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.
Perhaps the most powerful indication yet of how desperate the President is feeling these days?:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40563-2004Jun14.html
Link is to story in today’s Washington Post about his effusive praise of Bill Clinton at today’s WH ceremony unveiling the portrait of his predecessor. The last time the man showed any grace was during the 2000 campaign when he wanted voters to think he was a compassionate conservative.
> By the way, one of the huge differences I see
> between Reagan and W.
There are others, and Kerry would be wise to stress them as much as he can.
1) Reagan was only willing to pay lip service to the Christian Right’s agenda whereas “Shrub” wholeheartedly embraces it, as his push for a federal marriage amendment shows.
2) For all the bellicose talk, Reagan’s actual policy vs. the main enemy of the day was actually quite cautious and ended with negotiations with Gorbachev. In contrast, “Shrub’s” decision to invade Iraq was both poorly planned and extremely reckless.
3) Fiscal policy. Although both managed to rack up enormous budget deficits, at least Reagan occasionally raised taxes to help balance the budget. He also tried to honestly simplify the tax code. In contrast, “Shrub” has never seen a tax cut he didn’t like (except for the poor). It doesn’t matter to him what it does to the economy in the long term, or how much it will alienate the opposition. And his fiscal policies and tax cuts have deliberately made the tax code even more complicated, whereas Reagan tried to close loopholes.
4) Personal qualities. I think Reagan was overrated; a dumb, simplistic President for the dumb, simplistic “redneck” half of America. But one has to grudgingly admit his ability to persuade not just Republicans but occasionally even his opponents that he was right. Reagan had style and finesse. At least he looked and sounded like a great president.
—
The less said about the current incumbent, the better.
MARCU$
MoE doesn’t explain it at all. If MoE is the explanation for the high approval ratings, then what we’d have is an oversampling of Bush-friendly voters, which is entirely inconsistent with the congressional preference.
A Dem oversample would explain it all, except for that darn Bush approval score. Maybe they have a weird way of asking or — more likely — scoring that question. Come to think of it, they always have an approval number on the high side.
> Does anyone here read the incredibly lame
> Carlos Watson on CNN?
I do — and I am waiting for the next opinion polls with increasing concern… What he says sounds perfectly logical. The bad news from Iraq *has* recently been overshadowed by other events; the economy *has* shown some modest improvement; all the Reagan nostalgia ought to have *some* positive impact on the political standing of those associated with the Reagan/Bush regime.
—
The upside is, if “Shrub” is still trailing a few weeks from now, we finally ought to have conclusive proof he will have to fight like crazy to get reelected.
MARCU$
Does anyone here read the incredibly lame Carlos Watson on CNN? He had a column earlier this week where he categorically stated that Bush would “regain his lead in the polls” because of Regan’s death. I think I am about to give up on this guy. He is a former Dem staffer, but I have yet to see him write anything other than the GOP line, and never anything particularly inciteful.
By the way, one of the huge differences I see between Reagan and W. (besides competence) is that I think Reagan genuinely believed that his policies would help all Americans. I disagreed completely, but at least I have to grant him the sincerety of his beliefs. W., on the other hand, has such a myopic view of the world, the only people he cares about, or wants to help, are his privileged, born-again circle of friends.
Mickey Kaus talked to the LAT pollster. Read about it here:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102054/
I have a hypothesis about the strong preferene for Democrats in the generic Congressional race.
I could easily see many folks, who thought of themselves as Republicans because they were fiscally conservative, becoming disgusted with the current Congress, which has shown itself to be very free spenders. One could easily imagine such people wanting a split government, and sticking with Bush because he’s the “strong leader” and because the support his efforts against terrorism and in Iraq.
Consequently, they might easily decide its time to toss Tom DeLay over the side and put up with Democrats in Congress for a while.
I almost forgot, if you check the trendlines, the last LAT poll had Bush’s job approval at 51% also, which is the lowest recorded by LAT since 911. Also, his job DISAPPROVAL went up to 47% from 44% (still statistically insignificant, but it still hints at a decline of support for the President).
Remember everyone, MOE. It is -+3. So, it could be as low as 48% (which would match the recent Fox News job approval rating for W).
These numbers just don’t go together. A poll with a gigantic Dem Congressional preference should not give Bush his highest approval rating in any poll for four months. A poll that has Kerry leading 51-44 nationwide should not show him trailing among independents, behind in MO and barely even in WI and OH.
In short, these results feel like they were thrown together by someone under the influence. I really await new numbers — from the Times or elsewhere. These are useless.
