Facing intense internal pressure, DNC releases postelection autopsy that criticizes Kamala Harris

[dalton99a]

https://apnews.com/article/democratic-national-committee-autopsy-2024-ken-martin-a4f67256b4c56ba076aece23c22728ad

Facing intense internal pressure, DNC releases postelection autopsy that criticizes Kamala Harris
By STEVE PEOPLES
Updated 12:46 PM CDT, May 21, 2026

NEW YORK (AP) — Kamala Harris “wrote off rural America” during the 2024 presidential campaign and failed to attack Donald Trump with sufficient “negative firepower,” according to a long-awaited post-election autopsy released on Thursday by the Democratic National Committee.

The committee’s chair, Ken Martin, shared the 192-page report only after facing intense internal pressure from frustrated Democratic operatives concerned with his leadership. Martin had originally promised to release the autopsy, only to keep it under wraps for months because he was concerned it would be a distraction ahead of the midterms as Democrats mobilize to take back control of Congress.

On Tuesday, Martin apologized for his handling of the situation and conceded that the report was withheld because it “was not ready for primetime.”

Although the autopsy criticizes Democrats’ focus on “identity politics,” it sidesteps some of the most controversial elements of the 2024 campaign. The report does not address former President Joe Biden’s decision to seek reelection, the rushed selection of Harris to replace him after he dropped out or the party’s acrimonious divide over the war in Gaza.

...


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rural whites were not going to elect a black woman. Kamala made the right call here.

[hlthe2b]

1. Yes.. agree. But Barack Obama did get 43% of rural, although less than R opponent each time.

Of course BO was not (gasp), FEMALE as well as black.

[sop]

2. A must read article at link, it will set off another angry round of pointless recriminations within the party.

“ 'I am not proud of this product; it does not meet my standards, and it won’t meet your standards,' Martin wrote in an essay on Substack on Thursday. 'I don’t endorse what’s in this report, or what’s left out of it. I could not in good faith put the DNC’s stamp of approval on it. But transparency is paramount.' "

Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory again...

[PufPuf23]

16. POTUS Biden was knee-capped from behind.

POTUS Biden performed admirably well with wisdom as a POTUS for the People.

POTUS Biden was less infirm than Trump but received less than full backing from our side.

The DNC avoided that topic too.

[dem4decades]

77. Biden performed horribly at the debate, you can't deny that.

[MustLoveBeagles]

3. We weren't the one harping about

Identity politics the Republicans were. Your right Kamala wouldn't have gotten their votes no matter how much she went to their state and sucked up to them.

[Redleg]

26. Indeed. I don't recall Kamala spending a lot of time on the culture war issues

that Republicans and Bill Maher like to fixate on. Kamala mainly addressed economic issues and the dangers of another Trump presidency.

[Bettie]

69. But, we think that people who aren't

straight, white, overtly religious white men deserve a place a the table as well....to them, that is "too much time on identity politics".

[MustLoveBeagles]

74. Bingo

[exboyfil]

4. The party and Biden should receive the majority of the criticism

Biden was elected as a one term fixer. It should have been open from day one that his successor would be found from an open process. Events proved that point exactly. The moment I heard he was trying for a second term, I knew there were going to be problems.

[sop]

7. Much as I respect Biden, I can't disagree.

[Jose Garcia]

8. He flushed his legacy down the toilet

[dalton99a]

10. Biden got very bad advice and should have made the Prevention of Trump's Return a top priority.

Much time and energy was spent on the various home improvement projects while the arsonist was lurking around the corner ready to burn it down

[Polybius]

24. Are we sure it was advice?

It may have been ego. He may have wanted to run (can't really blame him too much for that).

[thought crime]

30. Considering how long it took after the debate disaster, yes it was blind ego.

Remember that we all endured the spectacle of Diane Feinstein's last days in the Senate in 2022/2023. Biden thought a little too highly of himself.

[MichMan]

73. I believe that Joe Biden thought he was the only person capable of beating Trump

[Polybius]

97. He still thought that too after the election

I remember a reporter asked him if things would have been different had he stood in the race, and he said yes.

[fujiyamasan]

85. Partly ego

But also advisors who acted as yes men and women, who weren’t honest with him. I include Biden’s family too, mainly Hunter and Jill.

There was a story about Pelosi talking to Biden about polling and it was very telling. It was I think after the debate and she was obviously concerned about where the race was going and for her own caucus members’ jobs. Biden responded that polls were in a dead heat and she asked which ones. Finally Pelosi demanded to speak with Donilon (one of Biden’s advisors). It was clear the advisors weren’t giving him good advice.

Meanwhile Donilon was making something like $5 million. I’m probably off with that numbers, but either way it was a lot of money. I can understand why Harris doesn’t have anything good to say about Biden’s campaign team either.

[EdmondDantes_]

11. While not the biggest Biden fan compared to many here, I can't agree with that

He had a long history of public service prior to being president. His years in the Senate and as vice president were all good overall and as president he got substantial legislation passed and helped make the vaccine rollout go as smoothly as possible in states that weren't obstinate. Did some of his policies/legislation contribute to the inflation that brought his approval down? Absolutely, he wasn't perfect, but who is?

