"At a time when Republicans are polling at historic lows, Democrats need to capitalize and offer a better vision for the country," said one critic. "This isn’t it."
I was surprised by how weak and digressive it was.
When they announced their intention to bury it I assumed that meant it was accurate and on point, and they wanted to bury it for exactly that reason.
But instead it almost feels like a whitewash - like the sort of thing the DNC would’ve ordered specifically to divert from the real problems of support for genocide and subservience to moneyed interests.
Makes me wonder if this is some sort of elaborate fraud - if they didn’t just throw this together as a substitute to release in place of the real autopsy.
This seems real to me. It was probably handed off to younger workers within the DNC who began asking the questions we all are asking. It probably caused a ruckus with the old guard squashing any of those conversations so nothing got done.
Paul Rivera spoke for an hour to big donors about the autopsy, prior to the announcement that they would not be releasing it publicly. This report was crafted to assure that business as usual politics would continue. Democrats don’t care if they lose as long as donations keep coming.
Democrats don’t care if they lose as long as donations keep coming.
Right, but that’s exactly why I assumed that the autopsy was accurate and on-point - because it found fault with things the DNC not only was but still is deliberately doing solely to keep the soft money rolling in, and in spite of the fact that those things will likely lead to a loss. That’s the reality they don’t want the voters to become (more) aware of.
But since it’s just a mealy-mouthed whitewash, it seems like they might as well have released it as promised.
The report only confirms that and they were trying to avoid being called out.
That or this AI slop of a report, with factual errors on almost every page and a blank conclusion section, isn’t the real report and is just fodder hoping to ignore the issues they don’t want to address.
Either way we can draw the same conclusion about party leadership.
Either way we can draw the same conclusion about party leadership.
True that. The names may have changed but the policies and strategies are the same now as they have been since at least 2016 - pimp the pro-corporate/pro-zionist “moderates” no matter what the voters want, at least ignore if not actively campaign against the progressives, again no matter what the voters want, and most important of all, don’t do anything that might cut into the flow of soft money.
To an extent. They and Republicans are committed to learning the wrong lesson. All these people refusing to vote Etc or voting third party. You will never get their attention or get them to learn from your actions. They will always look at the one of the two that won. And imitate them. It’s what’s happened for over 50 years. And the same people are still in charge.
And if you’re a voter or someone who believes they should serve their constituents. What kind of lesson would you generally call it when they serve special interests instead? You are not disagreeing with me.
All these people refusing to vote Etc or voting third party. You will never get their attention or get them to learn from your actions.
They know.
Third party votes aren’t cast to win an election. However, third party voters certainly change local politics, where all of their progress is being made.
(for example, ballot initiatives in my state had massive third party participation, and have been successful)
re non-voters, they are growing every year, now at about 36%. They know they can’t get their attention or teach lessons, too.
Local politics? Absolutely. National politics yeah definitely not. A lot of people don’t understand the difference unfortunately. State and National parties are out of touch by Design.
What seems obvious is that Paul Rivera, who wrote this report by himself and provided absolutely no source material, was in way over his head and may have even made shit up.
What boggles my mind, though, is that rather than come out and say the report was poor quality and clearly omitted many important issues and thus has limited to no utility, DNC Chair Ken Martin went to the media and tried to sell it like there were important conclusions drawn and that the DNC was enacting them.
Ken Martin of course hand picked Paul Rivera to do this. I don’t know if he was trying to protect his own ego or what, but he very blatantly lied to the public about this report and has lost all credibility. I think it’s likely he loses his job soon.
What boggles my mind, though, is that rather than come out and say the report was poor quality and clearly omitted many important issues and thus has limited to no utility, DNC Chair Ken Martin went to the media and tried to sell it like there were important conclusions drawn and that the DNC was enacting them.
When I commissioned a comprehensive review of the 2024 election, I started a process to answer those questions while interrogating where our party has systemically and historically fallen short. I didn’t want that process led by anybody directly tied to the 2024 cycle – either the campaign or the consultants involved – and I did not want to put my own thumb on the scale for what might be produced. What I did ask for were actionable takeaways for the future. I wanted real, in-depth, specific recommendations to improve our allocation of resources, tech, data, organizing, media strategy, and more. I chose someone who I thought could produce this type of report.
When I received the report late last year, it wasn’t ready for primetime. Not even close. And because no source material was provided, fixing it would have meant starting over, from the beginning – every conversation, every interview, every data set.
I am not proud of this product; it does not meet my standards, and it won’t meet your standards. I don’t endorse what’s in this report, or what’s left out of it. I could not in good faith put the DNC’s stamp of approval on it.
Dude, fuck you for accusing me of lying. You might notice the statement you’re quoting from was released today, whereas I’m talking about everything Ken Martin said before today. Go back and watch the PSA (Pod Save America) interview I mentioned (in another comment), which was recorded a month ago.
You didn’t mention a “PSA interview” (whatever the fuck that is). You only mentioned that he “went to the media.” How the Hell was I supposed to know you were talking about something other than the thread article?
