The document says:
- Popular policies wouldn’t allow us to maintain a fundraising edge
- We lost enthusiasm because of our vigorous defence of Israel
- Biden should have dropped out earlier, and there were people aware of the risk of a bad performance in the debate
- Harris didn’t do enough to differentiate herself from Biden and the opposition in (yet another) anti-establishment election
- Trying to cozy up to Republicans by parading around with Liz Cheney was a horrible mistake that cost us progressive support.
- Have a primary
- Beyonce
- Didn’t even pretend to hold a primary and shoved in a lazy replacement.
- Biden should have been a one term president since that’s what he said he was going to do at the beginning of his term. Reneging on that promise made them look desperate.
No, he never said that, let alone promised it. People implied it.
He said he would be a bridge candidate lmao
Lying or gaslighting people about this is an awful look
Calling yourself a “transition president“, and then not announcing your intention to run for reelection until after the inauguration is doing far more than implying.
Can you provide a source of Biden referring to himself as a transition president?
I’ve been searching and nearest I can find is a CBS interview that he did after he dropped out.
It’s not unreasonable to think that he meant he wasn’t intending to run again, but it’s a VERY far cry from a promise. I suspect that if Trump weren’t running he would have been far more willing to step down. He’s the whole reason he ran in the first place.
My point really doesn’t have anything to do with the semantics of the word promise. At the end of the day the implication or promise or idea was there that he wasn’t going to run again and then he announced which pretty much tanked the public’s ability to have faith in Kamala before the fact and made it further untenable for her to separate herself from his policies.
My point, in response to the original post, was that it isn’t that he should’ve dropped out earlier it’s that he should’ve never run again at all.
No no… it was because of her laugh.
-Some enlightened cultist democrats
Sometimes I like to claim to the Blue No Matter Who folks that her laugh is the sole reason I didn’t vote for her.
For you see, her laugh causes sufficient wave interference to trigger an integer overflow in voting interest, as demonstrated by the Loose Square Law:
VI = Sign(L % 2^32 - 2^31) * (L % 2^32) / 2^32
Where VI is voting interest as a percentage and L is the sound of a laugh in decibels.
As Kamala’s laugh exceeded the 2^31 dB threshold, it was advisable to not vote for her to save the planet’s structural integrity.
- The US is full of hateful sexists who couldn’t stomach the idea of a woman president.
real question: what makes people think that the “6 7 center” people can make an accurate assessment of why they are bad
the skills needed to do the thing are the same skills needed to evaluate the thing
The head of the DNC says they report was done by one person who worked for free. The theory I find most likely is that they just never completed it so there is nothing to release.
I haven’t heard anything about that and I am way too online.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/dnc-chair-grilled-over-why-160222861.html?guccounter=1
He’s super defensive in the interview. It definitely makes him look like he is trying to pull something shady.
It was in his recent interview with Pod Save America
I thought the “one unpaid advisor” line sounded like bullshit, but if Tommy pushed on that, maybe he could just bring in that advisor for an interview
Political parties aren’t about being transparent or representing the people who actually vote for you.
They’re about managing public relations to keep getting people to vote for the financiers of the party.
Didn’t we learn this after what they did to Bernie in 2016?
The reason why they lost is because the biggest money sided with policies and candidates that voters don’t want. If they tried going with a true leftist populist they would have financial support dropped and the candidate would be at odds with almost all the other elected representatives.
There are countless policies that should be changed that everyone wants changed but will never change because it will outrage the money and keeping the people in power still in power. None of this system is about putting what the people really want in place, it’s about managing the narrative so they can push those horrible policies and stick to the oligarch lobbyist dynamic.
Even if they are forced to release a report, it will not be the real one. They can never release the honest truth, because it would be used against them.
Bernie isn’t a leftist.
cool, but calling him a centrist, and everyone else nazi’s kinda flattens the data set to the point of uselessness
He isn’t a centrist. Jesus Christ, are you allergic to accurate political analysis? Bernie is a Social Democrat, aka a liberal. He once was a leftist, he is no longer.
