The reaction among Democrats to Donald Trumpâs return to power has been significantly more subdued than what we saw in 2016 after the mogulâs first shocking electoral win. The old-school “resistance” is dead, and itâs 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 Trumpâs 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 partyâs 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 heâs making news regularly for taking steps in Trumpâs direction.
Quite a few Democrats publicly expressed dismay over Joe Bidenâs 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. Fettermanâs approach was to join Trumpâs Truth Social platform, which is a fever swamp for the president-electâs most passionate supporters. Various Democrats are cautiously circling Elon Musk, Trumpâs new best friend and potential slayer of the civil-service system and the New DealâGreat Society legacy of federal programs. But Fetterman seems to want to become Muskâs 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 Trumpâs 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.
Itâs probably germane to Fettermanâs conduct that he will be up for reelection in 2028, a presidential-election year in a state Trump carried on November 5. Or maybe heâs 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 âcommon groundâ on issues where they believe he will be cross-pressured by his wealthy backers and more conventional Republicans. Like Fetterman, these Democrats â including Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren â 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. Theyâve talked about strategically encouraging Trumpâs âpopulistâ 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 âpopulism.â
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 âshaking upâ 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 weekâs 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, wasnât 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.
Weâre 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 Trumpâs agenda in exchange for continued protection from deportation of DREAMers. Politico reports:
“The prize that many Democrats would like to secure is protecting Dreamers â 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 administrationâs âmass deportationâ plans in exchange for concessions:
“In interviews, 11 Democratic governors, governors-elect and candidates for the office often expressed defiance toward Mr. Trumpâs expected immigration crackdown â 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, itâs 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 Trumpâs behalf and signaling good vibes for 2028.
Interesting comment on NPR overhead while I was in a taxi this weekend (sorry, I can’t say who the expert was; a woman newspaper reporter from Philly, I gathered):
The commentator said that Kerry’s post-debates strategy seems to be to aim at undecided voters, while Bush keeps working his base.
The commentator indicated that she thought Kerry was a fool for aiming at nonexistent undecideds and independents.
But conventional poli sci wisdom indicates that even in tight races, there is a pool of 5-10 percent undecideds and independents right up until election day.
Therefore, to me, Kerry’s strategy indicates that Kerry believes his base is motivated and ready to vote, and that the election will turn on these undecideds and indies. Bush, meanwhile, still is having trouble getting his base motivated. (Hence, the “L-word” campaign about Mary Cheney, which energizes his Christian far-right base.)
If your base is in trouble 15 days out, you’re done as president.
What taunt? I think the comment was perfectly legitimate given that the Bushites have spent much of the last 6 months attacking people based on sexual orientation. Those who live in glass houses shouldn’ throw stones….
How dare John Kerry imply that God loves Mary Cheney just the way she is. It’s evil I tell you. If politicians keep speaking like this, we might soon live in a country where bigots don’t feel comfortable bashing gay people.
And how dare he give a clear answer to a question that might offend people. Why can’t he follow the example of our strong, resolute leader and just say that he doesn’t know? He can’t he just mumble something about being tolerant and then try every way possible to exclude those people from common benefits, just like a strong, resolute leader does? It’s the strong, resolute thing to do. If Kerry keeps this up people might start asking our strong, resolute leader: “If you can’t stand up to the bigots in your own party, how are you going to stand up to the terrorists?” And how dare the democrats keep bringing up homosexuals (and icky words like lesbian) when they are asked about homosexuality? Did you see John Edwards answer a question that referenced Mary Cheney, he actually mentioned Mary Cheney? It’s an outrage. Thank you you Mickey Kaus for your continued efforts to point out the horrid gestures of inclusion and acceptance that the Kerry/Edwards campaign is making, and also their snide way of answering questions asked of them. I just hope America can survive.
My vote is for “kinda weird”. The way the BC04 campaign is tacking, hard, everyday, in its direction and for what issues to push on any given day makes me wonder. I mean, if it were the Kerry campaign not just switching from issue of the day, but to overall campaign strategy of the day (from “flip-flopper” to “VVAW traitor” to “global tester” to “Massachussetts librul” to … whatever….), the Inside Baseball types would be talking about a campaign in chaos and would wonder if heads were going to roll at the top of the campaign.
