By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As the Democratic National Committee withholds its internal “autopsy” report on the 2024 election defeat, progressive advocacy group RootsAction is leading a campaign to pressure the DNC into releasing its findings. The group has launched a letter-writing initiative encouraging supporters to demand transparency, particularly concerning the report’s alleged findings that the Biden administration’s support for Israel alienated crucial young and progressive voters. RootsAction argues that suppressing this analysis is political malpractice and prevents the party from understanding and rectifying the mistakes that led to the loss, ultimately hindering future electoral success.
Read the original article here
The call for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to release its post-mortem on the 2024 election defeat is growing louder, fueled by a sentiment that “the truth is better than continuing to lose.” A petition is circulating, demanding transparency and an open accounting of the factors that led to the election’s outcome. The underlying belief is that without a candid self-assessment, the party risks repeating its mistakes and further alienating voters.
Many feel that the DNC is being intentionally opaque, perhaps to avoid upsetting powerful donors or to shield themselves from uncomfortable truths about their strategies and messaging. There’s a lingering distrust that the committee, in its current form, is truly capable of honest self-reflection. Past promises to release such an analysis have reportedly been broken, leading to the suspicion that the refusal to share the report is a tacit admission that the DNC intends to double down on the very approaches that proved unsuccessful in 2024, rather than implement necessary changes.
The argument is being made that this situation should be a point of active protest for Democrats. While many people offer their own analyses and opinions on why the election was lost, what’s truly sought is the official stance of the DNC. They control the party’s platform, its communications, its funding, and its candidates. Following the “colossal and frankly unforgivable mistake” of the 2024 election, there’s a strong feeling among many that the public deserves to know the party’s plan for future success and, more critically, whether a complete overhaul of current leadership is warranted.
This continued refusal to share the findings screams that lessons haven’t been learned and that a change in leadership is necessary. The unspoken accusations are many: that the inclusion of right-wing Democrats alienates core voters, that the establishment’s subservience to corporate and oligarchic interests is a dealbreaker, that progressives and the left wing are systematically muzzled, that Israel’s overwhelming influence on American politicians is a liability, and that a general refusal to move beyond the status quo is simply unacceptable to the electorate.
However, there’s also a counter-argument that political autopsies, as a concept, might not hold the definitive answers they are often portrayed to have. These analyses are seen as mere snapshots in time, lacking the foresight to predict future political realities. The example of the 2012 GOP autopsy, which recommended a friendlier stance towards immigrants and moderation on social issues, is often cited. The subsequent reality saw a candidate who pursued the opposite path win multiple elections, suggesting that such reports should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.
A significant point of contention appears to be the decision-making process leading up to and during the election itself. There’s a strong belief that President Biden should not have participated in certain debates, particularly after an event that was widely perceived as disastrous, leading to the accelerated timeline for a debate schedule. Some suggest that the narrative should have been centered on the refusal to share a stage with an individual accused of attempting a coup, rather than granting them equal footing. This, they argue, essentially handed an advantage to the opposition.
The strategy employed by the Biden team and the broader Democratic party is seen by some as a “wild gambit” born out of desperation, perhaps underestimating the fervent loyalty many hold for Donald Trump. In an alternative scenario, it’s speculated that if Biden had refused a debate and later resigned, the political landscape might have shifted. The withholding of the autopsy’s findings is also being questioned, with some wondering if it’s tied to the political ambitions of Vice President Harris.
When attempting to summarize the perceived reasons for the loss, a few key points emerge. First, there’s the observation that Donald Trump successfully campaigned on promises of ending wars, curbing inflation, lowering grocery prices, and reducing taxes. Whether he delivered on these promises is seen as less important than the fact that these were his campaign pillars. Second, Kamala Harris’s platform is perceived by some as mirroring Republican policies on border security and the conflict in Gaza, along with a general message of continuity with the Biden administration.
This perceived lack of differentiation, especially for undecided voters, can make a criminal record seem less significant if the alternative candidate is seen as addressing their concerns, even if only in rhetoric. The narrative of a close election is often attributed to a combination of low turnout in swing states, economic pressures, Trump’s persistent messaging, and underlying currents of racism and misogyny that were just enough to tip the scales.
The DNC’s financial situation is also highlighted as a sign of their disconnect from the electorate. The repeated failure to achieve electoral success, coupled with the refusal to release a comprehensive autopsy, fuels the belief that the party leadership is out of step with the voters they aim to represent. The delay in releasing the report, now potentially 18 months old, raises questions about its relevance and the value of hearing from an organization partially responsible for the loss, especially when numerous independent analyses already exist.