On the Dem skew issue:
I saw a Bush Campaign official (don’t remeber who) claiwing an over-sampling of Dems and he specifically pointed to the Congressional preference too.
I am curious about this too.
My initial guess about how Kerry could lose among independents and still have a significant lead in the overall numbers is that it might indicate “Republicans” turning into self-identified “Independents.”
AS, I understand your question, but if there were an oversampling of Dems, I seriously doubt Bush’s approval rating would be 51 percent. Plus, the most recent Gallup poll also has Kerry with a lead outside the margin of error. As for the independents, since Kerry has a huge lead among moderate indepdendents, maybe they oversampled conservative independents, because every other poll I’ve seen shows Kerry with a solid lead among indys.
Hmm. Much as I’d love to believe it as word from on high, I don’t like this poll (technically speaking) at all. There’s just no way we have a 19 point lead in congressional preference. That would mean 50 Repub incumbents going down. No way.
More strangely, how is it possible for Kerry to lose Independents and still lead by 7? I don’t see a particularly large erosion in Bush support by R’s, so that’s not the reason. This and the congressional preference result point to a very strong over sampling of Dems.
Ruy: Any thoughts? This can’t be right.
The hagiographic port-mortem Reagan worship we have witnessed this week was never likely to do anything but hurt Bush. No current president could do anything but suffer by comparison to the heroic image being cast by those who choose to remember all of President Reagan’s virtues (and he did have them) and none of his faults. George W. Bush is, at best, a mediocre chief executive. I believe that, even unconsciously, people cannot help but make comparisons between the Olympian Reagan of this week’s remembrances and the sallow, defensive, hunkered-down Bush of the last few months. Rush Limbaugh and other Bush lickspittles have spent the entire week trying to get people to see Bush and Reagan in the same light. To some degree, they have succeeded. The problem is, with the Reagan light burning so rhetorically bright, Bush looks quite dim by comparison.
How come every truth (TRUTH) about GOP and their corrupted, immoral and destructive policies is labeled “anti-American”???
Is it just another trick they learnt from their heirs – Joseph Goebbels and Leni Riefenstahl? I suppose the liberals in Germany back then were “anti-German”? Just as the sane muslims (shia, the liberals) are labeled “anti-islam” by Bin Laden, another right wing conservative.
Well: I hate conservatism and I love America. Get that, “Texas Star” (sign with your own name please, and show some spine)??
Texas Star bite me.
I suppose it is true that Bush is roaming around the White House calling every one who disagrees with him a “traitor” or “unAmerican.”
I agree that Bush has been hurt by all this talk about Reagan. Because people remember Reagan, and they see Bush’s deficiencies.
Poor George. He just can’t catch a break. The GOP were all giddy when the Gipper died. Believing that they were finally in the clear. Now it turns out that it didn’t help them at all.
I can’t wait until Kerry takes over and sends all these neo-con bums to prison.
Prefab Sprout, I can’t believe you said that. Ronald Wilson Reagan was not every bit as corrupt as George Walker Bush. That statement just shows a bias brought on by the liberal media. 🙂
I can’t see how dead Reagan can help Bush and I don’t see why anybody thought dead Reagan might. It would be different if dead Reagan could have been on the stump for Bush, but dead he doesn’t do anything, and dead Reagan wasn’t capable of stumping for Bush these past years. The idea that there was a dead Reagan bounce for Bush in the polls seemed to me to be something of a non sequitur.
Oh, and in case you were wondering, I kept repeating the phrase “dead Reagan” because I just like writing “dead Reagan”.
Could you even invent a more typical troll than Texas Star?
Isn’t it sad that you radical morons can’t stop your carping and nasty, pathetic anti-American rhetoric for a week to honor a past President!
Your ignorance is truly showing through, but then again, we expected as much.
Blow your horns, clap your hands, and scream because you are definitely outnumbered?
Why don’t you go and hear another Al Gore rant!
Reagan was an enemy of the poor and helpless, and of the environment and the middle class. In that respect GWB is worth the comparison. However RR was nowhere near as corrupt and stupid as our current pres.
I think that W is suffering from what I refer to as the Benson Effect. Some swing voters are thinking about Bush and saying to themselves “I voted for Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a President of mine. You sir, are no Ronald Reagan.”
Of course, even Reagan wasn’t all that this week’s fanfare makes him out to be. By comparison, this hurts Bush even more. Instead of a Reagan Death Bounce, Bush is getting a Reagan Death Punch!
Drive safely, everybody!