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.
I see VoteHillary.org which pushed a 2004 Hillary Rodham Clinton Draft presidency is now pushing her for president in 2008. The site is http://www.votehillary.org I have heard it will be launched as early as next week.
Ruy:
Since you don’t have trackback enabled…I wanted you to know that I used your piece on a blog post:
http://preemptivekarma.com/2004/08/we-are-sultans-of-swing.html
send them a few emails… tell them just how you think… in English.
I watched Inside Politics and was pissed off because they spent more than 10 min talking to that lier spewing out his poison about Kerry’s record on the swift boat and they knew all to well that the Washington Post article, with proof from the military records, that his story was a lie. They didn’t even give equal time to Kerry’s side nor did they even mention the story as reported in the Washington Post. Maybe they are taking over for FOX as being “Fair And Balanced”.
I suppose its easy and somewhat expected for persons to start sweating beads of anxiety and why not?
About 8 months ago, everyone was thinking that Kerry had very few of the qualities needed to be president and most were hoping that he would pick a prospective VP that would swing the line his way. Right now however, everyone is somewhat surprised that this same Kerry is now in the lead on every issue and seems to be holding his own quite well, even with his cool, relaxed, calculated, timely demeanor and his long face too.
Its this lead from a person who wasnt quite expected to lead that has everyone wondering and calculating and figuring out stuff, and polling and working out the neck and necks and every other thing.
However, when I stop to think about it, I dont think that Kerry is surprised by his current position. I think that he is truly a reflection of his demeanor. I get the feeling that this game is playing out according to plan, even tho its causing some people to be drenched in sweat with worry and anxiety.
I remember hearing some people say that they are glad that he picked Edwards because Edwards could back him up with better speeches and better facial presentations etc… but, from the looks of it, I dont get the impression that Kerry is even thinking of Edward much.
So much so, that he has sent Edwards off to spread the word, while he handles his end of the campaign. I dont and cant think of anyone who can come right out and say that Kerry is making a mess of things. Kerry is rising like cream to the heart of the game. I read his response to the swift boat ads today and he was right on the mark. hard hitting and yet using the best of English and with words well chosen and well placed. Personally, I dont think todays speech is his best speech yet, but from what I read, I get the distinct impression that he has more to say and will say it.
From what I read today, I dare Bush to personally launch an attack on Kerry to the tune of Kerry’s response to the Swfit boat ad. I dare Bush to change his tune and not continue in his previous mode of saying that Kerry is an honorable Veteran.
Kerry is on the move and hence I agree with the other posts which note that someone needs to check on the GOP and Pat Roberts and Jerry Falwell and that crowd. Someone needs to monitor things and challenge the republicans to be clean this time around.
I dont think that there is any real need for anxiety about Kerry. He seems to know what he is about and he is playing his cards the way he wants to. I have not seen or heard any recent mis-steps from him and currently he is under relentless attack from the GOP fronts.
Even tho I have noticed alot more support from the rank and file dems and various supporting organisations, I still think that its important that every kerry supporter beat the streets, wear out some soles and tell somebody to vote for Kerry.
The world needs a change in the White House. One thing that is certain, is that the world will breathe a sigh of relief when Bush departs this White House. The world stands a better chance of quelling the attacks of terrorist under a Kerry regime. The World stands a better chance of getting help to fix Iraq and the world under a kerry umbrella. The World is much more prone to getting help with just about every world issue if people vote for Kerry.
Unfortunately Americans are not voting for a president this year, the burden is now to vote for a leader of the free world and thats not a role the George Bush can fulfill.. I am very sorry GWB but you just dont cut it. Kerry deserves his opportunity to prove his metal.
Cheers
to SC. Thanks for clearing that up I read it like the writer meant it and didn’t notice the spelling.
I read somewhere that the Kerry campaign had recruited about 2000 lawyers who were going to spearhead efforts in targeted states to monitor the election and respond to fraud. In my state the Kerry campaign is recuriting volunteers with the goal of having a pollwatcher at every polling site. So I think there is concern at the top and actions are being taken. I do think that it is important to publicize every attempt at fraud as widely as possible now so that when the fraud occurs on election day, people will not be surprised. Of course some fraud is hard to detect. I was a poll watcher at an election about twenty years ago and we had a high number of people who came in to vote only to discover that their names were not listed at that site. We gave them absentee ballots so they could vote anyway. It turned out that the business responisble for printing the voting lists had “accidently” printed the names of Democrats at the wrong polling sites. The business was a small local concern owned by the chair of the county Republican party.
Also our state Kerry campaign is calling all Democratic and independent voters and urging them to switch to absentee ballots.
The Republicans will cheat in this election. I expect that soon they will start rumors of Democratic cheating since accusing us of their crimes is part of their way of operating.
