The question is what GOP president would the Democrats work with if he or she wasn't authorized by the deep state? It seems that Trump is a wildcard that can't be trusted to play into predictable patterns that satisfy all the global corporate planning that relies on certain policies, which is one reason he is systematically attacked.
So assuming the GOP stands behind that approach to independent decision-making, I don't think there is any other president who could satisfy the Democrats' interest in having someone who will play into global political-economic expectations/demands.
Plus the Democrats generally profit from construing any and every GOP politician as an enemy of social justice, and they fancy flexing their civil disobedience tactics as a bottom-up disruption response to GOP governance.
Ironically, when they get a Democrat in the White House, they favor top-down/structuralist governance, but of course it is with the goal of securing everyone's economic positions/privilege and forcing growth and job-creation. . . or rather I should say they create/protect jobs for their protected/privileged classes, which in turn pushes those who aren't protected/privileged to hustle for the stimulus money as it circulates.
My favorite example was in AOC's Green New Deal where instead of simply having prohibitions/reductions for things like driving, air-travel, heating/cooling, meat, etc.; she wanted to pay people in certain minority categories to have local round-table discussions about how to invest in green progress. That would most likely result in wasteful half-baked quasi-solutions to unsustainability that would be heralded on talk-shows as being democratically chosen 'by the people,' and the tax-spend approach to funding them would pay out loads of money to developers/engineers/etc. who would then go spend their money on cars/driving, air travel, shopping in big heated/cooled retail stores, and otherwise support traditional unsustainable business models.
Those businesses, in turn, would be reinvesting the money on remodeling with the latest energy/climate-control systems, solar panels, etc. but there would be nominal reforestation efforts and no reductions in driving/pavement as the emphasis would be on replacing combustion vehicles with EVs, which still cause land-waste because everyone drives around in their own vehicle instead of using transit and living in walkable communities that eliminate the need for motorized transportation altogether.
So you would end up with boom/growth in industrial economic development, greenwashed to justify it in the name of climate reform. CO2 emissions would not decrease as much as they could, and reforestation would be nominal. Much of the stimulus money would be filtered by clever grant-writers into projects that fail to achieve real sustainability; and in a few years the economy would be booming and people who care about climate would be asking again why CO2 levels are still going up and still more land being cleared to build new subdivisions, retail outlets, office space, highways, deforested solar farms, etc.