Top Democratic officials put out a new guide, entitled “Deciding to Win,” that encourages Democrats to be a little more like Republicans on “identity and cultural issues.”
Left: David Axelrod // Public domain, Middle: James Carville // JD Lasica // Wikimedia Commons, Right: David Plouffe // Noam Galai // Wikimedia Commons
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
Subscribe
This week, the self-styled centrist group WelcomePAC released a document entitled “Deciding to Win”—advised on by some of the Democratic Party’s most prominent strategists, including David Axelrod, James Carville, and David Plouffe—urging Democrats to act a little more like Republicans on so-called “identity and cultural issues.” The 58-page memo reads like a compendium of the consultant class’s worst instincts, encouraging candidates to become little more than poll-tested avatars and walking focus groups, trading conviction for triangulation. While the document rarely defines which “cultural issues” it means, the few times it does make it clear: queer and transgender people stand to lose the most if this vision of the Democratic Party takes hold.
The document begins with five key pillars for the party. Some of them make a lot of sense, such as “messaging on an economic program centered on lowering costs, growing the economy, creating jobs, and expanding the social safety net,” critiquing “the outsized political and economic influence of” the “ultra-wealthy,” and support for a $15/h minimum wage. Others, though, encourage the party to abandon platforms that have been central to its identity and mission to protect the most vulnerable in society, calling for the party to “Moderate our positions where our agenda is unpopular, including on issues like immigration, public safety, energy production, and some identity and cultural issues.”
While the document rarely defines what “identity and cultural issues” means, the examples make its targets clear. Support for the Equality Act—legislation that would codify gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes under federal law—is cited as proof the party has “moved left.” Another section lists “protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ Americans” as a priority voters supposedly don’t want Democrats to emphasize. Elsewhere, a discussion of how to mobilize voters “sitting on the couch” reveals that the most popular policy among them is “defining sex as binary and based on biology at birth across federal agencies.” Later in the document, it explicitly calls out transgender sports participation as an issue that the party should “moderate” on.
Screenshot of Deciding to Win Chart of “moderate” policies
Imagine a world where Democrats actually heeded this advice. The “define sex as binary” policy—already championed in Republican-led states and now embedded in everything the Trump administration does—has had devastating consequences for transgender Americans. It has stripped trans people of the ability to update their passports, creating serious barriers to travel; defunded organizations that affirm gender diversity; and fueled crackdowns on college campuses that allow trans students to use restrooms matching their gender identity. It’s a policy of bureaucratic erasure, one that threatens to undo decades of hard-won progress—yet it’s presented, almost casually, as a “moderate” position Democrats might adopt to win votes.
It’s a vision of politics that would turn Democrats into little more than Republican Lite—a “big tent” party spacious enough for those who despise us but not for those who most need protection. In that world, Democrats would lose not just the meaning of leadership but the very soul of why the party exists. And it’s a fantasy built on delusion: no amount of fine-tuned messaging or poll-tested calibration will ever transform the party into the perpetual winner these consultants imagine.
We don’t have to imagine what happens when Democrats follow this playbook — we’ve already seen it. In New Hampshire, Democrats capitulated on multiple anti-trans bills, including bans on youth sports participation and gender-affirming surgery, only to suffer one of the party’s worst defeats of the 2024 election cycle, losing 20 seats. By contrast, Democrats in Montana fought hard against similar measures and mounted some of the most visible resistance to anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in the country, picking up ten seats in the state House—one of the party’s strongest showings nationwide, in a state Trump carried easily. In Kentucky, Governor Andy Beshear vetoed anti-trans bills, including a sports ban, and still won reelection in a Trump +31 state. And in New York, a ballot measure enshrining gender identity protections outperformed Kamala Harris’s statewide margin by a wide margin.
