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
ken martin
‘Feckless’ Ken Martin Rebuked Over DNC Decision to Bury Autopsy of 2024 Election Disaster
"You can’t run as the party of democracy and transparency and then stick your own election autopsy in a drawer," said one critic.
Dec 18, 2025
The Democratic National Committee on Thursday drew strong criticism when it was revealed that the party's autopsy of its failures in the 2024 presidential election would not be publicly released.
According to the New York Times, DNC Chairman Ken Martin has decided against releasing the report because he "believes that looking back so publicly and painfully at the past would prove counterproductive for the party as it tries next year to take back power in Congress."
The decision to keep a lid on the report, however, is already sparking a backlash.
The New Republic's Greg Sargent argued in a Thursday piece that the decision by the DNC to bury the report "should unleash harsh criticism and recriminations" because it "could end up protecting key actors inside the party from accountability over the blown but winnable contest."
Sargent then pointed the finger at Future Forward, a super PAC that he said has earned a reputation for blowing large sums of money on ineffective television ads.
"Well before Election Day, the PAC came under harsh criticism from some Democrats who argued that it hadn’t spent sufficient money earlier in the campaign on ads attacking Trump," Sargent wrote. "Other Democrats charged that Future Forward’s ad-testing model and addiction to traditional TV ads led to anodyne communications and that its flawed theory of politics caused it to refrain from sufficiently targeting Trump, letting him avoid blame for his first-term disasters on Covid-19 and the economy."
Jeff Hauser, founder and executive director of the Revolving Door Project, told Common Dreams that Martin's decision to bury the report was part of a broader pattern of a lack of accountability for US elites, an issue that he said is becoming more important" as America gets less and less equal."
"Ken Martin seems determined to become the Merrick Garland of DNC Chairs," added Hauser, "a feckless amiable sort unwilling to take on the powerful people who scream out for stringent accountability. Democrats ought to re-center their entire party around holding elites, be they from Big Tech, the Democratic Party establishment, Big Oil, or Trump's kleptocratic regime, accountable."
Rotimi Adeoye, a columnist for MS Now and former communications strategist for the American Civil Liberties Union, also accused party insiders of trying to protect elites at the expense of rebuilding public trust with voters.
"This is also happening as Congressional Dems sit at a -55 net approval," he argued on X. "If your numbers are that bad and your response is to bury the autopsy, you’re basically telling voters the insiders get protection while the base gets lectures."
Adeoye added that "you can’t run as the party of democracy and transparency and then stick your own election autopsy in a drawer," and said that "if the DNC thinks the report would 'hurt the party,' that means the problems are real and political, not analytical—and that’s exactly why people want to read it."
Journalist Yashar Ali, meanwhile, sent out a message on Bluesky encouraging DNC staffers who have access to the report to let him publish it.
"If you have access to this DNC report, please send it to me," he wrote. "I will protect your anonymity."
While the DNC isn't releasing its own report documenting party failures in 2024, the progressive advocacy group RootsAction last week published an autopsy written by journalist Christopher D. Cook, who argued that former Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign made a major mistake by trying to court so-called moderate Republican voters and corporate donors instead of focusing on the struggles of working-class Americans.
"This was a preventable disaster," Cook said, "but Harris and the Democratic Party leadership prioritized the agendas of corporate donors and gambled on a centrist path, while largely abandoning working-class, young, and progressive voters."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grassroots Dems Pushing DNC to Adopt Ranked-Choice Voting After Mamdani's Win
One pollster argued that ranked-choice "gives a better chance to new faces, outsider candidates, people with grassroots movements, people who run positive campaigns, people who have something new to offer."
Nov 24, 2025
Progressives are hopeful that a new push for ranked-choice voting could allow for more primary races in which candidates who accurately reflect the priorities of the party’s voters rise to the top.
Ranked-choice voting (RCV), which lets voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than voting for a single one, was instrumental in the unexpected triumph of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani in this summer’s Democratic primary.
Axios reported Monday that Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin has recently met with advocates seeking to implement RCV in the party's 2028 presidential primary.
Among them were reportedly Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), pollster Celinda Lake, organizers with the nonprofit FairVote Action, and several other figures in the Democratic Party.
Raskin is a long-time advocate for ranked-choice voting. In 2019, leading up to what would be a chaotic and crowded 2020 primary, he wrote in Common Dreams, along with political organizers Adam Eichen and Rob Richie, that:
RCV is the best way to allow greater voter choice without wasted votes and unrepresentative winners...
It will help any party gain stronger nominees and provide more clarity about what voters really want going into conventions. Because voters’ backup choices matter, candidates with RCV tend to run more positive campaigns, seek common ground, and respect their opponents’ supporters.
Notably, that scenario is exactly what played out in New York City’s Democratic primary. City Comptroller Brad Lander, another progressive mayoral candidate, was able to encourage his voters to rank the more popular Mamdani without fear of splitting the votes and helping their centrist opponents.
At a time when Democratic voters have historically low levels of trust in their party's leaders, Lake told Axios that "[RCV] gives a better chance to new faces, outsider candidates, people with grassroots movements, people who run positive campaigns, people who have something new to offer. It really meets the moment."
New York City is the highest-profile practitioner of RCV, which it adopted in 2019 for party primaries. But others include Maine and Alaska, as well as cities like San Francisco and Minneapolis.
Republicans have aggressively sought to outlaw ranked-choice voting in states where they have legislative control. In 2024, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Kentucky all passed bills to outlaw RCV—bans that may hinder its implementation as a new nationwide system, even in Democratic primaries.
