By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Democratic Party is conducting an “after-action review” following their 2024 election loss, but it will surprisingly bypass an examination of their presidential campaign strategy. The review, led by strategist Paul Rivera, will not analyze key campaign decisions such as whether President Biden should have sought re-election, or messaging choices made by the Harris campaign. Instead, the report is expected to concentrate on outside spending from supporting organizations and super PACs. Party officials have stated that the review intends to focus on voter behavior and how to improve the party’s future, specifically by shifting away from traditional advertising and towards organizing.
Read the original article here
Democrats are preparing a deliberately incomplete 2024 election autopsy. The situation is, frankly, disheartening. It seems the Democratic Party is gearing up for an analysis of their losses that’s less about genuine self-reflection and more about damage control. This isn’t a new phenomenon, but it’s particularly alarming when considering the stakes.
The stated intention is to focus on “what voters turned out for Republicans and Democrats, and how we can fix this moving forward,” as Jane Kleeb, Nebraska Democratic chairwoman, put it. While seemingly innocuous, this statement hints at the core problem: a reluctance to confront difficult truths about the party’s own shortcomings. The signs point towards a reluctance to delve into crucial questions. The plan to avoid reviewing key decisions like whether Biden should have run for reelection, if he should have dropped out earlier, or whether Harris was the right candidate is deeply concerning. It suggests a desire to shield the leadership and the campaign operatives from blame, rather than conducting a thorough examination of what went wrong.
This approach seems to favor justifying past decisions instead of actively seeking out solutions. The report is predicted to target areas like the spending habits of their super PAC, Future Forward, potentially arguing they didn’t spend enough time attacking Trump. This seems short-sighted. Focusing on campaign tactics while ignoring deeper issues smacks of a disconnect from the reality on the ground. If the party is going to avoid critical self-assessment, it seems the chances of impactful change are slim to none.
The roots of the problem may run much deeper. A complete autopsy needs to consider systemic and structural issues that have led to a decline in support from middle and working-class Americans. For too long, the party has been criticized for focusing on messaging and superficial strategies, while sidestepping fundamental problems. The Democratic Party can often fall back on the easy targets like blaming voters for being ignorant or harboring biases. The constant downplaying of structural problems is a major problem.
This pattern of behavior is not new. It’s a continuation of the same strategies that have been employed for years: blame everyone else, fundraise aggressively, and repeat the same mistakes. One of the most concerning aspects is the perception of the Democratic Party as a controlled opposition. The idea that some within the party may have ulterior motives or serve a different master (corporate donors) is a sentiment that resonates among many voters.
The establishment within the party may prioritize the status quo. They might favor a business-friendly agenda over policies that would genuinely benefit the working class. This could be why progressive voices are often stifled within the party. Such actions would demonstrate the party’s true colors. The focus is less about enacting meaningful change and more about maintaining the existing power structure.
The party’s inability to self-reflect goes hand-in-hand with a lack of vision. There were four years to find or groom another candidate. The party has been caught flat-footed. A more thorough investigation would involve the poor economic conditions and an uninspiring president. Instead of taking responsibility, they are once again likely to gaslight the country.
The absence of accountability within the Democratic Party is glaring. The potential for widespread resignations or terminations after such a critical electoral defeat is likely to be unmet. The response is more likely to be denial and deflection. This lack of introspection makes the party appear, in many ways, to be the mirror image of what they claim to oppose. The party appears to be setting itself up for another defeat.
The solutions could involve term limits, limitations on PAC donations, and a reevaluation of the party’s approach to candidate selection and messaging. The focus will have to change away from talking like professors or politicians. Instead, they must communicate effectively. The alternative is to blame everyone but themselves. The temptation to blame trans people, as well as other easy targets, might be too difficult to avoid.
It’s a cycle of incompetence, a deliberate avoidance of reality. The only way to break free from these trends would be to examine all the problems within the party. But the 2024 election autopsy appears designed to avoid the hard truths, promising more of the same.