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.
Kerry deserves this and will win if it is God’s will! Please just go on with the next few weeks praying our new president will be President John Kerry!!
Roy: The Gallop credibility refers to their likely voter model. That is what’s being questioned as far as credibility. This poll was a registered voter poll which as far as I know is not in question.
Kerry is up 5 in that poll.
Note in the Likely voter poll, he’s only up 1.
Gallps LV model simply understates Democratic likely voters and is designed for a time when Democrats were pretty much lazy voters and had no ground game. that’s all changed.
So if you see a poll that usually leans toward the right too much like a Gallop LV showing a Kerry lead, YOU SHOULD LIKE KERRY’S CHANCES.
The same would hold true of a Strategic Vision poll that showed Kerry with a lead. You should like Kerry’s chances.
I like Kerry’s chances in Ohio. But we shouldn’t get too confident. IT’s all about GOTV. If we can turn that extra 4% of Registered Voters in that gallop poll for Kerry into Voters, we win.
I wonder why Gallup would poll in Ohio with Nader included. Nader isn’t on the ballot in Ohio.
And for those of you who are sure that Kerry will pull out Ohio, let me warn you that the Columbus dispatch reports people have been calling elderly voters to tell them that their polling places have changed. Combine that with J. Kenneth Blackwell’s resistence to provisional voting, and one might conclude that the GOP “fix” is in in the Buckeye State.
I would bet that Kerry would win Ohio in a fair vote. I’m not sure he’ll be able to win by a large enough margin to overcome the GOP plans to wrest the state away from the voters.
WHATS WITH IOWA AND WISCONSIN
Over the summer, I thought we would be in good shape in both of these states, primarily because they have traditionally been “anti war.” I wonder if there is some demographic change that is going on there that is turning them from a “blue-purple” to a “red-purple.” Forexample, here in West Virginia, the Democratic Party is getting killed by the long term loss of union jobs. I wonder if a similar dynamic is going on in the upper midwest. On the other hand, I dont think either state is seeing the type of demographic change that is helping the party that is described in Ruy’s EDM.
Another possibility is just that Kerry does not “play well” and has not campaigned well in rural areas. Some paper, I think it was the NYT, suggesting this is the case. However, this would not really explain why he is out performing Gore in Ohio.
Any thoughts?
Mark,
The GOP will try anything & everything to steal FL, so don’t count on those 27 EV.
Nonetheless, in keeping with what Cautiously Optimistic said above, if Kerry wins OH he could lose either WI or IA (not both) and still have 270 EV. The way things stand now, I think it is highly likely that Kerry will take OH + (WI or IA). He may well take all three.
Scott
Well, despite the hype posted here, I’m concerned. Bush is up by two nationally on Reuters and 2.5 on Rasmussen, and is winning in Slate’s electoral college forecast. These are all trending Bush in the last few days. I know that the swing states are what matters, but here and elsewhere it seems that Kerry has plateaued. I know that incumbents typically get their approval rating in final votes, but since we’re at war, I think that a good chunk of undecideds will hold their noses and pull for Bush anyway.
One thing I don’t get is the apparent disjunction between the polls in the battleground states and the national horserace polls.
I’m generalizing, and doing some averaging in my head, but it seems that when viewed in state-by-state polls or the polls of “battleground state voters” Kerry does better than he does in the national horserace.
This suggests that Bush’s advantage in the Red states is larger than Kerry’s in the Blue states. It would also suggest that Bush had more “wasted” votes (votes in excess of the margin necessary to win) in large states like Texas.
Is this really true? Kerry seems to be comfortably ahead in more large states than Bush. I’m thinking of Kerry’s lead in New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts compared to Bush’s lead in Texas.
Any comments?
This morning on Air America (Oct 22) , they had Zogby on the air. In his analysis, he said that one thing seemed sure, and that was that Bush’s support was firmly set. He saw little possibility for Bush to gain much in the polls. He thought that all the undecideds would break for Kerry and possibly before the election.
Remember, Zogby is considered to be the most accurate of pollers, and an incumbant who can’t top 50% is in big trouble. Of course, there’s the Electoral College.
Bush will not win WI (but if he does I’ll have to mover)
Consider:
1) In 2000 Gore won be a mere 5000 some votes but,
2) Nader got 90,000 votes (3.5%). He’d be lucky to get 1/10 that this time around. I live on Madison’s east side in one of the most liberal wards in the state (in 2000 Bush pulled in a whopping 80 votes (5%) while Nader got 337 (23%)) and I don’t know of a single person planning on voting for Nader. I flat out do not believe he will pull the 1-2% of the vote the polls suggest.
