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.
New ABC/Washington Post poll (june 22):
Kerry 48%
Bush 44%
Again, another poll with Bush at 44%.
If this holds, and Nader’s support softens (which I assume it will). Kerry will win the election by 10%. Since the undecideds always go to the challenger.
I suppose it’s safe to say the “bounce” is over.
Yes, Jeff, I have noticed Bush’s “44% consistency” for quite some time now. It really makes me wonder if that’s his ceiling. I certainly hope so…
Have you guys noticed how Bush’s support seems to have stuck at 44%.
No matter what poll you look at, it’s always at 44%.
The differences always seem to come with Kerry’s numbers – which are as high as 48 or 49% or as low as 41 or 42%. Depending whether you count the “Democratic leaners” or not.
Something I found really interesting about this poll were responses to this question:
” Thinking ahead to the election in November, which TWO of these words best describe how you would feel if (John Kerry were elected / George Bush were re-elected) President? ”
If you group the list of adjectives given as choices into positives and negatives and tally up the totals for each, then…
Among all Respondents:
Net Positive
G.W. Bush: +8%
John Kerry: +24%
G.W. Bush
Most Common Answer: “Worried” (31%)
Total Positive Answers: 76%
Total Negative Answers: 68%
Uncertain: 22%
DK/NA: 2%
John Jerry
Most Common Answer: “Hopeful” (39%)
Total Positive Answers: 79%
Total Negative Answers: 55%
Uncertain: 29%
DK/NA: 3%
In the Swing States:
Net Positive
G.W. Bush: 1%
John Kerry: 34%
G.W. Bush
Most Common Answer: “Worried” (31%)
Total Positive Answers: 75%
Total Negative Answers: 74%
Uncertain: 19%
DK/NA: 2%
John Jerry
Most Common Answer: “Hopeful” (43%)
Total Positive Answers: 84%
Total Negative Answers: 50%
Uncertain: 28%
DK/NA: 3%
Among Independents (Nationwide):
Net Positive
G.W. Bush: -39% (!!!!!)
John Kerry: +37%
G.W. Bush
Most Common Answer: “Worried” (35%)
Total Positive Answers: 52%
Total Negative Answers: 91%
Uncertain: 17%
DK/NA: 4%
John Jerry
Most Common Answer: “Uncertain” (40% — beat “Hopeful” by 1%)
Total Positive Answers: 68%
Total Negative Answers: 31%
Uncertain: 40%
DK/NA: 11%
FYI, I regarded the following choices as positive: “Hopeful,” “Confident,” “Happy,” “Content” and “United.”
These I deemed negative: “Worried,” “Pessimistic,” “Depressed” and “Angry” (with “Uncertain” being regarded as neutral).
As consumers and workers and parents, women are in the same boat as men and children — sinking. But strictly as women, they continue to kick open locked doors and to punch holes in glass ceilings. The proportion of women in college and in white collar jobs continues to rise. This is striking when we compare young black women to young black (and poor white) men. As workers, women are losers; as women, women are winners.
I also noticed that oddity in the data. First, I question the value of asking voters about “winners” and “loser” given the multiple interpretations those terms could have. For instance, respondents could be thinking of the term “winner” as a way to say they like or support that group: i.e. I like women, so I’ll rate them “winners”. Second, we have no older data to compare to, so it’s perfectly possible that women used to be considered “winners” more in the past and less so now. I know I’d personally rank women to be “winners” now, regardless of Bush (I haven’t seen much evidence that he’s been any worse for women than men–he’s equally bad for everyone as far as I’m concerned).
One thing that strikes me as extremely odd in this poll is the winners/losers series and ‘women’ come out at 65% winner and 26% loser. I don’t understand this given the responses to others in this battery. It is right below big corporations (71% winner) and the wealthy (85%) and higher than George W. Bush (55%). Can this be right? Have women benefited tremendously under the Bush Administration and I have completely missed it? And how have women been winners over the past three years and children and the middle class have been net losers?
The Mother Jones site has LOTS of great graphs on this data, including each question broken down by party affiliation, vote in 2000, gender, income, red state/blue state and age. Sifting through all the data, the most striking and consistent information is found under party affiliation and, specifically, independent voters. Ruy’s absolutely correct, independents are much more like Democrats than like Republicans in their opinions on almost every question. In fact, on a couple issues, they’re even more pessimistic and demoralized than Democrats. Pay special attention to independents’ opinions about the last three years regarding, big corporations, the tax burden, personal privacy, average citizen being heard, job security and special interests. Another striking trend: “liberal or moderate Republicans” are strikingly similar to Democrats and Independents on several measures.
It brings to mind again the theory that by election day, “Bush fatique” will have completely set in and a huge rush away from Bush and toward Kerry is going to hit the electorate among Independents and liberal-moderal Republicans (much as what happened to Carter and conservative-moderate Democrats in the Carter-Reagan race of 1980). A year from now we may be discussing “kerry Republicans”. On a similar topic, I encourage you to read Howard Fineman’s article on MSNBC about Kerry “lying low” and staying “invisible” through most of the election cycle. This is one time I happen to agree wholeheardely with Fineman–let Bush stew in his own juices; Kerry will look all the more reasonable and be considered a worthy alternative to Bush by election day.
By the way, the Mother Jones survey was done by Stanley Greenburg’s polling outfit. Greenburg wrote “The Two Americas”; if you haven’t read it I strongly recommend you do so!