Of course this is a classic Rove ploy to keep the base fired up, while diverting attention from the administrations dismal record. This is the basis for the polling data that show RV’s moving in Kerry’s direction while LVs going for Bush. It’s a lot easier to keep people motivated and committed by making them feel defensive. The trumped up ‘cultural war’ was manufactured for this purpose and the marriage amendment is just the latest product. Outrage over cultural issues is the greatest motivator they have. Progressives and liberals on the other hand are far slower to mobilize against a regressive government. The right knows this well and can exploit the corporate tools of bread and circuses to keep the masses from uniting against them. Mary Cheney provide a perfect foil for them. The Cheney’s can show how tolerant they are of ‘alternate lifestyles’ and yet they can also play the role of victims by alluding to Kerry’s taunt. In the end I don’t think it gets them anywhere, because the fundies were always going to vote for them and no moderate or liberal will be swayed by their phoney outrage.
Good comments by all in this thread. I agree with most of them, even the ones that seem contradictory. đ
I’ve been dropping the idea around that it’s a strong tactic for them for three main reasons, all of which have been mentioned: One, it distracts the media from the bin Laden flub, an absolutely necessary change of message; Two, it maintains an attack on Kerry’s character, a central part of GOP campaign framing for 20-odd years; Three, it reassures the Religious Right base that the Cheneys see their gay daughter the proper way, as a family tragedy and burden to bear (corollary: if Mary Cheney had been a potential stem-cell research beneficiary, and was mentioned by Kerry for that reason); and Three.5, as a way to reassure moderate Republicans that it’s still a Big Tent party (same role played by the J.C. Wattses). I think it succeeded on all these grounds, but … at best, it only shored up the base. It wasn’t a way to appeal to undecideds. In that sense I think the original point was pertinent; it got them off the Kerry is Liberal message. The Kerry is a scheming, amoral man who will use another family’s tragedy to his advantage is not too far off that mark, but again, it appeals chiefly to the base.
This is not the work of a confident campaign.
1. Bush needed to talk about anything but the debate topics and outcome.
2. Bush needed to have some topic on which others could attack Kerry, ala Smear Boaters.
3. The Mary Cheney thing is perfect. The outrage feeds the base, while reinforcing their loathing of homosexuality. They accept her because she’s Cheney’s. She has to know that.
4. ALL attacks require some response. See also the Smear Boat failure.
I find it amazing that people are still talking about this “non” issue.
Plain and simple, Bush, Inc. needed something to distract from Bush’s, “it’s one of those… exagerrations”, response for not being concerned about Osama Bin Laden.
It worked, no one is talking about Bush’s lack of focus and failure to capture Bin Laden.
Yeah I’m with bruhrabbit on this. If this is the best BC04 can do, they are in trouble. By Monday, this will have faded away. What will replace it? This is from today, 10.16.04:
Iraq Car Bombings Kill 4 U.S. Soldiers
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041016/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=2100
Two U.S. Helicopters Crash in Iraq, Killing Two
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041016/wl_nm/iraq_helicopters_dc&cid=574&ncid=1478
Military Families Express Some Iraq Doubts
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041016/ap_on_re_us/military_poll&cid=519&ncid=1478
PS: Is it possible to href links with this comment tool? Couldn’t figure it out.
I’ve got to agree that the Bush/Cheney pursuit of the Mary Cheney issue is both bizarre and unproductive for them.
The obvious thing to remember here is that we can know apriori that the Bush campaign would now be pushing SOMETHING Kerry said in his last debate to attack him (witness the “global test” brouhaha). If this is all they could find, that can only be a very good sign, because it’s an issue that’s muddied for a thousand reasons (including the fact that Cheney himself brought up the issue previously), and cuts both ways anyway. Time, energy, and spinning resources spent attempting to slime Kerry on this point directly subtracts from their overall slime budget, and that’s a positive thing for Kerry.
I do wonder however if the highly conspicuous outrage of the Bush campaign over the remark isn’t really designed in large part to send a clear message to their fundie constituents. Namely, while the Cheneys may have to “tolerate” their daughter, please understand that they have the good Christian moral sense to be thoroughly ashamed of her.
