'Why Wouldn't You Just Release It?': DNC Chair Confronted Over Buried 2024 Election Autopsy

[TheProle]

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin was confronted on a podcast on Tuesday about his continued refusal to release an “autopsy” report dissecting the party’s defeat in the 2024 election.

Grassroots groups have not let up on calls to release the report, which Martin said in December would not be released publicly, claiming it would “prove counterproductive” to the party’s efforts going forward.

While the full report remains under lock and key, it was reported in February that the officials who crafted it believed that the Biden administration’s unwavering support of Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza cost then-Vice President Kamala Harris votes on Election Day and contributed to her loss to President Donald Trump.

(snip)

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.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/dnc-chair-autopsy

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. Video of the interview here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1322113856

[TheProle]

2. Thank you!

[truddy777]

3. timing

The timing and tone of these early morning updates are always something else.

[CousinIT]

4. I canvassed for Harris and I can tell you that support of Israel's genocide ...

... was an issue. NOW, Israel has dragged us via Trump into an unwinnable mess in Iran, so add THAT to the anger. This IS A REAL PROBLEM for Dems!

[bottomofthehill]

6. Sometimes you can't fix stupid.

For everyone screaming Gaza, do you think the people of Gaza would be better, worse or the same under a Harris administration. Now ask yourself do you think we would be fighting a war in Iran with Israel in a Harris administration. There is not always a perfect choice but there is always a best choice. There was a simple best choice but people were too stupid to take it.

[B.See]

45. Precisely. Heard a lot of sqawk

about Genocide Joe and Harris, but not one peep about Don 'finish it' Trump, who posted ai videos of him and Bibi sipping 'cocktails' poolside on the bombed out ruins of Gaza.

So how'd that work out for em?

Sealed the fate of their own countymen, imo.

[Cha]

62. Mahalo for some Reality, bottomofthehill!

Many of us know the answer to that. 💔💙 ☮️🌻🕯️🕊️💜

[SocialDemocrat61]

9. So people are angry with Harris

over the war in Iran? Why?

[AloeVera]

10. Cute but allow me to phrase it a different way. Why are these voters mad?

Because they believe this:

Without Gaza yesterday, there would be no Iran today.

[SocialDemocrat61]

11. Sounds like they just looking for a reason

to blame Harris.

[AloeVera]

15. It's much worse. They blame the Party.

There are millions of these "lost" voters who feel the Party let them down not doing enough to protect Palestinians from Netanyahu's genocidal assault. In case you dispute that fact, Harris herself said after the election that not enough was done, there were levers that could have been pulled but were not.

To win the next election, these voters have to be brought back, no? They are not coming back if the Party sweeps their concerns under the rug as it were, a second time.

So what's worse, the discomfort of laying it all out there and incorporating lessons learned to change policy, or losing yet another election and watching your country - and the world - continue to burn?

[Queso Delicioso]

16. Yep. Being perceived as being in bed with AIPAC is a recipe for disaster.

We need to have split with them yesterday if not sooner, but party leadership is loath to pull the trigger.

[sboatcar]

31. THIS RIGHT HERE

We need to make a clear separation between Jewish people and the crazy conservative zionist regime in Israel. That has been our problem for a long time here. AIPAC is the first to cry antisemitism anytime anyone says anything critical about Israel, and the sooner democrats disavow themselves of it and all of its sneaky sub PACs, the better it will be.
If we ignore it, democrats will keep losing votes, and the sneaky quiet antisemitism will start invading the mainstream. AIPAC is toxic and will be a millstone around our necks.

[SocialDemocrat61]

17. Gaza would have happened

whether Biden supported it or not. And Iran is happening because of Trump. That’s the reality. Anyone who is still mad at democrats at this point is delusional and unreachable. Democrats need to focus on the concerns of most people which is cost of living and the economy. That’s what most voters care about. Trying to pander to a small minority who probably still not vote for democrats because they didn’t pass all their purity tests is a fool’s errand. That’s how Spanberger and Sherrill won last year.

[questionseverything]

18. Bibi bombed gaza for weeks before Obama was sworn in

Because bush approved, the day Obama became president it stopped

Since we are paying for Israel’s stuff they have to “listen “ to some extent

[SocialDemocrat61]

19. Only 20% of Israel's military hardware

comes from U.S. funding. Nothing was going to stop Bibi. Should democrats change policy in regard to Isreal? Yes. But it shouldn't be the centerpiece of the fall campaign. Do what worked last November, affordability.

