The ball is in Trump’s court

Democrats can’t resist Trump until he starts doing things.


In a Perry Bacon article I linked to two weeks ago, he cautioned against “turning into an amateur political strategist”. It’s a tough temptation to resist, and I’ve been in several conversations recently that veered into who the Democrats’ 2028 nominee should be, what groups of voters we should be trying to win over, how our message needs to change, and so on.

If you find your mind heading in that direction, all I can say is “Slow down.” The election of 2028 or even 2026 will be fought on a battlefield that doesn’t exist yet.

I think the place for political thinking to start is with one obvious fact: The Trumpists won in 2024. They got the White House and both houses of Congress. They control the Supreme Court to an extent that no partisan faction has in my lifetime. And I draw one major conclusion from those facts: The ball is in their court. We can’t know precisely what they’ll do with it until they start doing things. The things they do and the consequences of those actions will shape the landscape of 2026 and 2028.

Trump has raised many hopes and expectations among the people who voted for him. Specifically:

  • The economy is going to be fabulous. Not only will inflation stop, but prices will go back down to what they were the last time Trump was president. The trade deficit will vanish: Americans will get good jobs making the products we no longer import, but other Americans won’t lose their jobs making products for export. Increased oil and gas production will make energy much cheaper, lowering the price of everything. But we won’t have to worry about increased disasters from climate change.
  • Trump will wield unchecked power without abusing it. Neither Congress nor the courts nor the states will be able to stand in his way. But he won’t be petty and go after political opponents who broke no laws. He won’t make Americans afraid to criticize him. He won’t govern for his own profit. He won’t alter the rules to make future Democratic victories impossible. And he won’t ignore the Constitution to seek a third term.
  • The government is going to get drastically smaller. Spending will go way down without cutting Social Security or Medicare or defense. Regulations will be slashed without unleashing bad behavior from predatory corporations. Taxes will go down, but the budget deficit will vanish. Corruption will disappear. Private companies and the free market will serve Americans’ interests better and more efficiently than big government programs like ObamaCare or Medicare for All.
  • American strength will make the world safer. Wars in Ukraine and the Middle East will end on terms favorable to US interests. Terrorism will stop. Tariffs will be an unanswerable weapon that makes other countries do what we want.
  • The immigration problem will be solved. The Army will round up 10-20 million undocumented nonwhite people living here, without terrorizing the rest of us. They will be held in camps until they can be deported to other countries, who will accept them for fear of American tariffs. That roundup and detention power will be wielded without abuse, and only the bad, criminal immigrants will be affected. The good Latinos will stay and the bad ones will get kicked out. American industries (like agriculture) won’t be affected by the sudden departure of their work force.
  • Normal (i.e., White, Christian, straight) Americans will matter again. Small towns and rural areas will make a comeback. Working people will get a fair shake and won’t be exploited by giant unregulated corporations, so unions and consumer-protection agencies won’t be needed.

And more. Now, I think the picture I just painted is a fairy tale, because many of those goals are contradictory and most of the rest are unlikely. But just for a moment, let’s imagine Trump fulfills all of it. The people who voted for him look at the results and say, “That’s what I voted for.” The people who didn’t vote for him have to admit (if we are honest) that our fears were groundless. How do the Democrats surge in 2026 and 2028 to regain power?

It’s simple: They don’t. And more than that, they shouldn’t. If the MAGA movement can do all that, it will deserve to stay in power. Gavin Newsom (or whoever you’re picturing) won’t be able to run against it. No “message” you can come up with will win over Hispanics or suburban women or demoralized nonvoters or whichever other group you attribute our 2024 loss to.

What that means in practice is that, while we continue to espouse our own values, and oppose nominees and proposals that look wrong to us, it’s way too soon to start shaping any sort of campaign. A large chunk of the 2026 and 2028 campaigns will necessarily be reactive. Trump will disappoint many of the people who voted for him, either by not doing what he said he would do (“build the wall” from his first administration) or by doing it and having it turn out differently than he said it would. Future Democratic campaigns will center on exploiting that disappointment.

But we can’t design those campaigns until we see who he disappoints and how.

So what does that mean Democrats should be doing now? Laying the groundwork for the Trump-disappointed-you campaign, whatever it turns out to be. We need to constantly call attention to the ways Trump tries to move the goalposts. (Bringing prices down, we now learn from him, is very hard.) We need to highlight those people who are being harmed by his policies, once those policies start to take shape.

The upcoming leadership battle in the House will be the first substantive thing to look at. For the first time in decades, all committee chairs will be White men.

The budget will be a target-rich environment, because Republican math just doesn’t work. Either their cuts won’t total up the way they anticipated, or they will cut things they said they wouldn’t. Probably both. And if there’s a deficit, they own it.

I know that vision is not nearly as inspiring as a ten-point-plan to elect AOC. But this is the reality we have arrived in: The voters have given MAGA a chance to prove itself. We won’t know how to run against them until we see how they fail that test.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Jacqueline M Gargiulo's avatar Jacqueline (Bonin) Gargiulo  On December 16, 2024 at 9:54 am

    Take a listen to Lucas Kunce, dem candidate of MO. I think he’s onto something. Dems need to stop defining in opposition so talking to values, and actually show them in action. But that the Biden administration didn’t in many ways, but Lucas points out what they are missing. I think, astutely.

  • Jacqueline M Gargiulo's avatar Jacqueline (Bonin) Gargiulo  On December 16, 2024 at 9:55 am

    Edit: Stop simply talking to Values

  • politicswestchesterview's avatar politicswestchesterview  On December 16, 2024 at 10:34 am

    You are right that Dems should not look to 2026 or 2028 yet. And they should not expect a new DNC leader to save them. I think what they need is a national steering group representing the various Dem constituencies — which should really be all sectors of the population — to consider and clarify what Dems believe in. Otherwise, candidates and strategists are all competing in the dark to figure out what is going on with the party. If the Dem party were a corporation, it would have undergone a hostile takeover long ago. Or maybe it has, since Harris didn’t dare enunciate policies without billionaire and Wall Street approval.

    • pauljbradford's avatar pauljbradford  On December 16, 2024 at 11:55 am

      I don’t think it’s any mystery what Democrats believe in:

      1. Economic policies help people who work for a living, as opposed to people who live off capital. This includes support for unions, government intervention to get health care, etc.
      2. Equality: fight for the rights of people who have less opportunity because they are not part of the white, male, straight dominant group.

      Republicans don’t fight for those principles. They believe that all government needs to do is lower taxes and regulations. Democrats believe that’s not enough, that working people suffer if the government just gets out of the way.

  • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On December 16, 2024 at 12:11 pm

    Doug,

    I agree, but there are some structural things the Democrats ought to do (IMHO). Chief among them is to do what the Brits do – establish a “Shadow Cabinet.” People it with those who actually know what they are talking about and who a Democratic President might appoint to those positions. That way, when one of Trump’s Secretaries does something we do not like, the “Shadow Secretary” can present the Democratic position, to show voters what a Democratic administration would look like.

    Keep up the good work.

    Ron.

    • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On December 17, 2024 at 8:37 pm

      I like the shadow cabinet idea.

  • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On December 16, 2024 at 12:12 pm

    Doug,

    So sorry about your wife.

    The election turned out the way it did because thousands of voters were purged from the rolls, gerrymandering and the unfettered donations received because of citizens united.

    please address these things, especially the purging of eligible voters

    David (avid reader of your blog)

    • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On December 17, 2024 at 3:42 am

      gerrymandering did not meaningfully impact the presidential election, nor did voter roll purges. The tide of dark money likely did, but gerrymandering primarily affects the House and state legislatures, while voter roll purges almost never actually manage to matter since the people who get purged are people who didn’t vote recently and a half-decent campaign will be hunting down their voters to make sure they reregister if they were wrongfully purged.

  • Cathy Strasser's avatar Cathy Strasser  On December 16, 2024 at 1:11 pm

    I listened to the Fast Politics podcast earlier today and the same subject came up. The suggestion there was to interview all the new cabinet appointees asking specific questions such as “what are your specific plans to combat the next pandemic” and “What are specific plans do you have if the Middle East devolves into all out war” and “What specific plans do you have if rural schools start closing due to lack of funding following increased use of vouchers for private schools”, record those answers and replay them constantly before the next election, contrasting them with the reality of what is actually happening.

    Have the talking heads on film talking about what they intend to do vs what they’ve actually done.

  • Corey Fisher's avatar Corey Fisher  On December 16, 2024 at 2:41 pm

    I think it’s notable that there’s a difference between how the next campaign is run and what the campaign is run on. You’ve mentioned yourself that Harris’s messages didn’t seem to get through – thinking about the shape that the campaign will take is something we can already do, even if we don’t know what will fill that shape.

  • ADeweyan's avatar ADeweyan  On December 16, 2024 at 5:10 pm

    We risk making the same mistakes that the media has been making since Trump entered the picture — treating this and future races as regular politics as usual. I take the bold position that Harris really did nothing wrong. She had appealing policies and expressed them well. She painted an optimistic picture of the future and laid out the way she would help us get there. She did most of the things the pundits I’ve seen say she didn’t do and that cost her the election. The one factor that I haven’t seen mentioned nearly enough for the degree it likely played a role is that she was born the wrong sex, but there isn’t anything she can do about that.

    The problem is politics and especially the media has changed. The Republicans had a hand in making that happen, with their decades-long project of creating a pervasive right-wing media, but they also benefit from new media reality they did not create (but figured out quickly how to take advantage of), namely social media. The Republicans have controlled the political discourse for decades. They define the terms to be used. They define the issues that are considered important. They defined what will be considered success. This is the problem.

    But we have to work out how to counter that power while maintaining who we are. We do not need to figure out how Democrats can lie with impunity and compromise integrity to win politically, we need to figure out how to prevent those things being successful for Republicans.

  • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On December 17, 2024 at 1:51 pm

    Trump and Republicans ran against ‘business as usual’ governance. Nevermind how false that narrative might be, the fact is they ran as opposed to ‘the machine’, and the Democrats instinctively ran in defense of that same machine.

    The fact is, there are huge portions of that machine that have been hopelessly corrupted by corporate and oligarchical interests. Outsider critiques of the FDA, FCC, SEC and all the other letters have actual factual issues to point towards when they argue that the deck is hopelessly stacked against anyone not stunningly wealthy.

    Liability shields for HMOs, gun lobbyists blocking legislation the vast majority of people want, brutal treatment of workers, gig economy serfdom. A revolving door between lobbyists, corporate leaders and government leadership is a serious problem. These are all direct results of the abdication of democratic modes of governance.

    When all the intended modes for ‘the people’ to effect change are blocked, diverted or ignored, then eventually the only response left is a loud primal scream. I am coming to believe that people voting for Trump were less voting for him and more voting against a system that is so clearly stacked against them.

    Sadly, the Democratic Party has yet to articulate a cogent voice for that challenge. Pointing out that the Trump Republicans will just use government to protect corporations and enrich themselves is a bit rich when so much of the last 40 years has involved Democrats doing the same thing.

    I really wonder what would have happened in 2016 if it had been a Sanders v Trump race, with 2 competing insurgent campaigns.

  • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On December 19, 2024 at 3:33 pm

    I think the one theme we can run on and start preparing for is “Trump broke his promise”.

    Trump promised to lower grocery prices, and they’ll go up, so Trump broke his promise.

    Trump promised our taxes would go down, and they’ll go up to feed him and his billionaire sycophants, so Trump broke his promise.

  • TheBHGG's avatar TheBHGG  On January 9, 2025 at 3:56 pm

    “Even inflation, the scourge of the Biden presidency, has returned closer to normal, although prices remain higher than they were four years ago.”

    I am not an expert, but isn’t deflation (actual lower prices) something that the Federal Reserve works extremely hard to avoid? Language like “prices remain higher than they were” frustrates me because it is true, but almost content free. I presume it isn’t intentional, just the journalist being careless with language.

Trackbacks

  • By Solutions | The Weekly Sift on December 16, 2024 at 12:12 pm

    […] This week’s featured post is “The ball is in Trump’s court“. […]

  • By Opening Skirmish | The Weekly Sift on December 23, 2024 at 11:10 am

    […] is the beginning of what I talked about last week: Until Trump actually takes power, he can be all things to all people. He can just claim that […]

Leave a reply to ADeweyan Cancel reply