3) Turnout is clearly key, but the Kerry base of Milwaukee and Madison is more densely popluated than the rural Bush base so it should be easier to drag the lazy-but-probably-Kerry voter to the polls than their Bush counterparts
4) Polls are all over the place in WI just as they
were in 2000. See this article from Oct 24, 2000 in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/oct00/poll24102300a.asp
Sounds a lot like this year
5) Its our turn dammit!
This is not a suggestion that KE should back off on Florida…but we absolutely must have an electroal edge that allows us to win without FL. The Leninists on the GOPpie side can and will pull out all the stops there, and have the established infrastructure to get away with it.
A small data point in support of that argument. My 80-something y.o. in-laws live in Piniellas County. M-in-law is registered Dem, F-in-Law a Repug.
Her absentee ballot comes without a pre-paid addressed envelope, his comes with. She ends up mailing in hand addressed that gets returned for insufficient postage. She resends. She checks around their home to see if others got or didn’t get a return envelope. 2 Repugs and 1 Dem did, 2 Dems did not, and 1 of those 2 Dems got theirs back for incorrect/no-such address.
Not even remotely a definitive study, but 3-of-5 Dems didn’t get a return envelope, and 2-of-5 geriatric Dems had the opportunity to just let it slide and skip resending. If an eighth of the 2-of-5 don’t bother to resend or screw up again, that’s 5% of the intended-Dem absentee vote.
Moreover, there’s the liklihood of other schemes to be put into play.
Again, not suggesting we blow it off…way too many popular and electoral votes. But we’d better nail it without needing it. How about AZ, AR (send Clinton, Clark & Edwards full-time) & IA. Or VA & NC.
Zogby today is reporting that Kerry and Bush are basically even among seniors. Zogby calls this another “ominous” sign for Kerry. I admit language like this gives me a chill. But is that something of an exaggeration given that Zogby is showing the two of them statistically tied (I think it’s 47-45 Bush). I would think there are more than a few “ominous” signs he could find for Bush, too, but doesn’t seem to want to discuss them.
Gotta love Gallup. There’s just no way Bush is doing better in Colorado (my home) than Wisconsin. No way. Also, I’ve been in WI recently. The independent groups and the Dem party is so wired and organized I felt like I was in Marine boot camp. They’re going to pull it out. Iowa is not looking good, but I’m pretty confident that will be our only Gore-state loss.
Quinnipac now has Kerry 5 points ahead in Pennsylvania. There can be no doubt now — the momentum is clearly in Kerry’s direction. Ahead in Ohio, ahead in Pa., tied or ahead in Florida, ahead in Iowa, closing in on Wisconsin and poised to “steal” New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada and perhaps other states from the Red column.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11379.xml?ReleaseID=486
If Kerry is roughly even nationwide, but running ahead by 6-7 points in the battleground states, where are all Bush’s extra votes coming from?
RUTS, baby! (Running Up The Score, to borrow a college football term)
The numbers I’ve seen for the Solid Red and Blue states (2.004k.com, as of this morning) generally show Kerry up by 10-15, and breaking 20 in only a few strongholds like RI, NY, and over 30% only in DC, a 20%+ total of 38 EVs. In CA, Ill, he’s not over 20, and in MA he doesn’t clear 15!
Bush, on the other hand, is RUTSing like Kansas State. Against Army. At Home. On national TV. For Homecoming. He has leads of 20 or more in a baker’s dozen states totalling 106 EVs. In four states, UT, WY, OK, and NE, he’s at 30% or more. Bush has successfully mobilized his red state base – too bad it doesn’t count for much beyond national telephone surveys.
EVs by (Mar)gin, for (Bu)sh and (Ke)rry
Mar Bu Ke
30+ 20 3
20+ 86 35
10+ 41 105
6+ 48 84
Florida is the big one. If Kerry wins Ohio he can still lose. If he wins Florida, he wins.
Mark
With all the polls coming out now, here are my feelings.
I don’t see any way Bush wins Wisconsin. I know the polls there are showing a close race, but I think Kerry will pull out Wisconsin.
I’m feeling much better about Ohio. Everything seems to be trending Kerry’s way there.
–Scott
“Will vote early, wish I could vote often.”
brit hume (fox special report with britte hume- thursday)interviewd republican pollster john mccaughlin on LV v. RV.
mccaughlin stated that in determining who is a LV his firm simply asked polled party if they were a likely voter. he admitted this was a very loose “screen” and went on to criticze LV screens in general as being unrelaible.
Ruy, I’m no fan of Bush, but I have to ask why this Gallup poll showing Kerry leading 50-44 among RV’s in Ohio is credible, while practically every other Gallup poll has been discounted at this site?
It’s worth noting that if Bush wins FL, WI, and IA, then Kerry loses, even if Kerry wins OH & PA. So, we can’t focus all of our attention on OH. Nevertheless, I think Kerry will ultimately win both OH and WI (and perhaps IA too).