In January 2016, Donald Trump held an event at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. Confident of his chances of winning the Republican presidential nomination, he joked that he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” without losing a single vote.
Nine years later, the joke doesn’t seem that far-fetched. The impeachments, the convictions for hush money payments and business fraud, the liability for sexual assault and defamation, and his long list of inflammatory statements and decisions have hardly depressed Trump’s support.
Naturally, Democrats are looking for a way to oppose the administration’s policy goals and Trump’s political movement. However, perhaps they should take a step back and try a new approach. Donald Trump is a unique figure in modern politics, and Democrats may need a unique response to counter him: ignoring the president.
TEFLON DON, TIN ACOLYTES
Traditional wisdom suggests that the president is an easy target for the minority party. Many things can go wrong when one leads a country and tries to enact their agenda, and it’s easy to blame any failures on whoever sits in the Oval Office.
However, despite Democrats’ best efforts, Trump has retained most of his support for ten years, practically a lifetime on the national stage. Americans remain deeply divided over the president, but he has a sea of loyal voters whose faith is unwavering, and he may even be at the height of his popularity. This suggests a durability that is unique in American politics.
The president seems immune to criticism and scandal. He can’t constitutionally run again. Trying to turn his supporters away from him by focusing on his rhetoric, disregard for norms, and extreme policy goals hasn’t worked, and similar arguments won’t suddenly work after ten years.
So, why go after Teflon Don? There’s not much of a point in focusing on him aside from firing up Democrats, especially since his movement can continue without him holding the banner. The Democratic base’s enmity for Trump extends to his allies; however, the Republican base’s adulation for Trump is still unique to him. So, Democrats could still satisfy their base and find better results by going after Trump’s allies and potential successors.
The crux for Democrats isn’t defeating Trump but defeating Trumpism. By 2028, one of Trump’s allies must take over as the leader of his movement. None of Trump’s acolytes share his durability, so it’s the right time for Democrats to take hits at potential successors. If these hits land, they’ll be better positioned to defeat the movement at the ballot box. Democrats must also counter Trump’s policy goals, and they can try to tie his agenda to acolytes who can be discredited or pushed out of the movement.
Whether Trump’s durability is unique has been debated, but evidence suggests that he has a strength — particularly with low-propensity voters — that no other Republican has. In 2024, for instance, he outran 26 of the 34 Republican Senate candidates. The loyalty he commands allows him to avoid the electoral impact of scandal, which other Republicans can’t do as easily. However, Trump’s strength doesn’t seem fully transferable. The candidates he has endorsed have often performed poorly; replicating Trump’s stances, appeal, and general approach to politics has not replicated his durability or electoral success. In an environment where a 1% shift can turn victory into defeat, any successor who shared Trump’s extremism but failed to wholly captivate Trump’s base would be in an electorally unfavorable position.
Performance of 2024 Swing State Republican Senate Candidates vs Trump
| CANDIDATE | STATE | VS TRUMP’S PERCENT |
| Kari Lake | Arizona | -4.8% |
| *Sam Brown | Nevada | -4.37% |
| *Dave McCormick | Pennsylvania | -1.55% |
| Mike Rogers | Michigan | -1.4% |
| *Eric Hovde | Wisconsin | -1.1% |
Five of the seven states that Trump flipped in 2024 also had Senate races. He endorsed and still outperformed every Republican candidate. Only one, McCormick, won. Lake, who modeled her brand on the president’s and has received similar criticism for her extremism and personal conduct, underperformed him by nearly 5%. Despite his efforts to lead his supporters to back the candidates he endorsed, hundreds of thousands of voters across the nation instead voted for Trump and a Democratic Senate candidate simultaneously.
