VP Kamala Harris for President.

So NO. Just NO.

I will support any democrat who gets the nod!

Dems didn't appreciate Tlaib not endorsing VP Kamala Harris for President..

It was talked about on DU at the time.

So all those people who just sat at home.in Michigan and we got the PEDO Rapist Homididal Maniac who is destroying the World. Hamtramck city mayor Amer Ghalib, Endoresed Traitor.

NO EXCUSE even with how Netanyahu over extended his war. I have sypathies for Israelis and Palestinians.
Who thought drumphf would be better for rhe Mddle East!! Or anything else for that matter!

Shame on everyone who didn't vote except those who suddenly took ill, or had a sudden terrible accident thus no time for absentee etc vote.
Thanks an effin' lot!

I made a response below. Starting a fight in the party before we even have a majority is very unwise. We need to focus on getting solid democrats elected first. That's the first step. Then the caucus can deal with who will be speaker.

support for Dems who are doing their jobs.

Yes, we've seen this Divisiveness before, and we got the PEDO the first time. Starting his FAscism in the WH, Putin's orders. And throughout America.

You should cut Talib a little slack.

That helped the PEDO get Michigan.

No "slack" for that.

This was a critical race, Tsf vs Harris. I will not cut her any slack.

Look what the alternative was and what he is doing now!

(I say binary because third parties don't win in the US, but they can be spoilers.)

https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/article-812438#google_vignette

... for some reason.

Speaker of the House?

Just kidding, kinda...

I wouldn't mind though...

It'd be fun. Risky, but fun.

except maybe Mayor Pete, and I don't know that she isn't smarter than most of them.
Yes, high risk, but could be very high reward.

Unlikely for foreseeable future, probably see her run for -- and win -- a Senate seat before that happens.

and the leadership positions involve things that many would not be nterested in.

She could be Speaker for a term or two, "retire", run for Senate, and still be able to run for President.

I'll admit the Speakership does involve absorbing a lot of negativity from the press and the pols, but we do live in this weird new world.

The Speaker is third in line to be President.

My point is the Speaker position involves things like counting and tracking votes and many have no interest in it. That's why so many of them run for President but just a few are interested in being Speaker. And she seems to do well in committee hearings which Speakers don't do.

It isn't a likely path. But Speakers only run the majority, so the Dems could lose in Congress and she could resign to private life before running for some other office.

The majority of the floor picks the Speaker.

That is all.

Obviously the leaders would back him but Mike Johnson also had leadership backing and barely made it. I don't want something like that happening on our side.

We're going to have a sizable majority and there will be left-flank challenges to Leader Jeffries. He will probably nonetheless be elected Speaker by a majority of his colleagues on the first ballot.

I base this on nothing other than intuition.

their election to the position isn't up to me, it's up to the caucus, and my opinion on the subject doesn't matter.

I guess it's different now.

Submit to the Orthodoxy. If you don't, people will claim you are unacceptable due to your insistence on "purity tests".

It is a paradox. Turtles all the way down.

And I assure you it has absolutely nothing to do with his skin color.

Nor would it, I'm pretty damn certain, for any of the Democrats who vote against him, should that come to pass.

Bringing race into it without actual evidence in that direction feels misdirected to me, but to each their own I suppose

I'm not saying I prefer Tlaib, but if, say, Raskin wanted that spot? Well, there's one of the people who come to mind for me. Again, not at all because he's a white dude and Jeffries is not.

I don't care what your intentions are. The optics are just horrible.

I thought he would be an ass-kicker, and am so disappointed that he so often seems to be a Schumer trainee. I think he could have done better, don't know why. I'd personally like someone else with a more direct in-your-face approach to Republicons and Krasnov.

I know Graham Platner is running for Maine Senator, but that's an example of the style I'd like to see in all Democratic leaders. Along with AOC, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others.

liar is a way better option than Leader Jeffries.

How, specifically?

you wanted him to do preformative shit that doesn't actually do anything?

