
Finally, Karl and crew never did get around to finding a new agenda for George. Unfortunately, this has relagated him to rehashing old programs. I cant wait to hear the output from the coming convention.
I am not sure what the GOP plans to do but at this very moment, they are painting poor George into a corner and I suspect that he will be upset with quite a few people very soon. We may see some changes in the team before election day.
By the way… what has become of Mrs. C. Rice and Mr. C. Powell? The Don is surfacing again but this might not be a good idea.
Cheers
“Beforeth the Fall, goeth Pride.”
Be very wary, we are against an Enemy who knows no bounds.
Maybe this one check it out.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
One by one the Battleground States are falling into Kerry’s lap and the ‘new’ Battleground States are those that use to be solid red. There’s an Electoral Vote Map page I’ve been following in which Ohio and Florida went from Barely Bush to Weak Kerry in the last week. Sorry, I don’t have the URL handy but it should be pretty easy to Google.
This is great. I moved to MA from NC but kept my residence in NC so I can vote there. Now it seems like my vote might actually count.
Yeah it close, a dead heat…if you don’t count the undecided. I can just see Giuliani, Shwarzenegger and McCail swaying those undecided voter – “George Bush is not as bad as you thought, four more years of this.”
Well, let us not get overconfident.
Kerry’s advantage in current polls is very slight,
and Bush has plenty of chance to make it up with
his convention coming up.
This is just incredibly good news. If this keeps going on like that it will mean unfavorable press coverage in the fall for Bush, no matter how close the national polls. “Why does he have to campaign in this red state, why in that red state?” and so on.
Let’s hope we’re still standing on Monday, September 13th. (I’m confident, though. It’s terribly difficult for Bush to exploit 9/11 for political reasons.) And I hope Kerry studies the Gore debates carefully (sigh, sigh..)
NC has been becoming more and more open to dems.
There are a lot of military families there, there are a lot of transplants from points north and west…I think they should definitely spend some time there.
I just went down to see my family, and I noticed at least one Kerry sticker, several support our troops get rid of Bush type stickers and as far as my father is concerned -a lifelong republican, voted for Bush last time- he’s not sure what he’s going to do this election. He’s thinking voting Libertarian or not at all!
I hope Kerry’s campaign takes advantage of this positive polling news, and keeps fighting for those southern votes. The south doesn’t belong to Bush, unless you assume it does.
I have to think that campaigning in North Carolina in September was pretty high on Unka Karl’s list of Things We Don’t Want To Have To Do.
More and more good news for Kerry. One important thing to note is that many of the undecideds will give Kerry a hard look and the majority will vote for him. That inherent nature translates into an even bigger lead for Kerry.
Look at the electoral college… the swing states are poised to go for Kerry and he may pick a few red states off as well.
As it stands now, Kerry has a solid lead in that there seems to be little hope of Bush gaining any ground. I wish the election would end sooner rather than later, though!
I noticed that this poll says that there is 7% undecided. So, if it is true what they say about undecided voters usually voting for the new man Kerry would be on top in North Carolina.