The Democratic National Committee's long-awaited autopsy on the 2024 election disaster has been released, but even DNC Chair Ken Martin cannot defend it. 'I don't endorse what's in this report,' Martin conceded on Thursday, admitting the document was not ready for public scrutiny. After months of withholding the autopsy to avoid distraction, Martin revealed that the report was fundamentally flawed. 'When I received the report late last year, it wasn't ready for primetime. Not even close. And because no source material was provided, fixing it would have meant starting over, from the beginning,' he said.
Internal Criticism and Disclaimer
Former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau summarized the tortuous process spanning over a year: 'Promise to release autopsy; put incompetent friend in charge; incompetent friend produces incoherent product; announce you're not releasing the autopsy; lie about why; gaslight people who ask, saying they're the problem; face internal revolt; release autopsy.' The draft report now exists in a strange limbo, with a disclaimer in red on every page stating that 'this document reflects the views of the author, not the DNC,' and that the DNC 'cannot independently verify the claims presented.' Many pages include red boxed insertions challenging the autopsy's claims, such as 'No sourcing provided for several claims in this section' and 'Appears to conflate family and sick leave,' as if a schoolteacher were marking up a term paper.
Mainstream Media Reactions
The report has drawn harsh critiques from mainstream outlets. The New York Times noted that the autopsy 'is disorganized and leaves empty entire sections' while 'often veering into political clichés and hard-to-follow explanations.' CNN pointed out that the autopsy 'contains lots of errors and curious inclusions – even some that are puzzling to have in a draft.' The report focuses heavily on ad buys and fundraising mechanics but fails to address why voters were uninspired by the Democratic ticket.
Key Evasions: Gaza and Biden-Harris Transition
The autopsy evades two critical political decisions: enabling Joe Biden to run for re-election until it was too late, and then coronating Kamala Harris without a primary process. Most notably, the word 'Gaza' does not appear in the nearly 50,000-word document, nor do 'Palestinians,' 'Israel,' or 'genocide.' Yet credible accounts suggest that the autopsy's author, Democratic consultant Paul Rivera, privately acknowledged that Harris's stance on Gaza hurt her election chances. Margaret DeReus, executive director of the Institute for Middle East Understanding, stated that '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.'
Polling Data Ignored
The autopsy deliberately sidesteps clear polling data showing the damage from Harris's support for arming Israel. In August 2024, an IMEU/YouGov poll in three swing states found that for every vote Harris might lose by supporting an arms embargo on Israel, she stood to gain five votes. Excluding such information constitutes a form of corruption, concealing political implications for the future. Three-quarters of Democrats agree that 'Israel is committing genocide,' and 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents view Israel unfavorably, according to Pew Research. Yet the DNC continues to claim a 'divide' on the issue, while the real divide is between party leaders and the base.
Conclusion: A Missed Opportunity
The DNC's autopsy embodies the disconnect it should have critiqued. Instead of addressing the moral and political reasons to reject Biden's Israel policy, it perpetuates evasions. Norman Solomon, director of RootsAction, notes that the crisis of Democratic leadership undermines the party's potential to roll back Republican power in the midterms and win in 2028. The autopsy itself is a case in point of what went wrong in 2024.