Despite the evidence, a faction within the Democratic Party still treats queer and trans people as expendable—convinced that by trimming the edges of equality and tolerating “a little” discrimination, they can win back power. It’s a ruinous illusion. This kind of triangulation doesn’t blunt Republican attacks; it validates them. Every state that once embraced sports bans or “compromise” restrictions has since escalated to banning medical care, censoring books, and policing bathrooms. Capitulation has never advanced LGBTQ+ rights—not in policy, not in public opinion, not once. Democrats aren’t losing because they’ve been too loud or too firm in defending equality; they’re losing because the far right invests in its own moral narrative while Democrats second-guess theirs. The only way forward is to stand unapologetically on principle—as Andy Beshear did in Kentucky, citing it as the very reason for his success—not to chase the approval of consultants who mistake cowardice for strategy and appeasement for leadership.
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
Photo Illustration by Victoria Sunday/The Daily Beast/Getty Images
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and her alleged lover Corey Lewandowski ordered 10 Spirit Airlines jets before realizing the planes had no engines.
Officials warned the pair that purchasing the jets—which they said would be used to increase deportations and for their own travel—was impractical, and that simply hiring additional flight contractors would be far less costly, The Wall Street Journal reported
Corey Lewandowski and Kristi Noem, who are both married, deny reports that they are having an affair.Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
But Noem and Lewandowski went ahead and blew through the funds allocated by Congress. Officials realized the pair’s blunder when they looked deeper into their spending spree and realized that Spirit—which has filed for bankruptcy twice—didn’t own the planes in the first place, and that the engines would have to be purchased separately, according to the Journal.
Noem and her shopping partner then purchased two Gulfstream jets for $200 million. However, shortly after, DHS notified the Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee that the project to increase deportation flights had been paused.
Noem looks pensive after a press conference held to discuss the “Midway Blitz” immigration enforcement operation in Chicago.Jamie Kelter Davis/Getty Images
Lewandowski—whose alleged relationship with Noem has been described as D.C.’s “worst-kept secret”—has been referred to as Noem’s “gatekeeper,” operating as a special government employee who travels with her, weighs in on personnel, and shapes enforcement.
He has also spearheaded efforts to replace ICE leaders across the country with Border Patrol veterans to impose a more heavy-handed, military-style approach to Trump’s immigration crackdown, such as the hostile situation dubbed “Midway Blitz,” unfolding in Chicago.
Gregory Bovino has a background in chasing migrants and drug smugglers through border terrain.Chicago Tribune/Brian Cassella/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images
Led by Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino, the operation’s militarized enforcement tactics and aggressive approaches have sparked public outcry. Footage and testimony have shown federal officers firing pepper-ball rounds and tear gas—even near children—while clashing with protesters. ICE agents have also been spotted roaming quiet neighborhoods, questioning landscapers and decorators.
Still, the militant approach hasn’t appeased the White House or met its steep daily deportation quotas.
ICE and Border Protection agents had made 3,000 arrests in Chicago over two months as of late October—the same number the White House has demanded they make in a single day, the Journal reported.
Noem’s methods—and the mounting pressure from the White House—have sparked infighting among DHS officials as they grapple with Lewandowski’s informal authority.
Kristi Noem and Greg Bovino visit the ICE facility in Chicago in October.DHS photo by Tia Dufour
Border czar Tom Homan and ICE Director Todd Lyons favor an old-school, less hostile approach, including using police research to develop target lists and focusing on those with criminal histories, sources told the Journal. But while Homan is influential in the White House, Noem has the final say.
Trump, however, is on the side of aggression, saying in a 60 Minutes interview last week that ICE officials “haven’t gone far enough” in Chicago.
The Daily Beast has reached out to DHS and ICE for comment. A spokesperson for DHS denied there were divisions in the department in a statement to the Journal, adding that Trump’s administration is on pace to “shatter records and deport 600,000 people by the end of Trump’s first year.”
Noem’s shake-up comes even as a federal judge on Thursday accused Bovino, 55, of lying to her in court as she imposed sweeping limits on a hardline anti-migrant crackdown in Illinois.
Bovino previously claimed he was hit in the head with a rock before he lobbed gas at anti-ICE protesters in Chicago—a claim he later admitted was false after DHS could not produce evidence to support it.