The little whiteboards were performative shit that didn't do anything other than make us look like school marms.

You find it odd that a new congresswoman, who ran as a progressive and who has less than a week under her belt, will not commit to supporting the existing minority leader if elected this fall? Very vocal? Mejia’s statement barely made a blip in the news cycle. This thread has become less about Jeffries and more about the battle for the direction of the party. I’m not sure if that was the intent, but if it was, it’d be more intellectually honest and politically interesting if we didn’t use proxies for what we’re really arguing. I feel the battle is important and as one of the few remaining individuals without direct access to the truth or the future, I have to rely on others’ abilities to present cogent arguments that hopefully have the power to impact both my beliefs and emotions before they ossify into unproductive dogma.

People ask her, and she avoids the question.

I hear you.

You are the one bringing race into it.

I'm one of them.

I have spoken.

...or think that African-Americans and other minorities deserve no special consideration in our party.

I say, "I'd like to see people be elected to their positions based on their qualifications, political ideologies, and their popularity, and not based on their racial components."

Barack Obama was elected to his position based on his qualifications, political ideologies, and his popularity, and not based on his racial components. Was it not a plus, though, that he was Black? Were African-Americans not deserving of the satisfaction of seeing one of their own elevated to power? Did our party not do well to provide them that satisfaction?

We live in a moment when, thanks to the right-wing propaganda machine, women and minorities who achieve positions of prominence are widely presumed to be "DEI hires" regardless of their qualifications, while white Christian men are presumed to have gained their positions of power due to merit, even if they are downright incompetent.

I'll repeat my question more plainly, then: do you consider affirmative action or DEI initiatives to be "reverse racism"?

The year was 1986. I'm a white guy with a very Jewish-sounding last name.

I was well-recommended by my faculty advisors. In fact, it was one of them who told me about the position.

Resumes, interviews, it all went well. The chairman of that department told me I was right for the job and there were no other applicants.

Then, out of nowhere, a new candidate appeared.

The chairman told me that the department made the decision to hire the other guy because of new affirmative action requirements being implemented on the campus. He said quite candidly, the guy didn't have my qualifications, but he had enough. It was out of the chairman's hands. It was not what he wanted.

That job would have changed my life.

>> I'll repeat my question more plainly, then: do you consider affirmative action or DEI initiatives to be "reverse racism"?

Such "initiatives" are broad-based tools designed to compensate for historical and cultural inequalities.

When implemented so broadly to combat racism, there will be individual circumstances where inequalities are reversed.

Sometimes, the white guy loses the job solely due to this "reverse racism," defined here as an overcompensation for past social trends.

I'd say most DEI implementations are well-intended and at times quite necessary in this white Christian world. But no system is perfect and someone will always be on the short end of the stick.

>> Were African-Americans not deserving of the satisfaction
>> Did our party not do well to provide them that satisfaction?

Deserving? So, because they are black, they are deserving? Is that what you are saying?

As a secondary effect, racial "satisfaction" is great. As a primary motivator, it sounds like reverse racism to me.

>> was elected to his position based on his qualifications, political ideologies, and his popularity,
>> and not based on his racial components. Was it not a plus, though, that he was Black?

That depends on who you are asking. Hair-splitting descriptions of whether Obama was elected because he was black/popular/qualified are not useful. He was all of them.

I'm sure lots of people voted for him because they saw him as one of their own. And that's fine. We all have reasons that motivate us.

I voted for him solely because I thought he'd be more progressive than Clinton. Turns out, he was not a progressive. In his own words ...

...who also took AIPAC donations.

My love of Israel, which used to be, ended years ago.

It never fails. Big election approaching and the far left comes up with some purity test to suppress Democratic votes.

"Corporate Democrats" used to be a common insult, waiting for "AIPAC Democrat." Like accusing Democrats of being corrupt by "taking" corporate PAC money when they either don't or there's zero evidence of any influence, they'll be accused of taking AIPAC money and therefore genocidal villains and this repeated a million times with utter confidence and arrogance.

