Potential 2028 Democrats criticize D.N.C. autopsy after 2024 losses

The Democratic Party’s 2024 autopsy did not settle the argument over what went wrong. It sharpened it, handing 2028 hopefuls a fresh dividing line over whether the party’s failure was ideological, demographic, organizational or simply a matter of poor execution.

The 192-page report, completed in December and authored by consultant Paul Rivera, was released by the Democratic National Committee on May 21 only after months of pressure and a reversal from chair Ken Martin, who had shelved it as “not ready for primetime.” Martin later said the delay had created “an even bigger distraction,” and the release came with annotations and blank sections, including the executive summary and conclusion.

Its core diagnosis was blunt: Democrats should refocus on Middle America and the South, rebuild support and training for state parties, and correct a “persistent inability or unwillingness to listen to all voters.” The report also said voters were being lost because they did not see themselves reflected in the party’s vision, while Martin’s own notes and outside criticism said the document sidestepped the biggest flashpoints, including Joe Biden’s reelection decision, the rushed Harris replacement process and the war in Gaza.

That is where the 2028 battle begins. Kamala Harris, who has publicly said she is “thinking about” another run, has also signaled she has no objection to airing the party’s failures in public. NBC News reported that Harris won 75 million votes in 2024, more than any previous runner-up, but still lost the Electoral College 312-226 and the popular vote by 1.5 percentage points. Her camp’s posture suggests one line of argument: the party’s problem is not just Harris, but the broader machinery that surrounded her.

Other Democrats are already pressing different diagnoses. At a National Action Network gathering in New York in April, Black voters asked whether anyone other than a straight, white man can win in 2028, a sign that coalition and identity are now central to the debate. Ruben Gallego warned against narrowing the field, while Wes Moore argued that “People want to know, does your message meet a moment.” Those competing instincts foreshadow a primary season in which some Democrats will blame the brand, others the bench and others the ballot itself.

For Martin, the autopsy was supposed to close a chapter. Instead, it exposed the party’s next one: a fight over which lesson Democrats can afford to learn before 2028.