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.
Marcus and Jeff (Jeff, not sure if you were responding in part to my comment): Just would like to clarify. My point was that the National Guard stuff is competing with what K/E are trying to say now. To the extent the National Guard coverage is being driven by 527s K/E cannot directly rein that in even if they would very much like to do so. If they did as you suggested, Marcus–make a public statement expressing their desire or intention to focus for the duration of this campaign on the issues voters are concerned about today–perhaps any 527s, with whom they cannot directly communicate, and other K/E supporters who are pushing more National Guard coverage would get the message and back off. Which of course guarantees nothing in terms of what the media decide to focus on.
I’m not aware of K/E voluntarily discussing Vietnam era events of late. This may be a situation where K/E’s efforts to get back control of the debate are being hurt by well-meaning pro-Kerry 527 groups and/or others.
Rasmussen polls daily and uses a three day rolling average for his daily numbers. Here is what they show:
————————————————-
***The Bush approval and disapproval numbers are exactly where they were before the Republican convention.
————————————————-
***The Bush v. Kerry numbers for voters are exactly where they were before the Republican convention.
————————————————-
Fox Dynamic poll
Fox reported RVs until after their August 4th poll showed Kerry gaining the lead. Once the RVs showed Bush losing the lead, Fox quit reporting their RV results and switched to the LV distinction. This is akin to discovering that Kerry is 6’3 and Bush is 5’9, so the Fox Pollster backs away until Bush APPEARS to be taller from this angle. Yeah, it is that BAD.
Fox shows Bush with only a two point lead TODAY, among LVs.
————————————————-
***Fox has Bush v. Kerry at two point race among LVs, clearly within the margin of error.
————————————————-
Tony makes a good point. As Ruy pointed out (trackback to http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000642.php) Kerry actually got a bump in the battleground. So the fact that ABC shows the race essentially tied in those states should mollify the hand-wringers.
And the ABC/Post poll shows the two tied among all voters in the battleground states. How much of what Bush did was to increase his strength in states he was going to win anyway?
OK, ABC is out. Taking a count again, for polls held at least in part after the convention, using RV’s when available, LV’s when not, we have:
CBS Bush +7 (Sept 6-8)
ABC Bush +6 (Sept 6-8)
Fox Bush +4% (LV, Sept 7-8)
Gallup Bush +1% (Sept 3-5)
ICR Kerry +1% (Sept 1-5)
There’s the question of what Labor Day is doing to all of this. And of whether the LV list (which favors Bush more) is better than the RV list. But this set has a median of Bush up by 4%. Hardly insurmountable.
I look forward to Ruy giving us a lot more insight on all of this.
Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. That’s most likely the election. And the debates.
Logan, I don’t think Inside politics is all that bad. I always found Judy Woodruff pretty fair and Bill Snider usually tilts to the left. Of course I think it is a little to early to say we have a front runner. If two weeks after the convention ALL the polls show a more than 5 point lead, than that could be true. Even then we have the debates. I heard that when Regan Ran against Carter that Carter had a double didget lead going into the debates then after the debates Carter was toast.
As far as the media declaring Bush the “frontrunner.” I knew this would happen.
I mean, didn’t we all?
When Kerry is ahead by 5 or 6% it is a virtual tie.
When Bush is ahead by 5 or 6% he is the “clear front runner.”
Truth is, Kerry should embrace his new “underdog status.” Let it be how he connects with people.
He can claim that, like the people, he is the underdog against corporate interests, et al.
He then should say, there are more of us then them.
P.S. I agree that he should stop talking about Vietnam. Christ Almighty. I wish he had never brought up fucking Vietnam.
Think about the irony. That pitiful country cost us the 1968 and 1972 elections. Imagine if it costs us 2004 as well.
P.P.S. I’m beginning to think that Kerry is a dipshit.
FYI,
ABC poll includes “leaners.”
Well someone’s wrong. Either Zogby, Rasmussen Economist and Fox or CBS, ABC, Newsweek and Time.
I understand how you can spin maybe one or two polls, but almost every mainstream poll coming out lately has Bush up. ABC and CBS came out today. both have Bush up by seven and nine respectively. Can all these polls be wrong at the moment?