Bernie commands the weak force, though. And we all know that the weak force only has time for the Left.
“leftist” means a heckton of different things depending on who you’re asking. Some people strongly feel that “leftist” means something distinct from “someone who is left wing”, whereas others don’t make that distinction. Of that latter category, some people use “leftist” to mean someone who is leftwing in an absolute sense, whereas other people use it in a relative sense, such that they would consider Bernie, who is on the leftmost fringes of a not very left wing (but more left wing than the GOP) party, a leftist.
I agree that when we’re talking about politics, it’s important to try to be precise in what words we use (especially when discussing politicians whose views may have shifted over time, as you highlight). However, the reality is that there is no single, agreed upon definition for terms like “leftist”, and no authority by which we can definitively say who is using it wrong or right.
Even if Bernie isn’t a leftist, he was certainly perceived that way by much of his party, who don’t care about making granular distinctions between “Socialist Democrat” and “leftist” when for the Democrats, both of those collapse down to “way more left wing than we want to go”.
Though I would also note that the person you’re replying to didn’t explicitly state that Bernie was a leftist. This isn’t just me being persnickety — I get that they did heavily imply Bernie was a leftist. The point I’m trying to make is that there are a lot of people who don’t think Bernie is/was a leftist, but, as one of the more left wing people in his party, could have been a passageway towards getting more candidates who are genuinely leftist (and indeed, some of the Dems pushing against Bernie likely shared this view)
Left of the median, definitely favours some social policies, gotta be good enough.
Why, did they do a good job on that too?
That report will say the party was too woke and needs to be more right wing to win elections.
I’m sure you’re joking, but if that was the case, they would have released it the second it was done.
Conservative and Neo-Liberal leadership of the Democrat party won’t let any other message get out. If it is released it’ll 100% say the party needs to support Isreal, trickle down economics work, and tough on crime is the only answer. Believe it. Yes the report may say other things right now, but once it’s released it’ll have a center right spin.
https://audioboom.com/posts/8897233-why-is-the-dnc-hiding-its-own-2024-autopsy tommy grills the dnc chair quite hard on this
Who cares? No matter what they find it wont help them to depose the current dictatorship. Idiots still trying to do things the “right” way.
I take it, you never do anything for entertainment.
People like mom that voted for Biden couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a woman who constantly ran ads about the need to legalize abortion.
It’s five words: idiots were misled by Russia
2016_talking_points.doc
Everyone trying to act like this is a public document that the DNC is hiding is trying to sabotage the DNC because neoliberals don’t control it anymore, or have fallen hook line and sinker for propaganda.
Martin said he give it to DNC members, that’s not voters. That s literally the ~400 voting members of the DNC.
And I’m pretty sure he did do that…
Because no one from the DNC is complaining they can’t see it.
The people complaining they can’t see it, are the neoliberals that don’t run the DNC (who still likely have it) and billionaire owned media (who have also likely seen a copy)
They just want to get people to abstain in the next presidential primary so a neoliberal like Newspm can sneak in.
It’s blatant manipulation, why can’t everyone see this?
Ken Martin said it would be public then changed his mind. I think that’s why people are upset.
Near as I can tell from the sources I’ve seen for that he actually didn’t but some news sites misquoted him to make it seem like he did. The actual quote was that it would be “public to members [of the DNC]” not to the general public. This got shortened to “he said it would be public” in reporting leaving off the very important detail that that was meaning a very specific audience. Ultimately he never should have used the word public it’s way too easy to misconstrue. He would have been better off if he had said “it will be freely available to the DNC members”.
Ken Martin said it would be public
Billionaire owned media definitely keeps saying it…
The only sources I’ve ever seen, is Martin saying it will be released to “DNC members”…
I’ve noticed a lot of people took that to mean “the public” but that’s only because they don’t understand what “DNC member” is…
There’s only like 400 voting members, and I think the non-voting members are less than that?
