173
'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
173 points (96.3% liked)
politics
29834 readers
2450 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What?
Did you literally just download the PDF and search for those three things, see 0, and then close it?
Because even just skimming thru any of the 193 pages would show you none of it's is about specific policy positions, largely because with 4 years to the next presidential election, that would be entirely useless...
Like, we do not want the DNC picking policy, that's what the candidate we vote for in primaries do.
A large organization like the DNC dictating policy for politicians to follow and using their influence as a party to get those people elected is what got us here in the fuckign first place
The paper is going to seem boring and it's not going to have what you think, be cause it wasn't written for us, and it wasn't written up to be a list of reasons why Kamala lost, be ause everyone reading it would be very aware of why that happened.
The point of the paper was what a nonbiased organization could do to fix shit.
So (again, fucking obviously) it's not going to list policy positions to push.
Your take that a political party should not address policy is laughable. You are not a serious person.
Putting aside the rest of their comment; the DNC is not a political party. Their job is to (edit: help Democrats) win elections and whip members to be in line with general policy messaging.
They're more like the advertising arm of the party itself.
Even if the semantic you're drawing wasn't completely stupid (it is), the advertising arm would benefit a lot from aligning itself with the voter base
The semantics were only drawn because the person I responded to misconstrued a comment and then talked down to the poster based on that. If you think it's stupid to call that shit out then go off, I guess.
To your point: yes, they would. People have been yelling that for a while. Unfortunately, like the RNC, they've shown that they prioritize maintaining the cushy status quo for a small group of people. Dems lose. Voters get mad. The DNC raises hundreds of millions of dollars again the next go around and the game continues.
Under the section "Strong Ground Games Make the Difference"
Under "Where Organizing Efforts Fell Short in 2024"
So clearly we at least dabbling in conversations about specific issues. But I think the more important counterpoint is you can't have a conversation about the loss of Kamala Harris without mentioning Genocide.
....
Well, I do want to thank you for somewhat asking questions.
But those are not single issues, they are normal facets of society that constantly exist and will definitely still be an issue in four years.
Israel's current government even just still being in power in 2028 isn't guaranteed.
All those other issues, will be issues in 2028, and 2033, and literally every single election after.
And besides all of that, you're examples still aren't pushing policy decisions.
And as it mentions in big bold letters on literally every single page:
Like, you're blaming all of the DNC, how did you get those quotes and not see the giant red texts on every page?
How are you missing the point of, well, everything about this?
Which was my point. You can have conversations about what happened without pushing policy decisions. I'm not sure why that's difficult for you.
Because, they're not gonna have the question:
Which would be the equivalent to your quotes...
And they're not gonna say:
Because that is a single topic that may not be present in 2028, because Israel might actual get an election before then themselves, and there's no way the current government wins an election.
I don't understand what you want here, or why you keep blaming the DNC when literally every page in big red letters says:
Like, we can have this discussion, but you need to understand the big bolded red letters on every page and talk about the one single guy who wrote this and personally decided what to include....
Do you get that part?
The big bolded red lettered part?
It seems like way more of this conversation is in your head than actually exists.