The move by the DNC to suppress the publication of its own post-election analysis on the 2024 election is remarkable but entirely predictable. Opposed to hard truths, the Democrats' governing body often functions closer to a PR firm rather than an electoral entity devoted to cultivating a volunteer base for winning elections.
A Culture That Avoids Dissent
Unwilling to depart from the party establishment's culture demanding unity, the committee has stayed within the Biden-Harris shadow throughout this past year. Publishing an official autopsy might have shown that party leaders actually want to foster open debate about the strategic failures which allowed the former president to return to the White House. Yet, the leadership is moving forward under the pretense that there are no lessons to be learned following the tragic debacle of 2024.
"Here’s our North Star: is this good for winning elections? If the answer is no, it is an unnecessary diversion from the core mission," an explanation which was presented for withholding the document.
Critical Problems an Autopsy Might Have Explored
An autopsy report worth its salt would confront key points of failure. These include:
- Electoral Disengagement: The loss of a significant portion of the electorate that backed the party's candidate in 2020 became a critical factor during the tight 2024 election.
- The Choice to Run: The stubborn decision by a party leader to run again, and an extremely delayed step-aside, is viewed as denying Democratic voters of a competitive nomination process.
- Failing Core Democratic Voters: Amid economic anxiety, the electoral effort allegedly bowing to corporate donors' interests while failing to challenge the role of profit-seeking.
- The Gaza Effect: The refusal to adjust a policy position concerning a major international conflict allegedly caused losing many voters, particularly with youth voters, Arab American communities, and Muslim Americans.
- Losing Youth Allegiance: Research shows a major decrease in votes for the candidate from young voters.
A Pattern Shunning Scrutiny
The decision to withhold is consistent with a recurring tendency to avoid hard truths. This mirrors a dynamic in which the vast majority of Democratic officeholder in Congress went along with an incumbent's determination to seeking another term until a catastrophic campaign event compelled a change.
At the same time, large majorities of the electorate had been repeatedly informing pollsters that they did not want that candidate to seek re-election.
Financial Concerns
An honest report might also examine issues about where money went, such as how much money went to party strategists and advertising contractors during an electoral effort that managed to spend a staggering war chest during the general election.
A Larger Implication
At its core, the secrecy regarding the analysis highlights an allegiance toward the established hierarchy who engineered a disastrous presidential campaign. The implication to ordinary supporters – which includes countless small donors – is that they cannot have a right to know what party chiefs claim to have learned based on an analysis compiled from feedback from all states.
A political entity incapable to publicly examine its own failings will struggle to break free from the pattern that proved so helpful to the winning candidate.
