🔗 Share this article

This action from the DNC to withhold the public viewing regarding its internal autopsy report concerning the last presidential race is shocking but entirely predictable. Resistant to frank assessments, the Democrats' governing body behaves more like a PR firm than an electoral entity focused on building grassroots capacities to secure victories.

A Culture Resistant to Internal Critique

Unwilling to depart from the prevailing attitude of conformity, the DNC has continued within the Biden-Harris shadow throughout 2025. Publishing an official autopsy would have indicated that party leaders are interested to encourage public discourse about the missteps that paved the way for the former president to become president again. However, the committee is acting under the pretense that there are no lessons to be learned from the stunning loss of 2024.

"Here’s our North Star: will this lead to victory? If not, it becomes a sideline issue from the core mission," an explanation that has been offered for withholding the document.

Key Issues an Autopsy Would Have Addressed

An autopsy report of substance would not dodge a series of difficult topics. This encompasses:

• Electoral Alienation: Losing of millions of voters who supported the party's candidate in 2020 became a critical factor in the narrowly decided 2024 election.
• The Decision to Seek Re-election: The unwavering choice by the incumbent to run again, and a very late exit, is viewed as denying the party's base of a competitive nomination process.
• Losing Touch With the Working-Class Base: Amid economic anxiety, the electoral effort is criticized for ceding to powerful financial backers without successfully attempting to confront the impact of profit-seeking.
• The Gaza Factor: The refusal to adjust an approach regarding a ongoing war is cited as losing significant blocs, notably among young people, Arab-Americans, Muslim voters.
• A Decline in Youth Backing: Extensive evidence shows a significant decline in Democratic support from voters aged 18-29.

A Record Shunning Scrutiny

This refusal fits a recurring tendency of evading difficult realities. This mirrors an episode where the vast majority of elected Democrat in Congress went along with an incumbent's insistence on running for re-election until a poor televised debate led to a reversal.

At the same time, large majorities within the party's base had been consistently telling researchers that they opposed the incumbent to run again.

Financial Issues

An honest analysis could probe issues regarding where money went, such as what sums went to high-priced advisors as well as advertising contractors during an electoral effort that burned through a staggering sum during the general election.

The Broader Problem

Ultimately, the suppression surrounding this report points to a deference toward party leaders who engineered a disastrous electoral effort. The implication for ordinary supporters – including countless small donors – appears to be that they cannot have a right to see the lessons the insiders claim to have learned based on a report compiled from extensive interviews.

An organization unable to publicly examine its mistakes is unlikely to break free from the pattern that ended up being so beneficial to the winning candidate.