If you think your state Kerry campaign is not planning for for ways to deal with election fraud, then call them up, get active, voice your concerns. But the fact that the kerry campaign in my safe Kerry state is planning for fraud should be reassuring. If steps are being taken here, they must be taking steps in Ohio and Florida.
Link is to WashPost article this AM discrediting central claims of one of Kerry’s most vocal Swift boat critics:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html
Wonderful letter, BT. Honestly, I find myself in a lather of anxiety over the coming election. It has long been my contention that Republicans do not really want educated voters or honest elections because that would be a losing situation for them. When we have a media which is also corporately owned and pretty much do the bidding of the people in power, what hope is there. I feel like we are spitting in the wind!
I don’t usually get so discouraged, but we’ve just been treated to 2 weeks of swift boat ads by the Republican slime machine, and I have a bad, bad feeling that there’s going to be more mud thrown by them shortly, and they are so carefully crafted that they are difficult to dispute. Josh Marshall has a good article this morning about this. We’re going to have to get as good at throwing dirt as the Republicans. God knows, Bush has given us enough to work with!
I’d like to see an ad that talks about the 500 or so men that Bush skipped over to get into the TANG. How many of those men were subsequently drafted to Viet Nam and how many of them died so that the shrub could sit on his ass swigging beers and not showing up for duty?
I’m angry about the dirt these Republicans throw, and I think it’s time we threw some back.
I think Fact Checker is referring to the use of “then” instead of “than”. It’s a common mistake, unfortunately.
“than” means you are making a comparison. “then” means that something else happened next. Very different words, even thought there’s only one letter different.
The headline should be
“Pew Research Center Report Shows Swing Voters Closer to Kerry Than Bush”.
By using “then”, it makes it sound like swing voters were closer to Kerry, but are now closer to Bush.
BT, that’s a terrific letter! (I have read Toobin’s book.) Of course, this problem is bigger than Florida, enormous as Florida is. Maybe we need lawyers to get started filing suits (or something) now. The NY Times has a good editorial this (Thursday) morning on this subject in its broadest context.
BTW, if you or sympathetic others you know are having trouble getting worked up about free and fair elections I’d recommend as page-turner bedtime reading Jeff Toobin’s book on the Florida recount, Too Close to Call.
Michael, I couldn’t agree more, with one exception.
I agree wholeheartedly with Bel’s pleas to ordinary citizens to get involved and help our cause, recognizing that many are doing so now.
While it would be comforting to believe that the DNC, state Dem parties, and advocacy organizations can and will take care of these problems for others of us who share these concerns, I think we are better off assuming they need all the help they can get.
Re Florida, I sent this letter to an influential, sympathetic national columnist this morning:
Dear ,
Pardon my language, but what in the hell has the federal government been doing on election reform during the Bush Administration? The changes they enacted awhile back were mildly helpful as I understand it, but nowhere near what obviously needed to be addressed following the Florida debacle. The buck stops at the White House for this for yet another example of abysmal, utterly failed leadership–this time, at inexcusable peril to the health of our democracy.
What does it say about the level of confidence people have in our voting systems when the Florida Republican party is urging voters to vote absentee, and when many other citizens in jurisdictions with electronic voting machines but no paper trail backup are deciding for themselves that if they want their votes counted, absentee is the way to go?
Regarding the circumstances reported in Bob Herbert’s column earlier this week in the NY Times, why is it that no one–absolutely no one–evidently even believes it is appropriate to demand that Governor Bush see to it that an immediate, impartial, and thorough investigation be launched to determine whether federal voting rights laws have been violated in this instance?! The investigation needs to be completed swiftly and the results shared openly with the public.
Evidently, by the lights of Republican doctrine, it’s just fine for the US Supreme Court to find a sufficiently compelling federal interest in how Florida does its voting to shut down the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court in 2000. But it’s not enough of a federal interest for the other two branches of the federal government–controlled by the same party– to take vigorous action to see to it that the problems which led to this extreme and unusual (and of course unjustified) intervention be rectified.
How can we possibly find ourselves in the situation we are in 11 weeks before this election? Amazing.
(end of letter)
Fact Checker, I don’t understand your comment? It looks fine to me.
The is not directly relevant to the Pew poll but is nonetheless extremely important, I feel: There have been a spate of stories in the press lately–notably Paul Krugman’s latest column–concerning the honesty of the coming election. Will all the votes be accurately counted? Will all eligible voters who wish to vote be permitted to do so? I hope the Democratic Party at the highest levels as well as the various “good government” organizations and the media are monitoring these issues very closely. They obviously go to the very core of our democracy.
“Swing Voters Closer to Kerry Then Bush.” So, which is it? Typo perhaps?