I think it's really hard to walk away from a dream as big as being president. Yes, ideally he would have with how he appeared at the debate, but we could say the same about Trump and how he's all but drooling on himself falling asleep in cabinet meetings. It was a job he tried for as far back as 1988. And while I think he had diminished physical capacity (as we all do as we age), it's really really hard to accept that. My grandfather didn't want to accept he couldn't drive any longer until it was found he was parking by bumping other cars. Being seen as "weaker" or "incapable" is hard. Look at how many athletes can't walk away before falling apart.

And no one person is responsible alone for Trump, even including Trump. If there wasn't an appetite for his approach, he'd have had as much success running for office as George Lincoln Rockwell did.

[thought crime]

29. You are explaining WHY he didn't step down.

But the fact that he didn't step down was disastrous and it was foreseeable long before the debate. David Axelrod warned about it six months earlier. The error was obvious to many when he announced he would go ahead an run in 2024. From that point it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

[BannonsLiver]

61. Agree, sadly.

I know I don’t feel the same about him.

[karynnj]

14. Clan you find a Biden quote ever saying he was going to leave after one term?

I seriously don't think so. The closest, but not the same, was he would be a transition.

There was an interesting article end of year 2024, that made the speculation that the overall success of the mid terms vs historical precedent might have led to calculations be Biden and others that he should run again. Remember the context then was that especially given the small margins, he was very successful in passing things like the infrastructure bills.

Now imagine, we lost more in the midterms. I would bet he would have been pushed to announce he was going to continue fighting for American fairness as President and not seek a second term.

[Sewa]

15. Here you go

Biden Suggests He Would Only Serve One Term if Elected President

Advisers close to the candidate say he won’t run for reelection in 2024 if elected in 2020.

Former Vice President Joe Biden has reportedly indicated that he would only serve for one term if elected to the presidency.

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-12-11/joe-biden-suggests-he-would-only-serve-one-term-if-elected-president

[karynnj]

18. That is others saying he won't run a second time

Note qualifiers of "reportedly"

[Sewa]

25. The bottomline is that Biden

Intentionally led voters to believe he wouldn’t run for a second term.

[Mad_Machine76]

20. "Suggests" is not definitive

Besides, if lots of people felt that Biden shouldn't run again, they should have spoken out/stepped up during the primary. I know that there were a couple non-serious primary candidates, but they obviously did not get any traction.

[pinkstarburst]

46. It's not typically done to primary a sitting president

Biden should have graciously announced he was not running and he should have done it with enough time for a full primary to be held. The results might have been the same. Harris might still have been the candidate. But the country would have felt like they got to choose her. That was a big factor, I felt like. People felt forced into Biden-Trump in 2024, which no one wanted. No one wanted two 80 year old men on the ticket. Terrible choice either way. And no one chose Kamala Harris except Joe Biden. One person picked her. And then after Biden's late withdrawal, the country had another ticket forced on them. If she had run in a primary and been chosen, it would have given her a different sense of momentum, I feel like.

[Quiet Em]

49. It's also not typical to insist a sitting President removes himself from the ballot and then

insist that the Vice President is removed as well.

No serious candidate primaried Joe Biden because no serious candidate believed they could actually win a primary over Joe Biden.

No serious candidate challenged Kamala Harris at the convention because no serious candidate believed they could actually win the candidacy over Kamala Harris at the convention.

[MichMan]

75. Anyone that dared to challenge him in the primary was attacked here

[Mad_Machine76]

91. They were awful candidates

[BannonsLiver]

62. He could have easily declared victory after the 2022 mid terms and announced he wasn't running.

That would have allowed a regular primary season to play out in winter 2024.

We can nitpick about what he said when he was elected. The reality is he should have known the best thing to do was to do one term, stabilize the country (which he did) and then pass the baton. Haven’t heard a coherent counter argument to any of that beyond “feels”.

Biden was a very good president. I was and still am proud to have voted for him. But I don’t like the way things ended.

[RoseTrellis]

98. Here's a great piece

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4718993-did-biden-break-his-one-term-pledge/

“ But the report most cited by those who believe a one-term promise was in place was from Politico in December 2019. “Biden’s top advisers and prominent Democrats outside the Biden campaign have recently revived a long-running debate whether Biden should publicly pledge to serve only one term, with Biden himself signaling to aides that he would serve only a single term,” reported Ryan Lizza. “While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital.”

Lizza would go on to quote “four people who regularly talk to Biden” who said “it is virtually inconceivable that he will run for reelection in 2024.” One “prominent adviser to the campaign” said explicitly, “he won’t be running for reelection.” That same advisor said that by signaling this one-term run, it would make the candidate a “good transition figure.”
That “transition” line is important, because it’s one Biden himself used publicly and on the record. “I view myself as a transition candidate,” Biden said at an online fundraiser in April 2020. In March of that year, at a rally where his eventual VP pick Kamala Harris was by his side, he used similar language: “I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else.””

[pinkstarburst]

45. Exactly this. No one was excited about

the prospect of having to choose between two 80 year old candidates. It sucked all the energy out of the room. It felt like there were zero good choices. No one wanted him to run again. There should have been a vigorous primary, which may have resulted in Kamala being the candidate who ran anyway, but no matter the outcome, it would have made voters feel like they had a CHOICE. The way it played out, voters felt like they had zero choice in Trump-Biden, and zero choice when it ended up being Trump-Harris. This on top of many voters feeling like their dollars weren't buying what they used to and they were in a bad place personally (kitchen table politics), all fresh on the heels of covid, the lack of choice all around led to a lot of resentment, I felt like.

