The Democratic National Committee has released its long-awaited "autopsy" of the 2024 presidential election, and it is getting panned from all sides for being evasive, poorly constructed, and conspicuously silent on the two most consequential decisions the party made in 2024.

DNC Chair Ken Martin had been sitting on this report since late last year. He pledged transparency, then reversed course in December, saying he would not release it. The reversal created a slow-motion credibility crisis. NBC News described Martin as having "been pummeled in public for months" over the episode, and last week Kamala Harris herself called for the report to be made public. So Martin released it on Thursday, though not quite on his own terms.

"When I received the report late last year, it wasn't ready for primetime — not even close — and because no source material was provided, it would have meant starting over,”Martin said in astatementThursday.

“I could not in good faith put the DNC's stamp of approval on the report that was produced."

Martin continued,"After last November's massive Democratic wins, I didn't want to create a distraction, but by not putting the report out, I ended up creating an even bigger distraction. For that, I sincerely apologize."

The document was released in full, but no one seems to be satisfied with it.

NBC Newsreportedthat large sections are devoted to "a lengthy recap of modern American political history dating to the 2008 presidential election, historic fundraising and spending data from past elections, and more." The annotations flagged factual errors, including incorrect election results, and challenged claims that the annotators said were unsupported by evidence.

When the report does engage with 2024, it leans on broad themes like an “inability or unwillingness to listen to all voters” that provided the GOP “with opportunities for advancement at the expense of Democratic growth, evolution, and ability to find common ground with seemingly disparate groups of voters from coast to coast, and the heartland Democrats tend to ignore.” It alsoclaims that Harris failed to make her positions known and didn’t go far enough in attacking Trump, in an apparent attempt to avoid addressing the specific problems with the campaign.

The report also claimed that state parties were underfunded and that Democratic infrastructure was too weak in key battlegrounds. However, that argument doesn’t align with the actual circumstances of the election. Kamala Harris’s campaign raised and spent more than $1 billion, giving her every conceivable resource advantage heading into the election.

Despite the massive war chest, the campaign failed to win a single swing state.Rather than confront why all that money still couldn’t connect with working-class voters in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, the report leans heavily on vague complaints about “messaging” while largely ignoring the real problems that doomed her campaign.

Source: ZeroHedge News