[AloeVera]

38. That seems false.

The 20% figure represents the percentage of Israel's TOTAL military budget funded by the U.S. in the years PRIOR to the Gaza genocide, not just "military hardware".

Where are you getting your information that only 20% of Israel's hardware comes from U.S. funding? Have a source?

My source, the Stockholm International Peace Institute, says that 69% of Israel's major conventional arms imports between 2019-2023 (before Oct 7) come from the U.S. Another source, Responsible Statecraft, tells me that about 81% of U.S. arms sales to Israel are funded through U.S. taxpayer-funded military aid.

Of course once the Gaza genocide began, arms sales and arms delivery went through the roof - so much so that the Pentagon struggled to find enough cargo planes to carry the materiel.

In roughly the first 8 months of the genocide, the U.S. delivered at least 14,100 MK-84 2,000 pound bombs and 100 2,000 pound BLU-109 bunker-buster bombs in the first 7 weeks alone. More than 500 of these bombs were dropped in the first month alone - mostly in designated Orwellian-named "safe-zones". Imagine that, bombs that are four times heavier than the the largest bombs the U.S. dropped in Syria and Iraq against ISIS.

I won't get into the numbers on the "smaller" bombs, fighter jets, tank ammunition, tactical vehicles, air-to-air missiles, mortar rounds etc. But they amounted to tens of billions of dollars. Everything Israel needed was supplied and largely paid for by the U.S. - except for drones, 120 mm mortar bombs and rifles used by the IDF, but those hardly seem like they would be worth 80% of total "hardware".

Israel could not have devastated Gaza the way it did, nor killed nearly 80,000 people, without U.S. arms and assurances that the munitions would continue flowing.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/us-weapons-gaza/

[SocialDemocrat61]

43. You're confusing funding

with arms sales. Those are two different things. Yes, we send Israel military aid but then they use that money to buy the weapons from US arms manufacturers. The same is true of other countries that we give military aide to.

But the real point that it’s not something the average voter who is struggling to pay their rent, feed their kids and fill up their gas tank is going to focused on. Mamdani, Spanberger and the other democrats won have flipped about 30 seats in special elections have run on affordability. That’s what democrats need to focus on going forward.

[AloeVera]

47. Read it again.

"...about 81% of U.S. arms sales to Israel are funded through U.S. taxpayer-funded military aid."

So not only is the U.S. the largest foreign supplier of arms to Israel, the taxpayer is on the hook for 81% of arms sold.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Aid to Israel is provided as GRANTS under the Foreign Military Financing Program (FMF) which funds purchases of US military equipment and services through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program.

In April, 2025, Israel had 751 active FMS cases with the U.S., worth a total of about $39 Billion. In GRANTS.

That's a lot of rent, gas and grocery money.

[SocialDemocrat61]

49. But Israel doesn't buy all their arms from U.S.arms manufacturers.

And it’s still irrelevant to what the average voter cares about. As well as, blaming Harris for the war with Iran, It’s just deflection to what really matters.

[AloeVera]

50. We've reached the end of this discussion. You are moving the goalposts.

Though now I will point out that Israel can use the grant money to buy from Israeli arms manufacturers too - the only country that is allowed to do that.

Affordability is tied to using taxpayer money wisely and justly, a point worth remembering.

And who says Democratic voters can't care about both? Affordability and a revulsion to genocide? It's devaluing to suggest that they don't.

[SocialDemocrat61]

52. No I never brought up Israel

I simply questioned why people were blaming Harris for the war with Iran. Discussion of US Israel policy is irrelevant to that.

Is Kamala Harris in any way responsible for the Iran war? Yes or no?

[Cirsium]

51. Israel

It is Israel, not "Isreal."

[SocialDemocrat61]

53. My apologies

I have dyslexia and sometimes switch letters. Sometimes even words.

[Cirsium]

60. Thanks

Please accept my apology, then, for jumping on you.

That particular misspelling is common in antisemitic rants (not you) and rubs me the wrong way, just as "Democrat party" does.

[Bettie]

68. I do that too!

Any my brain autocorrects it when I proofread, so I don’t see it!

[RandomNumbers]

44. Gee and I wonder why anyone would need an excuse

to vote for a corrupt, evil, ignorant white male over a competent, decent, intelligent and qualified non-white female.

Hmm ... just can't seem to put my finger on it ...

[CousinIT]

22. They are angry with Democrats in general for continuing to support Israel & taking AIPAC money.

They were angry @ Biden/Harris over Gaza in 2024.