Bringing up the Lesbian “issue” provides the Bush team with a way to distract the country from the fact that Kerry won all three debates, appeared presidential, came across as more informed than the president, and seemed like a reasonable alternative for the job. I don’t believe the Republicans have brought this up because they are flailing around desperately in search of something to talk about. I reminds me of Gore and the Internet — taking a comment, changing the meaning of the comment, and being critical. I also think it’s a way to energize their religious base.
Get ready for the Mary Cheney tsunami. I visited Andrew Sullivan this morning and found a link to an article titled “Fair Game” by Bill Kristol in the Weekly Standard.
In part Bill claims:
“Leave aside the cheap, cold, calculating cynicism–and cruelty–in Kerry’s appropriation of the alleged opinions of an opposing candidate’s family member to try to embarrass his opponent. Leave aside the view Kerry and his campaign must have of millions of religious Americans if they think this particular McCarthyite moment will work.”
It looks like the right is trying to ratchet up the rhetorical hysteria and CNN is playing along. CNN just had Bruce Weinstein “The Ethics Guy” on. Bruce claimed that it was unethical for Kerry to bring Mary into the national dialogue because (1) “she had not consented” to have her sexuality discussed and (2) just because she’s the daughter of one of the candidates doesn’t make it appropriate to mention her sexuality.
I think “The Ethics Guy” is ethically challenged. He ignores (1) the fact that not only is she a private citizen, she is also a member of the BC04 campaign and has been an outreach spokesperson for Coors in the gay community and (2) the extent to which Lynn Cheney is responsible for going negative and exploiting Mary’s sexuality.
Who this issue backfires on will depend on how aggressively and astutely the Kerry campaign responds. It’s not going away if Carl Rove has anything to say about it.
As a gay guy, I find discussions about gay issues by straight people more than just a little bit annoying. This week in fact for the first time I can definatively say it pisses me off (coming from a left of center guy like me- that says a lot). Let’s play a game call let’s keep it real. I never thought I would be agreeing with Andrew Sullivan (andrewsullivan.com) but the real reason this story has any traction at all is the “eww” factor. A lot of straight people are uncomfortable w/ gay people. I know people like David Brooks will argue “but this isn’t about sexual orientation or being gay,” and to that I respond, blah, blah, blah. Don’t try the verbal jujutsu. Yeah, it is about being gay. I saw a poll yesterday saying that 65 percent of the American people, including Kerry supporters felt the talking about Chenney’s orientation, was a low blow. Now this happened to be WaPo so pretty much with their poll still showing a tie it suggests this is at least a non issue for voters. What annoys me is that 65 percent thought bringing up the sexual orientation was a low blow at all. I mean Chenney has been using his daughter since Bush first dragged out the Anti-gay marriage amendment as a wedge issue in the winter of this year. So how exactly is this a “new” story as the media loves to reason. The only reason that this is a story is that people feel uncomfortable about the subject matter. I know several will write yeah but Kerry mentioned an unnecessary element in discussing Chenney’s daughter. I would respond back again “blah, blah, blah” b/c I find all these discussions to be form over substance. I think Rove is making a mistake with these types of issues. Stuff like “liberal” and now this may have worked in say 1988, but this is not a Willie Horton country anymore. All he has done is reinforce my conclusion that the man doesn’t walk on water like the left thinks he does. I mean where can he go with this? Nowhere- look what quickly replaced it on the front pages today- stories of a platoon refusing to go on a “suicide” mission. The facts on the ground suck for Bush. They know it. We know it. An the American people who are just tuning in know it. If this is the best they can do, bringing up dishonest discussions about gayness, that neither side really wants to discuss (any real discussion of gay issues would take alot of time and is not as simple as either side wants to admit- I was able to convince a few evangelical friends to my position on civil unions recently because I went beyond the rhectoric that is often used on both sides) – if this is the best they got, then they are in real trouble- maybe the next salvo will be more interesting? We shall see.
The Lesbian thing is the only non-base-pumping move that’s come out of the debate cycle.
