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.
The premise of the argument you cite from Alan Abramowitz is flawed (“If you assume that Democrats, Republicans, and independents in their LV sample voted about the same way as Dems, Reps, and indies in their RV sample. . . .”).
Why assume that? We know that the population of registered voters is wealthier and more educated than the voting age population as a whole, and hence more economically conservative, and I think that it is a reasonable assumption that the same holds true for the difference between a wealthier and more educated group of “Likely Voters” who will eventually vote compared to everyone on the rolls (“Registered Voters”).
But this assumption is what Abramowitz’s own assumption (i.e. “if you assume”) flatly contradicts!
If RV’s are “assumed” to be as proportionately partisan as the LV’s, well, then the game is up right away. We democrats can then just “assume” that the lower polls figures for LV’s don’t matter — and ignore them!
After all, if the partisanship of LV’s and RV’s is identical, or assumed to be so, then why record the LV’s at all? Just do RV’s only and “assume” that’s such is an accurate measure of the predelictions of who will show up on Election Day!
But no pollster, certainly after Labor Day, would ever dream of doing that! Are we then to believe that concrete differences between RV’s and LV’s in the data are explained by some other factor than partisanship, and unrelated to it? And what factor might that be?
If the Democrats want the partisanship of those who will vote on Election Day to more closely resemble the partisanship of the population of Registered Voters (RV’s) as a whole, not to mention those of voting age as a group, then its candidates will do well to move the focus away from the National Security and more toward kitchen-table economics as we approach that day.
Assuming that RV’s and LV’s are of similar partisan composition is to blind oneself to the strategy needed for a good democratic turnout, and to guarantee disapppointment at the polls, when the difference between the opinions of Registered Voters and those of actual Voters is decisively and finally measured.
My main worry about this is that BCO4 have clearly been following a strategy of “activate the base”. I think they think that the swing voters are a lost cause. Maybe that’s just what they want us to think, but why else all the fuss about gay marriage? While I’ll admit that this poll seems an outlier, just how well IS the base activation plan working?
Normally, it’s a loser’s strategy, but Karl Rove is well above average when it comes to message.
It would be more effective if you simply wrote one sentence:
“Why is the Washington Post ignoring polls that show the race tied, and why it is using polls with slanted methodology?”
Like Kerry, you say too much and obfuscate your message.
If I’m offensive, I don’t mean to be, but I don’t have much time right now. I like your intention, but brief things said with PUNCH get printed and/or heard.
recognizing everthing said about the polls what i notice is the absolute inalibilty of kerry to make a simple point. listening to the sound bites on NPR today, bush made conscise points(even if they are basically lies) and kerry, even with the new W=wrong cheer, manges to deflate the emotion and add something extraneous,unneccessary, almost a non-sequitor, to each and every statement he makes, thus deadening the whole rhetorical pitch. maybe he ad libs, or the speeches are poorly written, i don’t know.
and may i add as a loyal democrat i could not tell you one thing kerry believes in , including his real opinion on iraq.
one more thing: i live on south johnson street, san marcos tx. ring any bells? LBJ lived in the house next door when he taugh school here. after 6 years as governor and 4 years as presidnt i can say with real authrity that bush exhibits all the criteria for a DSM-IV diagnoses of narcissitc and borderline persoanlity disorders.
I welcome feedback on the following draft letter to the Editor (in my case, to the WashPost), which I will probably send out tomorrow. Thanks in advance.
To the Editors:
What editorial standards does the Post use to decide which polls to report and what background information to provide to readers interested in understanding what they really show and don’t show?
It is bewildering as a reader to try to make heads or tails out of all manner of polls the Post reports, showing widely divergent results on where the race stands. Some use likely voters, some use registered voters. Is one a more reliable measure than the other? What assumptions do polling organizations use to determine at this point who is likely to vote, anyway, and are some of these more reasonable than others? What is the track record for different polling organizations in predicting past results, and does that figure into the Post’s editorial decisions about which ones to report?
Generally the only background context provided in the reporting of most of these polls is the dates on which they were taken and whether they were drawn from likely voters or registered voters. I’m trying to educate myself on what conclusions can reliably be drawn. But I don’t receive any help on this from the Post or, for that matter, most of the major media print and TV outlets. Instead, they seem to act as if they are in a race to see who can “report” first the latest poll–better, worse or worthless.
