The exit poll results, both national and state, cited in my previous post have now been substantially revised and do not look particularly favorable to Kerry. While some of the patterns discussed previously remain, others have changed fairly dramatically. Much more discussion to follow, of course, but way too tired to pursue it now.
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.
What about voting purges? Greg Palast, author of “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy,” writes on his website http://www.gregpalast.com that voting purges, some of which could be illegal, in the states of New Mexico and Ohio could have swung the vote to Bush and not to Kerry. The problem existed in Florida in 2000 and likely did in 2004.
Let’s face it….The R’s will do anything to hold power. The only thing for Dems to do is cheat better than them or to outsmart them in their cheating game. Maybe we need to run candidates for SOS in southern states as Republicans and after the win, lead as a Democrat. I feel the R’s care more about their party being in power than they care about their country being a democracy. Ironically, their voting habbits insure neither their political freedom or a country based on freedom.
The reasoning is mind boggling. Here’s how it goes: exit polls show Kerry is ahead in certain states. Final results show Bush is ahead. Therefore, voting machines must be broken or there’s a conspiracy.
Could it be true the exit polls were *biased*? Nothing evil or premeditated even… just biased, possibly leading, surveys?
Wouldn’t that be a shock.
Satisfying as it might be to do the Reps what DeLay did to the Dems, it would be the worst possible course of action–not only because it wouldn’t work (face it: Dems aren’t sufficiently bloody-minded) but because it would do great damage to the Republic.
So, let me understand this.
The exit polls are correct almost everywhere to within 0.1%. In Florida and Ohio, the two states where electronic voting critics have been complaining that there is no paper trail, the margin of error is 4%.
Yet, you think it’s the polls that are fault, not the electronic voting machinery. I’m not claiming there was deliberate fraud, although I am open to the possibility, just that it seems like closer scrutiny is warranted.
For example, there is anecdotal evidence that the computer interface was designed such that people whose hand grazed the edge of the screen caused the choice to be flipped. This may easily account for a few percent of the voters choices going awry.
I think the comment from onprotractedwarfare sums up the terrible situtation quite well. I can’t help wondering whether after the coming disasters a modern equivalent of FDR will emerge to help put at least some of the pieces back together. I also can’t help reflecting that FDR didn’t have to contend with CNN, Fox, and the like.
This is a huge defeat for us. Even if Kerry pulled Ohio he would be a minority president. We can’t say our message didn’t get out. The resources were there. The situation in the Senate and the House is very bad. I would like to know what kind of message we have that can be understood and bought by a majority of citizens, short of issuing a machine gun to every household, putting a Baptist preacher in every science room, and burning gays at the stake. (In retrospect it clearly was a stroke of Republican genius to have the anti-gay measures on the ballots. But we have to wonder why so many people fell for it.)
Speaking for myself, I am familiar with the literature on “critical realignments” and all I can say is we are definitely in a specific sort of electoral era. Reagan was the start and it jelled in 1994. This could easily last till 2014-2020 if past “electoral systems” hold. I’m running out of decades in my personal arsenal to be around for this to turn around. And there are a lot of lurking calamities: on the dollar, in the environment, in the Middle East, that are going to come crashing down in the next four years which the re-elected national leadership won’t be able to cope with and which won’t be reversible by Dems with a simple election victory, even if it is a sweep.
My predictions for the next four years: A severe financial crisis, probably associated with a decline in the dollar; the draft; a national sales tax; privatization of social security; reversal of R v Wade; and some kind of very bad news on the environmental front.
I do think that we should be thinking along the lines I have posted here before, to wit, that we should at a minimum be signing up for contributions of $10 to $20 a month to the Democratic party to help it get on its feet for a permanent mobilization.
The other thing I think we need to look at is whether in certain areas, like CA, MA, NY, maybe CT, we can do to the Republicans something analogous to what was done to the Dems in TX. Obviously there won’t be a redistricting opportunity. But in the current juncture having “Red” members of Congress in blue states is a luxury we can ill afford, so strategies need to be developed that chisel away at the very concept of a “safe seat.”
The bright side: we showed we can raise money en masse and mount a vigorous campaign. That’s about it.
Well, based on all the comments and analysis I read that said Bush would not win because his highest approval ratings were his ceiling in the popular vote, and all the polls were rated unfairly to rvs instead of lvs, I took two weeks off work to focus on this election. I read the blogs alot, did gotv efforts, donated all the spare cash I had to get Kerry elected, because based on all the analysis I read here and on MYDD, it seemed improbable Bush would win. All the major media polls were biased, they were oversampling repubs, blah, blah blah.
Turns out they were right. We’re living in a right-wing, Christian conservative nation and I don’t see anyway for the democratic party to compete nationally. Look at all the red on that map. It’s heartbreaking. The dems and all the hopefuls like yourself and your contributors need to wake up and admit — we are on the outside looking in.