“They’re the ones I pay attention to”
–Matthew Dowd, Bush’s chief campaign strategist, on Gallup relative to other polling organizations, quoted in today’s New York Times
Thanks for signing up!
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
tds-wwc-roundtable
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
December 18: Democratic Strategies for Coping With a Newly Trumpified Washington
After looking at various Democratic utterances about dealing with Trump 2.0, I wrote up a brief typology for New York:
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.
If you can’t beat ’em, (partially) join ’em
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.
Join ’em (very selectively) to beat ’em
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.
Aim at the dead center
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.
Cut a few deals to mitigate the damage
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.”
Hang tough and aim for a Democratic comeback
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 really wish Kerry had made a strong statement warning the republicans against election fraud. Perhaps he will do so before the election. Let’s hopeand pray for America’s sake that the election is clean.
The other possibility, of course, is that maybe Dowd knows that the wheels are in motion for electronic theft of the election results, a possibility that scares the bejeezus out of me and one that I’m not convinced is being sufficiently managed by the DNC and the Kerry Camp.
makes sense given the administration’s adversion tofacts and insistence on “faith-based” approaches to the creation of their own realities (see kevin Drum).
The polls are encouraging one day, discouraging the next. Thanks, Tex, for at least trying to make some sense of it all.
It may come down to the ground game, after all. Especially to those of you in swing states…….call your local Dem HQ and volunteer some time. Most still need more people to work in a GOTV (Get out the vote) effort on Nov. 2.
Given the wide discrepancies in LV and RV results we’ve seen, and how much the LV polls differed from the actual result in 2000, is anyone prepared yet to state as a general principle either that: (a) Bush’s supporters consistently overstate their enthusiasm for their candidate to pollsters; or (b) that Democrats tend to understate their enthusiasm?
We can overthink this, or we can take it at face value. Either way
1. It’s a dodge
2. It’s true, because he’s complimenting Gallup on its work.
3. It’s true, because he believes it.
If it’s #3 then I’m thrilled, because the BC’04 campaign will feel great about an oversampled GOP poll, not a real reflection of actual voter thought (remembering of course the last Gallup poll before Election Day 2000….)
Must be “faith-based” polling . . .
This is not the first time that Republicans have cited Gallup as the authority. Dailykos has a broadcast e-mail from the Republicans that also relies on Gallup. Remember that Gallup is still building its models based upon the assumption of low turnout: 50-55%. This means that they take for granted a wildly successful suppression of the vote.
Let them go by Gallup! They did in 2000 and that’s why Bush and Rove were walking around like two peacocks as if they had already won. They slowed down campaigning at the end as well. I am afraid they are smarter this time but I truly wish they would believe the Gallup numbers for then there is absolutely no need for an October surprise since they have already won — right?
Wouldn’t surprise me: it fits the Administration’s delusional and sanguine view of the world and this election that runs contrary to reality. If you will New Jersey in play, it can be so!
Zogby has Bush with an approval rating of 44-46 %. Historically, this is bad news for the incumbent at this time. My hopeful hunch is that this election will mimic that of 1980. Carter and Reagan were in a close race, Carter had low approval ratings, and the undecideds did not turn until the last weekend. Watching the daily Zogby tracking polls – they don’t move much – I see the same thing happening. The polls will move Kerry’s way, but not until the last weekend. Karl Rove believes that Bush must be up by 4 points going into the last weekend in order to win. Historical trends are probably the best predictors at this point.
Amazing…
Well, I suppose that’s good news for us.
Would anyone take that comment seriously? I have a hunch he is just saying that because Bush is up in the Gallup.