I will always be grateful to Biden for what he accomplished in his term, for the way he took a disastrous situation and turned it around. He is a good, good man. But he made a terrible misjudgment led by ego when he refused to hand over the reins to the next generation within the party, and I blame him (mostly) for 2024, not Kamala.

With that said, I do not think Harris should be our candidate again in 2028. I think the country already had a chance to weigh in and said no. We need to offer up a new ticket with fresh candidates.

[FascismIsDeath]

5. I could write a better "autopsy" in a few sentences.

I dearly love Joe Biden but he should've realized age was having its way, fair or unfair, and announced he wasn't seeking re-election at the end of 2023 and let a primary process play out. Harris was thrust into an impossible situation and was the only natural answer when in need of a candidate, given the short amount of time left to put together a campaign that got anywhere.

The biggest problem during Biden's tenure was inflation, which started with COVID and the way it ripped through the supply chain. We did not do a good job at educating the public on the root cause there and weren't honest enough about the fact that it was going to take awhile to heal.

Thats pretty much it, everything else is just noise.

[dalton99a]

6. +1. And the migrant surge shouldn't have been allowed. That was a huge gift to Trump.

[fujiyamasan]

17. That's one I don't see many addressing

In my opinion, this is the order of what caused the losses. Now the DNC can pay me whatever the hell they pay the useless consultants they’re been paying:

Biden’s age
The border
Inflation
Gaza

Then there’s a few specific to Harris:
She never won a primary (not once ever)

She couldn’t admit any faults of the administration or say what she would have done different

Odd VP choice that didn’t quite work (good man, but I personally never quite figured out the Walz pick)

Harris clips from 2020 about taxpayer funded transgender prisoner surgeries (it almost sounded like a parody). This probably had a bigger impact than people realize. The clip was replayed in ads repeatedly. It was gold.

Finally a few general issues with the administration, Other policy issues — not aligning with what the electorate found important compared to what democrats found important (case in point spending on EV infrastructure and heavy emphasis on climate change when the real concern was inflation and economic issues). I don’t think the administration did a good job on explaining or getting the point across on either gender affirmation care for minors or transgender women in sports. Both were classic wedge culture war issues that shouldn’t have become as big of an issue as they did.

[yardwork]

33. This is a good analysis.

The fact that the DNC's report is nothing even close to this thorough is a disgrace.

To me this is an emergency. We need to fire everyone at the DNC and start over.

[fujiyamasan]

57. It's sad isn't it?

It barely took five minutes to type this.

There’s no accountability at the organization. It’s pathetic. It’s afraid of pissing anyone off, so it pisses everyone off. They spit out this generic and bland piece of garbage that addresses absolutely nothing.

Trump coming back to power is one of the greatest tragedies in this country’s history. This second term’s negative impact on our republic’s standing can’t be understated. We needed a comprehensive reporting of what actually happened and concrete recommendations for each political level, from those running at the county level to the senate.

We also needed this covering issue by issue, messaging, media, demographic groups… everything. When Obama won in 2008 and 2012 democrats were the party of data and using it to turnout its voters.

[yardwork]

66. Absolutely.

I don't think anything has disturbed me this much in years.

The Republicans are stealing the world and there's no apparent organized opposition.

[bearsfootball516]

54. The Harris is for They/Them and Trump is for You commercial was brutal.

If you watched college football or the NFL in the fall of 2024, you saw that commercial over and over. It got played constantly on CBS and Fox. The Harris campaign admitted they saw polling that showed the commercial was killing them, and they never countered it because they couldn't figure out how.

[yardwork]

67. They couldn't figure out how?

Most posters on DU would have had some suggestions. Not to mention millions of other Democrats. Wow.

This is beyond appalling.

[betsuni]

96. It's not true. Harris ran rebuttal ads in swing states pivoting to the economy.

Democrats are accused of focusing only on "identity politics" and ignoring the economy when it's Republicans doing that.

[betsuni]

95. No, she says she countered it by saying "Trump says a lot of things about me, but I know the thing you care about

is the economy, and quickly pivot to our messages on price gouging, affordable housing, and small-business tax relief. And that was the ad we ran as rebuttal in the swing states."

She kept on message about the economy, what Democrats are told to do and do.

[GreatGazoo]

90. Harris was forbidden to distance herself from the Biden years

The "nothing comes to mind" quote was like quicksand.

Re Walz the rumor was that internals had Harris losing the GE so those angling for 2028 (Newsom, Shapiro) declined the VP spot for feared it would burn their shot at POTUS.

On trans, the GOP got away with framing the whole thing in an 80/20 way. IOW most Americans are either neutral or supportive of people identifying as they want, dressing, living, partnering, etc but the GOP hammered only on the two or three circumstances where Americans are not supportive: trans women in women's sports, trans women in women's prisons and whatever hysteria was whipped up around using the bathroom of your choice. There is/was no 30-second refutation of those attacks. To my thinking the Harris campaign was right to reiterate her general support of LGBTQ rights but the way to really fight back was to hammer some 80/20 issues and framing that cut the other way.