NOW, they're ALSO angry over the Iran mess, which Bibi dragged the idiot Trump into.

EDIT: YES, that is Trump's fault for being stupid, but Democratic voters DO NOT WANT their candidates/reps supporting Israel, which is at the core of both.

[SocialDemocrat61]

25. Ok

But it’s unfair to be mad at Harris and democrats for Iran.

As far as Israel, democrats need a new policy but it shouldn’t divert from more pressing issues for the midterms. It wasn’t a big issue last November.

[CousinIT]

30. They don't want reps owned by Israel.

Because of Gaza and Iran. Candidates who take AIPAC money are a problem for them.

I heard about it on the streets in my precinct and the surrounding areas about Gaza in 2024.

Add the mess in Iran (again, they're not so much "mad at Democrats" over it - they know whose fault it is), but they do not want candidates or reps who support Israel or take AIPAC money because of it. Being angry ABOUT it is not the same as being angry at Dems FOR it, so maybe I didn't state it correctly.

That's just how it is for many of them.

[SocialDemocrat61]

33. There are a lot of pacs far worse than

AIPAC. Having a purity test over one pac at a time like this when our democracy is in danger sounds like people are looking for excuses to blame democrats.

[Celerity]

61. In terms of large, powerful PACs who give a substantial amount to Democrats, there are few, if any, worse than AIPAC.

AIPAC is funded to a large degree by RW billionaires and multi-millionaires, who get a 2-for-1 bang for their buck. Same for many of its directly or indirectly related (and often shadowy) groups that are used to avoid direct ties to AIPAC.

1. They get to see AIPAC and its related (directly or indirectly) groups use huge amounts of money and power to help ram through legislation that is vastly pro Bibi and his RW base, plus block any (or VERY few) conditions place upon the billions upon billions sent by the US.

2. They also get to see AIPAC and its related (directly or indirectly) groups use huge amounts of money, influence, and power to help go after progressive Demicrats (both incumbents and challengers) in both Democratic primaries and in general elections. They attack and block (or try to) progressive Democrats who are against the RW donors' desires and agendas on so many non-Israel issues and legislation.

Like I said, a 2-for-1 bang for the buck.

[SocialDemocrat61]

64. Never said AIPAC was good

But PACs that lobby for insurance companies, oil and chemical companies have far worse consequences for the average person than AIPAC.

[Celerity]

65. Of course those are bad too, but AIPAC (whose RW massive donors often have common agendas with those industries you

mentioned) and their directly or indirectly-related groups specifically go into Democratic primaries and/or general elections and try and take out the very type of elected Democratic members or candidates who would be more likely (often far more likely) to vote against and all-round oppose those other groups' (the other industries listed by you) negatively-impactful (negatively-impactful for the vast majority of people, surely we agree on that) agendas.

AIPAC and its umbrella groupings/penumbra do the (very much targeted) electoral monetary and media/advert interventions/spending to a huge level, whether directly to their chosen picks or via indirect spending on attack adverts or for pro-AIPAC's donors' agenda candidates.

They are very often the biggest 'tip of the spear' level groups who are out there trying to buy/shape/steer/manipulate election results and thus buy/shape/steer/manipulate all sorts of bad votes/policies, and laws, ones far from limited to just Israeli-centric endeavours.

[SocialDemocrat61]

67. Can we agree all pacs are bad?

And not single out one.

[Celerity]

69. Not all PACs are bad in terms of intent & impact. I reserve the right to call out the worst ones, which includes AIPAC.

[SocialDemocrat61]

70. I disagree

I believe that the whole concept of pacs is bad. Whatever their cause, pacs are designed to get around campaign finance laws. That's why I support candidates who refuse to take money from any pac, like AOC.

[Celerity]

71. Oh, I would love it if ALL PACs and all private money were removed from US politics. Like you said, the concept is bad.

But unfortunately they are now a serious weapon (for both good and bad) that we have to employ on certain levels. It does depend where the funding is coming from and what ideological slants they push, of course, thus my major issues with AIPAC.

you said

That's why I support candidates who refuse to take money from any pac, like AOC.

AOC (who is perhaps my favourite US elected politician, or close to it) refuses all CORPORATE PAC and RW PAC money. She takes other types of PAC donations. In fact she has her own PAC, Courage To Change PAC.

https://couragetochangepac.org/



About

Across the country, working-class candidates and progressive leaders face systematic disadvantages in our electoral system. Corporate interests, elite donors, and insular party power structures disincentivize many potential leaders from running for office.

