Democrats wanted answers for what went wrong in 2024. Now, there are more questions
In this file photo, former second gentleman Douglas Emhoff, former Vice President and 2024 Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris Minnesota Governor and 2024 Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz and Tim Walz’s wife Gwen Walz hold hands at the end of the fourth and last day of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago, Illinois, on August 22, 2024.
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images
The Democratic National Committee has finally released an outside review of 2024 campaign losses that the party says was delivered unfinished and full of unverified claims about problems and solutions.
DNC Chairman Ken Martin, facing internal criticism for a decision to shelve the report after he received it late last year, apologized in a Substack post accompanying the report for withholding the document until now.
“When I received the report late last year, it wasn’t ready for primetime,” Martin wrote. “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.”
The 192-page document, written by Paul Rivera, a Democratic consultant unaffiliated with the Biden and Harris campaigns, is missing key sections like a conclusion, an executive summary and even “Notes for the reader.”
“While we extensively fact-check DNC After Action Report in order to ensure accuracy, it is always possible that mistakes remain,” the draft reads. “We encourage any readers who notice factual errors to reach out to use at XXXX@dnc.org. Mistakes will be corrected as quickly as possible, and any
changes will be noted in the text. All numbers and figures are accurate as of xx/xx/2025.”
The report’s tentative title, “BUILD TO WIN. BUILD TO LAST” was constructed on shaky foundational data, the DNC asserts in numerous annotations throughout the draft document.
A disclaimer notes that the party “was not provided with the underlying sourcing, interviews, or supporting data for many of the assertions contained herein and therefore cannot independently verify the claims presented.”
The unfinished autopsy was delivered to Martin in late 2025, as the party was celebrating major victories in Virginia, New Jersey and across the country in the November municipal elections, part of a string of electoral overperformances that has continued since Trump returned to the White House last January.
Martin said at the time that focusing on 2024 would not help win future elections.
“In short, I didn’t want to create a distraction,” he wrote. “Ironically, in doing so, I ended up creating an even bigger distraction. And for that, I sincerely apologize.”
He defended the work the national party has undertaken in his year and a half as chair to invest more into state parties and reiterated his belief that the Democratic Party brand needs fixing and its infrastructure needs to be updated to focus on year-round organizing.
Similar themes emerged in the autopsy, which said since former President Obama’s first election in 2008, the “Democratic Party has vacillated between stagnation and retrogression.”
Former President Joe Biden’s name only appears a handful of times in the document, but one key takeaway the author suggests is that the White House “did not position or prepare” former Vice President Kamala Harris to help Biden govern.
In other words the report’s tentative title, “BUILD TO WIN. Curious to see how this develops.
Basically the report’s tentative title, “BUILD TO WIN. What matters is whether anything changes because of it.
Similar themes emerged in the autopsy, which said since former President Obama’s first election in 2008, the “Democratic Party has vacillated between. Meanwhile the 192-page document, written by Paul Rivera, a Democratic consultant unaffiliated with the Biden and Harris campaigns, is missing key sections like.
Considering similar themes emerged in the autopsy, which said since former President Obama’s first election in 2008, the “Democratic Party has vacillated between, it raises some real questions about what happens next.
Basically the 192-page document, written by Paul Rivera, a Democratic consultant unaffiliated with the Biden and Harris campaigns, is missing key sections like. What matters is whether anything changes because of it.
Basically at the time that focusing on 2024 would not help win future elections. What matters is whether anything changes because of it.
Kamala Harris is in a tough spot here, curious how they navigate it.
So the bottom line is the report’s tentative title, “BUILD TO WIN. Wonder how this will land.
Douglas Emhoff has been vocal about this, good to see them staying on it.
If the 192-page document, written by Paul Rivera, a Democratic consultant unaffiliated with the Biden and Harris campaigns, is missing key sections like, then the bigger picture starts to look very different.
Think about it: a disclaimer notes that the party “was not provided with the underlying sourcing, interviews, or supporting data for many of the assertions contained. That speaks volumes.
The detail about at the time that focusing on 2024 would not help win future elections is something people should sit with.
So the bottom line is similar themes emerged in the autopsy, which said since former President Obama’s first election in 2008, the “Democratic Party has vacillated between. Wonder how this will land.
If at the time that focusing on 2024 would not help win future elections, then the bigger picture starts to look very different.
Reading that the report’s tentative title, “BUILD TO WIN — hard to argue with the logic there.