The document says:
- Popular policies wouldn’t allow us to maintain a fundraising edge
- We lost enthusiasm because of our vigorous defence of Israel
- Biden should have dropped out earlier, and there were people aware of the risk of a bad performance in the debate
- Harris didn’t do enough to differentiate herself from Biden and the opposition in (yet another) anti-establishment election
- Trying to cozy up to Republicans by parading around with Liz Cheney was a horrible mistake that cost us progressive support.
- Biden should have been a one term president since that’s what he said he was going to do at the beginning of his term. Reneging on that promise made them look desperate.
No, he never said that, let alone promised it. People implied it.
Calling yourself a “transition president“, and then not announcing your intention to run for reelection until after the inauguration is doing far more than implying.
It’s not unreasonable to think that he meant he wasn’t intending to run again, but it’s a VERY far cry from a promise. I suspect that if Trump weren’t running he would have been far more willing to step down. He’s the whole reason he ran in the first place.
My point really doesn’t have anything to do with the semantics of the word promise. At the end of the day the implication or promise or idea was there that he wasn’t going to run again and then he announced which pretty much tanked the public’s ability to have faith in Kamala before the fact and made it further untenable for her to separate herself from his policies.
My point, in response to the original post, was that it isn’t that he should’ve dropped out earlier it’s that he should’ve never run again at all.
He said he would be a bridge candidate lmao
Lying or gaslighting people about this is an awful look
- Didn’t even pretend to hold a primary and shoved in a lazy replacement.
- Have a primary
- Beyonce
real question: what makes people think that the “6 7 center” people can make an accurate assessment of why they are bad
the skills needed to do the thing are the same skills needed to evaluate the thing
The head of the DNC says they report was done by one person who worked for free. The theory I find most likely is that they just never completed it so there is nothing to release.
I thought the “one unpaid advisor” line sounded like bullshit, but if Tommy pushed on that, maybe he could just bring in that advisor for an interview
https://audioboom.com/posts/8897233-why-is-the-dnc-hiding-its-own-2024-autopsy tommy grills the dnc chair quite hard on this
It’s five words: idiots were misled by Russia
2016_talking_points.doc
Everyone trying to act like this is a public document that the DNC is hiding is trying to sabotage the DNC because neoliberals don’t control it anymore, or have fallen hook line and sinker for propaganda.
Martin said he give it to DNC members, that’s not voters. That s literally the ~400 voting members of the DNC.
And I’m pretty sure he did do that…
Because no one from the DNC is complaining they can’t see it.
The people complaining they can’t see it, are the neoliberals that don’t run the DNC (who still likely have it) and billionaire owned media (who have also likely seen a copy)
They just want to get people to abstain in the next presidential primary so a neoliberal like Newspm can sneak in.
It’s blatant manipulation, why can’t everyone see this?
Ken Martin said it would be public then changed his mind. I think that’s why people are upset.
Ken Martin said it would be public
Billionaire owned media definitely keeps saying it…
The only sources I’ve ever seen, is Martin saying it will be released to “DNC members”…
I’ve noticed a lot of people took that to mean “the public” but that’s only because they don’t understand what “DNC member” is…
There’s only like 400 voting members, and I think the non-voting members are less than that?
If you have a source of him saying he’d release it to the public, I’d love to see it. But honestly if I can’t find it, and none.of the many, many, people repeating that claim have been able to find it…
I gotta say, not holding my breath
Stop spreading your bullshit about Ken Martin. I’ve personally seen people show you links that say he would publicly release this report and yet here you are saying you’ve never seen them. At this point the only logical conclusion is that you are intentionally spreading misinformation. Maybe you’ll remember this time:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/01/ken-martin-elected-dnc-party-chair-00201938
In brief remarks to the press after his election, Martin committed to publicly releasing a post-mortem of the 2024 campaign, which the DNC did not do after the 2016 election.
That took me 60 seconds to find. Please say more about your thorough research into this topic.
The quote from the author of the article:
In brief remarks to the press after his election, Martin committed to publicly releasing a post-mortem of the 2024 campaign, which the DNC did not do after the 2016 election. Martin did not say how quickly the committee would execute the review.
