And I hope we will always think well
of the poor and help alleviate
poverty in this country.

Time to fight these fuckers!

it's easier for the poor to enter the pearly gates than for the rich to pass through a needle hole or something similar.

For so-called "Christie-ans" to worship the billionaire pharisees (in reality, racist fascists like miller) and think it's okay, maybe they should rethink their behavior twice...

Does anyone here think she is referring to Schumer and Jeffries? Just asking

and (falsely) accuse her of asking for "terrorist" acts of setting fires in "radical left" imaginary riots...

Words should be carefully thought of... imho.

As long as Schmidt, Wilson, Colbert, Kimmel, Springsteen, De Niro, Harris, Newsom, Pritzker, Crockett, etc., etc., etc. are willing to stand up to Trump and the fascists, none of us can do less.

Me personally; I've been on the government's shit list since the days of the Vietnam protests.

which can be interpreted in many different false ways, she could say the truth directly like "fight these fascists with unfolding PEACEFUL protests all over the country where they illegally KIDNAPP and DISAPPEAR people without any legal authority while wearing masks"

one of the only times i will ever use all caps . so there too.

after letting maga take the supreme court, potus, house, senate and many governorships.

(we did that in PA by breaking what had been a "traditional" switch of parties each 2-terms (defeating Tom Corbett in 2014, making him a 1-term (R)), and we have had 3 consecutive terms of (D)s so far.

States like AZ, ME, MI, MD & WI were also flipped. We did recently lose MT, NV & VA, although VA is a weird one having only 1-term governors (but it looks like it will probably go blue again).

to bad americu won't stand up to the asshole...

I shine at "incompetent" and "unhinged." When do we march?

No one person that stands up and says they speak for the millions who did not vote for Trump.

In most other democracies, Kamala Harris would have remained the leader of the opposition after the election, and all the gravitas that went with it. She then could have, and should have, continued to have rallies, giving speeches, covered by media, that warned Americans about what was coming, and then what was happening under Trump. The media is always one day late and censor their stories not to agitate too much the present ruling party

It is one part of the system that is a weakness. Harris, right after the election, became a nobody. (I'm exaggerating). And the party again became leaderless. One day Jeffries is in the news and takes up the mantle. Another day Schumer is in the news about something. Another day its Nancy Pelosi getting headlines. Or Cory Booker, or even AOC...

The average, not too political, citizen sees one party with a strong loud unmitigated leader, and the other with a diluted leadership, where no one and everyone represents the party that is not in power. No one to galvanize around.

In my fantasy, Harris would have taken a page from Trumps book, and fought fire with his kind of fire, by taking a couple weeks off to decompress after her loss, and then immediately gone on to continue her rallies, telling the public what they have voted for, including project 2025, and whats coming and how to fight it and stand together. With Republican speakers as well. But she could have only done that if she was regarded as the present day Democrat official leader of the opposition.

Most of the rest of the world (that doesn't have a supreme monarchy as "ruler" ) uses a "Parliamentary" system, where the people elect their MPs and the MPs are the ones who chose the Prime Minister (either making that selection as the "majority party", or as part of a "coalition of parties", where the one with the most seats often gets the nod to choose). And in that case, the leader of that party in the majority usually becomes the selection.

I.e., the people are NOT directly electing a "national leader".

I agree, the people do not directly elect a "national leader". But their peers choose the one that then the public will choose or not choose. So in the end they are, if not directly, electing a national leader. If the party doesn't put forth a candidate that people will vote for, thats their fault

But the leader who ran and lost, can either resign, or decide to carry on as opposition leader. Or a third option that the party holds a leadership review and maybe forces a new party election.

But when the dust settles......there is one and only one top voice that defines that party in opposition. Here in Canada, Pierre Poilievre, who caters to the maple maga, lost the election, but still speaks as the most authoritative voice for the official opposition. Even immediately after the election.

In the US, it is even simpler, because you only have two serious parties running. So it just seems odd that the person, Kamala Harris, who had almost half the votes and support, had great momentum to build from, with overflowing arenas, did not stay in the spotlight, and be regarded as the voice of Democrats. Until any new primary was called for by the party.

To just cut off all momentum like that just seemed counter productive

If the people "complain" too much or if the governing party sees an advantage, the can call a "snap election" in a Parliamentary system (something that we can't do with our Constitutional Federal Republic) and any "special elections" (outside of already-scheduled ones) are to fill vacancies, and are held at some time frame decided on by a state.

Here, although the President is considered a "de facto leader" of the party they are a member of, once that Presidency ends (or a nominee loses), that moniker of (a central) "leader" goes away.

The "technical" head of the Democratic National Committee (the "party" ) is Ken Martin, and he certainly isn't running for President.

Although after Trump lost in 2020, he was still considered the leader of their party. Because he kept on rallying and campaigning. Their "primary" was mostly sycophants crawling over each other to see who was pledging their loyalty to him the strongest.

I think Harris could have also held rallies and campaigned right away after she lost. I understand that the DNC, Pelosi and others would have frowned on that. But until a new candidate is selected, she should have been the party spokesperson, leader, until she was primaried and replaced. If Dems chose to primary her.

There is just a disconnect with voters when the person who came in a close second just disappears. No continuum.

Not necessarily because there were quite a few who were anti-45ers. Remember too that we have a "primary system" where party members compete against each other for the job... and there WAS a primary, and he eventually outlasted all of them, including his closest competition - Niki Haley.




But because he was the last one as "President", there was a de facto clinging to him for party identity.

But in your scenario, the last one who WAS "President" among the Democrats was who?

Joe Biden.

And he would have been considered "the leader". Harris only ran at the top of the ticket (she had been on Biden's ticket) because he dropped out and she received the majority of the votes in a hastily-called delegate vote ahead of the DNC Convention (since the Democrats didn't really have a primary given Biden was the incumbent... outside of brainworm's attempt to shoehorn his way in (before he switched and tried to get his name off of ballots)).

And I wouldn't say she "disappeared". I think it was more a reaction to a mass rejection by some constituencies who had previously voted for Biden, who later found out about FAFOing, and her trying to do some re-calibrating.

I know here on DU, there are many who are lukewarm about her as threads about her often get yawns.

(and Mdme President Harris in some Parallel USA/Earth somewhere! )
sigh

YES!

One speaker is lagging the other. Thanks!

versus having their own mic tapped into the sound system directly. That resulted in an echo in the room.