A September 9th Zogby International Poll of Maine LV’s for the Portland Press Herald and the Maine Sunday Telegram has Kerry tied with Bush at 43 percent, with 3 percent for Nader and 10 percent undecided.
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.
I think many of you are overreacting to this.
Generally, the poll has a small sample and probably
isn’t reliable. But if we take it at face value,
it gives roughly the result we should expect.
Maine is a state that is a few percent better for
Kerry than the national average, so he will win Maine
by a few percent if the national result is very close (and
by more if he has an edge nationally); with
current polls showing that Kerry is a few percent behind nationally, it is not surprising that Maine would be close.
I think Maine was expected to lean Kerry’s way, but not overwhelmingly. A Bush victory there is possible, but I don’t think very likely. My guess (and like all my predictions is only a guess) is that Kerry will win statewide but Bush might get an extra electoral vote.
Was this expected to be a battleground state?
Apparently the mere mention of ancient text killed the thread.
Back on topic:
Maine has 4 electoral votes and they split.
Kerry will outpoll Bush, there, however.
Publius,
Nom de plume of John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in their excellent 87 essays, published in the colonies as support and explanation for the newly created Constitution of 1787.
That type of thoughtful written argument by politicos in power is seldom if ever seen these days.
Every time I hear some Republican start talking about what the founding fathers wanted, I always ask if they have read the Federalist Papers. Anyone who is serious about original intent must read and assimilate them.
It’s one poll, taken not too long after the GOP convention. It doesn’t mean we have to “fight for Maine”.
Maine was always “in play” to the limited extent that, because of the electoral vote allocation, there is the possibility that Bush could get one electoral vote corresponding to the Second (more rural) district. The First District, which includes Portland, is a solid Democrat District, which should give Kerry a wide enough margin to carry the state overall.
Considering the high number of French Canadians in upper Maine, it’s hard to see how an administration with such utter francophobia could have much support in this neck of America.
Yeah, ME is not a liberal state. It is very libertarian. Hell, Ross Perot almost won it in 1992. So, this is no surprise for this Dem.
Pardon my ignorance regarding Maine, but aren’t we basically talking about one or two electoral votes here? According to http://www.electoral-vote.com, “Maine is one of the two states that does not use a winner-take-all system for allocating its votes in the electoral college (Nebraska is the other one). The winner of each of the two congressional districts gets one, and the statewide winner gets the other two.”
Personally, I think the Colorado proposition which would do the same thing, and take effect immediately, might be a bigger threat to JFK ’04 than Maine.
Ryan, try not to post unless you have something to say.
As Alan R. correctly observes, Maine went for Gore by only 5 points, with Bush getting 44.6% of the 3-way vote, It’s not surprising that he’s at 43% now.
Ryan — It’s true that Kerry shouldn’t have to work on Maine, but at the same time, who would have thought Bush wouldn’t have locked down Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, Tennessee, and Arkansas?
The Zogby poll is undeniably bad news for Kerry-Edwards.
Maine should be a safe blue state, not in play 45 days out from Election Day.
If Kerry-Edwards has to work to lock-down Maine, hard to see KE ’04 winning.
Maine was actually pretty close (Gore by 5) in the 2000 election, the same margin by which he won Michigan and Pennsylvania. Perhaps because Kerry is from New England, people expect Maine to be a slam-dunk for him, but it really should be more in the “lean Kerry” category than “safe Kerry.”
Having said that, Bush’s 43% for an incumbent, at a highly opportune time for him (shortly after the RNC convention), suggests that Kerry should ultimately prevail in Maine.
2000 results:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html