The Democrats’ botched 2024 autopsy doesn’t just leave out Gaza. It also simply pretends the left-populist upsurge embodied by Zohran Mamdani isn’t happening, while coveting its achievements.
“When I was elected DNC chair, I commissioned an after action review of the 2024 election that I wanted to be honest and transparent, and with actionable and specific takeaways for the future of the Democratic Party,” Martin said. “When I received the report late last year, it wasn’t ready for primetime — not even close — and because no source material was provided, it would have meant starting over.”
Martin went on: “I could not in good faith put the DNC’s stamp of approval on the report that was produced. After last November’s massive Democratic wins, I didn’t want to create a distraction, but by not putting the report out, I ended up creating an even bigger distraction. For that, I sincerely apologize.”
“For full transparency,” Martin continued, “I am releasing the report as we received it, in its entirety, unedited and unabridged. It does not meet my standards, and it won’t meet your standards, but I am doing this because people need to be able to trust the Democratic Party and trust our word.”
Hours later, Martin told DNC members on a call that Paul Rivera, the report author, no longer “is with or advises the DNC in any capacity,” according to a source on the call.
“I apologize. Being a leader at any level means you own every single mistake — those of your creation and frankly those not of your creation,” Martin said. “This was a major mistake. I own it, and now it’s time for us to move forward at the DNC, and I hope that you’ll move forward with me.”
I’m not upset. I’m not who down voted you. Hell, I’ll up vote you to restore balance to the force.
But since Martin commissioned the report from his buddy, that seems like a significant lapse in judgement. Not fatal, but concerning.
And your constant simping for the man is just a tiny bit grating. I hope you’re right, but it’s alway you, and only you, making those points. Again concerning.
Sigh, so that’s who you are. Whatever. The glimmer of hope you’ve been furiously peddling just got that bit dimmer.
Did you think this was a super important rare thing that is never done and a huge deal?
Or…
Are you aware (win or lose) a report like this is always done?
The problem is with who was tasked with making the report. If it had been commissioned before your Big Daddy took power, and he had to deal with a sub-standard report and what to do with it, yeah, bad day at the office. But he commissioned it from this friend of his and that is concerning.
That means he’s not just someone having to clean up the mess, he’s part of the reason there is a mess in the first place.
Like I said, not fatal, but concerning.
Wait, are you Martin? I have a hard time seeing why anyone else would simp for him quite this hard. And do so entirely alone.
I quoted the article. I’d love to see some evidence that it was wrong. That it was Martin’s predecessor who commissioned the e:report, or, at the very least, that this wasn’t “a friend of his”.
Edit: if the article got those facts wrong, that sounds a lot like libel.
Buddy…
What do you want?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/dnc-releases-2024-autopsy-chair-apologizing-creating-even-bigger-distr-rcna345963
What are you actually upset about here?
I’m not upset. I’m not who down voted you.
Hell, I’ll up vote you to restore balance to the force.But since Martin commissioned the report from his buddy, that seems like a significant lapse in judgement. Not fatal, but concerning.
And your constant simping for the man is just a tiny bit grating. I hope you’re right, but it’s alway you, and only you, making those points. Again concerning.
I think you’re confused still…
Did you think this was a super important rare thing that is never done and a huge deal?
Or…
Are you aware (win or lose) a report like this is always done?
Edit:
And since you care enough about votes to bring it up, I downvoted you for “glazing”. And completely deriding the conversation.
You said “I’m not upset”…
But I think it’s because you don’t understand the words you’re seeing…
Sigh, so that’s who you are. Whatever. The glimmer of hope you’ve been furiously peddling just got that bit dimmer.
The problem is with who was tasked with making the report. If it had been commissioned before your Big Daddy took power, and he had to deal with a sub-standard report and what to do with it, yeah, bad day at the office. But he commissioned it from this friend of his and that is concerning.
That means he’s not just someone having to clean up the mess, he’s part of the reason there is a mess in the first place.
Like I said, not fatal, but concerning.
Wait, are you Martin? I have a hard time seeing why anyone else would simp for him quite this hard. And do so entirely alone.
So…
You still haven’t looked into what actually happened?
You’re just super sure the billionaires have a valid reason to put you against the DNC?
I quoted the article. I’d love to see some evidence that it was wrong. That it was Martin’s predecessor who commissioned the e:report, or, at the very least, that this wasn’t “a friend of his”.
Edit: if the article got those facts wrong, that sounds a lot like libel.