After a party loses an election, it usually benefits from having an analysis of the reasons for its failure and laying out a path for the future. Of course, whether that path makes any sense depends on whether the reasons given for the failure are based on reality. After delaying and waffling for the longest time, the Democratic Party finally released its so-called ‘autopsy‘ and it was so bad that even the party chairman has tried to distance himself from it.
Richard Eskow gives a scathing review of the report.
After an extended pressure campaign, Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin finally agreed to release the DNC’s “autopsy report” on the 2024 election. It’s the first document I’ve ever read that would have been better if it had been written by AI. Martin himself said the report “does not meet my standards, and it won’t meet your standards.” That’s for damn sure. As we’ll see, however, that doesn’t let Martin off the hook.
I downloaded the document before reviewing my news feed, where I quickly learned that many like-minded people began exactly as I did: by searching for the word “Gaza.” Result? “Not found.” I then tried “Palestine.” Result? “Not found.” How about “Israel”? “Not found.”
These omissions are particularly striking since one activist group was told by report author Paul Rivera that DNC data showed that the administration’s support for the Gaza genocide was, “in their words, a ‘net-negative’ in the 2024 election.”
…Other words that can’t be found in the autopsy include “war,” “military,” “defense” (in the military sense), “peace,” “Medicare,” and “Social Security.” The report fails to address either the US’ runaway military spending or the ongoing attempts to undermine the country’s social contract.
…The report’s only conceivable value will be for future anthropologists, who will find it provides considerable insight into the culture and folkways of the professional Democratic class. Its introduction reads like the kind of word salad a teenager might come up with when asked to write a 1200-word essay on a topic they forgot to study. There’s a lot of meandering, some restatements of the assignment, and a hastily looked-up quotation.
Eskow recommends that instead of wasting one’s time on the DNC report, one read instead the report put out by the group RootsAction. Its Executive Summary states the five main reasons for the party’s failure.
- Voter Disenchantment: Losing a whopping 6.8 million voters who supported Biden in 2020 proved pivotal in this extremely close election. Harris’s inability to mobilize these pro-Biden voters may have been the campaign’s biggest failure.
- Biden’s Betrayal: Former President Joe Biden’s disastrous decision to run for reelection, and his stubborn refusal to step aside until very late in the process, robbed voters of a Democratic primary process, created confusion and chaos, and severely hindered Democrats’ chances.
- Abandoning the Working-Class Base: With millions of Americans already disenchanted and desperate due to inflation, the Harris campaign lost this essential Democratic base by focusing on courting Republicans, kowtowing to corporate donors’ interests, and failing to confront the role of corporate greed in escalating inflation.
- The Gaza Effect: There is ample evidence that Harris lost many voters, especially young voters, Arab-Americans, and critical support in Michigan and elsewhere, due to the campaign’s failure to shift or even signal a potential shift in policy on Israel and Palestine.
- Losing Young Voters: Extensive evidence shows a huge drop-off in both turnout and Democratic support among young voters aged 18-29.
This report examines the voluminous evidence bolstering these conclusions. We document the many ways in which the Harris campaign and Democratic Party leadership failed to meet the moment and gravely miscalculated both what and who the election hinged on.
It then outlines a path forward.
Rising majorities of Democrats and independent voters are clamoring for progressive, economic populist candidates and policies. In addition to recent progressive wins, massive crowds are clamoring for “Fighting Oligarchy” rallies led by Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Economic populist candidates and ballot measures are succeeding (or, at minimum, significantly beating the partisan spread) in rural and swing districts across America. The Democratic Party needs to listen to what voters have repeatedly told them, and change course. It’s time for the Democratic Party to recover and revive its most populist roots, and put the needs (and votes) of working-class and middle-class people first.
…
- Commit to economic populist policies that inspire and benefit working-class people, including: Enhanced Medicare for All single-payer healthcare; raising the federal minimum wage; robust union protections; expanded job creation and funding to help manual and manufacturing workers when industries and companies go under; aggressive anti-trust enforcement to break corporate monopolies; and significantly increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations.
- Commit to significantly limiting and curtailing corporate campaign contributions and PACs, and mounting an aggressive challenge to Citizens United and corporate money in politics.
- Democrats should officially reject AIPAC and its stranglehold over the party and its foreign policy. Supporting Israel even amid its war crimes and horrific assault on Gazans was both morally indefensible and politically suicidal. Younger generations of voters and activists, the future of the Democratic Party, have made that abundantly clear.
The Democratic party establishment is captive to the big money interests and the Israel lobby, even if those entities actually support Republicans. They contribute to the party establishment purely to keep them captive and prevent them from taking on more populist measures. They need to go.