The Courage to Change PAC is our answer to that broken system. Officially affiliated with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Courage to Change seeks to reward challengers and incumbents who display political courage — people who refuse to bow to establishment pressure, who advocate ferociously for working-class families, and who have lived the same struggles as the people they seek to represent.

Contributions will be used to make investments in progressive challengers that can even the playing field against established incumbents, and bolster progressive leaders in Congress who take difficult but righteous stands. All endorsees will embody the ideals of racial, social, economic, and environmental justice.

Courage to Change will refuse all corporate PAC donations, as will our candidates. As a result, grassroots support is critical to our efforts to build a progressive majority in Congress. Your support is greatly appreciated.

[LeftInTX]

36. Here's the deal. Some broke, flakey candidates are making up lies about their opponents accepting AIPAC money.

This real airhead is going around saying this. She's running in a red district. And she will very likely win the primary runoff based on these lies.

[RandomNumbers]

46. Yeah and I bet they're just loving what they got?

because they're idiots? GMAFB.

I'm just not seeing how anyone who ***** ACTUALLY ***** CARES ABOUT other human beings in any part of the fucking planet, could have supported TRUMP WINNING THE ELECTION over holding their goddamn pure privileged noses and voting for the person who would BE LESS BAD for one segment of humanity and INCALCULABLY BETTER for the rest of the world.

Don't say anyone didn't know who TSF was before the 2024 election.

So yeah the "but Gaza" excuse holds no water whatsoever.

[bottomofthehill]

5. Why would we share our weakness for others to exploit.

We have enough problems without sharing the playbook with the RNC.

[leftstreet]

8. Right now it could be a strength

If there's truth to the Gaza issue, the time is even more right for denouncing Israel's continued presence there, and now in Lebanon.

Trump and the GOP appear wedded to Bibi's continued slaughter of people

[Rob H.]

34. They could at least reassure voters something along the lines of

"Here are the weaknesses and missteps uncovered by the report, and we're going to do our level best to address them with specific strategy and policy initiatives and emerge even stronger thanks to the lessons we've learned," but somehow that's asking too much. It's infuriating.

[happy feet]

26. I don't understand the purpose of accessing the report?

Unless there is a purpose to help us win going forward, I agree---why release for our enemies to know?

[BWdem4life]

39. They already exploited it

They must know already.

The Democratic party has become less democratic lately and it's quite disturbing

[Cha]

63. I don't see that at all. I support the Democratic

Party. And, we've Been Winning all over the country despite any bashing.

Flipping red seats to Blue in Red States and Red Distircts.

We're here to Help Win the Midterms.

[SocialDemocrat61]

7. Who cares?

Will releasing the report magically end the war? Will releasing the report lower the cost of gas or food? Will releasing it end abuses by ICE? Will releasing the report feed a hungry child tonight? Will it end the violence in Gaza? Will releasing the report provide healthcare for those who need it?

Unless the answer is yes to those questions, it’s irrelevant and doesn’t matter.

[Ilikepurple]

20. I'm not sure these are the issues the an election autopsy report is designed to confront?

Obviously some people care. Dismissing that care with with specious argumentation doesn’t really confront the complaint that many would like to know what the DNC has determined negatively effected 2024’s outcome. What missteps in policy or communication, if any, might we focus on to better our chances at future success. There are arguments against such a release, but this isn’t one of them. As a matter of fact, if its release did remedy any or all of those things, it would be hard to convince undecideds that a Democratic Party report rather than GOP leadership decisions were the cause.

[SocialDemocrat61]

23. Most people don't care

Only political junkies. Which is a very, very small percentage of voters. And most of the political junkies don’t run for office or run campaigns. This is a manufactured issue and in no way improves people’s lives.

[Ilikepurple]

56. I would say that even less people care to silence expression of this issue, but here we are.

If an insignificant number of people care, why is it so important to silence those voices in the wilderness? You could just let them howl at each other. Is the reasoning here is that we political junkies should ignore any issue where an outsized proportion of the people concerned are also political junkies? That is, any issue that has not caught the eye of a large percentage of voters is not worth discussion? I’m not sure we are still in the space of reasons and more in the space of allegiance. Your ending statement is conclusory at best. What impact the release of the report will have on the Party’s chances to gain enough ground to improve people’s lives is the very issue.