If you have a source of him saying he’d release it to the public, I’d love to see it. But honestly if I can’t find it, and none.of the many, many, people repeating that claim have been able to find it…
I gotta say, not holding my breath
Stop spreading your bullshit about Ken Martin. I’ve personally seen people show you links that say he would publicly release this report and yet here you are saying you’ve never seen them. At this point the only logical conclusion is that you are intentionally spreading misinformation. Maybe you’ll remember this time:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/01/ken-martin-elected-dnc-party-chair-00201938
In brief remarks to the press after his election, Martin committed to publicly releasing a post-mortem of the 2024 campaign, which the DNC did not do after the 2016 election.
That took me 60 seconds to find. Please say more about your thorough research into this topic.
What was the exact verbage?
"There has to be some lessons that we glean on that so we can operationalize it, not just here in DC, but through all of the 57 state parties,” Martin said. “We’ve got to look backwards and look forward at the same time.”
He didn’t say he’d publicly release it…
That account just linked more billionaire propaganda
I legitimately don’t know how people keep falling for it, it’s like people are honestly incapable of reading…
You’ve been provided a source on more than one occasion. Yelling fake news and ignoring it is what MAGA does. At least be intellectually honest about what you’re doing instead of pretending that no one has given you the information you’re asking for and could easily find yourself
Nope, you just keep linking billionaire mouth pieces who insist he totally said it…
Yet can’t provide the quote they swear exists
Which is weird that someone has such blind faith in billionaire owned media. Why do you think they’re being honest and not just sabatoging progress like they always have?
Do you think the billionaires are trying to help us fight the billionaires?
I’m genuinely trying to follow your logic here, but I just can’t
The quote from the author of the article:
In brief remarks to the press after his election, Martin committed to publicly releasing a post-mortem of the 2024 campaign, which the DNC did not do after the 2016 election. Martin did not say how quickly the committee would execute the review.
That does claim he said publicly…
But look at the quote to support it:
"There has to be some lessons that we glean on that so we can operationalize it, not just here in DC, but through all of the 57 state parties,” Martin said. “We’ve got to look backwards and look forward at the same time.”
What about that says “we’ll publicly release it”?
Why do you think that was the closest quote a billionaire owned media corporation could find?
But look at the quote to support it:
That’s not how quotes work. The former was a paraquote, what you are quoting is an actual quote separate from the paraquote.
Your claim that “public” does not in fact mean made open to “the public” is an assumption that has no actual evidence to support it. You are making assertions on behalf of the speaker that the speaker themselves could and would make if that’s how it was originally intended.
If your assumption was relevant than I’m sure he would have said it himself when being criticized by members of his own party and dozens of press organizations.
When asked he hasn’t said that’s not what I meant, or I never made that claim, he just repeats that he doesn’t think it behoves us to look at past elections.
https://www.axios.com/2026/04/12/democrats-dnc-2024-election-autopsy
So…
What you’re saying is, you also failed to find a quote of him actually saying he was going to release it to the public?
You didn’t need to reply just to tell me I’m right, I don’t need that level of validation
@ mark 19:10 As he is speaking about accountability to donors, later specifying small donors, he says they are going to realse their “after action” report of the previous election.
Your whole interpretation is moot, as he hasn’t even released the report to members of his own party as you falsely claimed he had.
"Favreau pointed to the fact that when Martin ran for the position after the party’s gutting loss in 2024, he’d specifically criticized the party for refusing to release a similar report on Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016 and promised that “of course” a review of the party’s 2024 loss “will be released” to the public.
Why did you change your mind on that?” Favreau asked.
“What I said all along, even when I ran for this position, is that we were going to focus on the things that will help us win the upcoming election, right?” Martin said. “Making sure that we learn the right lessons that could help inform our victories. And that’s what we’ve done.”
Martin said it was more important to “keep our focus on those lessons” rather than “navel gazing and looking backwards, trying to relitigate 2024.”