As party loyalties grow ever stronger, this gap may continue to shrink. But, for now, other Republicans don’t share Trump’s durability, which makes it easier for criticism against them to land. To win in 2028, Republicans must win over Trump’s entire base without losing voters who are more uncertain about the movement, which will be harder if effective criticisms are made now. If the successor can’t keep everyone happy, the coalition that built Trump’s victory in 2024 collapses, and they lose. So, Democrats can weaken potential successors now by defining them in ways that would hurt their chances in a nationwide election. They can also levy administration critiques focused on delegitimizing more vulnerable acolytes and highlighting their extremism. Specifically, Democrats should focus on JD Vance, Elon Musk, and Russell Vought.
HIT THE ACOLYTES ON THE DAY-TO-DAY
Structurally, this administration is unusual. While consolidating power into the executive branch, Trump has not solely empowered himself — instead, he’s established a circle of advisors with near-total control of the federal government. Elon Musk is foremost among this circle and arguably holds a level of power that no presidential aide nor appointee has ever possessed. Many of the administration’s most prominent decisions have been made by Musk, with and without Trump’s input.
In his first two months as the president’s right hand, Musk’s activity caused concern, even among Republicans. While Trump’s voters generally want Musk to have a role in the administration, he’s not who they voted for, and many people are uncomfortable with the degree of power he’s seized.
Democrats could imperil Musk’s credibility by questioning the billionaire’s motivation in, for instance, trying to defang agencies that protect consumers. The lines between Musk the businessman and Musk the public servant are blurred; Americans can’t trust that he’s working in their best interests, and Trump’s voters can’t trust that he’s prioritizing the president’s goals over his own.
Democrats can argue that the person Americans voted for is being supplanted by an appointee trying to pursue goals that don’t fully align with the president’s, such as his firm support for the German far-right. Why should a presidential appointee make statements on foreign politics that the man in the Oval Office may not even agree with? Perhaps this fear of being undermined could lead the president to kneecap Musk and DOGE.
However, despite his power, Musk is neither the vice president nor Trump’s most likely successor. Vance is, and the next four years will define the relative newcomer to politics. Though his favorability ratings have improved significantly since last summer, Vance still narrowly trails Trump’s favorability rating, and a good chunk of Americans, around 16%, don’t have a strong opinion of him.
If Vance fails to command the full support of the Republican base, he could struggle atop a ticket. Vance’s favorability among staunch Trump supporters will likely improve just by being his vice president. Still, proximity to the president probably isn’t enough for him to earn his durability while also retaining the support of independents and swing voters.
Democrats may find success in trying to distinguish Vance from Trumpism. While Trump doesn’t have a cohesive ideological perspective, Vance is a self-described post-liberal. Democrats must avoid such an academic term but can note that this ideology ends in a powerful state that forces a specific viewpoint and way of life on its people. Freedom, especially as America enters its 250th year of independence, is sacred, and Vance can easily be positioned as a danger to it.
Vance’s role in the administration has time to develop, but so far, he’s done little aside from making an aggressive isolationist push; branding him as someone who endangers relationships with key allies could also be an effective strategy. Whatever his role in the administration ultimately is, Vance would run on its record in 2028, and it’s difficult for an incumbent vice president to separate themself from their boss. As such, anything unpopular the administration does can be pinned on him, which Democrats should do.
Vought is the most challenging player for Democrats to target, but he’s worth focusing on to destabilize Trump’s movement and policy goals.
Democrats had difficulty linking Project 2025 to Trump, who tried to distance himself from the plan; however, the agenda elicited strongly negative reactions among voters. Democrats should continue focusing on the more unpopular aspects of Trump’s agenda.
Conservative activists now have massive influence in the White House. They guide the president’s pen, staff federal agencies, and execute spending. Knowing their ideas were too unpopular to win at the ballot box, these activists used Trump as a Trojan horse to get into power. As a prominent part of Project 2025’s creation, someone who quietly drafted radical plans for Trump while feigning distance, and now the overseer of federal agencies, Vought is the best subject for this line of attack. He represents the specter of conservative activists’ attempts to quietly but forcibly reshape America, something that voters motivated by their pocketbooks didn’t sign up for.
