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.
ditto on what DC in CA said. I am doing phonebanking to the swing states and planning to do GOTV during the days before the election. I am glad the numbers are looking good- but shouldn’t we be focused on making them even better?
Splendid news! Let’s just hope (and pray-) that the crucial third debate goes as well as the first two did.
—
BTW, what kind of “message” do you think Kerry should send to undecided voters in the debate? (I assume there will be some sort of closing statement again). Off the top of my head —
1) He should promise to be a “uniter” by solemnly pointing out the U.S. is at war and Congress likely will remain in Republican hands. He should hint that this might mean compromises on spending priorities, so that at least the deficits could be reduced. I think many fiscal conservatives and independents would like this.
2) He might touch the cultural issue (the red wine, fluent french, his windsurfing hobby etc.) and beg culturally conservative voters not to dismiss him out of hand if they agree with his economic policies.
3) He should point out that his opponent has expressed his unwavering determination to continue the same policies for another four years, if re-elected. In other words, the current policies in the Middle East will continue to be pursued and the handling of the federal economy won’t change. He should ask voters who think they were better off in 2000 to take a chance on him. I think it is a very powerful argument, since “Shrub” and his followers are strugging to portray 2001-04 in a positive light and mostly duck the issue altogether.
4) He should defuse the extremely silly “global test” smear/scare campaign by explaining that it is merely a common sense term for saving American lives and dollars before going to war. In 1991, the other Gulf states largely reimbursed the U.S. for the cost of Gulf War I. Not so this time.
5) Debate tactics. In the first debate, he was polite, well informed and surprisingly clear and succinct. More of the same, please! I would also like to see him damn the president with faint praise by first agreeing with the conventional wisdom that “Shrub” is a decent man who does what he thinks is best of the country. Having said that, he should then gently question whether “Shrub” really is qualified for the job, in the light of this Administration’s numerous screw-ups at home as well as abroad. “Grand vision” alone is not enough, he should say — the U.S. now needs competent management to turn Iraq and the federal economy around. It’s a very powerful argument. Saying “Shrub” is an immoral liar won’t work. Saying he simply isn’t up to the task of running the country just might work, since there is ample evidence for it.
MARCU$
These are all nothing more than a good start.
Yes, they are a very good and encouraging start, but let us all do what we can to keep those trend lines going.
A good start. Now let’s do what we can – canvassing, phone banking, and other GOTV activities – to make for a great finish.
Nice Cherrypicking, but here’s a few you forgot. Btw, ARG = Kerry’s Private Poll.
Marist: Bush 49, Kerry 46, Nader 1
Reuters/Zogby Tracking Poll: Bush 46, Kerry 44, Nader 2
Florida: Quinnipiac: Bush 51, Kerry 44
Rasmussen:
Pennsylvania: Bush 47% Kerry 47%
Colorado: Bush 48% Kerry 44%
Michigan: Bush 46% Kerry 46%
Virginia: Bush 50% Kerry 44%
I think tide is turning. After the debates, GW will finally be exposed as being way over his head as president. (if not already) I’m still one of those who think the race will be a route for Kerry, similar to Reagan over Carter in 1980