Barabak: Democrats are on a roll. So why not fight one another?

The Democratic Party’s post-2024 autopsy elided decisions made by President Biden and Vice President Harris, a curious omission.

(Saul Loeb/Pool photo via Associated Press)

By 

Columnist

Dec. 31, 2025

3 AM PT

Share via

Close extra sharing options

Copy Link URL

Copied!

Print

Democrats start 2026 riding a wave of electoral victories, positioning the party to potentially reclaim House control in November.

DNC Chair Ken Martin abandoned his promise to release a report on the party’s 2024 losses, saying the look back would distract from winning elections.

Democrats are starting the new year on a high.

A series of 2025 victories, in red and blue states alike, was marked by a striking improvement over the party’s 2024 showing. That over-performance, to use the political term of art, means candidates — including even some who lost — received a significantly higher percentage of the vote than presidential candidate Kamala Harris managed.

That’s a strong signal ahead of the midterm election, suggesting Democratic partisans are energized, a key ingredient in any successful campaign, and the party is winning support among independents and perhaps even a few disaffected Republicans.

Advertisement

If history is a guide and the uneven economy a portent, Democrats will very likely seize control of the House in November, picking up at least the three seats needed to erase the GOP’s bare majority. The Senate looks to be a longer — though not impossible — reach, given the Republican lean of the states being contested.

In short, Democrats are in much better shape than all the black crepe and existential ideations suggested a year ago.

Yes, the party suffered a soul-crushing defeat in the presidential race. But 2024 was never the disaster some made it out to be. Democrats gained two House seats and held their own in most contests apart from the fight for the Senate, where several Republican states reverted to form and ousted the chamber’s few remaining Democratic holdouts.

Advertisement

Still, Democrats being Democrats, all is not happiness and light in the party of Jefferson, Jackson, Clinton and Obama.

Voices

Glow up or grow up? Times columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak look back and assess whether 2025 was good for America or an unmitigated disaster.

Dec. 28, 2025

Campaigning to become the party’s chairman, Ken Martin last winter promised to conduct a thorough review of the 2024 election and to make its findings public, as a step toward redressing Democrats’ mistakes and bolstering the party going forward.

”What we need to do right now is really start to get a handle around what happened,” he told reporters before his election.

Now Martin has decided to bury that autopsy report.

“Here’s our North Star: Does this help us win?” he said in a mid-December statement announcing his turnabout and the study’s unceremonious interment. “If the answer is no, it’s a distraction from the core mission.”

There is certainly no shortage of 2024 election analyses for the asking. The sifting of rubble, pointing of fingers and laying of blame began an eye blink after Donald Trump was declared the winner.

There are prescriptions from the moderate and progressive wings of the party — suggesting, naturally, that Democrats absolutely must move their direction to stand any chance of ever winning again. There are diagnoses from a welter of 2028 presidential hopefuls, declared and undeclared, offering themselves as both seer and Democratic savior.

Advertisement

The report Martin commissioned was, however, supposed to be the definitive word from the party, offering both a clear-eyed look back and a clarion way forward.

“We know that we lost ground with Latino voters,” he said in those searching days before he became party chairman. “We know we lost ground with women and younger voters and, of course, working-class voters. We don’t know the how and why yet.”

As part of the investigation, more than 300 Democrats were interviewed in each of the 50 states. But there was good reason to doubt the integrity of the report, even before Martin pulled out his shovel and started digging.

According to the New York Times and others, there was no plan to examine President Biden’s headstrong decision to seek reelection despite his advanced age and no intention to second-guess any of the strategic decisions Harris made in her hurry-up campaign.

Which is like setting out to solve a murder by ignoring the weapon used and skipping past the cause of death.

Curious, indeed.

Still, there was predictable outrage when Martin went back on his promise.

“This is a very bad decision that reeks of the caution and complacency that brought us to this moment,” Dan Pfeiffer, an alumnus of the Obama White House, posted on social media.