[SocialDemocrat61]

57. Not trying to silence anything

Disagreeing is not suppression. But it’s a manufactured issue. Just another reason for some to demonize the Democratic Party. The party has no obligation to release the study. That is just a fact. The study is only useful to people who actually run campaigns. There is no use to any else. If a football team loses several games and the team’s management does a study, the team is under no obligation to release it to fans. Monday morning quarterbacks don’t need to know. Political junkies who have never and will never run a campaign don’t need to see this study either. And like it or not the average voter does not care. They care about how their lives will improve if the vote for a democratic candidate.

[republianmushroom]

12. Because the old guard doesn't want to have to take the heat for loosing.

[sarisataka]

13. Speculation: I think it shows

After the convention the Harris campaign had a ton of momentum and a very good chance of winning. However, infighting among Party factions squandered the momentum and all signs of negative trends in the polls were ignored.

Also there was a complete failure to take advantage of the synergy of Harris/Walz; inside of letting them use their strength together the Party defaulted to just doing what has been done before.

[NBachers]

14. I have no idea what's in the report, but I like what you say here.

[AZProgressive]

21. The autopsy is very similar to the 2016 one

or one that was done by another org but can't remember who but party infighting is nothing new and the fracturing actually started soon after the 2020 election.

One thing that has not been released but was a big factor was the Biden's administration decision to enable Netanyahu unconditionally and according to polls over 30% of Arizona voters that voted for Biden but didn't vote for Harris is because of that issue which was higher than any swing state including Michigan which was also a big factor with the uncommitted vote. I wasn't one of those voters as I still thought she would be better and she shows that with her statements following the 2020 election. I wouldn't mind voting for her again if she wins the primary in 2028.

I do agree with the DNC releasing the report would be counterproductive especially since Democrats are doing well in recent elections but my point was party infighting or fracturing was nothing new to the 2024 election.

[LiberalLovinLug]

24. Release the files!

I think this report is bad for the Democratic establishment and old leadership. They are desparate to not allow the party to be taken over by the likes of David Hogg or AOC who would actually initiate progressive policy and piss off their ties to the elite class, Israeli included

But it would be good for 2028. We need a younger progressive leader next time who is social media savvy and is clear on Israeli genocide.

[LeftInTX]

29. David Hogg said good riddance when a

Democrat lost to a Republican. That crap goes against the Democratic Party. The race was an incumbent conressional Democrat in AK.

He didn't like her stance on gun control, but was happier that someone who was more pro-gun got in. This was in Nov 2024.

How does this help Democrats?

[LiberalLovinLug]

37. They forced him out of his position as vice chair of the DNC

AI: "David Hogg announced he is stepping down as a Democratic National Committee (DNC) vice chair in June 2025 following intense backlash. While not technically "fired," the DNC voted to force a reelection for his position, rendering his position untenable. His departure followed conflict over his plan to fund primary challenges against incumbent Democrats."

And what help this would have been is to embrace funding primary challenges against hapless corporate Democrats and nominate new younger vibrant candidates that will tell the Democratic faithful that they are listening. And begin to pave the way for the next generation to take over.

But they said no. We're afraid of that. Even though most Democrats want it to happen.

[LeftInTX]

40. What good would it do to have someone who does not support every Democratic nominee?

Last edited Wed Apr 29, 2026, 06:42 PM - Edit history (1)

That's the purpose of the DNC. It doesn't say things like, "Let's abandon all candidates who accept AIPAC money and allow the seat to go to Republicans". That's a "burn it all down" strategy.

[LiberalLovinLug]

72. Tell that to Mandami. AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar....

It is rather a "built it up" strategy.

Democrats just cannot survive if they continue to follow the strategy of strongly worded letters and subservience to mediocrity. Where.......in spite of a rising Fascist and Christian Nationalist uprising and funded and stoked on by the Epstein Class, they barley get over 50% if they're lucky. Last time we weren't.

Don't you find that astounding? Don't you want to be behind a party that has more than "we aren't HIM" ?

But the party brass wants to quash the new bolder generation and so there is a percieved split in the party. Why not embrace the more proactive forward looking wing....that is the future. Stop the fear mongering against them, the campaign to paint them as radical, and embrace them. Put on a united front and the public will vote for them.

In fact now is the time to take advantage. As Trump is cratering in the polls. We don't have to keep clinging to the DINOs like Manchin. Time for a fresh re-build.

edit just to add.....you've seen this post right?
https://democraticunderground.com/10143658577

[LeftInTX]

73. They aren't running the DNC!!!!

DNC is about campaigns . They're elected officials. That's a huge difference. Tlab turned voters away from Kamala.