You’re right that I mentioned the Pod Save America interview in a different comment on this thread. But that’s just one interview, this story has been ongoing for over two months, with Ken Martin spouting the same lies over and over on many outlets. Jumping straight to “you’re lying” when you’re the one that lacks any context is awful. Next time try something like “But that’s the reason he gave in the article” to try to invite more information
I was surprised by how weak and digressive it was.
When they announced their intention to bury it I assumed that meant it was accurate and on point, and they wanted to bury it for exactly that reason.
On the contrary: the new DNC leadership is entirely different from the old, so the new leadership decided to bury it because they understood it was weak and digressive. You got it exactly backwards because you didn’t understand the leadership changed.
I was surprised by how weak and digressive it was.
When they announced their intention to bury it I assumed that meant it was accurate and on point, and they wanted to bury it for exactly that reason.
But instead it almost feels like a whitewash - like the sort of thing the DNC would’ve ordered specifically to divert from the real problems of support for genocide and subservience to moneyed interests.
Makes me wonder if this is some sort of elaborate fraud - if they didn’t just throw this together as a substitute to release in place of the real autopsy.
This seems real to me. It was probably handed off to younger workers within the DNC who began asking the questions we all are asking. It probably caused a ruckus with the old guard squashing any of those conversations so nothing got done.
It’s typical corporate gridlock.
Paul Rivera spoke for an hour to big donors about the autopsy, prior to the announcement that they would not be releasing it publicly. This report was crafted to assure that business as usual politics would continue. Democrats don’t care if they lose as long as donations keep coming.
That’s it.
That’s the takeaway.
Right, but that’s exactly why I assumed that the autopsy was accurate and on-point - because it found fault with things the DNC not only was but still is deliberately doing solely to keep the soft money rolling in, and in spite of the fact that those things will likely lead to a loss. That’s the reality they don’t want the voters to become (more) aware of.
But since it’s just a mealy-mouthed whitewash, it seems like they might as well have released it as promised.
The report only confirms that and they were trying to avoid being called out.
That or this AI slop of a report, with factual errors on almost every page and a blank conclusion section, isn’t the real report and is just fodder hoping to ignore the issues they don’t want to address.
Either way we can draw the same conclusion about party leadership.
True that. The names may have changed but the policies and strategies are the same now as they have been since at least 2016 - pimp the pro-corporate/pro-zionist “moderates” no matter what the voters want, at least ignore if not actively campaign against the progressives, again no matter what the voters want, and most important of all, don’t do anything that might cut into the flow of soft money.
To an extent. They and Republicans are committed to learning the wrong lesson. All these people refusing to vote Etc or voting third party. You will never get their attention or get them to learn from your actions. They will always look at the one of the two that won. And imitate them. It’s what’s happened for over 50 years. And the same people are still in charge.
They aren’t learning the wrong lessons because it’s not the public that they serve, it’s private interests. They know exactly what they are doing.
And if you’re a voter or someone who believes they should serve their constituents. What kind of lesson would you generally call it when they serve special interests instead? You are not disagreeing with me.
They know.
Third party votes aren’t cast to win an election. However, third party voters certainly change local politics, where all of their progress is being made.
(for example, ballot initiatives in my state had massive third party participation, and have been successful)
re non-voters, they are growing every year, now at about 36%. They know they can’t get their attention or teach lessons, too.
Local politics? Absolutely. National politics yeah definitely not. A lot of people don’t understand the difference unfortunately. State and National parties are out of touch by Design.
This is them burying it. By releasing a highly dishonest version of events
What seems obvious is that Paul Rivera, who wrote this report by himself and provided absolutely no source material, was in way over his head and may have even made shit up.
What boggles my mind, though, is that rather than come out and say the report was poor quality and clearly omitted many important issues and thus has limited to no utility, DNC Chair Ken Martin went to the media and tried to sell it like there were important conclusions drawn and that the DNC was enacting them.
Ken Martin of course hand picked Paul Rivera to do this. I don’t know if he was trying to protect his own ego or what, but he very blatantly lied to the public about this report and has lost all credibility. I think it’s likely he loses his job soon.
Why are you lying?
Back in factual reality, here are some of the things Ken Martin actually said about the report:
Dude, fuck you for accusing me of lying. You might notice the statement you’re quoting from was released today, whereas I’m talking about everything Ken Martin said before today. Go back and watch the PSA (Pod Save America) interview I mentioned (in another comment), which was recorded a month ago.
You didn’t mention a “PSA interview” (whatever the fuck that is). You only mentioned that he “went to the media.” How the Hell was I supposed to know you were talking about something other than the thread article?
You’re right that I mentioned the Pod Save America interview in a different comment on this thread. But that’s just one interview, this story has been ongoing for over two months, with Ken Martin spouting the same lies over and over on many outlets. Jumping straight to “you’re lying” when you’re the one that lacks any context is awful. Next time try something like “But that’s the reason he gave in the article” to try to invite more information
On the contrary: the new DNC leadership is entirely different from the old, so the new leadership decided to bury it because they understood it was weak and digressive. You got it exactly backwards because you didn’t understand the leadership changed.
I know full well that the leadership changed.
I’m just not naive enough to believe for even a second that that has made or will make a fucking bit of difference.