The core argument against the DNC’s current approach is that the truth, however uncomfortable, is necessary for progress. The inability of Democrats to consistently win while serving corporate interests is seen as a fundamental flaw that alienates voters. The perception is that the party offered an uninspiring candidate, and without a robust primary process to vet alternatives, voters were left with limited choices.
Ultimately, the desire is for a charismatic and genuinely progressive leader who isn’t beholden to corporate influence. The fear is that the established powers within the Democratic party, influenced by corporations and powerful lobbying groups, will actively prevent such a candidate from emerging. Therefore, the autopsy, some argue, isn’t even necessary to understand the fundamental problem. The lack of a primary election is seen as a missed opportunity for voters to directly influence the candidate selection process.
The value of these party autopsies is also debated. The 2012 RNC autopsy, for instance, correctly identified racism as a barrier to winning over minority voters. However, the party largely ignored its recommendations and still achieved electoral success. This historical precedent casts doubt on whether even a damning report would lead to meaningful change.
The frustration stems from a deep-seated weariness with the status quo. There’s a demand for leaders who are not too old, who aren’t in office solely for personal gain, who champion progressive agendas, and who don’t actively sabotage candidates with grassroots support. The economic anxieties of everyday Americans, the disparity between corporate profits and worker wages, and the desire for a secure future are all cited as reasons for the electorate’s dissatisfaction.
The simple truth, according to many, is that the DNC would rather lose while maintaining its financial interests than win by implementing policies that might challenge those interests. The refusal to release the autopsy is interpreted as a sign that the report contains findings that would necessitate actions beneficial for winning elections but detrimental to certain financial gains. This is seen as a betrayal of the Democratic party’s core principles and a clear indication that the establishment prioritizes its own financial well-being over electoral success.
The idea of a “tea-party” style movement within the Democratic party is floated as a potential catalyst for change, challenging the prevailing narrative that Democrats are destined to lose by continuing to shame voters or rely on the “Trump is worse” argument. The conflict in Gaza is frequently cited as a significant issue that drove voters away, suggesting that a failure to acknowledge the moral implications of supporting certain foreign policies is a critical misstep.
The perceived support for a “genocidal apartheid regime” and the rejection of progressive voices are seen as key reasons for the loss. The effectiveness of Trump’s propaganda machine is contrasted with a perceived lack of a similar force behind Kamala Harris. The argument is made that releasing the report would be akin to handing the opposition a roadmap to success, but others believe that the truth, even if inconvenient, is more valuable than continued obfuscation.
The potential impact of releasing the autopsy is also considered. While it might not offer magical solutions, it could reveal mundane but significant truths that put current officeholders in a precarious position. The argument is that withholding the report only fuels speculation and conspiracy theories, making the situation worse than simply presenting the facts.
The underlying reasons for the loss are believed to be straightforward: ignoring constituents and catering to donors. Releasing the report at the outset would have been a more strategic move, preventing the lingering narrative of a party hiding something. The contention that most of the base was upset about the lack of a primary, and that the candidate’s identity played a significant role in alienating certain voter demographics, is also prominent. The influence of groups like AIPAC and their stance on Israel are seen as major hurdles, compounded by an uninspiring candidate who failed to mobilize key voting blocs.
The question of forming a third party is raised, a common sentiment when dissatisfaction with the two major parties runs high. However, the immediate focus remains on the DNC’s responsibility to be transparent. The belief is that the autopsy’s findings are being withheld because they would reveal a commitment to maintaining practices that are destined to lead to future losses. The assertion that voting for Kamala Harris, regardless of one’s political leaning, was a “fucking idiot” decision reflects the depth of frustration with the party’s candidate selection process.
The narrative of the Democrats “shooting themselves in the foot” by nominating a perceived “comically weak” candidate without a primary is repeated. Factors like the conflict in Gaza, the candidate’s identity as a woman and Black, and underlying sexism and racism in the electorate are cited as contributing factors. The irony of people voting for Trump despite his policies being diametrically opposed to supporting the working class or reigning in foreign military interventions is noted, suggesting a deep disconnect between voter priorities and party messaging.
Ultimately, the DNC is accused of prioritizing its “machine” and donor interests over genuine electoral victory. The repeated failure to secure victory is seen as evidence of a fundamental disconnect. The speculation that the autopsy might simply attribute the loss to superficial issues like the price of gas or eggs, rather than deeper systemic problems, highlights a cynicism about the party’s willingness to engage in genuine self-critique. The demand for transparency is rooted in the principle of knowing oneself and one’s opponent to achieve success, a lesson often attributed to Sun Tzu. The hope is that by releasing the report, the DNC can finally confront the uncomfortable truths and begin the long road towards regaining the trust and support of the American people.