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’d welcome the passage of the Colorado initiative this year, as it would probably ensure Kerry at least a couple of electoral votes in the state (the Denver and Boulder-based areas.) Although it would also ensure Bush a couple (Colorado Springs and Eastern CO).
But I’m reluctant, on the other hand, to embrace this system for the whole nation, especially if it were keyed to congressional districts (as in Maine and Nebraska). Gerrymandering of districts has had generally negative effects on congressional elections; we don’t need it determining the presidency as well.
in other news, race2004.net reports a poll showing that Colorado initiative might just pass.
I still don’t like it, regardless, and I’d think that Colorado voters wouldn’t want it. It should make candidates less interested in working on Colorado.
It’s also not clear what the influence would be on this year’s vote. If it passes and only, say, New Hampshire and Colorado go from Bush 2000 to Kerry, then if Kerry loses Colorado, he’s still a vote short; if he wins, it’s a tie. In contrast, if it doesn’t pass, New Hampshire and Colorado (if they’re the only shifts) give Kerry the win.
On the other hand, if Kerry holds the Gore states and takes New Hampshire and Nevada, the Colorado states that would come in a loss would put him over the top.
Weird.
Keep watching this race. It’s gonna be interesting all the way.
pempel-
I’d attribute this to chance variation. There’s not much going on there, and a 4% Bush lead is in keeping with a good number of polls.
I agree with Wilbur about Ohio. There’s NO WAY that Bush is ahead by 11%. The Ohio Poll is notoriously pro-GOP. In 2000 Bush only won by 50-49% (combined Gore-Nader) and since then the Ohio economy has declined more than almost any other state.
In live near Dayton and the normally GOP suburbs in my area have as many Kerry signs as Bush ones. I’ve lived in the same neighborhood for over four decades, and I’ve NEVER seen so many Democratic signs. Frankly, the poll showing Bush up by 2% is probably optimistic for Bush!
Unless something drastic occurs, I think Kerry will win Ohio!
Good state polls lately for Kerry-Edwards, but can anyone explain the widening national gap in favor of Bush on Rasmussen’s daily poll? The last four days show Bush moving up from 47.8% to 48.8% while Kerry’s numbers drop from 46.1% to 44.8%. Granted, small changes, but to me a worrisome trend. T.J.
The ARG polls are tremendous news for Kerry (how could polls be so different? Something wierd is going on this year). Here’s the reason they are even better than they look. For anybody who has ever done any political work in Iowa you know that this state is almost completely dependent on how you are organized on the ground – maybe more than any other state in the country. A month ago I saw an interview with somebody from the Des Moisnes register – who really knows this stuff – who said he has never seen the type of organization he’s seeing with Kerry (not the fake stuff there was with Dean, but real professional). So my take is if Kerry is with MOE he is probably ahead. You also have to believe that New Hampshire swings back to Kerry. Again, if you know anything about New England culture you know the whole “neighbor” thing runs deeper than political affiliation. It will be astounding if New Hampshire doesn’t go for Kerry in the end no matter what the polls.
Also, I live in Ohio and the organization here for Kerry is the best I have seen in my lifetime. In the Columbus area you see more K/E bumper stickers and lawn signs than B/C. Also many neighborhoods have organized so well they have their own unique signs like Upper Arlington for Kerry. I have never seen that before. I you have lived in Columbus for the last decade you would know how amazing this is.
Looking over the ARG results…first, they note a 47-46 Bush lead, across the country. They see Bush up 133-132 in states outside the margin of error. They see Kerry up 270-253 in states with any lead. Um, I keep saying this, but this race is gonna be close.
Here are the 27 states with single digit differences, starting with the most pro-Bush, ending with the most pro-Kerry:
Mississippi Bush +9
Louisiana Bush +8
Tennessee Bush +7
Arizona Bush +6
Missouri Bush +6
Virginia Bush +6
North Carolina Bush +5
Arkansas Bush +3
Iowa Bush +2
Nevada Bush +2
Ohio Bush +2
New Hampshire Bush +2
Colorado Bush +1
West Virginia tie
Wisconsin tie
Florida Kerry +1
Pennsylvania Kerry +1
Minnesota Kerry +2
Oregon Kerry +2
Maine Kerry +4
New Mexico Kerry +5
Illinois Kerry +6
Washington Kerry +7
New Jersey Kerry +8
Michigan Kerry +8
Delaware Kerry +9
Maryland Kerry +9
If you do the cut at states being within 3% one way or the other, that includes (12):
Bush 2000 states–Arkansas, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, West Virginia
Gore 2000 states–Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin
For a 4-6% difference (7):
Bush 2000 states–North Carolina, Arizona, Virginia, Missouri
Gore 2000 states–Maine (and that danged distict…), New Mexico, Illinois
For a 7-9% difference (8):
Bush 2000 states–Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi
Gore 2000 states–Washington, Michigan, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland
I’d think those first dozen states are the main battleground these days, with Maine and New Mexico added given recent polls by other organizations. That yields 7 Bush 2000 states and 7 Gore 2000 states.
But keep an eye on some of those other states to see if there is a discernible shift in the near future.
Just a heads up. The ARG list of all 50 states is now up. I’ve not looked at it yet.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
I agree that “Shrub” probably is leading, but there’s no reason for Democrats to despair. For example, Florida and Pennsylvania recently swung back (barely) to Kerry although the Rasmussen polls admittedly did not include Nader.
—
It is fascinating to compare the four vote projection sites out there: Electoral Vote Projection Map &
Race2004.net (run by Dems) and FederalReview.com & ElectionProjection.com (both right-leaning). I would love to see a retrospective “fact check” analysis after Nov.3 to find out which methodology proved most accurate in the end. To me, the probabilistic methods favored by FederalReview.com & ElectionProjection.com seem unnecessarily complicated; I suspect Race2004.net gets it right by simply putting states in a “tossup” column if the difference is small. Nobody really knows how PA and FL will work out, for now. It would be premature for “Shrub” supporters to start gloating now, just as it was foolish of Kerry supporters to think last month’s electoral vote tally of ~300 EVs was “safe”. A lot will depend on some very close state races.
MARCU$
Is there any detail available on the Ohio poll? Not good news there. Also, I just saw a report of a poll in Colorado showing a 12% Bush lead, from Ciruli Associates. That’s very different from everything else. ARG, Zogby, Rasmussen, and the Republican POS group all have had the race at only a 1% difference.
The state polls are more evidence that Kerry is in deeper trouble than Ruy thinks.
1. Ohio is basically a swing state- so if the race is even nationally Bush should be leading by no more than 4 or 5 points. Instead Bush leads by 11 – suggesting a 6-8 pt lead for Bush.
2. Iowa should be a Democratic state. Bush’s 5 point lead suggests that he has a big lead nationally.
On the other hand, Kerry’s leads in Michigan and Oregon suggest that this is not as bad for Dems as 1984- but certainly it is comparable to 1988, where Dukakis carried a decent number of states but still not enough to make it close nationally.
Bottom line: Bush doesn’t have the double digit lead that some national polls suggest- but it isn’t dead even either. If it was, Kerry would be leading in Iowa, and Bush’s lead in Ohio would be much smaller.