[LiberalLovinLug]

74. So you can't see the relationship of the DNC in promoting candidates into elected officials? That's their job.

The DNC is about campaigns. Yes. whose campaign is the question. And more troubling, whose campaigns, by their own party candidates, are they willfully smearing? Its a dumb way to run a party, if you want to think of the future

[MorbidButterflyTat]

27. I hope they're enjoying what they got

[Joinfortmill]

28. Sounds fishy to me.

[OhioBack2Blue]

32. Yesterday in a statewide meeting it was said...

"Rurals are important for turning the house and senate blue."

My ground report from rural Ohio... a supposed "battleground" state:

- Many, many races were never filled despite ODP stating every seat would have a candidate
- Activity levels in rural areas .... no detectable difference other than Indivisible rallies
- Quote from a Democratic chair in rural county: "It will take decades to rebuilt the Democratic party here." (WTF!)
- Ramaswampy and Husted ads are all over the place (TV, streaming, online etc.)
- Money infusions .... no detectable difference other than pocket change from Indivisible programs for snacks and water.
- Where is activity? Same old, same old. Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Dayton, Akron.

Pitiful.

It is not Trump's fascist oppression that is de-engerizing. It is the DP strategy of benign neglect. It is impossible for Republicons to lose when they are the only ones on the field in the game.

[LeftInTX]

35. Our new Texas Democratic Party Chair supports rural outreach. He even created a satellite office in Amarillo

Reaching out to rural voters does not conflict with reaching out to urban voters in many areas. Most urban voters accept the same messaging etc. However, it is more time and consuming and expensive than reaching out to urban voters. (It's an infrastructure, logistics issue)

[LeftInTX]

41. Sadly after today's Supreme Court ruling, voters will just blame Democrats if they don't win more congressional seats.

Florida just passed their gerrymandered maps and now Mississippi is redrawing their maps. This will not only effect congress. It's going to effect every district in the US, including school boards, city councils and even public utilities!

[WhiskeyGrinder]

42. must be pretty juicy!

[fujiyamasan]

48. Gaza, for sure played a part

But I think the border and Harris’ unwillingness to distance herself from Biden also hurt a lot. There was of course inflation, which was coming down thanks to treasury and Powell, but while the rate of inflation was slowing, the prices were still up from the start of his administration.

Of course all of that has been blown up anyways, with his stupid tariffs and the unnecessary war, so it’s Trump’s turn to feel the wrath of disaffected voters.

[Cirsium]

54. Very bad look

That interview was terrible. Good grief.

[RockRaven]

55. The obvious answer is: b/c it blames party leadership (including elected ones) and big donors,

and specifically a certain strain or strains of policy/positions where leadership and big donors are out of step with the public.

They aren't willing to reverse on those positions.

If they don't bury it and pretend it doesn't exist, they are left begging the public for money and votes while also saying "we know you hate this, but we aren't willing to change, now give us money and vote for us anyway despite the fact we are ignoring what the public want AND will likely lose again as a result." No, no, no. They will not admit that out loud.

[Cerulean Southpaw]

58. Democracy dies in darkness

They should release it.

[fujiyamasan]

59. The lack of transparency is not a good look for the DNC

[ColoringFool]

66. You Know You're Reading An Unbiased Article When You See "Genocidal Attack."

Or not.

Sorry I don't take the Liberal line here.

[Takket]

75. I was pretty appauled by the interview

Martin just kept talking himself in a circle the entire time. It was exactly the kind of wishy-washy speak that makes people hate politicians.

I liked Martin because when he ran for DNC chair he emphasized how we needed to go meet voters where they were (social media, podcasts, etc....), but "trust me, this is what we need to do" is not a legitimate answer, especially since the report is going to give different guidance for different states and the state level candidates are flying blind.

[dflprincess]

76. This sounds like typical Ken Martin

He has many talents as a party leader but refusing to put up with dissent is not one of them. If he doesn't think the report should be released then he'll also think we have no business questioning his decision. Which makes me want to see it even more.

[Buckeyeblue]

78. My guess is it goes far beyond Gaza

I think Gaza hurt in Michigan, especially with the middle eastern community. However, I think the the reality is that some of the people who vote for Democratic candidates are probably not as open to women candidates as we would like to think.

The 2016 report probably says something similar. But some of that might have been chalked up to the fact that Republican's demonized Hillary Clinton for almost 3 decades by the time she ran for president.

I don't think it would be productive to release such a report. It would just be sad.