What is it with this new theme song, AIPAC.

Jeebus C. All of Israel is not Bebe any more than all of the US is trump. Why would anyone condemn a whole country over what their leader does?

FFS people, think about that for a moment.

government ended.

...and it's really offensive to me.

I whole heartedly supported each and every Dem leader, including many who had much less success in holding their membership together.

I daresay, Jeffries has been much more effective in that than even Pelosi, who had persistent opposition from a wing of supposed 'moderates' who bucked her leadership on numerous votes in committee and on the House floor.

But, yeah, deny the black guy anything other than the minority party that voters saddled him with, and likely give a potential majority to a white legislator?

I'm done pussyfooting around this because so many people, including here, repeatedly pressed points of opposition to Jeffries which centered on their personal dislike of the way he spoke or expressed himself.

I remember how Nancy Pelosi used to suck on a mint or something in her mouth as she spoke, blinking incessantly. Still loved and supported her without fail. never had the temerity to insult our leaders like the way people here have dragged Jeffries for not being able to operate the minority he was handed by voters like republicans are about to weild their majority.

It's sophomoric and frankly offensive. Jeffries has dragged republicans the entire time Dems were stepping all over his opposition efforts, making them own BOTH shutdowns.

He deserves the leadership, but I'm not sure many in the party deserve him.

Distancing or cozying up to leadership depending on how it plays with their perceived voters' mood.

Then the election is over and the House does whatever.

And some already pissed off for some reason. Like he's supposed to stop Trump? WTF can he do?? They want him foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog. Pelosi never acted like that, but they want him to be the angry black man that is cussing and damning every day.

Who ever gets the most votes wins.

And yet those same people who chastise us are the ones now who are expressing their anger at this sudden (made up) throng of opposition to him being the Speaker.

So interesting.

Don’t worry about it.

Helping us Win the Midterms isn't paying attention to what he actually does.

I would think the Dems in Congress know that.

October 2025: Jeffries amps up Dem pushback in redistricting wars

It's the fantasy revolution people who are convinced that if they take over the Democratic Party, everything will change.

I miss the days of Speaker Pelosi.

But "most qualified" can be measured by a bunch of different metrics.

Are Dems really going to stop Ilhan Omar from becoming the first female AA Speaker of the House?

Are Dems really going to stop Ilhan Omar from becoming the first Muslim speaker of the House?

Are Dems really going to stop AOC from becoming the first Hispanic Speaker of the House?

Are Dems really going to stop AOC from becoming the first Latina speaker of the House?

Etc… etc…


Your post acts as if Jeffries is owed or has already got the job. A forgone conclusion.

Further you act as if that is a slight against the entire African American community when that might not have anything to do with it or his replacement might be African American themselves…or some other oppressed demographic.

However it is an earned position and the headline can be turned right back around about anyone else who might want the job.

Old stone face as I call him - lacks animation to me. I would support any Democratic person in being the speaker of the House, but I really want is someone that connect to the younger generation. I would love AOC but I recognize that she is a lighting rod (much like Hilary) but in my mind she is the future of the party.

Because anyone can be elected to the speaker of the house - I would be supportive of a non-congressional person that has the mojo, ability to articulate democratic positions and charisma. Who might that be - whomever that person should be a teacher because we as Americans have shown we lack education, critical thinking and common sense. This person would also have the un-enviable job of beginning the process of turning America’s image around around the world.

Donald, his Cabinet and the GOP congress has done a number on this nation.

Will you immediately move to increase the number of Supreme Court justices?

Will you vigorously support efforts to impeach the President?

Will you strongly support the undoing of every destructive executive order signed by trump (once he’s gone) and the dismantling and/or tearing down of the trump arch, the gold bullshit in the White House, the presidential “hall of fame” plaques, the trump kennedy center, and any other destruction, desecration, , additions or changes to our institutions.