That does claim he said publicly…
But look at the quote to support it:
"There has to be some lessons that we glean on that so we can operationalize it, not just here in DC, but through all of the 57 state parties,” Martin said. “We’ve got to look backwards and look forward at the same time.”
What about that says “we’ll publicly release it”?
Why do you think that was the closest quote a billionaire owned media corporation could find?
Removed by mod
No…
That was a journalist employed by a billionaire media corporation saying it…
If he said it, don’t you think the quote of him saying it would be all over the place?
Seriously, what’s your logic for why no one can provide an actual source of him saying it?
Why isn’t billionaire owned media playing that clip 24/7?
You don’t think it’s possible that billionaires are lying to you?
Why do you blindly trust oligarchs so much? That’s a wild take on Lemmy…
Dude just give it a rest. You asked for a source and it was provided. It says explicitly what you’re saying no article in existence says so now you’re shifting the goalposts to something else. I’m done with your bullshit
Near as I can tell from the sources I’ve seen for that he actually didn’t but some news sites misquoted him to make it seem like he did. The actual quote was that it would be “public to members [of the DNC]” not to the general public. This got shortened to “he said it would be public” in reporting leaving off the very important detail that that was meaning a very specific audience. Ultimately he never should have used the word public it’s way too easy to misconstrue. He would have been better off if he had said “it will be freely available to the DNC members”.
Ahhh… Wat? How is it neoliberal propaganda to expect a public postmortem? Why would its release be damaging?
What evidence is there that neolibs don’t control the DNC anymore? Shumer is still minority leader. Most Dems are still backed by AIPAC… What meaningful change has occurred?
How is it neoliberal propaganda to expect a public postmortem?
Because it’s literally never been publicly released before…
Because Martin said he’d release it internally at the DNC, like every other post election…
Why would its release be damaging?
I honestly think it should be released, but the damaging aspect is it’s about Joe Biden’s choosen chair did to try and for e Biden and Kamala on us.
The DNC chair is a dictatorship, acting like the new one is responsible for the old one is as dumb as blaming a hypothetical Dem president in 2029 for what trump is doing in 2026…
What evidence is there that neolibs don’t control the DNC anymore?
That the voting members picked the chair of Minnesota who spent a decade running fair primaries and turned it from purple to one of the most progressive states in the country… Simply by not fighting progressives.
That he’s been dumping the VF money on state parties for over a year, and a neoliberal.would never do that because they want to save it all for the presidential…
Shumer is still minority leader.
Because that vote was two weeks before the DNC chair, so at the time the neoliberal threat of bankrupting a state party for not voting Schumer/Jeffries was valid, neoliberals had done it before and will do it again if they regain the DNC.
Most Dems are still backed by AIPAC…
They were protected by a biased DNC, they no longer are. Go work on primary campaigns against them, but youre running out of time for this cycle. But being “non biased” means the DNC isn’t kicking out shitty neoliberals, that’s literally what primaries are for…
What meaningful change has occurred?
…
You do keep hearing about Dems “over performing”, right?
That’s because state parties have the funds the neoliberals were hoarding.
Like, the problem here is you want a DNC that’s biased for us. And Martin wants a DNC that does what it’s supposed to, which honestly isn’t really anything. The Dem party should be structured from bottom-up, and Martin is giving that “power” back to the state parties.
The big change isn’t that we get a progressive bias, the big change is no one is holding them down anymore.
That’s all it takes, and if a Dem wins in 2028, then they name the next DNC chair.
So if you don’t like Martin, support the furtherest left candidate in the Dem primary, and hope they appoint an explicitly progressing chair.
We just completed a step that took 30 fucking years, we can wait another 2.
All depressing turnout in Dem primaries does, is help neoliberal like Kamala or Newsom. If they name a chair we’re fucked.
Edit:
Almost forgot, he codified DNC regulations preventing anyone from endorsing or getting involved in down ballot primaries…
Which, if you’ve paid attention the last 30 years or so, has been the main problem people have had with the DNC.
The correction isnt “biased, but for us” because that still wouldn’t be unbiased