It’s got to be a calucated risk, and an enormous gamble, because it’s at cross-purposes to the base-only strategy of the whole campaign since the late spring.
The base-only strategy is what’s really fascinating.
I live in a state (ME) that’s more or less synonomous with Good Gray Republicans, and in this state at least, the base-pumping strategy only works in a case where for every one Talibornagain who finally goes slumming in the sinful world long enough to vote for The Lord’s Anointed, less-than-one Good Grey Republican is staying home, or, conceivably, voting Kerry.
The Bush campaign is now like a bathtub with a running faucet and no plug. Rove is betting the pig farm that he can run more votes in at the top of the tub than he’s losing out the bottom through the drain.
If Rove’s only replacing R’s with R’s, not turning D’s to R’s, or I’s into R’s, he loses, unless he’s successfully replacing more than 1 R for every R he drives into staying home.
But any process that maximizes the creation of new R’s minimizes the flipping of D’s to R’s, or I’s with R’s, in which case, he loses.
The degree to which Good Gray Republicans don’t vote, and specifically the degree to which Good Gray Republicans in NH, WI, IA, and OH don’t vote, could go a long way towards determining the outcome of the election.
It’s too bad, quoting Jason Robards from “All the President’s Men”, that “Nothing’s riding on this except the First Amendment to the Constitution, freedom of the press, and maybe the future of the country”, because otherwise it would be fascinating to watch.
I don’t know how anyone could watch a man that is supposed to be leading and protecting ALL of us refer to one of the States contemptuously without cringing. Like a bad parent playing favorites.
We were all from Massachusetts during that moment.
-Jennifer from California
I suspect Rove has been a little off his feed recently what with long interviews with the Fitzgerals prosecutors, and his appearance yesterday before a Grand Jury in DC.
I hope Kerry says very little about the Mary Cheney matter from here on out — but I think some of his surrogates (such as Barney Frank or/and Tammy Baldwin) could let loose on Lynn Cheney. The key thing is for Gay and Lesbian men and women to speak for themselves, and not carry this on as a conversation of straights about gays.
It is always critical in any civil rights movement to move from the point where oppressors talk about the oppressed as victims — to a culture that fully accepts that groups and individuals making demands for rights and liberties appoint their own spokespersons and speak their own mind. In fact, no one appointed Lynn Cheney spokesperson — and having the right people set her in her place is just what’s needed right now.
Real Jazz, keep reading this weblog and the comments … No worries,we are All on the same page here. Thanks EDM … Great Posts!
Further to the thought that B/C 04 is at a loss about what to do, I am not sure its the Liberal! Liberal! strategery failure that’s the driver as much as something a bit more immediate..
Kerry clearly won his third debate..what better than a “blue dress” issue to distract attention from that and break the post-debate reverberation …
The last thing they need are polls showing that Kerrry won D3 by 25 points
First of all, it’s important to be frank. Repeatedly bringing up the fact that Mary Cheney is a lesbian was a BAD idea — probably based (on Kerry’s part) on the ‘vending machine’ approach to answers. When a topic is raised, you are primed to respond with certain soundbites reflexively — which is why Kerry repeated himself and Edwards from other debates so often. He should have cut this and at least 50% of the other repetition out. Often, he could say, when something is brought up, like the global test, that Edwards did an excellent job of explaining its true meaning in the face of the Bush campaign distortions, but, you know, it’s a tactic the Republicans use all the time — simply repeating a point that’s been refuted and ignoring the refutation … . In this instance he DID have to repeat that he won’t give any other country or institution a veto power over US security (adding, “As I have repeatedly made clear …”).
OK, so it was unwise to both use up valuable time and to create a vulnerability, which the Republicans are milking for all it’s worth. Unlike the ‘nuisance’ quote and the accompanying portrayal by Bai as soft on terror, it is a limited risk issue, and the Republicans are using up valuable “cultural space” (public attention span) on a nonlethal attack, which is good.
