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.
Sometimes I wonder if T. Bevans really believes all the shit that he shovels on RCP. I almost fell off my chair when I read that one. But its not just that, RCP is full of ludicrous claims, childish ad homimen attacks on anyone who deigns to challenge Bush on anything and unsupported claims (i.e. Bush has MORE volunteers than Kerry, just look at the Bush04 website!!!). We should all do ourselves a favor and boycott the damn thing. I know I won’t be looking at it anymore. The commentary, if any, on RCP is right wing tripe. The polls you can get on Pollingreport.com (without “analysis” explaining why the fact that kerry is up 5% in a GOP leaning state is a sure sign of a Bush win in that state) and the editorial links are available elsewhere on the web.
I tend to believe that today’s Bush/Sharon annoucement was made in large part due to short term political factors., i.e. in one stroke Bush firms up the Christian dispensationalist wackjob base, which was getting antsy about Iraq, and splits off a significant portion of the Dem-leaning Jewish vote.
Plus, as a bonus, as an absolutely unmistakeable “f___ you” provocation to the entire Arab world, any subsequent terrorism only benefits Bush as the nation will tend to rally around the president as they did post 9/11.
Do anyone think this was a factor behind today’s announcement?
Uh, I would like to advise those who take Rasmussen seriously to look at this:
http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2000/11/000020.html
Tuesday, November 7, 2000
The final Rasmussen poll has Bush 49, Gore 40, Nader 4.
And just what do they base this cheerful assessment on? They don’t say, but it is worth noting that this represents a considerable lowering of the bar for Bush (just keep it at 45 or above and even 40-44 isn’t so bad!) compared to earlier Republican claims about his approval ratings.
It gives cover as they try to force though legislation the next 7 months.
While I’m sure the Republicans would like to run on the controversial social issues again this time around, it’s going to take a back seat to the more high profile Iraq and terrorism issues for the near future. It looks like we might even have a decent foreign policy debate as part of a presidential campaign. I can’t recall the last time that happened!
For what it’s worth, toward the end of Bush’s remarks last night, I could’ve sworn he said, “We need to have a debate about whether we’re going to take the lead in the world or whether we’ll share responsibilities.” Listening to it again (I had taped it), it was clear he said, “shirk responsibilities,” but the way I had heard it seems more appropriate…
My impression is that gay marriage has been a complete dud for W as an issue. His shameless pandering has turned off moderates, his ham-handed announcement has angered fellow Republicans and the 9/11 commission has completely pushed it out of the papers. In addition, Kerry has managed to take what appears to be a moderate ground that will not let Rove portray him as a radical. At the same time, he has been low-keyed enough about it that he has not angered the gay and lesbian community.
Of course, I live in Massachusetts. I would be interested in hearing if people in battleground states feel differently.
Polling within African American communities indicates less than the margin of error difference in expressed intentions re: 2004 and the way the vote stacked up for Gore in 2000. If anything, the voter intentions among Hispanics are more favorable to Democrates than 4 years ago. (Though different Hispanic Communities have different patterns.)
I think Peter is completely wrong. Blacks are not abandoning the democrats over gay marriage or any other issue. Ditto for hispanics. I haven’t seen any data that remotely supports his case.
Alan, it’s the same-sex marriage issue that is making blacks reject Democrats. Hispanics and blue-collar white Democrats will probably do the same soon, unfortunately. The GOP has played this brilliantly.
I just looked at a Battleground Poll (tarrance.com) and while the poll shows a 1-Point lead for Kerry (49-48), the underlying numbers do not look good for Bush basically because the numbers in the Battleground states are worse for Bush than his national numbers. The one negative note for the Democrats so far is that it appears the African-American community is not energized at this point.
Hopefully they will become so but I must say that if you can’t be energized now when can you be? So as of today Kerry would probably win narrowly but this underscores the importance of Registering and Turning out OUR Voters especially in the Battleground States.
Does anyone know how Bush’s speach has been received by the general public? People on blogs say about what yu would expect them to say. Bush haters think he tanked, Bush supporters think he was inspirational. Did his speach make any difference in anyone’s thinking?
“And just what do they base this cheerful assessment on?” – RT
Perhaps 40-44 percent is within Diebolding distance. Any smaller percentage, and they won’t be able to steal the election undetected.
Has there EVER been an incumbent president who won re-election w/ an approval rating BELOW 50% in JULY of the election year?
Has there EVER been an incumbent president who won re-election during a RECESSION?
I think the answers to both are no, but I’m not positive.
As for a president’s approval rating, I don’t see how a president with an approval rating of 40-45% can be in a close race. I know approval ratings aren’t “who would you vote for,” but if less than half of RVs don’t like the job Bush is doing, that is automatically a problem for him.
Rasmussen Reports tells you to go to that site to assess presidential approval ratings. I wonder what to make of this.
In head to head match ups, when can Kerry be said to have an advantage? Lets say they’re running, 55 (Kerry) – 45 (Bush), is that still just a dead heat? Does Kerry have an advantage at 60-40? I can already see the cries of “Liberal Media Bias” When commentators announce Kerry is leading at 60-40
They’re worried, OR
they’re getting us ready for the “magic” of electronic, touch-screen, sorry no recount possible, voting.
A disconnect between honest polls and election returns will be our only clue that the election has been stolen.
REMEMBER: only the paranoid survive
“A 40% – 44% job approval for the President would translate into a dead heat race, and below 40% and you would have to give the advantage to Kerry.”
Wow, if Bush is down by 10%, you have to admit that Kerry has an advantage?! They sure are giving a lot, aren’t they. This is ridiculous, 40-44 is a dead heat I would love to be a part of.
Rick P., that Rasmussen tracking poll fluctuates a lot (although neither Bush nor Kerry rarely ever has a lead of more than 4 points), and as Ruy has said, a tracking poll of likely voters this far in advance of the election doesn’t make a lot of sense. The bottom line is, this is a close race, and that bodes well for Kerry because incumbents who aren’t comfortably ahead at this point lose.
Tuesday’s Rasmussen tracking poll has Bush and Kerry tied at 46%. More importantly, “[e]ighty-three percent (83%) of Bush voters say they are ‘certain’ they will vote for him. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Kerry voters are equally ‘certain.’ Based on the firmness of support, that translates into a 3 to 4 point lead for Bush. Using a crude yardstick, Kerry will need to be up by five points or better to beat Bush.
The Kerry campaign needs to get into third gear and advertise more. The Iraq issue is out of everybody’s hands, but he should be slamming Bush on the environment, federal spending, and other issues.
One non-controversial promise that Kerry could get a lot of mileage out of:
Pledge to hold a full press conference at least once every calendar month for the duration of his Presidency, with no advance vetting of reporters or questions.
The contrast would be dramatic.
What I’m afraid of is that these assertions are being put out there to lay groundwork for going on the offensive when they’re accused of stealing the election via the electronic voting machines this fall. With numbers in the low 40s, a win for such a candidate would ordinarily give rise to a prima facie case for strong suspicions of tampering — they’re campaigning to weaken that presumption. Just a little conspiracy-theorizing.
This is one bar that I don’t mind them lowering because it is based on self-delusion. If they choose to commission polls and then completely misread them, well, more power to them.
–Dan