In an oral ruling, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis said, “I find the government’s evidence to be simply not credible,” after weeks of tear-gassings, pepper-ball strikes, and hard takedowns against journalists, clergy, and residents during “Operation Midway Blitz,” with excessive violence that, she said, “shocks the conscience.”
What I find deplorable is the fear they caused to the young children all to “capture” a woman who is working and has paperwork allowing her to be here. But the ICE thugs seem to get bounties for each person they snatch. She was a teacher there. How is this the going after the worst of the worst and removing dangerous criminals from the streets? Plus notice that the FBI is now warming of masked criminals pretending to be agents or officers to do crimes. As Emma says that was totally being predicted as kidnappings and trafficking’s of young people and children would start happening. Hugs
This Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear the Trump tariffs case, arguably one of the most important cases it will hear all term.
But, it’s important to understand that this is not a case about tariffs in general or about whether they are good policy. It’s a case about specific tariffs that President Trump imposedin February and whether he had the statutory authority to impose them. In other words, this is yet another example of Trump attempting to seize power that neither the Constitution nor our laws grant him and going to the Supreme Court in hopes they will validate it nonetheless. After argument, the Supreme Court will decide whether Trump had the legal authority to impose these tariffs in two cases.
We’ve been tracking this issue since Trump first threatened to impose tariffs, waffling back and forth seemingly from minute to minute. We studied the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision that rejected Trump’s effort to impose tariffs using IEEPA (I-E-Pa), the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, for the very simple reason that the Act, unlike other statutes that do give a president the right to impose tariffs, doesn’t mention tariffs at all. It does not give the president any authority to impose them under the statute that he has expressly said he used to do so. This is the kind of textualist argument conservative justices have backed in other cases, and to abandon that approach here would be a sharp and hypocritical departure for them. Last term, Justice Gorsuch wrote that the justices’ primary focus should be on the text of the statute.
The Constitution gives the power to impose taxes, which includes tariffs, to Congress. Because IEEPA doesn’t extend that power to the president, his use of it here is just a power grab, the kind of practice the Supreme Court should push back against if it intends to remain relevant to the American experiment. The Federal Circuit’s decision pointed out that while other laws expressly give the president the power to impose tariffs, IEEPA does not. Congress knows how to give the president the power to impose tariffs when it wants to and because it did not do so here, that should be the end of the inquiry. The administration should lose here. So what we hear in oral argument, even though it won’t necessarily signal where individual judges will end up, is worth following closely to see what tea leaves can be read for this case. It may also give us some sense of whether the Court intends to act as a check in other cases involving Trump’s power grabs.
The “major questions” will also be in play on Wednesday. You may recall it from recent terms of Court, where a conservative majority has recently used it to say there must be clear guidance from Congress before a federal agency can act on a major question of economic or political significance. Here’s the wrinkle: The Court has only used the doctrine to hamstring the Biden administration, and not to hinder Trump.
In 2022, the Court decided West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, rejecting the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants because Congress had not specifically authorized a regulation with such major political and economic consequences.
In 2023, the Court rejected Biden’s student loan relief package in Biden v. Nebraska, holding that even though a federal statute allowed the Secretary of Education to “waive or modify” student loan debt, that authorization was insufficient for the Biden policy because this was a major question.
The Federal Circuit used these cases as precedent against the Trump administration. “Tariffs of unlimited duration on imports of nearly all goods from nearly every country with which the United States conducts trade” is “both ‘unheralded’ and ‘transformative,’” the court wrote, concluding that as a result, the administration needed to be able to “point to clear congressional authorization” for its tariffs. The absence of any language in the statute authorizing them was fatal to Trump’s case in the lower court. But the sardonic joke among appellate lawyers has been that the major questions doctrine only applies to Democratic administrations. On Wednesday, we will see whether that holds up and if the Court’s conservative majority is willing to twist itself into pretzel logic to support this administration’s political objectives.
There are other issues to look at this week:
As the Trump administration continues its extraterritorial strikes on supposed drug traffickers, there is increasing concern about the legality of that conduct. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck and I will take up that issue on Monday evening at 9 p.m. ET/8 CT in a Substack Live (if you subscribe to Civil Discourse, you’ll receive an email inviting you to join us when we go live, so mark your calendars and be ready).
As we head into the week, there are billboards up on the expressway heading toward U.S. Southern Command, in Doral, Florida, that tell troops “Don’t let them make you break the law” in response to those attacks.
New billboards are going up near Miami, Chicago, and Memphis, Tennessee, as well, a warning to troops being deployed in American cities. The billboards are part of a campaign by veterans to support and encourage the troops to uphold military order.
If you’ve forgotten about DOGE, unfortunately, it’s time to remember. There are reports that the Pentagon’s DOGE unit “is leading efforts to overhaul the U.S. military drone program, including streamlining procurement, expand homegrown production, and acquire tens of thousands of cheap drones in the coming months.” And the Bulwark reported that Rear Admiral Kurt Rothenhaus was recently removed from his post as chief of naval research, the top post at the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and replaced by Rachel Riley, who has been working in DOGE-related roles in the Trump administration. Although she was a Rhodes Scholar, Riley, 33, has “no apparent naval experience.”
There are also reports of DOGE interfering with the Department of Agriculture. Senator Dick Durbin tweeted that “President Trump and the DOGE cowboys want to close and diminish critical agricultural research at the University of Illinois. The only other soybean lab like that in the world is in…China. Our President is ceding our agriculture research leadership to China.”
Remember back in February, when Trump floated the idea that everyone could get a $5,000 check from all of DOGE’s “savings”? That didn’t work out so well, did it? You may want to remember this for Thanksgiving dinner.
Tuesday is election day. There is the Virginia governor’s race and the New York City mayoral race. Also, the governorship is at issue in New Jersey. A California ballot initiative will determine whether that state will engage in defensive redistricting designed to offset the aggressive way the Trump administration has demanded Republican states use it to spike the balance between the two parties in the House in their favor, effectively letting politicians choose their voters, instead of the other way around. There is also a race in Pennsylvania, where three Democratic members of the state Supreme Court face retention votes that could be highly significant in the potential 2028 battleground state.
Vote.org, a nonpartisan voter registration and engagement platform, announced a “huge spike” in voter registration ahead of the elections, with their online registration platform being used more than twice as many times as they were during the comparable 2021 election cycle.
They reported that:
More than 80% of those users are under the age of 35
Nearly half (46%) are just 18 years old
Compared to 2021, there are more young voters, more women, and more voters of color using the platform
It’s good news for pro-democracy Americans.
The house will remain out of session, yet again this week.
Epstein. Epstein. Epstein.
But as we all know, that means SNAP is still in danger, which means many of our fellow citizens could begin to go hungry this week if the administration tries to skirt compliance with or obtains an injunction staying decisions by a court in Massachusetts, and a more specific one in Rhode Island, which require the administration to use emergency dollars to fund SNAP. There, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. ordered the USDA to distribute contingency funds and to report to the Court on its progress by 12:00 p.m. on Monday, November 3. Expect more litigation this week.
ICE agents are still engaging in “enforcement actions” in American communities and residential neighborhoods. Stories of abuses are circulating; it’s a critical moment for using our skills to ferret out misinformation and focus on the truth. This photo is from a Day of the Dead celebration in New Orleans.
It is clear that this is a week that will require us to summon our courage and continue to pay close attention. The times are far too important for us to look away. Remind yourself that dictators use overwhelm as a tactic for getting people to give up and submit to their rule. Let’s not do that to us.
Left: David Axelrod // Public domain, Middle: James Carville // JD Lasica // Wikimedia Commons, Right: David Plouffe // Noam Galai // Wikimedia Commons
Photo Illustration by Victoria Sunday/The Daily Beast/Getty Images
Scottie's Playtime 