[pinkstarburst]

48. Agreed

I saw so many posts on here at the time blaming Abbott for the bussing (and to be fair, I can't stand the man), but I was just like, why on earth isn't Biden stopping the huge migrant surge? It was terrible optics and he did stop it... but only a few months before the election--far too late. That should have happened a few months after he took office.

[bigtree]

60. migrants benefit the nation, even the undocumented ones

...catering to those tropes is what has us twisting our party away from it's most dependable of supporters because of feeding into the fears and lies about brown-skinned Americans.

The only reason that republicans are able to use issues like immigration against Democrats is because we've repeatedly bent over as republicans waged openly racist, demagouging attacks on people in this nation with brown skin.

Now the very same peeple in this party who acquiesced to that political hype to try and protect themselves in elections are simply being forced to retreat even further away from defending people who make our nation prosperous and strong.

So much enablng of racists, to the extent that we have Democrats scolding the party for not being as cruel and abusively controlling as republicans toward the humanity breaching our borders; migration which our nation has ALWAYS benefited from, but has been bastardized to the point where ALL brown-skinned people in this are being abandoned subjugated to this privileged politics by a white majority clueless that THEY are the ultimate targets of this racism for dominance by this fascist government and others.

Stand up for people in this nation, not just the citizens. It's literally in the text of the Constitution which acknowledges the rights of all PEOPLE in the country; not just our citizens.

[MustLoveBeagles]

83. Thank you for this

I agree totally.

[leftstreet]

9. But Schumer swore this would work!

"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia. And you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin."
-Chuck Schumer 2016

[bigtree]

35. sure, it was Schumer's fault that Democrats who showed up to defeat Trump by voting for Biden

...didn't bother to show up to defeat Trump by voting for Kamala Harris.

Democrats flipped nine Republican-held seats, mostly in blue states, and gained one seat each in Alabama and Louisiana due to new congressional maps

Republicans’ majority shrank to the narrowest since 1930.

As if legislators needed to convince Democrats who voted to stop Trump four years earlier need to be mollycoddled into doing the same again.

What are we supposed to believe these people needed to hear from anyone?

They fucked us supremely, and we're still holding their hands and telling them they were justified in enabling the election of a megalomaniac, convicted felon.

I'm not a Democratic strategist, and I don't come here to make Democratic strategy, but fuck those people to hell for what they did in dicking around about Biden or Harris.

What the actual fuck did they think Trump was going to do about the things they were complaining about? Their stupidity is only exceeded by their hubris.

[leftstreet]

40. He said they didn't need blue collar workers

Not faulting him for those reliable Dem voters who didn't show up for Harris, just pointing out he said they'd be replaced by (two!) suburban GOPers.

He was wrong

[bigtree]

41. no he didn't

...that's not a credible interpretation of his quote.

“For every blue-collar Democrat we will lose in western P.A., we will pick up two, three moderate Republicans in the suburbs of Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin,” he said.

He was making an inartful point about how predicted the race would go. It didn't drive anything but his critics and media hacks writing underneath clickbait titles.

And ANYONE claiming republicans have ever given blue collar workers more than lip service is just lying, and doesn't deserve to be mollycoddled because they chose a wealthy criminal and a party that does nothing but enrich themselves and their CEOs over a party that doesn't little else but represent the people.

Of course, I don't expect anyone who thinks this is a credible attack on Schumer to bother to mention the reams of other words he's used over his decades long career in Congress in actual support of legislative efforts that support working class people in this country.

Anyone who claims the party doesn't is just lying. That's not Schumer's fault that some people choose, anyway, to believe pure bullshit about him and the party.

Democrats have always worked to support the working class, while republicans just talk about it as they undermine them with EVERY vote they take on behalf of their wealthy benefactors instead of working Americans.

It's just mindnumbingly misleading and false to claim he believes or said "we don't need blue-collar workers." It's just sickening to twist what he said just to oppose him. It's just denigrating of Democrats, not to mention his entire career standing up for working people.

I really don't expect, though, that people who make broadsides at Schumer or the party to bother to look to see what his actual advocacy has been, instead of misleading lies like this old, tired claim people other than you have made, encouraging others to adopt this sophistry.

To what end? That people who engage with this lie believe Democrats don't support the working class? Why bend this out of context? It makes no sense at all to me for anyone in the Democratic party to engage in self-destructive sophistry like this.

To what end?

[leftstreet]

42. I was just quoting him

"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia. And you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin."
-Chuck Schumer 2016

If I fail to see the appropriate nuance in his words...well I'm probably not alone

[bigtree]

44. no where is he quoted saying what you claimed

....and it's just sophistry to claim he believed or was expressing that we didn't need WC voters.


Moreover, I'd challenge anyone to find any significant number of voters who read or heard that quote. It's the height of navelgazing, and actually just gobbling up deliberate media fuckery against Democrats and regurgitating it to party supporters.

To what end?

Yeah, sure. I'm supposed to believe that people voted for Trump because, they heard what Schumer said, and they believed that republicans, who've been screwing the working class for decades and decades, believed the grifting Trump and his country club party cared more about them and voted against Democrats for that inanity?

The 'working-class' meme was a euphemism used to describe white supremacist voters who the republicans convinced blacks and immigrants were keeping them from opportunity, instead of the republicans robbing them blind.

The fact that it's being thrown around like it has some deep meaning other than a Klan dog-whistle is really something to behold for this old, black voter.

They voted against the black woman, while their republican party campaigned against the Democratic president and party that lifted the working class up out of the economic mire of EVERY modern republican president in my lifetime.

People who claimed to support blcaks, migrants, and women sat on their hands, and the racists flooded the polls like they flooded the capitol.

[leftstreet]

56. It was from The National Review

He made his statements at a forum sponsored by The Washington Post in June of 2016

(snip)

Chuck Schumer: Democrats Will Lose Blue-Collar Whites but Gain in the Suburbs
By Jim Geraghty
July 28, 2016 8:14 PM

....
At least publicly, Schumer has no worries about his party’s dwindling fortunes among working-class white voters. “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/chuck-schumer-democrats-will-lose-blue-collar-whites-gain-suburbs/

[bigtree]

63. I can read

...he didn't say that the party doesn't need working class voters.

That's a sly attack on the leader and our party which so many have adopted; no matter how incongruous to the truth of what the leader said or what he's advocated and helped advance for the working class all of his career.

It's a bullshit attack that supposes republicans should be more attractive to 'working class voters, but what is really implied for the political purpose that attracts republicans is 'WHITE WORKING CLASS MALES.'

More to the point, white supremacists who are euphemistically described as the 'working class' in these political representations of what the Democrats stand for.

From where I've worked and lived all my life, BLACK WORKERS, who support Democrats in huge percentages in elections, are as 'working class' as any racist voting republican because they've been convinced some brown skinned person like me took their job.

The entire characterization is lost on me, because if it's about me, or people who look like me, it's a complete lie. Democrats are the ONLY party that's EVER supported me as a black man working in this country.

But some people work overtime to convince me that white males who have received the lion's share of benefits and jobs are the one's I should spend political and tax dollar attention on; even as that white majority is being coddled and feted; even as my own community of color is being denigrated and deliberately disadvantaged.

'Working class' in today's politics is just a euphemism for white males. We shouldn't perpetuate such speciousness to the detriment of the most vulnerable among us who don't share their whiteness.

[leftstreet]

68. Okay

I take your points

More than anything, I wish you could sit down with Schumer and tell him how his words should be crafted in such a way that party faithful aren't burdened with explaining them later

[bigtree]

72. I personally believe he'll retire after the midterms

...and I don't believe that more than a small minority of politically active Americans even know who our leaders are, much less what they say.

Hell, even their critics don't appear to know much more of substance about these folks beyond what they choose to focus on in their antipathy.

My observation is that people rally to vote against things, much more than they vote for something or someone, especially in the midterms. I think that's why this negative energy against the party is attracting more practitioners.

Without some abatement, it's just seems to many like the natural order.

That's why I believe we need to redirect folks back to the critical goal of obtaining a Democratic majority. Without one, we'll just keep in arguing in a minority, without any power. It doesn't take much imagination to suppose who would be encouraging of that prospect.

[Passages]

12. Sidestepping critical issues is not an autopsy. Incredible.

[bigtree]

37. what 'critical issue' was more important to people than keeping a convicted felon in their own country out of office?

...all of the rest of their concerns could and can still be argued and reconciled in an actual democratic system - one which the person they enabled into office has made impossible to resolve anything these people claimed to care about.

The denial is with the voters who claimed to care about something or the other, but allowed Trump to get back into office.

ZERO responsibility for that defeat taken by these people, and most of them are back today still claiming Gaza, or Biden's age, or 'working class' was the reason they dragged the Democrats more than they ever did republicans, demanding our historically successful incumbent president step down, and expecting his VP to win a THREE MONTH RACE.

It's fucking ludicrous how much time is being wasted blaming the people who actually fiught all throughout for Democrats to win, instead of taking every opportunity to drag them down, and then standing back and going, 'who me?' when they succeeded.

[Passages]

43. If you want to win, you cover all the bases.

Clearly, they were not addressed, and enough voters rolled the dice for Trump. When you lose twice to a demagogue, you should want to examine everything.

[bigtree]

50. this is delusionary

...it gives fealty to people who chose a known felon to serve in the White House again.

And it excuses people who claim to be concerned about issues that Trump and republicans were certain to exacerbate and exploit in a diamatrically opposite manner than ANY Democrat, but refused to show up and vote for the Democratic nominees.

And it reduces the campaign that I witnessed every day of the THREE meager MONTHS Kamala Harris was given to save democracy to the memes that the media and opposition made up out of whole political cloth.

My memory is that too many Democrats did more dragging of the nominees than they did the opposition, like all they knew how to do was wring their hands in apathy, and then sit on them when it was time to vote just to satisfy their own personal pique.

The people they're dragging today were the ones I remember fighting like hell to win.

[Passages]

51. The better question imo, why do an autopsy if you plan on omitting information that

gives you the feedback you need.

Unfortunate decision.

[bigtree]

55. no, the question is, why does anyone need that falderal?

...and what do they plan on doing with it?

Is the effort to attract more voters to gain the majority in a few months?

Is it to increase the number of Americans voting Democratic?

Where's the through line from the complaints to some productive result for our prospects of a Democratic majority?

What are the actual motivations behind all of the nitpicking? Are they advantaging a personal or issue-driven agenda?

How does this help organize a Democratic majority in November?

[Passages]

58. Are you serious? The party does an autopsy for answers, instead of assumptions.

It can help through an objective examination, evidently, which did not happen.

[bigtree]

64. 'the party'

...isn't the one looking to exploit this report against themselves.

I mean, who says they haven't made adjustments based on what they believe is relevant and helpful?

This is really about the people who have been whining for this report who are now predictably attacking the Dem party as if that's the point of our advocacy, instead of focusing on republicans.

[Passages]

70. Ken Martin commissioned the autopsy. You already seem to believe to know why we lost and how.

Unfortunately, we do not have one that examines everything, which only allows for future mistakes.

It seems your opinion the report is and was for the benefit of the whiners, which is a senseless belief.

[bigtree]

76. not enough Dems showed up

...what a sorry thing for people professed to oppose Trump.

I'll bet that not ONE thing that critics advocate the party support benefits me or addresses the withering attack on people of color, like me, to the evisceration of my rights and representation in Congress and in government.

I'm going to guess it's all going to be about appealing to people who believe something else should take priority, like white, 'working class' males.

We haven't gotten to any of that yet. Just this clawing at the party. I wonder what's behind these individuals attacking the party, other than winning elections, because the complaints don't have anything to do with even that necessity.

Where's the through line from the complaints about the DNC to organizing a Democratic majority, much less anything addressing my own rights as a citizen in this nation?

This seems such a subjective pursuit that it's not clear what the complaintants actually want to happen after reading the stuff. All they've managed so far is to demand DNC resignations, as that one act is some political panacea for Democrats.

[Passages]

79. You have done quite a bit of guessing. The point of an autopsy is to look at the issues objectively.

There are serious problems from within. It would be a benefit for all to examine everything.


ProPublica:

May 5, 2023
Facing the possibility of an unsafe district, South Carolina’s most powerful Democrat sent his aide to consult with the GOP on a redistricting plan that diluted Black voting strength and harmed his party’s chances of gaining seats in Congress.
by Marilyn W. Thompson

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-rep-james-clyburn-protected-his-district-at-a-cost-to-black-democrats

[bigtree]

81. the guessing is mostly from those assuming the DNC didn't look at the report

...the complaints are really that some people didn't get a chance to pick it apart and throw it in the party's face.

They should be made to explain how any of that gets us to a Democratic majority.

What you posted is the capitulation that I'm talking about which subjugates the representation of blacks, like me, to a strategy they assume will create a majority Democratic district.

But it will still be made up of people who don't resemble the black communities they expect to make up some of that vote, and subsequently, as always, the needs of concerns of those communities are ultimately shortchanged or underrepresented.

Moreover, it's a hell of a backward way to show support for black Americans, for the party insisting they can find a way around their actual presence and representation in Congress.

At some point, in some way the party is going to be made to recognize that representation isn't a mere beneficence to black Americans, but a national imperative. This timidity and avoidance is only going to be taken advantage of by an opposition which has been stringing Democrats along for decades who can't find the courage to stand up and defend black Americans like they'd defend their own preogatives.

[Passages]

82. After losing twice to Trump, it is dangerous to assume anything.

What I posted is only the tip of the iceberg, and when there is a refusal to examine everything, you leave too much to chance.

[MustLoveBeagles]

84. Thank you again

[B.See]

19. Riiight. Let's all engage in more

brow beating, finger pointing, and self-recrimination while MAGAS rush out to vote for more Trump scams, shams, grifts, and wars.

[betsuni]

21. Republicans write off rural America, give them nothing but culture wars and sit back taking their vote for granted.

"This divergence [white rural voters shifting Republican] made rural America less politically competitive, giving both parties little incentive to devote substantial resources to winning votes there. Yet it's only Democrats who are endlessly lectured about 'ignoring' rural America, and they do largely ignore it -- if all you're talking about is politics and not policy. ... What isn't widely understood is that Republicans ignore many rural areas, too, for essentially the same reason as Democrats: They know the races there won't be competitive, so they don't need to bother.

"'For the most part, Republicans rack up big margins in red areas by default,' says Wisconsin Democratic Party chair Ben Wikler. ... 'Candidate after candidate would tell me they were working their socks off and never seeing any evidence of a real campaign on the Republican side,' Wikler told us. 'And some of those candidates right before the election told me they were really confident they'd win, because their opponent had essentially done nothing, had barely filed any fundraising, had no field presence to speak of. And yet the Republicans would still win by these massive margins.'"

Tom Schaller and Paul Waldman, "White Rural Rage"

[bigtree]

22. this shit is why we lost

...navelgazing instead of focusing our political energy and opposition on the republicans.

Replacing Biden was as good as a republican op. Probably originated as one.

The number of Democrats who have come to believe that dragging their own party is some sort of political genius that gains the party votes at election time is staggering.

I've been told by those on high that this is good and normal, but does it attract votes? Does dragging our own party get us the majority?

If constant critics can't answer that question, they don't deserve to be dominating the political discussions and debates.

There's NOTHING this report is good for except dragging Democrats and providing aid and comfort to the opposition.

[hamsterjill]

27. I agree.

There's NOTHING this report is good for except dragging Democrats and providing aid and comfort to the opposition.

It's like we give the Repukes our strategy!

[Midwestern Democrat]

36. Boy, I sure wish I could get away with lines like this at my own job - if I messed up and the boss asked me to explain

what the hell happened, I'd be so fired if I dismissed his questions as "navelgazing".

[tavernier]

38. What the hell happened in politics always ends up in finger pointing.

No one learns anything and going forward time is wasted.

[bigtree]

39. those folks people are dragging had ONE VOTE each in that election

...the one where people who voted for Biden to keep a convicted felon out of office, refused to vote for the black woman who was running to keep the convicted felon out of office.

Those voters refused to fdo THEIR jobs, and I think it's despicable that they risked the things they claimed to be so concerned about by enabling someone into office who was diametrically opposed to EVERYTHING they claim to stand for.

The election was about preserving the ability of Americans to debate and reconcile our differences in a democratic and legislative system of government, and THAT'S what people who claim to be so concerned about the midterms had better start expressing in these posts on this platform they have available.

It was an existential crisis when they abandoned Kamala Harris, and it's an even more existential crisis now.

What are they going to do in the face of it? Sit on their hands again?

What epic fuckery do people who refused to show up and vote the last time around have planned for this next attempt to defend and protect our country? Blame someone else?

It would be as if they're just fine with Democrats arguing among each other in a permanent minority. I mean, what the actual fuck did they expect to happen when they began tearing at Trump's opposition?

Did they imagine that was attracting people they encountered on the platforms where they were spouting their bullshit about the party; where they were dragging the incumbent president and his VP; did they imagine that fuckery was some kind of special super-duper magnet for voters to cast their ballots for Democrats?

Where does their own superior campaigning for Democrats actually begin? Where is their advocacy of the Democratic majority we need to provide a check on the republican regime that enables the corruption and abuse from the Trump WH and government?

When are they going to ever get around to supporting Democrats in a way that makes a positive difference for the party on election day?

It's one thing to advocate for an issue. It's quite another to advocate in this self-defeating fashion that's all the rage among the internet pols today.

How does opposition to the DNC get Democrats to a majority months from now? We shouldn't just pretend all it takes is dragging Democrats and the DNC, and then presto, we're in the majority.

How'd that work out the last time we did just that?

[B.See]

94. AGAIN, EXACTLY THIS. Voters

had just TWO CLEARLY DEFINED and diametrically opposed candidates, who portended two distinctly different outcomes for DEMOCRACY.

Trump & his band of supremacists and sociopaths certainly said what THEY intended to do. Told us up front.

So, if a certain percentage of voters were too self-centered, too shortsighted or picayunish... too irresponsibly uninformed or just too damned STUPID to figure out the difference - that's on THEM.

[fujiyamasan]

89. In the engineering world it's usually root cause analysis or 5-whys

I’m not saying politics is anywhere as rational as science or engineering, but learning from your mistakes is basic common sense.

We all know what it’s called to do the same thing repeatedly hoping for different results…

[MustLoveBeagles]

86. Word

I knew this would happen if it was released.

[B.See]

93. EXACTLY THIS, Bigtree. Again,

STOP BRINGING FKN KNIVES TO A GUNFIGHT.

[Polybius]

23. Glad it was released, but why not address this part:

The report does not address former President Joe Biden’s decision to seek reelection, the rushed selection of Harris to replace him after he dropped out or the party’s acrimonious divide over the war in Gaza.

Any reason why?

[thought crime]

31. Instead, it points to our failure with rural voters. Thanks.

Was this report written by Fox News?

[Bettie]

71. Probably by consultants who want

more consultants hired for tens of millions of dollars in future campaigns.

You see, if we lose, then we need more consultants, which costs more money.

I wonder sometimes if those consultants work for both parties at the same time, taking money from Democrats for "strategy" and the from Republicans for giving bad advice to Democrats.

[fujiyamasan]

87. I think it's more of a revolving door

The consultants usually come from prior campaigns, and occasionally academia so in this case I think they’re more ideologically aligned with democrats. I don’t think they’re purposely trying to have democrats lose, but of course it’s also how they make their money, so ultimately green trumps blue in this case. Being greedy isn’t defined to any ideology. Neither is being incompetent or not in tune with the electorate.

They found their grift. There’s no accountability anyways, so why not? Conservative, moderate, liberal, leftist… I’ve seen them across the political spectrum.

[yardwork]

32. This is a disgrace.

We lost a must-win election in 2024 and our party leadership didn't even bother to analyze why.

This report is nothing but a collection of online speculation, and it is grossly incomplete at that.

We need to fire everybody leading the DNC, fire the high priced consultants, and rebuild from the bottom up.

[bigtree]

34. most of the fools still dragging the party today like we're the opposition didn't bother to vote against the republicans

...they claimed to be so concerned about.

If we can't get a grip on that fuckery then we're bound to repeat it.

The notion that Democrats who didn't show up to vote agaqinst Trump did so because of something the DNC did or said is really some delusional stuff.

Just thinking about someone sitting on their hands while Trump slipped back in, people who showed up to vote for Biden 4 years earlier, because of the fucking DNC?

What kind of party fucking shit is that? It makes my blood boil.

[yardwork]

47. I think we're talking about two different things.

You're talking about voters and their responsibilities, and I agree with what you're saying about voters.

I'm talking about the Democratic National Committee, which is an organization responsible for promoting the election of Democrats. It's our party's organization. It's useless right now. We're spending untold amounts of money to pay consultants and DNC staff exorbitant salaries and fees - and we're getting nothing.

