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.
While Gallup is finding Bush comfortably ahead of Kerry in Wisconsin, Sen Russ Feingold (D-WI) is ahead by more than 20 over his GOP challenger. I know we’re famous for ticket-splitting, but it’s not very likely that we’d go overwhelmingly for a liberal like Feingold AND go for Bush. Gallup is no longer worthy of reading or reporting.
Dana, you speak of the love that I dare not speak its name – the SWEEP.
I hope it is coming, and I agree with your logic.
I’ve been telling anyone who will listen we are going to win by 5 million votes.
I hope we have enough to take back the House. We have to stop those crazy rightwingers by rooting out their nest.
The intensity on both sides is intense. I doubt that there will be a Democratic majority in either the House or the Senate.
But the intensity on the side of the Democrats is a good thing. The Republicans have had good turnout for years, but not the Democrats. I’m hoping that there will be some surprises on Nov 2nd.
Excerpt from James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans:
“We have decided that we’ll try Rumsfeld working with Gallup. He went to school with George [Gallup] Jr. at Princeton,” Colson told the president in July 1971. Nixon and Colson were eager to try to influence the results of major pollsters, notably Gallup and Harris, perhaps getting them to phrase their questions or to present their results in ways that were helpful to Nixon. “I mean, if the figures aren’t up there, we don’t want them to lie about it,” Nixon explained to Colson at one point. “They can trim them a little one way or another.” [Note 40: Nixon phone call to Colson, July 23, 1971, conversation 6-197, Nixon tape collection, National Archives.] …
RUMSFELD: Say, I want to just report, sir, about my conversation with George Gallup [Jr.].
NIXON: Oh yeah, you went to school with him, didn’t you?
RUMSFELD: I did. And I kind of want to be awful careful about telling people around the building that I’m talking to him. Because all he’s got in his business is his integrity.
Rumsfeld then informed Nixon an upcoming Gallup Poll would show that the president’s popularity had recently gone up. [Note 41: Nixon conversation with Rumsfeld, October 19, 1971, conversation 11-135, Nixon tape collection, National Archives.]
http://www.ufppc.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=759&Itemid=2
Okay, call me paranoid, but maybe Gallup is deliberately”gaming its polls to give cover to the Republicans who appear to be doing their dead-level best to steal the election in Florida and in Ohio. If Bush “miraculously” pulls ahead by four or five points on election day, the media will simply point to these convenient Gall-up polls, announce Bush would have won anyways—look at those Gallup polls–tell Democrats that they should just Get Over It.
I’m predicting a Kerry victory—I think just too many Democrats will show up in the polls for the GOP to scare off or intimidate or spin away. And I also predict that Gall-up won’t be short of clients. CNN will continue to buy their services. Or (worst-case scenario) Gall-up will lose a few media contracts, but be more than compensated by all the new right-wing think tank business.
Question: Has any pollster come up with a methology for correlating the intensity of support for a candidate or party with final results?
In 1994 polls showed a fairly close Congressional election, but there was great intensity among Republicans (remember the “revenge of the white men?”) and they won Congress.
In 1986, however, there was greater intensity among Democrats, something not found in polls, and you had some huge upsets, like Wyche Fowler in Georgia.
My own guess on intensity shows it off the charts on the Democratic side, slightly elevated on the Republican. This points toward a huge Democratic swing, absolute control of Congress and a landslide for Kerry.
But I’m not a statistician, and I don’t know how you could measure it with a poll.
Any thoughts?
The Bushites are scared. Bush visited WI again today. Even the Rep that was on NPR admitted that WI appears to be trending towards Kerry Edwards.
Isn’t the best evidence that this is total horse—– the fact that Bush is campaigning frenetically in these states. I would have thought that 9% would mean going somewhere really close.
CNN & USA Today must fire Gallup
If this election proves that the Gallup methodology is flawed and their flaws show a tilt to one side then we should compell CNN & USA Today to fire Gallup. Recently CNN interviewed Gallup and asked him about the poll discrepencies…his answer was that their LV model was better. When asked about the ‘bandwagon effect’ (do polls effect how people view the candidates and do they become a Self-fulfilling Prophecy Frank actually said “would that be a bad thing?..people should factor polls into their decisions”.
Therefore if they turn out to be ‘idiots’ we should immediately do to CNN & USA Today what we did to Sinclair and force them to drop Gallup
Ok, it’s only a week before the elction and my paranoia is running rampant. Could it be that the Gallup poll is providing cover for rampant electronic voting fraud?
Happy Halloween!
Kilroy
Gallup is really walking the plank on this election. But a lot of the blame rests on CNN and USATODAY for spreading the baloney poll results around and paying Gallup a lot of $. An important goal is to try to get CNN and USATODAY to dissociate themselves from Gallup. It’s impossible for this election, but possible for the future.
Actually they will look like geniuses or SHILLS. I don’t think there’s a lot of doubt about which, but we’ll know in a week.
Read The Vulcans. There is chapter about Rumsfeld’s rise during the Nixon Administration. One of his duties during Dick’s re-election was to game the Gallup brothers. While Rummie wouldn’t get the Gallup poll to lie, he would get advance warning of the poll’s findings.
Seems this year, he is getting the Gallup poll to lie.
Their huge pro-GOP sample bias in Florida certainly speaks for itself. However, what about the latest Gallup poll for Ohio, which was released a day after their latest Wisconsin poll:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-10-21-ohio-poll.htm
It showed Kerry up 48-47 among LVs, and a startling 50-44 Kerry lead among RVs! Huh? Most Ohio polls are looking pretty good for Kerry, but 50-44? Isn’t that a bit much?