A real autopsy from the party would have concluded that voters rejected Democrats in the last election because of their anti-American policies.
"It was the anticlimax of the year when last week Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin finally released his party’s “autopsy” analyzing what led to its spectacular failure in 2024. It’s almost 200 pages long, but I’ll save you some time: There’s nothing in it about the Democrat Party’s fundamentally anti-American positions and therefore no indication that Democrats are interested in adapting to voters; rather, they’re still dead-set on physically eliminating their opposition.
"The report’s debut was bad enough. It only came months and months after prominent Democrats, including Kamala Harris (haha), called for its release. Then, when Martin did push it out, he warned everyone in advance that it was worthless and proceeded to annotate it to hell and back so as to make it painfully clear that he was not a co-signer of the document. “This document reflects the views of the author, not the DNC,” reads the top of every single page of the report. “The DNC 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.”
"To be fair to Martin and DNC leadership, it really is a woefully inadequate assessment of not just the 2024 election but the entire state of the Democrat Party. It spends most of its time chronicling results of past elections and contrasting Kamala’s performance with down-ballot candidates who were able to distinguish themselves from the party at large. The most useful portion comes on page 73, where the report suggests only a change in position would have blunted an attack from the Trump campaign.
"Well, yeah, except Kamala did change her position on several key issues, including energy production, immigration, and health care. And she did it with little to no explanation at all. The problem wasn’t that she refused to morph into something she wasn’t. It was that her boss was a terrible president and as his vice president, she bore every bit of responsibility for it. Just because she might have said the opposite of what she had done right up until it was time to get elected didn’t mean voters would buy it." . . .More...
No comments:
Post a Comment