Advertisement

“The people who volunteered, donated and voted deserve to know what went wrong,” Jamal Simmons, a former Harris vice presidential advisor, told the Hill newspaper. “The DNC should tell them.”

In 2013, Republicans commissioned a similar after-action assessment following Mitt Romney’s loss to President Obama. It was scathing in its blunt-force commentary.

The 98-page report said a smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid party was turning off voters with stale policies that had changed little in decades and was unhelpfully projecting an image that alienated minorities and young voters.

Among its recommendation, the postmortem called on the party to develop “a more welcoming brand of conservatism” and suggested an extensive set of “inclusion” proposals for minority groups, including Latinos, Asians and African Americans. (DEI, anyone?)

“Unless changes are made,” the report concluded, “it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to win another presidential election in the near future.”

California

Unlike his predecessors, Trump has repeatedly shown he cares only for his supporters and political allies. While many condemned his cruelty, Republican leaders continue to turn a blind eye.

Dec. 16, 2025

Trump, of course, won the White House three years later doing precisely none of what the report recommended.

Advertisement

Which suggests the Democratic autopsy, buried or otherwise, is not likely to matter a whole lot when voters go to the polls. (It’s the affordability, stupid.)

That said, Martin should have released the appraisal and not just because of the time and effort invested. There was already Democratic hostility toward the chairman, particularly among donors unhappy with his leadership and performance, and his entombing of the autopsy report won’t help.

Martin gave his word, and breaking it is a needless distraction and blemish on the party.

Besides, a bit of thoughtful self-reflection is never a bad thing. It’s hard to look forward when you’ve got your head stuck in the sand.

More to Read

Dec. 16, 2025

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint

This article generally aligns with a

Center

point of view.

Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

Democrats achieved significant momentum in 2025 elections across red and blue states alike, with candidates substantially outperforming the 2024 presidential results as a signal of party energization and growing support among independents[1][2]. This strong performance suggests Democrats are positioned to potentially gain control of the House in the 2026 midterms and indicates the party’s condition was not as dire as suggested after the 2024 defeat[1].

The party’s recent victories demonstrate that down-ballot Democratic performance in 2024 was not catastrophic, as Democrats gained House seats and held ground in most contests outside the Senate races[1]. The 2025 wins, including gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia and significant state legislative gains, reflect improved standing rather than requiring a complete party reinvention[1][2].

Internal party accountability and self-reflection through an honest autopsy of the 2024 election would strengthen Democrats by identifying specific areas of underperformance with Latino voters, women, younger voters, and working-class voters[1]. Releasing findings from the commissioned report, despite its limitations, would demonstrate transparency to volunteers and donors while helping the party chart a clearer path forward[1].

The decision to suppress the 2024 autopsy report represents a problematic abandonment of promised accountability that erodes trust among party donors and undermines the credibility of Democratic leadership[1]. Avoiding difficult questions about strategic decisions in 2024 prevents the party from learning necessary lessons for sustained success[1].

Different views on the topic

Some Democratic analysts and operatives argue that continuing to dwell on 2024 losses diverts focus and energy from the critical mission of winning in 2026 and beyond, suggesting forward momentum is more valuable than backward-looking analysis[1]. This perspective prioritizes immediate victory in upcoming elections over comprehensive party introspection.

Certain Democratic strategists propose that the party’s path to success lies with centrist women candidates with strong national security credentials, such as the moderate governors who won in 2025, rather than pursuing the progressive direction some advocates champion[2]. These strategists contend that moderate Democrats better appeal to swing voters and traditional demographics necessary for winning statewide races[2].

Some observers note that Republican leaders similarly commissioned a critical post-election autopsy after their 2012 loss that made sweeping recommendations about outreach and inclusivity, yet the party achieved electoral success without implementing those suggested reforms[1]. This view suggests that Democrats’ autopsy report may have limited practical impact on future electoral outcomes regardless of whether findings are released or buried[1].

Source