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.
When republicans lie and misrepresent us, all we can do is speak to each lie – that puts us on the defensive and talking about specific issues that do not carry the weight that “country first” and patriotism does.
I think we should attempt to redefine patriotism – it’s not just about fighting and dying for your country – it could mean making your country a better place for future americans. The man or woman who works two jobs to give their children more opportunities than they had is equally as heroic and patriotic as a kid who goes to war to fight for what he/she thinks their country believes in.
I think Obama should give a speech that addresses the footprint or the legacy of our country – A speech that harkens to America’s past as a benevolent world leader – an indicate that we could be that again – It’s not that we care about what the French think of us – we should care about what future generations of americans think about us – we want our children to know that we saw policies that were wrong and we stopped doing them.
So I’m thinking you play the Iraq card – most of the country believes that Iraq was a mistake – the architects of it can not own up to it – but that doesn’t mean we as a people can’t own up to it – Barack should spell out the mistake – point to that “mission accomplished” moment and say that it was the one thing Bush got right. We had indeed overthrown the evil Saddam – and we should have left – The republicans who continue to believe that the war in Iraq can still be won have somehow forgotten that their leader had already declared it over and won five years ago – They’ve kept calling an occupation a war because it’s good for business – That should be our theme – Everything the republicans do is “good for business.”
“…they passed this bill and gave out that contract because it was… good for business.” Repeat and rinse several times and then finish with… “in fact for the last 8 years they’ve been giving us… THE BUSINESS!
Point out that people were the ones that benefitted the least – and then jam “People first” down their republican throats.
People are no more perfectly rational in their political decisions than they are in their economic ones. Issues, character, narrative and emotion all play a role, in infinite combination of importance, making it all but impossible to know what truly motivates an individual voter in any given election. Last week, issues took a back seat to biography and curiosity. I agree with Ed that issues are still a key variable in voter decision-making this year. But issues are being strongly challenged by character and narrative. McCain’s greatest strength is his biography; Obama’s advantage is issues. Going after McCain and Palin’s character won’t be as effective as attacking them on issues. Obama just doesn’t have the “character brand strength” that McCain does; his experience lacks a convincing and seamless arc, and, unfortunately, many voters find him “different.” But he’s savvy, smart and dead-on aligned with voters on the main issues of this election. I believe that if Obama can, as Ed said, recapture the narrative, as well as continue his success in mastering the fundamentals of voter turnout, then Obama can win. I’m optimistic. My guess is that McCain and Palin have hit their apex; I just don’t see how they go up from here. It’s highly doubtful that Obama will self-destruct, and he still has a lot of upside potential.
Good point: “Unless we are incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, we can do what you want and what I want, and in fact, we should.” But who said the voting public can walk and chew gum at the same time? Driving through Pennsylvania last month, I saw this message spray painted on the back of an 18-wheeler: “Shut up and drill.” Or today, this bumper sticker was stuck on the back of a pickup in my town: “Liberals s**k.” Last night, I spoke with a labor organizer who called to urge me to vote for a Democratic candidate running in a primary for state office. He was knocking on doors for Kerry in NH in 2004 and met another union member who told him he would never vote for Kerry because of what he heard from the swiftboaters. In other words, this union member was going to vote against his own interests! I hope you’re right that American voters can walk and chew gum at the same time. Too bad so many people seem to want to “keep it simple and stupid.” I believe that most Americans want to “Bring on the passionate wonkery, the compelling talking points, the policy debates wrapped in narrative and the needs of ‘real people!'” At least, I hope they do.
I strongly disagree. The McCain bump happened because the GOP oonvention shifted the playing ground from issues to those vague substitutes for issues, the “maverick” pose.
We need to shift it back, and if we don’t, we’ll lose. As my post indicated, I believe it’s a false choice to suggest that we have to reject issue appeals in order to maintain what you call a “fighting image.” Fights can be over policy, you know. Unless we are incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, we can do what you want and what I want, and in fact, we should.
Ed Kilgore
“But voters do have concrete concerns that are connected to specific needs, for themselves and their country, and specific grievances about the performance of those in power today.”
They do. And they voted AGAINST their own said issues in 2004 to give Bush the White house again. Why?
BECAUSE IT IS ALL ABOUT THE FIGHTING IMAGE!
Bring on the policy wonkery? Bring out the initiatives and numbers? You forgot to add one thing to your list..bring out the loss!
Democrats, and out numbers, and figures, and ideas are not, not, NOT sexy enough to win elections against war heroes and beauty queens that lie and fight ugly. Policy will not work, because it has not worked. We went from 7 points up to for down..ine ONE WEEK. One week people! An eleven point drop in one week, why? Because the country dissaproves of Barack’s health plan? No! It is because of IMAGE…because of the MILF on the ticket.
As long as we continue to actually believe the voting public has enough energy or intelligence to make a decision based on numbers and policies, (despite all eveidence to the contrary…2004, the low approval rating of the Democratic Congress), we will continue to be beaten badly, as we are well on our way to being this year.