> Just a followup comment. When the Republicans were
> trying to run Clinton out of town on a rail Carville
> used to say that the public wants to know what the
> politicians are going to do about their problems and
> has little use for politicians who want all the talk to be
> about themselves and who did what to whom when.
Precisely why Kerry needs to stop talking about Vietnam already… Sure, he is justifiably proud of his medals, but that’s no substitute for real policies and ideas. If he can present those to the American public (and avoid “Kerrymeandering” by giving simple, clear answers to questions) during the debates, he still has a good chance.
Fortunately, “Shrub” also has offered little but cliches and tired rhetoric for his political base.
MARCU$
Just a followup comment. When the Republicans were trying to run Clinton out of town on a rail Carville used to say that the public wants to know what the politicians are going to do about their problems and has little use for politicians who want all the talk to be about themselves and who did what to whom when. Something along those lines.
This sort of mindset says: when you come right down to it, our side just has better ideas about what to do to improve the lives of ordinary citizens. The public has for decades agreed. It continues to agree. When we offer our ideas in straightforward, digestible language that frames the choice clearly, we usually win.
Why is Bill Schneider of CNN allowed to lie about the polls on their little Inside Politics right wing biased show? All the legitimate polls show a close race, yet Mr. Schneider claimed, “Well, we can now say that Bush is the clear front runner.” Say what? Just recently Kerry was in the lead, by about the same margins as Bush is supposedly now, yet Mr. S. nor anyone at CNN ever called Kerry the front runner. The Bush crowd and their media mininons are obvioulsy trying to use fake polls to influence a “band waggon” effort to sway voters, which seems really crass and clearly based on fake data.
Marcus, likewise I am hoping this campaign will move to, and stay in, the 21st century from this point forward. The National Guard stuff that is being reported is competing with what K/E are trying to get out there. If it’s about the distant past we are way off message. Yes, Bush and his surrogates continue to deceive about the distant past. But they have been both deceitful and wildly incorrect in what they have said to the public on matters of much more pressing concern to the voters.
Not really related to the Subject, but I think Kerry needs to do the smart but high-minded thing by urging _EVERYONE_ to stop talking about the supposed inconsistencies regarding a) “Shrub’s” national guard service in the early 70’s, b) his own Vietnam record. As some pundit pointed out, this discussion will not bring a single U.S. serviceman home from Iraq and nor will it be very helpful when trying to figure out how to shrink the annual $0.5-trillion federal deficit.
Let’s face it: the likelihood of another four years of “Shrub” will decrease if the election debate is focused on factual issues like the federal economy, jobs, Iraq and the role the current President’s decisions has played in all that. Conversely, an angry mud-slinging debate will only divert attention away from this Administration’s many failures while discouraging independents from voting for anybody. This will make it easier for Karl Rove to win by simply bringing the committed GOP base to the voting booths.
MARCU$
Interesting that Fox News has a poll that shows Kerry doing better than CBS’ poll.
And to answer some of JDC’s questions, I think Kerry has some ground to make up, but not really a lot. I don’t think Bush holds that “strong” a lead; to me strong indicates a wide margin that has held up for a long time, not a few points gained over the last couple of weeks. I
If Bush gets PA and FL, then I think he wins. But I personally wouldn’t bet too heavily on him winning Pennsylvania. With the GOP convention just last week, and with all the “Kerry is tanking/can’t do anything right” coverage we’ve been subjected to lately, this may be Bush’s highwater mark (barring external events, of course) and they’re still tied there.
Does anyone know what has happened to coldheartedtruth.com?
Ruy or anyone,
At this site:
http://www.dalythoughts.com/summary-classic-nozog.htm
…the ECV map seems to indicate Bush is holding a strong lead in the state polls and the national map. Aside from the Gallup fallacies you’ve been discussing, are there other fallacies internal to it, or is it accurate that Kerrry has alot of ground to make up? Is Zogby worth following or not?
If Pennsylvania and Florida break for Bush, is the election over?
Thank you.