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.
= new reply since forum marked as read