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?
DNC is hiding is trying to sabotage the DNC because neoliberals don’t control it anymore
Just because they put Ken Martin in as chair doesn’t mean that the DNC isn’t being controlled by neoliberals…
First of all, the chair of the party when the party isn’t in control of Congress has very little control of the party itself. They are mostly responsible for fundraising and organizing at the state and local level.
Secondly, the Minnesota DFL isnt really much different from the democratic party itself, especially in recent years. That is unless you are claiming people like Amy Klobuchar do not qualify as neoliberals.
Martin said he give it to DNC members, that’s not voters. That s literally the ~400 voting members of the DNC.
“Around the 2024 election, Martin committed to publicly releasing a 2024 campaign post-mortem, which the DNC did not do after the 2016 election. He refused to release a 2024 campaign report in 2025 and 2026.”
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)
Pretty sure that people here are count as people criticizing him for this while not being neoliberals or billionaires.
They just want to get people to abstain in the next presidential primary so a neoliberal like Newspm can sneak in.
Why would it behove the billionaire owned media to release the report that is most likely critical of their influence over the DNC? How would that help Gavin Newsome?
It’s blatant manipulation, why can’t everyone see this?
You are pinning your entire argument on the idea that the chair person of the DNC is significantly different from the people who placed him in the position in the first place, and that he has the power to significantly shape the party.
That would be like me claiming Kamala Harris wasn’t a neolib because she chose Tim Waltz as her running mate.
I will admit Ken Martin is seemingly more left than the actual leadership in the DNC(not a hard thing to do). However, he does not have the power to shape the party in a meaningful way. Most chairs barely make it 3 years before being replaced, and I doubt Martin is going to make it that long considering how poorly the DNC is fundraising and being marketed.
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”.
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…
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:
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.
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?
That’s not how quotes work. The former was a paraquote, what you are quoting is an actual quote separate from the paraquote.
Your claim that “public” does not in fact mean made open to “the public” is an assumption that has no actual evidence to support it. You are making assertions on behalf of the speaker that the speaker themselves could and would make if that’s how it was originally intended.
If your assumption was relevant than I’m sure he would have said it himself when being criticized by members of his own party and dozens of press organizations.
When asked he hasn’t said that’s not what I meant, or I never made that claim, he just repeats that he doesn’t think it behoves us to look at past elections.
"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.”
He didn’t say he’d publicly release it…
That account just linked more billionaire propaganda
I legitimately don’t know how people keep falling for it, it’s like people are honestly incapable of reading…
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
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?
Just because they put Ken Martin in as chair doesn’t mean that the DNC isn’t being controlled by neoliberals…
First of all, the chair of the party when the party isn’t in control of Congress has very little control of the party itself. They are mostly responsible for fundraising and organizing at the state and local level.
Secondly, the Minnesota DFL isnt really much different from the democratic party itself, especially in recent years. That is unless you are claiming people like Amy Klobuchar do not qualify as neoliberals.
“Around the 2024 election, Martin committed to publicly releasing a 2024 campaign post-mortem, which the DNC did not do after the 2016 election. He refused to release a 2024 campaign report in 2025 and 2026.”
Pretty sure that people here are count as people criticizing him for this while not being neoliberals or billionaires.
Why would it behove the billionaire owned media to release the report that is most likely critical of their influence over the DNC? How would that help Gavin Newsome?
You are pinning your entire argument on the idea that the chair person of the DNC is significantly different from the people who placed him in the position in the first place, and that he has the power to significantly shape the party.
That would be like me claiming Kamala Harris wasn’t a neolib because she chose Tim Waltz as her running mate.
I will admit Ken Martin is seemingly more left than the actual leadership in the DNC(not a hard thing to do). However, he does not have the power to shape the party in a meaningful way. Most chairs barely make it 3 years before being replaced, and I doubt Martin is going to make it that long considering how poorly the DNC is fundraising and being marketed.
Ken Martin said it would be public then changed his mind. I think that’s why people are upset.
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”.
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
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:
That does claim he said publicly…
But look at the quote to support it:
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?
That’s not how quotes work. The former was a paraquote, what you are quoting is an actual quote separate from the paraquote.
Your claim that “public” does not in fact mean made open to “the public” is an assumption that has no actual evidence to support it. You are making assertions on behalf of the speaker that the speaker themselves could and would make if that’s how it was originally intended.
If your assumption was relevant than I’m sure he would have said it himself when being criticized by members of his own party and dozens of press organizations.
When asked he hasn’t said that’s not what I meant, or I never made that claim, he just repeats that he doesn’t think it behoves us to look at past elections.
https://www.axios.com/2026/04/12/democrats-dnc-2024-election-autopsy
What was the exact verbage?
He didn’t say he’d publicly release it…
That account just linked more billionaire propaganda
I legitimately don’t know how people keep falling for it, it’s like people are honestly incapable of reading…
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?
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…
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…
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…
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.
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…
…
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