There’s a challenge in directing attention towards someone who’s relatively unknown and leads an office most people are unfamiliar with, but it’s worth a shot. There’s clear value in placing a face on the activist apparatus and explaining how it’s misusing power. Democrats must emphasize the role of these activists to make voters understand how extreme this movement truly is or to make Trump look like he’s being taken advantage of and create a rift that would hurt their influence. Fundamentally, Democrats must make voters question what this movement is and who it serves; if Vought is forced to answer, voters may not find him as convincing as Trump. If this apparatus is thrust into the light, Trump or his successor may be forced to sever their connection to it and offer some rejection of organized extremism.
HIT TRUMP ON THE BIG PICTURE
On most issues, there may be little value in criticizing Trump, whose supporters will reflexively defend him. However, he’s still a colossal name that produces a sharp reaction from voters, donors, and people looking for a way to push against the administration.
Trump’s 2024 win wasn’t just the product of a loyal base. He found some new support among voters who wanted economic change. Little of Trump’s first two months focused on delivering on this promise, but his plans don’t seem likely to bring about the results American voters sought. He supports massive tax cuts that would cost the nation between $5-11 trillion and is pushing for tariffs that economists and the Federal Reserve believe will increase inflation. If Trump continues like this, consumers could see higher costs and disruption from costly plans and fraught relationships with key economic partners. Many voters could feel that the president is to blame, which would undoubtedly have electoral ramifications.
There may also be some openings regarding Trump’s respect for the law. His base has generally dismissed his legal issues, but there may still be a point where the president acting as though he’s above the law just becomes too much. Many Republicans still believe that Trump will respect the law when it comes down to it, so if he outright ignores a Supreme Court decision or decides to seek a third term, there could be a penalty with the base. Given the administration’s attacks on the judiciary and Chief Justice Roberts’ statement pushing against Trump’s calls to remove judges who disagree with him, the foundation for such an argument is there.
While Trump has ceded immense power to his team, he is still the president, and the general direction of America, the economy, and the enforcement of the Constitution ultimately fall in his hands. If he makes missteps in these areas, Democrats must be ready to jump in front of every camera and microphone they can find.
DON’T FORGET CONGRESS!
On paper, congressional Republicans should be the main executors of Trump’s agenda. Given the work of Musk, Vought, and the Project 2025 actors, this isn’t panning out. Still, Congress must decide how the government spends its money, and Republicans have been given the difficult task of cutting taxes and trimming the deficit, which could result in cuts to widely popular programs like Medicaid and Social Security.
There’s no question that congressional Republicans lack Trump’s invulnerability — Congress remains deeply unpopular and is barely above water with Republican voters. If these unpopular cuts or other polarizing decisions happen, outrage will be easily generated and directed towards Congress.
THE PATH FORWARD
Democrats must contend with the reality that Trump has won. His popularity and appeal have not been seriously impacted by their efforts. This remains unique to him; other Republicans can be more easily damaged by criticism, including those looking to grab Trump’s banner or bring the country in an even more extreme direction. To win against this movement and its agenda, Democrats must focus on more vulnerable acolytes. Musk, Vance, and Vought would make strong targets to question the administration’s approach, delegitimize potential successors, and destabilize the extremism at the movement and administration’s heart.
There will always be room for Trump in the headlines and Democratic talking points, but the party and its messengers must focus on criticism that will actually land against him and turn much of their attention elsewhere. Voters are not as passionate about Trump’s acolytes, but when Trump formally hands over the banner, this could change. Democrats shouldn’t wait that long. They must strike now, while the movement’s future is less certain and the public opinion of Trump’s acolytes is more malleable. They must also tie this extremism to figures who won’t be as popular to either turn people away from it or at least make them recognize the duplicity.
A new approach to taking on the administration must be coupled with a new message to win voters, including those who backed the president and may support his successor. Criticism is only half of political messaging, but the approach to it is crucial. There’s always a path to victory — sometimes, it requires ingenuity.
