The decision by the DNC to withhold the public viewing of its internal post-election analysis concerning the 2024 election is remarkable but not surprising. Resistant to unpleasant candor, the party's leadership apparatus behaves more like a publicity machine than a political organization committed to cultivating a volunteer base for winning elections.
A Culture That Avoids Dissent
Reluctant to break with the party establishment's culture of conformity, the committee has remained within the Biden-Harris shadow throughout this past year. Making public an official autopsy might have shown that party leaders are interested to promote public discourse regarding the strategic failures that paved the way for the former president to become president again. Instead, the DNC is proceeding under the pretense that there is little to be learned from the electoral catastrophe from the last cycle.
Our guiding principle: does this help us win? Should the answer be negative, it is an unnecessary diversion from what truly matters," a justification that has been offered for withholding the document.
Key Issues an Analysis Might Have Examined
An autopsy report worth its salt would not dodge certain uncomfortable matters. This encompasses:
- Electoral Disengagement: The loss of millions of voters who supported the party's candidate in 2020 was decisive in the close recent race.
- The Insistence to Run: The stubborn decision by the incumbent to run again, coupled with a last-minute step-aside, is viewed as denying Democratic voters the chance for a competitive nomination process.
- Abandoning Everyday Americans: During a time of inflation, the campaign is criticized for ceding to powerful financial backers while failing to challenge the role of profit-seeking.
- The Gaza Effect: The failure to adjust an approach concerning a major international conflict reportedly led to losing key demographic groups, especially among youth voters, Arab-Americans, and Muslim Americans.
- Losing Youth Backing: Research shows a major decline of votes for the candidate among voters aged 18-29.
A History of Evasion
The decision to withhold aligns with a pattern of sidestepping difficult realities. It echoes a dynamic where nearly all Democratic officeholder in Congress went along with an incumbent's insistence on seeking another term right up until a catastrophic public debate performance led to a change.
At the same time, large majorities within the party's base were continually telling pollsters of their opposition to that candidate to run again.
Financial Concerns
A substantive report would also examine matters about financial allocations, including the amounts went to insider consultants as well as ad buyers over the course of an electoral effort that burned through a staggering sum in a short period.
The Broader Problem
Ultimately, the suppression regarding the analysis is symptomatic of a submission to party leaders that oversaw an unsuccessful electoral effort. The implication for ordinary supporters – including millions of small donors – appears to be that they do not be trusted to know what party chiefs say they discovered based on an analysis compiled from extensive interviews.
An organization incapable to publicly examine its own failings finds it difficult to escape the rut that proved so beneficial to the winning candidate.