I doubt that these dissidents will be able to block Jeffries

The two Reps pointed at as being on the other side are progressive women of color. I’m not sure what makes them stand out, but I doubt either have the power to single-handedly thwart Jeffries path to being Speaker. I’m guessing if he’s not voted in as Speaker it’s because we lost the midterms or that faith in his leadership has faltered within the house or within the electorate, not because Mejia or Tlaib are insensitive to racial precedents.

Also, not surprised there are anti-black progressives in our party, and they can't say it's his age that is the problem. Anyone who wants to bring up Rep. Mejia's father is Dominican. That fact doesn't mean she's Black or has African ancestry.

Please identify them by name or retract your statement.

Graham Platner, "Why don't blacks tip?" The BS question is anti-black. His Nazi tattoo is also anti-black. Are you going to say he's not progressive?

I suspect he's either seen the error of his ways or is resolved to play the good game.

Point 1 to you!

To double your winnings, can you name another?

Progressives will support and give the benefit of the doubt because "He will likely win".

John Fetterman chased that African American man with a shotgun. He admitted that Christopher Miyares didn't have a weapon. In his words, it was probably illegal for him to chase and detain him, and he was stupid enough to say he'd do it again. That is Anti-Black action. I can continue, but I work tomorrow and need to get some sleep.

Edited the post as you said, suspect, and that's a belief, so I changed my reply.

If he ever really was a progressive, that got lost in the fog of a stroke.

Try again, at your convenience.

>> Where's your proof he's seen the error of his way or resolved to play the game?

One cannot prove or disprove future events. As I said, "I suspect ..." Platner will be fine. No retraction required.

Now he has distanced himself from progressive with his love of Israel and making excuses for Felon34.

When he was the next "no-suit-wearing" progressive savior. The movement ignored his Anti-Black actions.

You can choose to believe Fetty knew the guy was black when the chase began.

I don't have enough information to decide this. Neither did the police.

>> "no-suit-wearing" progressive savior

That's your own hyperbole. But, it is true that he fooled a lot of people. For this, he will be banished from the Dem party forever.

I've been happier with.

...this one presiding over a near unanimous caucus on votes, with his party in ascendance.

Jeffries has been as passionate and 'angry' as any other Dem leader in history. That's why these complaints are represented as biased. He's as good, or better at communicating than any of them.

What I'm not as conviced of is some people's capacity to identify with this black man. Nothing is good enough for some because they refuse to look beyond their own antipathies.

It's really something that the Dem leaders are being dragged while the party is in ascendance, and the opposition in disarray and declining. That's also a measure of the bias of his critics.

We need not start a war in the party while we are still very much in the minority.

on Winning the Midterms, which many seem not to know about.

Last edited Sat Apr 25, 2026, 08:10 AM - Edit history (1)

from the centrists?

Another purity test from the centrist wing?

Not sure, still trying to figure it out.

funny these things always come up around election time, and always when we actually seem to have an advantage.

It was a short time ago some threads were popping up accusing Newsom of being a racist when he was talking about his dyslexia and ADHD. Newsom never was, an isn't a racist, and that accusation.

He was on a book tour in Georgia, and mentioned he has an issue reading a speech, and inarticulately said that he had an 960 SAT score he "no better than anyone in the audience, and had his own challenges with his dyslexia and ADHD.

I wonder how many of those who jump on the "Newsom is a racist" bandwagon are aware that it was MAGA and right wing figures such as Hannity and MAGAs who started that accusation of Newsom being a raicist, by implying that African Americans have low test scores. He said that, and never implied that. The clips they used were taken out of context, and selectively edited.

He was talking about his long-standing issues with dyslexia, but some were more than willing to accept the distortions from right wing talking heads without question.

There is a pattern here that has been going on for way too long. I guess that is why the lessons of 2000, 2016, and 2024 are too soon forgotten, when a little analysis and critical thinking would reveal what is going on.