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.
@ mark 19:10
As he is speaking about accountability to donors, later specifying small donors, he says they are going to realse their “after action” report of the previous election.
Your whole interpretation is moot, as he hasn’t even released the report to members of his own party as you falsely claimed he had.
"Favreau pointed to the fact that when Martin ran for the position after the party’s gutting loss in 2024, he’d specifically criticized the party for refusing to release a similar report on Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016 and promised that “of course” a review of the party’s 2024 loss “will be released” to the public.
Why did you change your mind on that?” Favreau asked.
“What I said all along, even when I ran for this position, is that we were going to focus on the things that will help us win the upcoming election, right?” Martin said. “Making sure that we learn the right lessons that could help inform our victories. And that’s what we’ve done.”
Martin said it was more important to “keep our focus on those lessons” rather than “navel gazing and looking backwards, trying to relitigate 2024.”
Favreau pointed to comments Martin made on Pod Save America in August, saying that the party was hard at work on the report “to give people who invested so much time, energy, and money a sense of what happened and why we lost.”
“What changed between August and December?” Favreau asked. “I understand there are lessons, but those are not the full report. Why not release the full report? What’s in the report that you wouldn’t want to publicize?”
Martin responded: “There’s no smoking gun in the report, and I know that’s what everyone’s so eager to learn, the smoking gun… Guess what, Jon? There’s no surprise in there.”
Clearly unconvinced, Favreau interjected, “But if there’s no smoking gun, why wouldn’t you just release it then?”
Martin reiterated his previous point, that releasing the full report would be “looking backwards,” and accused activist groups of being “obsessed” with the idea that there was a “smoking gun” buried within.
“Why did you spend the money going to 50 states, doing all these interviews, doing all this stuff, and doing this report in the first place if you weren’t going to release the full results of it?” Favreau asked. “I don’t get why just you and some of the senior [Democratic National Committee] people get to see it but not most of the DNC members who are state party chairs.”
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
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…
That’s what I asked for…
You haven’t provided it, I have moved zero goalposts, I think you’re just confused.
I’m willing to help now that you’re not using explicit insults tho.
Like, if I said I wanted proof that Larry Bird said humans evolved from giraffes, would you take someone word when they told you? Or would you want to hear exactly what Larry Bird said direct from the giraffes mouth?
This is larger than the current topic, if you don’t understand this, you’re gonna constantly be falling for propaganda.
If you don’t want any help, or think i can’t help you, all you have to do is not reply anymore.
But I can put up with some low grade verbal abuse if it helps defeat fascism, it’s better than the alternative
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
So…
What you’re saying is, you also failed to find a quote of him actually saying he was going to release it to the public?
You didn’t need to reply just to tell me I’m right, I don’t need that level of validation
@ mark 19:10 As he is speaking about accountability to donors, later specifying small donors, he says they are going to realse their “after action” report of the previous election.
Your whole interpretation is moot, as he hasn’t even released the report to members of his own party as you falsely claimed he had.
"Favreau pointed to the fact that when Martin ran for the position after the party’s gutting loss in 2024, he’d specifically criticized the party for refusing to release a similar report on Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016 and promised that “of course” a review of the party’s 2024 loss “will be released” to the public.
Why did you change your mind on that?” Favreau asked.
“What I said all along, even when I ran for this position, is that we were going to focus on the things that will help us win the upcoming election, right?” Martin said. “Making sure that we learn the right lessons that could help inform our victories. And that’s what we’ve done.”
Martin said it was more important to “keep our focus on those lessons” rather than “navel gazing and looking backwards, trying to relitigate 2024.”
Favreau pointed to comments Martin made on Pod Save America in August, saying that the party was hard at work on the report “to give people who invested so much time, energy, and money a sense of what happened and why we lost.”
“What changed between August and December?” Favreau asked. “I understand there are lessons, but those are not the full report. Why not release the full report? What’s in the report that you wouldn’t want to publicize?”
Martin responded: “There’s no smoking gun in the report, and I know that’s what everyone’s so eager to learn, the smoking gun… Guess what, Jon? There’s no surprise in there.”
Clearly unconvinced, Favreau interjected, “But if there’s no smoking gun, why wouldn’t you just release it then?”
Martin reiterated his previous point, that releasing the full report would be “looking backwards,” and accused activist groups of being “obsessed” with the idea that there was a “smoking gun” buried within.
“Why did you spend the money going to 50 states, doing all these interviews, doing all this stuff, and doing this report in the first place if you weren’t going to release the full results of it?” Favreau asked. “I don’t get why just you and some of the senior [Democratic National Committee] people get to see it but not most of the DNC members who are state party chairs.”
So yeah… You are confidently speaking nonsense.
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
That’s what I asked for…
You haven’t provided it, I have moved zero goalposts, I think you’re just confused.
I’m willing to help now that you’re not using explicit insults tho.
Like, if I said I wanted proof that Larry Bird said humans evolved from giraffes, would you take someone word when they told you? Or would you want to hear exactly what Larry Bird said direct from the giraffes mouth?
This is larger than the current topic, if you don’t understand this, you’re gonna constantly be falling for propaganda.
If you don’t want any help, or think i can’t help you, all you have to do is not reply anymore.
But I can put up with some low grade verbal abuse if it helps defeat fascism, it’s better than the alternative