188
'Almost Worthless': Progressives Rip 2024 Autopsy the DNC Didn’t Want You To See
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 21 May 2026
188 points (96.5% liked)
politics
29871 readers
1547 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
At this point, I'm tending toward the interpretation that Martin and the rest of the DNC upper echelon wanted and expected a report that would, among other things, pretend to address the rather obvious failures of bowing to the self-serving desires of big money donors and at least tacitly supporting the Palestinian genocide, but would then do some sort of fallacious end run that led to the comforting conclusion that that wasn't really a problem, so it would be okay when the DNC, as they fully intend, keep right on doing both of those things.
And what they got failed to do that.
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
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.
Yeah - that tracks.
I'm tending toward the interpretation that what Martin and the rest of the upper echelon of the DNC wanted was a subtle whitewash - one that would acknowledge the rather obvious problems of corporate money and support for genocide, but then spin some fanciful reason that those weren't really problems, so it'd be fine when the DNC, as they fully intend, keep on doing what they've been doing.
But they not only didn't get that - they got a poorly written mish - mash of platitudes and gibberish that looks like it was slapped together, mostly via LLM, at the eleventh hour.
And if they spent most of the time during which they were meant to be drawing it up locked instead in a crippling tug-of-war over what it should or should not say, that'd explain that.
Agreed. I may be projecting my own experience but it looks a lot like what happens in top heavy corporations with outdated perspectives. The old guard has the final say in what isn't done but they can't overrule widespread weaponized incompetence since nobody doing the actual work agrees with their vision or wants to put their name and reputation on something so disconnected from reality. People don't overtly disagree but then endlessly stall.
This is them burying it. By releasing a highly dishonest version of events
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.