I feel differently from others here. I am a left progressive (socialist, not a liberal). A concerted attack on Kerry as a liberal soft on terror, which combines nicely with the ‘wishy washy’ flipflopper image is the MOST LIKELY route to defeating him (with the main alternative being simply stealing the election outright). Kerry at least laid the groundwork for countering that, albeit awfully late in the campaign, and has yet to punch the shark of the Bai spin in the nose HARD. This is a speech he badly needs to give (as limned in previous posts). The MC flap merits one remark. The SBVT (or as I insist they be called by ALL bloggers, SwiftBoatVeteransForSlime (SBVS), provides an opportunity to cite the similar remarks to promote their smear by both Dole and Bush Sr. to really lay into the dishonorability of the Bush Repubs. But it may be late in the day for that, when Kerry should be both shielding himself from the soft on terror juggernaut, and hammering away at jobs and the deficit. HE NEVER EXPLAINED IN THE DEBATE THAT 1.9 MILLION JOBS PER YEAR, ESPECIALLY AFTER YEARS OF JOB LOSSES IS NOT IMPRESSIVE.
This needs to be a focus, perhaps of an ad, using repeated bragging (Moore style soundbytes) about the 1.9 million figure from Bush, then explaining why that says it all about Bush and jobs, concluding with “we can do better, we MUST do better.”
Real Jazz is right. This is what, the 5th attempt to get some random Kerry comment to become the focus of the race? Anybody who actually saw the debates won’t fall for it, and it actually makes the Bush campaign look desperate.
I tend to be a worry wort, but I think people should chill on the Mary Cheney comment. First there was the “global test.” Then there was the terrorism as a “nuisance” thing. Now there’s this. The attempts by Rove to make something of these comments seem like the desperate graspings of a campaign that is rapidly unraveling. They have nothing positive to offer, so they’re reaching for anything they can find. Kerry should not have mentioned her by name; it wasn’t necessary. But I don’t see how it could upset anyone except the far-right hypocrites who will support Bush in any case.
It was a no-lose for BC04. At worst, they filibustered, to prevent the stories from being “GWB is 0-3.” At best they get some traction somewhere with the claim that JFK is Machiavellian and mean.
Rather than just reaction, I wish our side would be actively changing the subject. Attack in the green zone, ripping up registrations in Nevada/Oregon, etc. — there’s plenty of material.
BC04 want to try and tarnish Kerry as someone willing to stoop low, who will attack the VP’s daughter in an effort to win. I don’t think there’s confusion for them.
But the key question–was it an offhand comment by Sen. Kerry or a brilliant political move by him [and John Edwards in the VP debate] to try and divide their conservative base that’s so opposed to homosexuals? One mention in the VP debate would be say it’s the former. Two mentions and its probably the latter.
It’s kinda both. The thing missing in this discussion is that it’s purely a defensive move. The election could’ve been lost on Thursday morning if the real story of the debate had gotten the attention it was slated to get. I’m talking, of course, of Bush’s “I never said I wasn’t worried about Bin Laden” comment. That would’ve killed Bush, and the GOP did whatever they could to change the narrative. It got them off-message a bit, but really their only message is that John Kerry is someone to recoil from.
Cool move, putting in comments. Hope that you get a nice community going.
As to using “Liberal” as a smear? Can you say backlash? When you liberally (sorry, couldn’t help myself) use a word as a general catch-all/smear-all you eventually insult people’s intelligence.
I know, conventional wisdom speaks towards the collective short-term memory. But that only applies to specific facts. Thankfully, the human race has the ability to store the general pattern of behavior, even if they can’t recall the specific examples. At least, in my work with addicts and alcoholics, I’ve found this to be true.
So, indiscriminately throwing the title “liberal” at every democrat when there is no overall pattern to back up the charge begins to leave a vague impression with people.
Then, to turn around and perpetrate the very behavior you’ve just accussed of the accursed liberals….well, humans, even as a collective, may sometimes act stupid but that doesn’t mean they are stupid.
The tide is turning. We are recovering from the shock of 9/11. Look out Bush.
I agree Ruy, this is total BS. I honestly can’t believe they’re even trying this.
I mean do they think it’s some kind of deep, dark secret that Mary Cheney is a lesbian? I knew that 4 ywars ago. Of course, this is the same party that wants a constitutional amendment to prevent Mary from getting married, so what do you expect?