Amen!
Not just young voters. I’m 72, and I would not give a nickle to the Democratic National Committee.
We have a Trumpist as our representative in our district, and I blame Sean Maloney, the Democratic candidate in 2024, because he was more interested in supporting Trumpists in Republican primaries than actually campaigning in our district. It seems like he, and a bunch of old-line Democrats, simply assumed he would win, despite a redistricting which really change the demographics of our district. Before them we had Nita Lowey, who was a real do-nothing who stayed in office for so long mostly because the Republicans kept nominating candidates that were guarranteed not to win. (One was openly White Supremacist, to the point that they had to disavow him.)
Basically, the Old Guard is more interested in preserving their privileges and keeping young pups (like AOC) in their place than winning, and they don’t really stand for anything. I’m reminded of Dianne Feinstein’s dismissive response to the young people that came to her about Climate Change. It’s all “politics as usual,” acting as though the current Republican Party will be gentlemen, and just wringing their hands when the Republicans won’t.
It’s too bad there isn’t a credible third party like in 1860, one that would replace the Democratic Party the way the Republican Party of that time replaced the Whigs.
Allison, I so agree. The Democratic party needs to be replaced.
If these people would quit staring at all the corporate money they’re getting, they would perhaps notice that almost every time a Democrat has advocated a very progressive policy, they win. Progressive policies are, in fact, very popular among Americans.
Also, perhaps the Democrats could notice how extremely successful and popular democratic socialism, brought to NYC by Mamdani, is. Just sayin’.
The party needs to become all democratic socialists, now. I would really advocate AOC running for president if I didn’t have concerns about Americans’ historically-overwhelming sexism and racism.
re garnetstar@3: I would love to see AOC as president, but I would be truly afraid that she would be a target of assassination. There are WAY too many “lone wolves” out there that would be happy to target her for her progressive policies.
Sorry for being blunt, but you’re stuffed. The two-party system has you completely locked out. I don’t know what you can do about it.
As long as we elect a single representative per district we are probably stuck with a two party system. The most likely way to replace the Democratic party is to change it from the inside, somewhat similarly in principle but not in detail to the way the MAGA movement replaced what used to be the Republican party.
As for the reasons for the results of the 2024 election: There were 2 structural reasons, before getting into any specifics.
1) Worldwide incumbents lost in 2024, regardless of whether they were from the left or the right, likely because they were blamed for the post-COVID economy. Harris in fact did better than most incumbents, just not good enough to win.
2) She didn’t have enough time, due to Biden’s insistence on running (despite his original statement that he would be a one term president). While there were shifts to the right compared to 2020 in almost all states (Washington shifted to the left), in places where Harris campaigned actively those shifts were smaller. This suggests she was an effective campaigner, but was constrained by the late starting point.
Allison, @ #2:
Whenever this comes up, I link to this piece by Jon Schwartz back in 2007, which remains a relevant as ever, and which contains one of the most valuable political insights I have ever read: Democrats And The Iron Law Of Institutions.
[Emphasis original]
I find this principle enormously helpful in understanding why people behave the way they do in all sorts of situations.
Helpfully, he also includes a number of recommendations for how to address the problems with the Democratic Party (which were exactly the same then as now), based on this principal:
Dunc @ 7
I see the rich (but progressive) dude is neck and neck with the other Democrat in the poll for governor in California.
Like with FDR, we (by which I mean you Americans) may have to put the trust in a ‘class-traitor’ rather than the centrist dross, as the latter are bought by the campaign donor class.
If only people prone to corruption manifested a unique molecular target on the cell membrane, a competent biolab with a sample of avian flu could sort out the problem.
.
It would be symbolically apt, as -if I recall correctly- M. Guillotine was a doctor.
(As for empathy, yeah, what goes around comes around)
If such a molecule existed, dibs on calling it “Donald
Following up on #7 and “Iron Law of Institutions” . . . I just read a thread explaining that the Texas GOP has shot itself in the foot, in terms of holding power in the Senate, because giving Paxton the win over the incumbent Cornyn means that Texas loses out. Texas loses because the Senate hands out committee assignments based on seniority. Cornyn had seniority; Paxton, even if he wins, will not.
https://bsky.app/profile/charlotteclymer.bsky.social/post/3mmt3ik4tzq2z
One respondent in the thread suggested that this old-boy-network didn’t sound like a good thing in general:
And just to make the connection back to the iron law of institutions — the Texas GOP preferred to retain power in Texas than risk it by pissing off Trump and Trumpists, even if the potential payoff was a senior Senator in D.C.