Favreau pointed to comments Martin made on Pod Save America in August, saying that the party was hard at work on the report “to give people who invested so much time, energy, and money a sense of what happened and why we lost.”
“What changed between August and December?” Favreau asked. “I understand there are lessons, but those are not the full report. Why not release the full report? What’s in the report that you wouldn’t want to publicize?”
Martin responded: “There’s no smoking gun in the report, and I know that’s what everyone’s so eager to learn, the smoking gun… Guess what, Jon? There’s no surprise in there.”
Clearly unconvinced, Favreau interjected, “But if there’s no smoking gun, why wouldn’t you just release it then?”
Martin reiterated his previous point, that releasing the full report would be “looking backwards,” and accused activist groups of being “obsessed” with the idea that there was a “smoking gun” buried within.
“Why did you spend the money going to 50 states, doing all these interviews, doing all this stuff, and doing this report in the first place if you weren’t going to release the full results of it?” Favreau asked. “I don’t get why just you and some of the senior [Democratic National Committee] people get to see it but not most of the DNC members who are state party chairs.”
So yeah… You are confidently speaking nonsense.
Removed by mod
No…
That was a journalist employed by a billionaire media corporation saying it…
If he said it, don’t you think the quote of him saying it would be all over the place?
Seriously, what’s your logic for why no one can provide an actual source of him saying it?
Why isn’t billionaire owned media playing that clip 24/7?
You don’t think it’s possible that billionaires are lying to you?
Why do you blindly trust oligarchs so much? That’s a wild take on Lemmy…
Dude just give it a rest. You asked for a source and it was provided. It says explicitly what you’re saying no article in existence says so now you’re shifting the goalposts to something else. I’m done with your bullshit
DNC is hiding is trying to sabotage the DNC because neoliberals don’t control it anymore
Just because they put Ken Martin in as chair doesn’t mean that the DNC isn’t being controlled by neoliberals…
First of all, the chair of the party when the party isn’t in control of Congress has very little control of the party itself. They are mostly responsible for fundraising and organizing at the state and local level.
Secondly, the Minnesota DFL isnt really much different from the democratic party itself, especially in recent years. That is unless you are claiming people like Amy Klobuchar do not qualify as neoliberals.
Martin said he give it to DNC members, that’s not voters. That s literally the ~400 voting members of the DNC.
“Around the 2024 election, Martin committed to publicly releasing a 2024 campaign post-mortem, which the DNC did not do after the 2016 election. He refused to release a 2024 campaign report in 2025 and 2026.”
are the neoliberals that don’t run the DNC (who still likely have it) and billionaire owned media (who have also likely seen a copy)
Pretty sure that people here are count as people criticizing him for this while not being neoliberals or billionaires.
They just want to get people to abstain in the next presidential primary so a neoliberal like Newspm can sneak in.
Why would it behove the billionaire owned media to release the report that is most likely critical of their influence over the DNC? How would that help Gavin Newsome?
It’s blatant manipulation, why can’t everyone see this?
You are pinning your entire argument on the idea that the chair person of the DNC is significantly different from the people who placed him in the position in the first place, and that he has the power to significantly shape the party.
That would be like me claiming Kamala Harris wasn’t a neolib because she chose Tim Waltz as her running mate.
I will admit Ken Martin is seemingly more left than the actual leadership in the DNC(not a hard thing to do). However, he does not have the power to shape the party in a meaningful way. Most chairs barely make it 3 years before being replaced, and I doubt Martin is going to make it that long considering how poorly the DNC is fundraising and being marketed.
Ahhh… Wat? How is it neoliberal propaganda to expect a public postmortem? Why would its release be damaging?
What evidence is there that neolibs don’t control the DNC anymore? Shumer is still minority leader. Most Dems are still backed by AIPAC… What meaningful change has occurred?
How is it neoliberal propaganda to expect a public postmortem?
Because it’s literally never been publicly released before…
Because Martin said he’d release it internally at the DNC, like every other post election…
Why would its release be damaging?
