What are new tactics that haven't been used against Trump/MAGA yet?

Politics & Elections
61

Agreed.

Part of the education of individual voters must include making sure they see how, when Republicans realize they are likely to lose an election, they foist as much of their failure off just far enough to make it look like the fault of Dems. It’s very effective.

Bush did it to Obama in 2008, when he pushed as much of the damage done by his economic policies that caused the economy to crash due to the mortgage securities crisis, knowing voters would blame Obama. That one was harder to hide, though, since those astonishing photos of Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson groveling on his knees to Nancy Pelosi for legislation that would bail out the banks appeared in September 2008, shortly before the election.

It took Obama every moment of his 2 terms to put our rudderless ship to rights after that mess, but he did it. I frankly wasn’t sure he could. Yet one reason Trump was elected in 2016 was because Obama just couldn’t “do it fast enough”. Then Trump inherited the economy that Obama built – and of course took credit for all those accomplishments.

Trump did it to Biden in 2020, when his stupid choice to not address COVID was one factor that caused massive supply chain failures across the globe. This in turn caused the runaway inflation that got underway in 2021 and beyond. Biden was blamed for all that, though all he did was endlessly try to fix it. It was Trump policies that caused it, and people must understand this. Then Trump again tanked an economy that was humming along courtesy of Dems.

Which brings us to 2024, where Biden was succeeding to bring us out of the COVID mess created by Trump, but it just can’t be done fast enough to suit a population that wants instant gratification. So another thing we need to educate voters about is how long it takes to accomplish things worth having. Seven years of John Kerry’s life to accomplish the nuclear agreement with Iran that Trump tore up in a second. We’re sure better off now, right?

Imagine the mess that whatever Democratic presidential candidate who runs in 2028 will inherit, and how much effort Republicans are going to bend toward blaming Dems for the latest Republican mess, as they always do. We’d better start educating voters about how that happens now.

62

John Oliver tried that with Clarence Thomas: on air, in public, he offered him $1M and a fabulously luxurious RV if he would just go away. It didn’t work.

63

One of the biggest things people need to understand about MAGA is that it’s not Trump voters. It’s Trump backers. Much like the tea party that preceded it, we look at the people showing up, and not the money used to manage them.

The current GOP depends on about 300 super donors. Many of whom have the power and industry to shape national narratives in a way Dems never had the power to. If Dems want to win they need to identify and disrupt those power players (who are also incredibly corrupt lawless maniacs).

If we can send far right politics back to the fringe, that is probably a bigger long time win than any specific policy goal.

64

Exactly right.

It cheers me a bit that the Heritage Foundation is rending itself in two. Would that the Federalist Society would do the same.

This is one of the main areas where we also need to focus our energies: To educate regular voters about the extent to which these organizations, plus the mega-donors that support their corrupt policies, are actively working to divide our nation. It’s why there is so much effort made by the Trump regime and these players to make sure we never know who they are.

65

Indeed. Then they (too many of them, anyway) turn around and vote Republican anyway.

Let me remind you all that Obamacare got through only because the Bush wars allowed the Dems to have 60 senators. And then Ted Kennedy died and the Dems picked a poor candidate to replace him and suddenly there were only 59. There is no time in the forseeable future that the Dems will have 60 senators again, so unless they abolish–or carve out a new exception to–the filibuster, there is no prospect for medicare for all. Or probably any progressive legislation. Any progressive legislation will be seen by the MAGAts as benefiting blacks and thereby a no go. In fact that last sentence explains a lot of US politics, why social democratic policies that are routine in every other western country do not exist in the US.

66

I wouldn’t rule out a 60+ Dem (& Dem caucusing independent) majority by 2029. Trump’s current approval is lower than Bush’s was after Katrina. And we still haven’t seen the worst of the inevitable economic pain from the closing of the Strait of Hormuz.

67

YES. Exactly. And courting the mealy mouth middle policy and it’s not working.

68

Are you talking about the Senate or the House? Because @Hari_Seldon was talking about 60 votes in the Senate, not a 60 vote margin in the House.

Of those two possibilities:

House - possible, though unlikely. If some of this year’s gerrymanders become dummymanders, including on the state level so the Democrats can undo them legislatively - that would help, though it’s pretty unlikely.

A 60-vote Senate, though - let’s say the Democrats win 4 seats and actually flip the Senate to 51-49 this year (about a toss-up, maybe 55% likely per the current polls). To get 60 Democratic-caucusing Senators, you’d have to win 9 of the current 19 Republican-held seats that are up for election in 2028.

Let’s acknowledge that some of these are simply out of play: ID, ND, SD, OK, LA, AL, SC. Let’s say things are really good for the Democrats, and they can pick up NC, WI, and IA, leaving nine seats.

Which six of AK, UT, KS, MO, IN, AR, FL, OH and KY do the Democrats have a good chance in? I could see maybe Kansas, possibly Florida or Ohio - and then what? It starts getting more difficult from there, not that I’m aware of many good potential candidates in FL or OH for that matter. Or throw a hail mary and try to get Nick Saban to take a shot at AL? He might win, but he’d probably make Joe Manchin look like John Kerry.

And for this to work, the Democrats will have to go 15-for-15 on holding seats - including swing states like NV, AZ, PA and GA. Each one of them lost means one more hard pickup from the Republican-held states.

For this to happen, the current administration would have to fuck things up so badly that the collateral damage would be hideous. I’m not saying it’s past them, but it’s not something I would wish for given the immense human suffering that it would involve.

So no, I think a 60-vote Democratic Senate is, for the immediate future, something I would hate to contemplate.

69

I was speaking of 60 senate seats. Basically it would hinge on an electoral environment that hits a D+15 threshold, where suddenly SC and KS are in play. Something that puts us around 55-56 democratic seats after the midterms (so like NC, OH, AK, TX, ME, IA, NE, SC, KS, and maybe SD. I was hoping MT might give us a shot but it looks like the Dem won’t bow out and will likely split votes with Bodner). If we get there and JD Vance sleep walks to the 2028 nomination in the midst of an enormous 2008ish backlash, I think flipping IA, NC, WI, and one other state is feasible.

70

“Something that puts us around 55-56 democratic seats after the midterms (so like NC, OH, AK, TX, ME, IA, NE, SC, KS, and maybe SD.”

Of those states I can safely say Texas is in play. Talerico is as close as it gets to a squeaky clean guy and Ken Paxton is an absolute scumbag whose been emeshed in a sorts of scandal, even fellow Texas Republicans can’t stand the guy.

All the polls are currently showing Talerico ahead fwiw

71

Americans hate everything and have the memory of goldfish. By the numbers the dumbest thing Biden did was leave Afghanistan which Americans “supported” like 10 to 1. Likewise making it so insurance couldn’t dump you for having cancer cost Obama the house majority for the rest of his presidency.

One of the hardest things to come to terms with as a progressive is Democrats could cure cancer and the GOP would win the next midterm by 8 points because of all the doctors they put out of work.

Which they absolutely should do! But that requires a progressive wing that cares more about accomplishing something than treating every elected politician who actually wields power like an indy band that signed to major label.

72

It feels like if the election was held today Dems high water mark would be in Texas or Iowa. The Dr Strange holding up one finger moment would come if gas prices etc push Trump below 30% approval.

73

I agree that getting 60 seats is highly unlikely but flipping the US house and the Iowa and Texas US Senate seats will be a really good start to clawing back some of this power currently controlled entirely by one political party. We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

fingers crossed

74

Did I miss the tactics that you have suggested? Or is gadfly your only go-to role?

As for “new” tactics, the biggest problem the Democratic Party has, aside from the DNC, is the lack of grass-roots action. The right wing took over huge swaths of this country, county by district by town. A lot of the work they did was up against a vacuum on the left. That has to turn around and be countered with similar (but better) tactics. This will require some major re-thinking among the left to actually agree to work with people with whom they may disagree on some points, and to not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Without that kind of grass-roots work, all you get is the occasional upswing but with results that don’t last.

Then you need to get the actual elected Democratic politicians to also work together and compromise with other wings of the party that are too left or too not-left. My worst fear, frankly, is that Democrats will take over both houses in this election, and then spend two years accomplishing nothing because of their inability to work together. Then whatever was achieved by everyone being against Trump and against MAGA will collapse into goo.

75

I voted for goo.

76

There are others, but while they are not American, they cover news in the United States pretty well. Try the BBC (UK), CBC and CTV (Canada), and the ABC (the Australian one, not the American one). They have reporters and bureaus in the US, and I find that they offer news you can trust when it comes to the United States; news that is untainted by American interests.

[End hijack.]

77

As the minority party Dems have worked together pretty well. (Except for Fetterman) I expect that will continue if they take control of congress. We’ll certainly have Joe Manchins to deal with once legislation starts getting passed. But Dems have, for the most part, been extremely disciplined as Trump’s opposition party.

78

Returning to the infiltration topic, I think one closely related cousin strategy would be to thank Trump in a way that undermines MAGA.

MAGA folks will instantly reject any message that begins with “So-and-so criticizes Trump”…because Trump is sacrosanct and inerrant. But Democrats could subtly use messages like “Iran thanks Trump for making it easier for the regime to obtain a nuclear arsenal”…“Mexican drug cartels thank Trump for making their crime even more profitable”…“Abortionists thank Trump for making abortion rates go UP”…“China thanks Trump for ruining America’s position in the world”…this could burrow into the minds of MAGA and bother them more effectively.

79

We don’t need 60 seats. One thing that we haven’t tried yet is abolishing the filibuster. Yes, yes, I know, “nuclear option”, “if we do then the Republicans will too”, etc. But news flash, they’re already doing it, for anything they actually care about. The “nuclear option” isn’t a first strike; it’s the decision whether to take out the remaining silos while the first missiles are already on their way.

80

I think it’s one of those things where if we have to nuke it, we have to. But if we had done it in 2021 it would have been an enormous mistake, since it definitely wouldn’t have stopped the GOP from taking power again in 2025, and birthright citizenship would be gone. (Since SCOTUS said explicitly that it was okay to end it with legislation)

Ideally you do a new Byrd rule and change it to 55 or something. But we need to be ready on in January of 2029 before the inauguration to make the changes that need to be made, not spending half of the legislative session trying to woo Republicans to our side. All the governmental restructuring should be in place before the first 100 days of the 2029 presidency. The quicker you rip off the bandaid the better.