this post was submitted on 21 May 2026
165 points (96.1% liked)

politics

29834 readers
2388 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 64 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 hours ago

This is them burying it. By releasing a highly dishonest version of events

[–] Sunforged@lemmy.ml 59 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

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. Democrats don't care if they lose as long as donations keep coming.

That's it.

That's the takeaway.

[–] Eldritch@piefed.world 2 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Sunforged@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

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 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.

[–] Eldritch@piefed.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Local politics? Absolutely. National politics yeah definitely not. A lot of people don't understand the difference unfortunately. State and National parties are out of touch by Design.

[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Democrats don’t care if they lose as long as donations keep coming.

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.

[–] Sunforged@lemmy.ml 11 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 8 hours ago

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.

[–] protist@retrofed.com 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

Why are you lying?

Back in factual reality, here are some of the things Ken Martin actually said about the report:

When I commissioned a comprehensive review of the 2024 election, I started a process to answer those questions while interrogating where our party has systemically and historically fallen short. I didn’t want that process led by anybody directly tied to the 2024 cycle – either the campaign or the consultants involved – and I did not want to put my own thumb on the scale for what might be produced. What I did ask for were actionable takeaways for the future. I wanted real, in-depth, specific recommendations to improve our allocation of resources, tech, data, organizing, media strategy, and more. I chose someone who I thought could produce this type of report.

When I received the report late last year, it wasn’t ready for primetime. 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.

I am not proud of this product; it does not meet my standards, and it won’t meet your standards. I don’t endorse what’s in this report, or what’s left out of it. I could not in good faith put the DNC’s stamp of approval on it.

[–] protist@retrofed.com 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] grue@lemmy.world -1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] protist@retrofed.com 3 points 3 hours ago

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

[–] grue@lemmy.world -1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

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.

[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 hours ago

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.