I honestly think it should be released, but the damaging aspect is it’s about Joe Biden’s choosen chair did to try and for e Biden and Kamala on us.
The DNC chair is a dictatorship, acting like the new one is responsible for the old one is as dumb as blaming a hypothetical Dem president in 2029 for what trump is doing in 2026…
What evidence is there that neolibs don’t control the DNC anymore?
That the voting members picked the chair of Minnesota who spent a decade running fair primaries and turned it from purple to one of the most progressive states in the country… Simply by not fighting progressives.
That he’s been dumping the VF money on state parties for over a year, and a neoliberal.would never do that because they want to save it all for the presidential…
Shumer is still minority leader.
Because that vote was two weeks before the DNC chair, so at the time the neoliberal threat of bankrupting a state party for not voting Schumer/Jeffries was valid, neoliberals had done it before and will do it again if they regain the DNC.
Most Dems are still backed by AIPAC…
They were protected by a biased DNC, they no longer are. Go work on primary campaigns against them, but youre running out of time for this cycle. But being “non biased” means the DNC isn’t kicking out shitty neoliberals, that’s literally what primaries are for…
What meaningful change has occurred?
…
You do keep hearing about Dems “over performing”, right?
That’s because state parties have the funds the neoliberals were hoarding.
Like, the problem here is you want a DNC that’s biased for us. And Martin wants a DNC that does what it’s supposed to, which honestly isn’t really anything. The Dem party should be structured from bottom-up, and Martin is giving that “power” back to the state parties.
The big change isn’t that we get a progressive bias, the big change is no one is holding them down anymore.
That’s all it takes, and if a Dem wins in 2028, then they name the next DNC chair.
So if you don’t like Martin, support the furtherest left candidate in the Dem primary, and hope they appoint an explicitly progressing chair.
We just completed a step that took 30 fucking years, we can wait another 2.
All depressing turnout in Dem primaries does, is help neoliberal like Kamala or Newsom. If they name a chair we’re fucked.
Edit:
Almost forgot, he codified DNC regulations preventing anyone from endorsing or getting involved in down ballot primaries…
Which, if you’ve paid attention the last 30 years or so, has been the main problem people have had with the DNC.
The correction isnt “biased, but for us” because that still wouldn’t be unbiased
Because Martin said he’d release it internally at the DNC, like every other post election…
He hasn’t released it to the DNC either… Doing so would essentially be publicly releasing it as one of the people publicly critical of him not releasing it would leak it to the press.
The DNC chair is a dictatorship, acting like the new one is responsible for the old one is as dumb as blaming a hypothetical Dem president in 2029 for what trump is doing in 2026…
No it’s not? The DNC chair when the DNC isn’t in control of Congress is a lame duck responsible for fundraising and organizing local elections. Plus, if the DNC chair does something the DNC doesn’t agree with they can remove them…very unlike an actual dictator. There have been DNC chairs that have served less than a year.
That the voting members picked the chair of Minnesota who spent a decade running fair primaries and turned it from purple to one of the most progressive states in the country… Simply by not fighting progressives.
He won that by like 50 votes…and in a lame duck office. The DNC chair does not hold political power in the DNC, that power is mainly held by elected officials who hold places in important committees in the Senate and the house. Also Minnesota is not one of the most progressive states in the union.
That he’s been dumping the VF money on state parties for over a year, and a neoliberal.would never do that because they want to save it all for the presidential…
Again, the Chair is not the power behind the party, he’s the face. And a smart neolib would spend on local elections if they wanted control of Congress.
Because that vote was two weeks before the DNC chair, so at the time the neoliberal threat of bankrupting a state party for not voting Schumer/Jeffries was valid, neoliberals had done it before and will do it again if they regain the DNC.
The chair doesn’t choose the minority or majority leader, that’s done by their fellow members via caucus.
They were protected by a biased DNC, they no longer are.
Because of a change in the Chair? You do realize how often Chair members are replaced, right?
