The Sub-Plots Behind the Democratic Party’s “Autopsy” Drama

Washington Watch

June 1, 2026

Dr. James J. Zogby ©

President

Arab American Institute

A number of sub-plots undergird the drama that erupted over the Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin’s release of an incomplete “autopsy” of the 2024 election.

Let me begin by noting that I don’t envy the dilemma in which Martin found himself. On his election, Martin had promised to deliver an in-depth examination of what went wrong in 2024 and lessons the party could learn from the mistakes that had been made. He commissioned the study, but it was months later (the end of 2025) before he received a draft. And what he was handed was a disaster—woefully incomplete, poorly sourced, and a mish-mash of information and data without direction, conclusions,  or actionable recommendations.

Because Democrats had already recorded a string of victories in 2025 and were gearing up for critical 2026 midterm congressional elections, Martin decided not to have the study completed or released. At that point, it was a sound judgement. It wouldn’t have served any useful purpose to order its completion with a release occurring in the thick of the 2026 elections, diverting attention from the task at hand—helping Democrats take control of Congress in November.

With the decision not to release the autopsy, two distinct currents of thought emerged. One was ideological, masking itself as principled. This group asked, in effect, “What are you hiding?” while already claiming to know the answer.  The other was practical: “We already know why we lost, as the election has been dissected ad nauseam.  We’re winning elections so why bother raking over old coals?”

I confess that I was in the latter camp. I had done a number of in-depth press interviews on the 2024 election, conducted my own polling and interviews, and written extensively on why Democrats lost. As so many others had as well, I felt that an autopsy (or rather, autopsies) had already been done. What we knew was clear:  Biden should have stepped down earlier giving Democrats time to regroup and possibly have a mini-primary; and the class of political consultants who were running the Harris campaign were out of touch with the electorate, risk-averse and unimaginative, and more interested in using the campaign to feather their nests with lucrative advertising contracts than they were in direct voter contact. 

One by-product of these failures was the consultant’s inability to understand how many voters—young people, people of color, progressives, and yes, Arabs and Muslims—had been demoralized by what they saw as President Biden’s enabling of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Also demonstrative of just how out of touch the consultants were, was their failure to grasp and directly address the angst of working class and rural voters in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Instead of focusing on them, the campaign wasted days and resources courting Liz Cheney whom they thought would win support from moderate, suburban, Republican women (as if Ms. Cheney had sway with any of these demographics).

Much of this analysis has already been done and so yet another autopsy wasn’t needed. Nevertheless, the pressure on Martin to release his commissioned study continued to mount. As the chorus of the critics grew louder, Martin confronted a “damned if he did, damned if he didn’t” choice. Believing that he could make public the incomplete report, with caveats, and that would silence the critics, he reluctantly agreed to release the draft noting that: he had received it too late; it didn’t meet his standards and would have taken too long to finalize; and he didn’t agree with what was in it or what was left out.  

As the loudest of the critics were fellow Democrats, Martin might have assumed good will would prevail and the criticism would subside. However, the harshest critics actually weren’t interested in the autopsy or getting policy or politics right for the next election. And they most certainly were not interested in advancing a pro-Palestinian position in the Democratic Party. What they wanted was Martin’s job and so their criticism continued, coupled with their calls for Martin to step down. 

Many of the leading critics were those who had opposed his candidacy in the first place. Others were of the “consultant class”—operatives who make their money running campaigns and were upset that Martin was redirecting Democratic Party funds from them to state parties as part of his strategy to rebuild the party from the bottom up. Others were donors, who prefer the top-down status quo to Martin’s approach of empowering states, party members, and grassroots Democrats. And then there were some operatives from the Obama world, who were never committed to building the party and saw this as an opportunity to get clicks on their social media sites. 

To date, with the context of these subplots to the fiasco, the members of the Democratic National Committee have continued to support Martin. They know he wasn’t responsible for the 2024 fiasco. And while they can find fault in the way the “autopsy release” was handled, they back his approach to party building.