(end of draft letter)
Weeell… I don’t think so.
And I don’t think any polls are heavily rigged. There’s just a huge amount of flawed methodology around. And the media are happy to go with big differences and sudden turn-arounds.
Let’s just hope they’ll soon get tired of the “Bush has already won” story. After all it’s still almost two months to go. What do write about within one week, two weeks? “Bush is ahead, and he remains ahead. Isn’t it amazing how ahead he is..?” Yawn.
I guess by now they’d happily take any poll measuring some swing to Kerry. I’m actually not that worried if Kerry comes to the first debate as the underdog. Expectation game, expectation game!
Not that I’ve got any trust in the “liberal” media, of course. But in November 2000 they almost got tangled in their own spin about “loser Gore”. Those darn 350 votes in Florida!
OK, here’s a conspiracy theory for you: the media really are on our side, just like the conservatives have been saying all along! They’ve been spinning the polls heavily in Shrub’s favor so as to make the GOP overconfident, and to try to light the fire in JFK’s belly. Fox is naturally trying to counteract that.
Any better ones?
I think it’s kind of funny that Fox/Opinion Dynamics polls have consistently given Bush a smaller-than-average lead in recent horse-race matchups. I suppose you could concoct some switcheroo reverse-psychology conspiracy theory to explain this, but I think it supports Eugene “Pollkatz” Thiel’s recent conclusion that while these polls all have systematic biases, most of them are not intentional.
Gabby’s got it right. The key is not letting these polls discourage our voters. I’ve thought for a long time that the LV sampling is wrong–but how to get it across? I think the best thing is emphasizing how wrong the polls got it last time.
Rob
Three polls show it tied, including Fox and a Republican pollster, Rasmussen.
Zogby will show Bush with a 3-4 point lead tomorrow in his.
Bush did get some kind of bounce, but the way it is being exaggerated by the media, through their choice of this poll versus that poll, and the way it is being treated as conventional wisdom that Kerry has lost because of this, it is all very disturbing.
Whether or not Bush got the kind of huge bounce that Gallup and the media are trying to portray seems less important than the way it is being spun. Bush might actually gain support and Kerry lose support because of the spin that is being put on this.
It would be nice if we could get an alternative view on this into the media, but it doesn’t seem to be happening. All we hear is Matt Dowd’s spin.
Ruy, thanks for doing what you are doing. Keep it up. Please.
Read Ruy’s comments until you understand why your premise remains faulty.
Do you have nothing to say about the latest Post/ABC poll?
In any case: I appreciate your analyses of the polls, which are accurate and teach me how to read them. But don’t you get tired of it? WHATEVER the polls say, it’s OBVIOUS that Kerry left himself open to the RNC death-fest by not taking clear and compelling positions on terror and security. It’s OBVIOUS that he’s in trouble–obvious from the way he speaks, from the way Bush speaks, from the scope and tenor of the entire debate between them.
More interesting than the polls are Kerry’s recent attempts to take firmer stands and turn his campaign around. Do you think he’s going to get traction with his new strategies? Or is it too late to convince people that he represents a real and compelling and heartfelt and angry and focused national security alternative?
If it is too late, he’ll lose in the only polls that matter.
I get the argument about LV screens giving artificial boosts to Republicans, but why would Gallup and CBS (RVs) and Time and Newsweek all oversample Republicans? Could it be that the horrifying, lie-packed, but apparently effective, GOP convention convinced some previously independent or D respondents to consider themselves Republicans when pollsters called? This would “account” for Republican “oversample” but validate their results. (Maybe when the bounce fades, they’ll go back to calling themselves Ds or Is.)
You seemed happy to accept the poll a couple months ago that had a large portion of Democrats and wasn’t balanced for that. Now that not balancing for party shows Bush doing better, this is obviously bad methodology?
The convention gave a bounce to Bush because of how positively it conveyed his message. This isn’t hard to believe. So, the convention gave a bounce to Republicanism because of how positively it conveyed the Republican message.