Meanwhile, in Colorado, Nevada, Idaho, and Oregon, voters rejected RCV during last year's elections following industry-backed pushes against it.
In a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News on Sunday, a reader pointed out that President Donald Trump's calls for any Indiana lawmakers who vote against redistricting the state in the GOP's favor to be "PRIMARIED" was evidence of why RCV "is important for protecting our democratic process."
“In ranked-choice voting, no one person, nor small group of people, can keep a candidate in their party off the final ballot because they don’t agree with a particular partisan attitude,” he wrote.
In order for the DNC to implement ranked-choice voting, it would need support from its Rules and Bylaws Committee, whose members are appointed by Martin. It would also need majority support from the DNC's roughly 450 members, which include state party leaders and others elected by states. Axios reported that enthusiasm among members is mixed.
Progressive commentators have expressed excitement at the idea: "This would be a fantastic pro-democracy stance," wrote the left-wing Breaking Points co-host Krystal Ball on social media.
But others doubted that party powerbrokers, who worked behind the scenes to stop the insurgent campaigns of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2016 and 2020, would ever implement a reform that would cede so much power to outsider candidates.
“This is a great idea,” said Sanders’ 2020 press secretary, Briahna Joy Gray. “They won’t do it.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why the Debate at the DNC Was a Victory for Palestinian Rights
Chair Martin’s decision to withdraw his resolution and create a task force to continue the conversation within the party was a recognition of the reality that the status quo has become unacceptable and untenable.
Sep 02, 2025
While some supporters of Palestinian rights saw the developments at last week’s meeting of the Democratic National Committee as a defeat, it was, in fact, a victory. Here is what happened at the meeting and why I feel that progress was made:
During the party’s Resolutions Committee two separate resolutions were debated. While both called for an immediate ceasefire and unimpeded humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza, one, submitted by young Democrats, went further, condemning Israeli actions in Gaza and calling for a suspension of US arms sales to Israel and US recognition of Palestinian statehood. In response to this resolution, the party’s establishment submitted an alternative that included no such criticism of Israeli policies or any mention of stopping US arms shipments to Israel.
There was intense lobbying for and against both efforts, with pro-Israel groups and some elected officials and party donors warning members of the committee that passing the resolution critical of Israel would divide the Democratic Party, costing it contributions and victories in the midterm elections. On the other side, committee members each reported receiving upward of 5,000 emails or phone calls from young Democrats and progressive activists urging them to vote for the resolution demanding an end to US weapons to Israel.
As expected, the establishment resolution won, and the young Democrats’ effort lost. But immediately after the vote, the Democratic Party’s chair, Ken Martin, after speaking with the most critical resolution’s sponsors, rose to announce that he was asking that, in the name of party unity, his resolution be withdrawn and not presented to the entire Democratic National Committee for their acceptance. He further pledged to create a task force of stakeholders in this debate to continue this conversation and find solutions that can be brought back to the party for consideration.
Some advocates, on both sides of this debate, were disappointed. On the pro-Israel side, Martin was derided for his weakness in “surrendering to the far left,” while some supporters of Palestinian rights said that the way the issue was handled would only delay Israel’s day of reckoning, cost more Palestinian lives, and further alienate young voters from the Democratic Party.
Both are wrong. Martin’s decision was politically thoughtful, and in reality, advocates for a change in US policy toward Israel won a significant victory. Before explaining why this is so, one important fact must be understood: The Democratic National Committee is not a legislative body. It doesn’t make policy. Policy is made by Congress and the White House. Even if the committee had passed a resolution calling for ending arms sales to Israel, nothing would have happened. What the party can do is reflect where Democrats stand on critical issues facing the country and help to move forward the discussion of these matters. This is exactly what the resolution critical of Israel had forced onto the agenda last week.
What also must be considered is while the debate over these resolutions was only the fourth time that any such discussion of the Palestinian issue has occurred at an official party meeting during the past four decades, it was the first time the discussion wasn’t in response to a presidential candidate. This debate was a grassroots-led effort.
While pro-Israel groups still have some sway, their clout has been diminished.
In 1984 and 1988, I was able to represent the Jesse Jackson campaign in introducing platform planks calling for Palestinian rights. The issue wasn’t introduced again in a party gathering until 2016, when representing the Bernie Sanders campaign, we again brought forward a platform resolution on Palestine. In all of those previous instances, we lost and no one in the party establishment cared to find a way to accommodate our concerns. In fact, in the wake of the defeat of our 1988 resolution calling for “mutual recognition, territorial compromise, and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians,” I was asked to vacate my post on the Democratic National Committee because I was told that the presence of a pro-Palestinian advocate would be a liability for the party!
This year’s outcome was clearly different, and it is due to the fact that public opinion has dramatically changed. And while pro-Israel groups still have some sway, their clout has been diminished. Polls show that Democrats are deeply offended by Israel’s actions. They are far more sympathetic to Palestinians and want an end to US military and political support for Israel, often by margins of between 7 or 10 to 1. And as we approach the 2026 midterm elections, the issues of support for Palestinians and ending arms sales to Israel have become litmus tests for Democratic senators and members of Congress.
Given this, Chair Martin’s decision to withdraw his resolution and create a task force to continue the conversation within the party was a recognition of the shifting tides within the party and the reality that the status quo has become unacceptable and untenable. Supporters of Palestinian rights should understand that this was a victory and an important step forward in the long struggle for justice.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular