SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
dnc
The 'Autopsy' Written by a Corpse
Stay as far away as you can from this DNC report. Trust me.
May 24, 2026
After an extended pressure campaign, Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin finally agreed to release the DNC’s “autopsy report” on the 2024 election. It’s the first document I’ve ever read that would have been better if it had been written by AI. Martin himself said the report “does not meet my standards, and it won’t meet your standards.” That’s for damn sure. As we’ll see, however, that doesn’t let Martin off the hook.
I downloaded the document before reviewing my news feed, where I quickly learned that many like-minded people began exactly as I did: by searching for the word “Gaza.” Result? “Not found.” I then tried “Palestine.” Result? “Not found.” How about “Israel”? “Not found.”
These omissions are particularly striking since one activist group was told by report author Paul Rivera that DNC data showed that the administration’s support for the Gaza genocide was, “in their words, a ‘net-negative’ in the 2024 election.” Axios, which reported on that exchange, added that it “independently verified that Democratic officials conducting the autopsy believed the issue harmed the party’s standing with some voters.”
RootsAction was one of the groups pressing for the autopsy’s release, and co-founder Jeff Cohen called the document “almost worthless.” Cohen condemned the failure to mention “the Biden/Harris administration’s Israel policy that abetted the Gaza massacre,” Biden’s initial decision to run for re-election, and what he called Kamala Harris’ “lack of principles.”
Other words that can’t be found in the autopsy include “war,” “military,” “defense” (in the military sense), “peace,” “Medicare,” and “Social Security.” The report fails to address either the US’ runaway military spending or the ongoing attempts to undermine the country’s social contract.
The report’s only conceivable value will be for future anthropologists, who will find it provides considerable insight into the culture and folkways of the professional Democratic class. Its introduction reads like the kind of word salad a teenager might come up with when asked to write a 1200-word essay on a topic they forgot to study. There’s a lot of meandering, some restatements of the assignment, and a hastily looked-up quotation. Don’t read it unless you’re prepared to wade through prose like this:
... the voters decide which choice is most resonant. One party declares itself the winner, and the other party declares that the fight is far from finished.
Effective parties, understanding history rarely repeats itself, it does often rhyme, make it a point to study electoral outcomes after each cycle to identify potential improvements to every aspect of their campaigns. John Adams argued ‘"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right…and a desire to know."
Believe me, it doesn’t get any better from there.
The document is 192 pages long, but many of those pages are blank. The page called “Leadership Message”: blank. (Any comment about that would be like shooting fish in a barrel.) “Executive Summary”: blank. And so on.
The section entitled “Electoral Landscape” includes sentences like this: “We must organize everywhere to Win Anywhere”—which doesn’t make any sense. You don’t have to organize everywhere to win anywhere. And Democrats already win somewhere! Those “somewheres” are called “Blue States.” The problem is they have to win more “somewheres,” and you can’t win somewhere if you’re “everywhere”! You have to be there to win there!
The next sentence begins, “Winning Anywhere means providing for a renewed focus on the voters of Middle America and the South ...” Wait. One sentence ago we were everywhere. Now we’re in Middle America and the South, which happen to be two readily-identifiable somewheres.
That’s what consultant-speak will do to the human mind.
The document, perhaps unsurprisingly, praises the centrist Democratic orientation of the late 1980s and 1990s. But the same pro-corporate orientation contributed heavily to the party’s 2024 losses. That’s what you get what you call on a party to emulate the centrists’ “future-focused directive”—by adopting a 40-year-old strategy.
The report also states that “the DNC and ASDC (Association of State Democratic Parties) have conducted more than 1200 interviews to assess the health of our 57 state parties—in every state, district, or territory.” Where are those interviews?
Martin reportedly told DNC members that Rivera no longer “is with or advises the DNC in any capacity.” But the buck stops with the boss, not the consultant.
I get it; Martin has a tough job. But he campaigned for his position by promising an autopsy. When Rivera’s proved to be unusable, Martin was obliged to have it re-done. By failing to do so, he reneged on his campaign promise. In the meantime, a little transparency would have gone a long way toward avoiding the mess he now faces.
Don’t read the DNC document unless you’re a masochist or a journalist (provided there’s a difference between the two). Read this one instead. Stay far away from the DNC report. Trust me, you’ll “win somewhere” by being anywhere else.Keep ReadingShow Less
Why the DNC 2024 Autopsy Is a Giant Turd
There is plenty in the report to show that the Democratic Party took lessons from its defeat in 2024. The problem is that it learned all the wrong lessons because the party refuses to ask the right questions.
May 22, 2026
This week the DNC released its autopsy of the 2024 election. DNC chair Ken Martin sat on it for months, assured us there was no smoking gun, promised he’d already been sharing the lessons, and then finally dropped the 48,000 words on a Thursday with a note on the front saying the findings don’t reflect the views of the DNC. He released the autopsy and disowned it simultaneously.
I get why he’d disown it. It’s a big turd. But the whole time he buried it, Martin kept saying the lessons from this report were already being put to work. Lessons. We’re keeping the focus on the lessons, he’d say. We’ve been releasing the lessons. I read it, most of it. It’s not that there are no recommendations. There are plenty. Go heavier on digital and connected TV, lighter on broadcast. Organize earlier. Rebuild the state parties. Those are the lessons. If they’ve taken any of them, they’ve taken the wrong ones, and there’s a reason for that.
Every question in the report is a variation on the same question. How do we campaign better with what we’ve got? How do we market this thing more effectively to the people we’re trying to sell it to? Never once do they stop and ask whether the thing they’re selling is bullshit. Whether the product is any good. Whether a single promise in it would fix a single person’s life.
Every problem this autopsy was built to diagnose is still here in 2026, we’ve yet to solve a damn one of them.
It was never about governing. It was about winning for the sake of winning, with no theory of what to do with the power once they have it. The DNC still isn’t looking for a mission of its own. It tells the campaigns to build their own contrast and definition and leaves the meaning to everyone else. The party is a machine with no idea what it’s for.
To the contrary, it’s pretty pleased with itself. The report never once treats the Biden record as a failure. Its gripe about Bidenomics isn’t that it failed people, it’s that the message leaned on big macro statistics instead of the daily reality people were actually living. When the party lost down the ballot, the report decided strong local candidates just needed to define themselves better. They’re certain Democrats are doing a great job, and that it’s just their inability to explain how awesome they are that keeps them out of power.
What I see in this report is the Biden administration in miniature. Biden was sold to us, by the press and by his own people, as proof of what Democrats could do if they got back to their FDR roots. We got the CHIPS Act. We got the IRA. We got the bipartisan infrastructure law. We were told it was the most historic spending in generations. But the rubber never hits the road. Lives weren’t transformed. Why? Because these people refuse to admit that the systems they are funding are no longer productive.
They refuse to look at the difference between an input and an output. Effort and results. You can pour trillions into a financialized housing market and a six-trillion-dollar healthcare industry, but if you never touch the monopolies and the middlemen and the rot underneath, nothing useful comes out the other side. It’s worse than that. Pour more money into an out-of-control healthcare industry and all you’ve built is a stronger monopoly, a more powerful opponent.
It was never about governing. It was about winning for the sake of winning, with no theory of what to do with the power once they have it.
The net result of all that historic spending is a Democratic Party that seventy percent of voters can’t stand and that can’t get above water with its own base. A lot of money. A lot of effort. Nothing delivered. Same as the report.
If you doubt where the party’s head is, count the words. The report runs 48,000 of them. “Spend” shows up 350 times. “Data,” 226. “Organizing,” 211. “Fundraising,” 150. “Monopoly,” zero. “Cost of living,” zero. “Affordability,” four. “Healthcare,” twice. That’s not an analysis of a country in pain. That’s a sales team studying its own pipeline.
Then there’s the New York Times, coming to the rescue with much-needed polling and data. The paper of record put out a poll a few days ago, I assume in an effort to find out how Americans actually feel and what they want from their politics and government. Among people who plan to vote for Democrats, socialism runs favorable by twenty-seven points, 49 to 22. Those same people turn around and say, 52 to 25, that the party should move to the center to win. The Times wants you to read that as confused voters. They aren’t confused. The question is garbage. This is the paper that fancies itself the one asking the hard questions and uncovering the real America, and the hard question it managed to come up with was whether the party should move left, right, or not at all on healthcare.
What does that mean? What’s the policy? What changes in your life? They don’t say. You decide. They never asked whether you want a zero-copay, zero-cost national health plan. They never asked whether we should go back to a country where the states and the cities and the government own some of the hospitals and the clinics and the research labs. They asked left or right, defined nothing, and then acted stunned when people handed them a tangle.
They asked exactly one real policy question in the whole poll. Whether you’d rather have a candidate who lowers prices by going after corporate monopolies and price gougers, or one who lowers prices by deregulating and building more. Better than two to one, people said go after the ones with the power. The reason was sitting right there. The good sense was sitting right there. They just wouldn’t go looking for it anywhere else.
The good sense was sitting right there. They just wouldn’t go looking for it anywhere else.
They keep us trapped in left and right because it’s the frame they know how to sell. But the world isn’t left and right, and I’m not sure it ever was. It’s something they lay over the top of us, the same way they sort us into black, white, Latino, Jew, Gentile, Muslim, Quaker, the way a zoologist sorts fish into types. It might be a fine theory for eking out a marginal election here and there. It’s a useless theory for fixing a broken system. And there’s overwhelming agreement out there that the system is broken.
Every problem this autopsy was built to diagnose is still here in 2026, we’ve yet to solve a damn one of them. The NYT poll proves it. Same disgust, same broken trust, same party underwater with its own people. Nothing got fixed because nothing got understood. And they’re going to win anyway. Not because they earned it. Because the other side is handing it to them.
So they’ll win in November, call it proof the model works, and walk right back into the same wall in 2028 having learned nothing. Winning is the very thing that lets them skip getting better.
We’re in a deeply unpopular war in the Middle East. Gas is climbing. The president is corrupt as hell and everyone can see it. The headwind is so strong that, as Pelosi once put it, you could run a glass of water with a D next to its name and win in half these districts. So they’ll win in November, call it proof the model works, and walk right back into the same wall in 2028 having learned nothing. Winning is the very thing that lets them skip getting better.
So no, I don’t think we live in a left-right world anymore. We live in a world of capacity, of competency, of outcomes. That’s the whole game now, and it’s exactly where the government and the corporations have failed us, over and over, while the political class argues about a spectrum that means nothing to a family trying to buy groceries. It is not baked in. I’ve spent ten years trying to build something that takes that seriously, and I’m going again, harder, with my latest political project: A Fight Worth Having.
How we do it, and why I think the people telling us to keep our hands clean have it exactly backwards, is next.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Almost Worthless': Progressives Rip 2024 Autopsy the DNC Didn’t Want You To See
"At a time when Republicans are polling at historic lows, Democrats need to capitalize and offer a better vision for the country," said one critic. "This isn’t it."
May 21, 2026
Critics on Thursday slammed the controversial—and until now secret—Democratic National Committee autopsy of the 2024 election, which completely omitted some of the biggest issues affecting the contest, including President Joe Biden's decision to seek reelection, the manner in which Vice President Kamala Harris replaced him atop the ticket, and the Gaza genocide.
The 2024 postmortem—which was written by strategist Paul Rivera and ostensibly examines why and how Democrats lost the White House to President Donald Trump and control of Congress to Republicans—was published online Thursday after it was obtained CNN. DNC Chair Ken Martin told CNN that he was "releasing the report as we received it, in its entirety, unedited and unabridged,” for the sake of "full transparency."
“It does not meet my standards, and it won’t meet your standards, but I am doing this because people need to be able to trust the Democratic Party and trust our word," Martin said. “After last November’s massive Democratic wins, I didn’t want to create a distraction, but by not putting the report out, I ended up creating an even bigger distraction. For that, I sincerely apologize."
RootsAction, the progressive advocacy group that led the push to release the autopsy, said Thursday that "to call the report a disgrace would be an understatement."
"The report focuses extensively on ad spending and fundraising, without discussing the Democratic platform, policy positions, or political context of the 2024 election," the group noted. "The word 'affordability,' arguably the most important issue in the 2024 election, appears twice in the 129-page report."
"Martin and the DNC are trying to wash their hands of the report and its contents," RootsAction continued. "In a hasty, almost amateurish markup, the DNC has gone out of its way to poke holes in the legitimacy of the very report it commissioned... While Martin may feel that this absolves him of the responsibility to answer for this pitiful document, it should only intensify scrutiny of his leadership of the DNC."
Speculation abounded that the report contained damning findings about the electoral harm caused by the Biden-Harris administration's support for Israel as it waged both a genocidal war in Gaza and expanded its illegal occupation, colonization, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.
Opposition to the administration's complicity in the slaughter, as well as Biden and Harris' refusal to acknowledge the genocide or seek a ceasefire, was embodied by the Uncommitted movement and its 30 Democratic National Convention delegates.
There isn't a single mention of Gaza, Palestine, Israel, genocide, or Uncommitted in the autopsy.
"We needed a serious DNC autopsy. This alleged autopsy is almost worthless," Jeff Cohen, co-founder of RootsAction—which led the battle for the DNC to release the report—told Common Dreams on Thursday.
"There's no mention of the Biden/Harris administration's Israel policy that abetted the Gaza massacre," Cohen continued. "That cost votes, and helped Trump win. Earlier leaks suggested that the DNC autopsy would discuss Gaza's impact on voters."
Establishment Democrats don't get it.There is no amount of consulting, brand management, influencer outreach, or narrative shaping that can save a campaign with no message at its core. www.commondreams.org/opinion/why-...
[image or embed]
— RootsAction (@rootsaction.org) May 20, 2026 at 9:26 AM
The Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) noted that "polls and reporting leading up to and after the 2024 election showed Biden and Harris’s support for providing weapons to Israel was deeply unpopular with their own voters and an electoral liability."
“Ken Martin should release the information that the author of the autopsy told us clearly and unambiguously, which is that DNC officials’ review of their own data found Biden’s support for Israel to be a net-negative for Democrats in 2024," IMEU policy project executive director Margaret DeReus said Thursday.
While the autopsy mentions inflation 18 times, it does so within the context of adjusting fundraising figures for inflation and not the affordability crisis—arguably the number one issue Trump campaigned on, before exacerbating the crisis via trade wars and actual wars once back in office.
The DNC postmortem argues that Democrats have steadily lost the trust of working-class and non-college voters since the high-water mark of former President Barack Obama's historic 2008 victory.
"The Democratic Party has always tried to be seen as the party of the people, the party of workers, fair play, and civil discourse," the report states. "The party’s connections with working Americans and their families were forged through decades of organizing and engagement, the development of a vibrant and inclusive party infrastructure, and a relatable agenda which helped us connect in homes, workplaces, and neighborhoods across the country."
However, the report argues that the party defined itself as anti-Trump while failing to define what Harris and Democrats stood for, while underinvesting in state and local organizing and failing to build and maintain relationships with voters outside its coastal and urban strongholds.
"Harris wrote off rural America, assuming urban/suburban margins would compensate," the publication notes. "The Harris campaign appears to have relied on Trump being unacceptable rather than building an affirmative case for Harris.”
The autopsy concluded that so-called "identity politics" don't resonate with white male voters. The report noted the success of Trump's attack ads, particularly the anti-trans spots with the kicker, "Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you."
"If the vice president would not change her position—and she did not—then there was nothing which would have worked as a response," the report asserts.
Some observers worried that the DNC was suggesting throwing trans people under the bus in pursuit of electoral gains. Worryingly, the only time the publication mentions transgender people, it uses an antiquated term that is offensive to many trans folk.
They used the term "transgendered." This is exactly why the Republicans attack Dems on this issue because for many their support for trans people is hollow and thus they can't defend it. Contrast that with Mamdani or AOC whose support is genuine and can wrap it in a message of economic populism.
[image or embed]
— Alejandra Caraballo (@esqueer.net) May 21, 2026 at 9:17 AM
Amid relentless Republican attacks on transgender people and the wider LGBTQ+ community, reproductive freedom, voting rights—especially for Black Americans—immigrants, and others, the DNC postmortem encourages future Democratic candidates to "focus less on abstract issues and identity politics, and connect with voters on the issues they say matter most, including the economy, disaster relief, and addressing housing affordability."
The autopsy's assertion that "the problem wasn't Democratic policy or party brand" drew incredulous derision from observers including gun control activist and former DNC co-vice chair David Hogg:
Taking aim at the autopsy's many failures, RootsAction asserted that the DNC had "a responsibility to turn in a report that truly grapples with the mistakes of the past so that the Democratic Party can learn from those mistakes and emerge stronger in its fight against Trumpism," but ultimately, "the DNC has utterly failed in that respect."
"The only serious autopsy so far remains the one that RootsAction published," the group said.
The RootsAction 2024 postmortem, authored by San Francisco journalist Christopher Cook, covers some of the same issues as the DNC autopsy. However, it argues that Democrats lost in 2024 because of voter disenchantment, Biden's decision to run for reelection, Democrats' abandonment of their working-class base, loss of younger voters, and "the Gaza effect."
While the DNC autopsy makes no mention of Biden's fateful decision, RootsAction's report states that "a key factor hobbling Harris’s chances in 2024 was the short timeline she had to execute her campaign—just 107 days."
"That her nomination was secured not via the traditional Democratic Party primary, but through some process of intra-administration succession, exacerbated this challenging chronology," the publication adds. "This was, of course, due to President Biden’s betrayal of his 2020 promise to be a 'bridge' president, and his tragic decision to continue running for reelection despite cognitive decline and plunging approval ratings."
Cohen lamented these omissions from the DNC report.
"There's no criticism of Biden for his insistence on seeking reelection, or the lack of any kind of open process to choose Biden's replacement," he told Common Dreams. "No analysis of Harris for her lack of principles—leading to her avoiding media platforms reaching millions of potential voters."
Criticism of the DNC report mounted throughout the day Thursday as more and more people read it.
“What’s important is what’s missing, what they’re not releasing,” former Harris communications director Ashley Etienne told Politico. "It feels like what the DNC is doing is cherry-picking the parts of it that it wants to actually release, that [are] less problematic for the party going forward."
Zenith Research founding partner Adam Carlson called the paper "an absolute mess in every sense of the word" and added that "anyone that is using its findings as justification to follow their ideological preferences for the future of the party should be laughed out of every room they go into."
Hafiz Rashid, a writer at The New Republic, said that "Martin seems to be right about the report’s flaws."
"But hiding it and not commissioning a new one—or at least not editing this one to a passable standard—is a scandal in itself," he added. "At a time when Republicans are polling at historic lows, Democrats need to capitalize and offer a better vision for the country. This isn’t it."
Here is the DNC document, as posted by CNN:
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular