Democrat strategists reveal what Dem lawmakers should have done differently for Trump’s speech

Democrats Face Backlash for Disruptions During Trump’s Joint Address to Congress

The recent joint address to Congress by President Donald Trump sparked intense debate among Democratic strategists and lawmakers about the most effective way to counter the former president’s message. While some Democrats chose to attend the speech and voice their opposition through disruptions, others argue that boycotting the event altogether would have been a more strategic move. The tension highlights internal divisions within the Democratic Party about how to handle Trump’s return to the national stage and his potential 2024 presidential campaign.

A Debate Over Strategy: Boycott vs. Disruption

Jim Manley, a Democratic political strategist, believes that attending the speech and disrupting it was a misstep. "Showing up gave Trump legitimacy that he doesn’t deserve," Manley told Fox News Digital. He argued that a full boycott would have deprived Trump of the spotlight and denied him the opportunity to regain a sense of authority. Similarly, Andrew Bates, a former senior White House deputy press secretary under President Joe Biden, criticized the interruptions during Trump’s speech. Bates acknowledged that while the protests may have resonated with the Democratic base, they failed to appeal to a broader audience. He emphasized the need for Democrats to focus on building support beyond their existing base, pointing to Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin as an example of how to effectively communicate a message that resonates with a wider audience.

Democratic Leadership Clashes with Lawmakers Over Behavior

The disruptions during Trump’s speech reportedly caused frustration among Democratic House leadership. According to Axios, several lawmakers were summoned to a "come to Jesus meeting" to discuss their behavior. Some Democrats, including Brad Bannon, president of Bannon Communications Research, criticized the tactics as counterproductive. "No one can beat Trump at theatrics," Bannon said, adding that the disruptions only added to the drama of the event rather than undermining Trump’s message. Bannon also expressed disappointment with the Democrats’ decision to interrupt the speech, arguing that letting Trump’s words "soak in" would have been a more effective strategy.

Mixed Reactions to Emotional Moments and Protests

The address also highlighted divisions within the Democratic Party over how to respond to emotional moments. When Trump introduced DJ Daniel, a 13-year-old cancer survivor, many Democrats remained seated, prompting criticism from some quarters. Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, defended the decision, stating that the focus should remain on broader political issues rather than individual stories. However, Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., broke ranks with his party, calling the moment "touching" and expressing frustration that Democrats couldn’t "fully celebrate" it. His comments underscored the tension between expressions of compassion and partisan loyalty.

Data Shows Voters Disapprove of Protests

The fallout from the address also revealed that voters may not have been impressed with the Democrats’ behavior. According to private data shared with Fox News, a significant portion of voters disapproved of the disruptions. This suggests that the tactics employed by some Democrats may have backfired, reinforcing the perception that the party is more focused on opposition than on addressing the concerns of everyday Americans.

Implications for the 2024 Presidential Race

As the 2024 presidential race begins to take shape, the Democratic Party is grappling with how to effectively counter Trump’s messaging. The debate over whether to boycott or disrupt his speeches is part of a broader conversation about how to position the party for success. While some strategists argue that confrontation is necessary to energize the base, others believe that a more measured approach is needed to win over swing voters. The outcome of this internal debate will likely shape the Democratic strategy in the months leading up to the election.