Apparently the DNC didn't bother to analyze why Democrats got crushed in 2024. That's verging on criminal malfeasance. It's arguably fraud to be taking so much of our money and doing nothing.

We need analyses. We need strategies. We need data. We need blueprints for ad buys and online marketing to promote our brand. We can't count on voters to be informed and make the right choices. We are way past that.

[bigtree]

53. I think they're good for some things

...but I'd be pressed to find more than the party faithful who even know what they are, much less depend on them to make up their minds about candidates.

I get everything about them except the importance of the 'analyzing,' which you can see only serves the party's detractors, and does absolutely nothing to generate the support for the party at elections that their critics claim they want DNC to produce at election time.

Look at what it's being used for here.

There's no true line between what their detractors say they want from DNC to any responsible or credible organizing effort; at least not in anything you've written here.

What is the throughline from the analysis to getting voters? I'd guess it's going to fall right along individual political aims, rather than some universal appeal.

That's because the best of what the DNC does is a crap shoot of disbursing resources they generate through their outreach to viable candidates. The messaging complaints aren't any better at generating voters than whatever the DNC is politicking with, so it's a wonder any of these folks complaining about them believe they have something substantive to offer that would get more people to vote Democratic.

I mean, the entire campaign was full of these people grandstanding against this Democrat or another Democratic org like THAT was the bee's knees of political opposition, instead of just going straight after republicans.

I mean, when should we have expected the actual support of the Democratic party in that election to begin from those folks?

[Bluestocking]

52. And now Americans are learning the hard way why Rump is a disaster

We all warmed them. But no, they have all kinds of excuses why they allowed Rump to get elected twice. Unfortunately it may be too late to go back to being a Democracy. Fascism has taken control. The 250 year old experiment in Democracy is over.

The fact that we still have to fight to elect Democratic candidates says it all.

[dalton99a]

65. And Trump practically advertised what he was going to do - retribution, dictatorship and all

He and his gang came prepared and immediately went to work on day one

[gay texan]

78. Same reason Kerry and Clinton lost

They have yet to figure out how to fight back.

What they always fail to see is that everytime republican makes an accusation, you HAVE to respond with double the force.

You can't play nice with these people.

[dalton99a]

80. +1. It is an uphill battle

[biocube]

88. Kamala most definitely did NOT go too far left with identity politics or social issues

Building a brand within 3 months is hard, so by default you earn the party brand, and for many people the Democratic party brand is the party thay cares more about the number of female fortune 500 CEOs than about the price of health care and college.

And for the people who want to blame sexism, I didn't hear anyone being vocal when Biden pledged to have a woman running mate or when she was annointed instead of having a shotgun primary. I'm not even sure if you even believe that TBH.

[GreatGazoo]

92. The best autopsy on the 2016 campaign was the NYTimes best seller "Shattered"

It was written by two Dem-leaning journalists who were given access to the entire HRC campaign. It is 100x better than the current autopsy because it was not written by or for insiders. And it correctly focused on some dynamics which are still in place:

There is a kind of insularity which treats constructive criticism as disloyalty
There is a fear of open debate and gloves-off primaries which posits that such Dem-on-Dem battles weaken the eventual nominee
The damage of the Sanders rift has not been adequately healed. Lost opportunity to win back some swings
Message control by committee that delays or freezes responses and makes candidates seem stiff, calculated and inauthentic.

The way to do the autopsy in a more positive way would have been to focus more on the future and thus side-step the perceived finger-pointing and CYA. Going forward:

1. Frame and hammer 80/20 issues that break our way.
2. Update the media mix. Less TV. More social media. More trips to the "lion's dens"
3. Define the opposition candidate(s) is a negative but truthful way before they have a chance to define themselves. Hammer on their flaw every single time they show it.
4. Separate your opponent from their natural base. Use surrogates to do this. I have ten recent examples of this but they are all third rails and easily misunderstood here...Hmmm. Okay, Gore was called a phony on climate change because "he flies on airplanes." Obama was attacked by GOP surrogates for being "not Black enough" (makes your head spin). For 2028, you would look at why Vance voters like Vance and then amplify voices of those calling Vance a phony on those issues. So maybe that is "He pretends to be a 'hillbilly' but went to Yale. Sold out to Theil and you're a sucker if you think he is going to help working people." The idea with this tactic is not to win any voters over but to weaken support for the opposing candidate and suppress their turn out.
5. Um, another mine field... Stop attacking the oppositions' voters. Stay on the candidate instead. In 2016 this was "basket of deplorables" It may be true. It may feel good but it is a tactical mistake because it motivates your opposition's base. Try thinking about this dynamic if it happened outside of politics. Imagine you go to buy a car and the first dealership tells you "You are just too damned stupid to know a good car deal when it is right in front of you! I give up. You deserve whatever you get at the dealership across town you stupid SOB."
6. Advance a narrative that is all encompassing. We are a 'herd of cats' but we can find strength and build if there is an umbrella narrative that all of us sit under. "Hope and Change" was great for this. "I'm with Her" was not.
7. Listen to voters, including those who disagree with you. Then speak back to all using the words and phrases they used. Simple and highly effective because it makes people feel heard and it avoids language that is perceived as elitist or alienating.


ETA: since I mentioned it: