More than four months after Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin announced that he was breaking his promise to release its autopsy report on the 2024 election, the decision remains highly controversial. Arguments swirl around whether it’s wise to proceed without public scrutiny of what went wrong during the last presidential campaign. But scant attention has focused on how hiding the autopsy provides an assist to Kamala Harris, who currently leads in polling of Democrats for the party’s 2028 nomination.
As Harris eyes another run, she has a major stake in the DNC continuing to keep the autopsy under wraps – and has a lot to lose if it reaches the light of day. She must feel gratified when Martin defends keeping the autopsy secret, saying that the party should not “relitigate” the 2024 election and claiming that release of the 200-page document would result in “navel-gazing.”
Release of the entire autopsy would likely be a blow to Harris’s chances of becoming president in January 2029. Partly based on interviews with more than 300 prominent Democrats and others in all 50 states, it reportedly concludes that Harris’s unwavering support for U.S. weapons shipments to Israel was a significant factor in her loss to Donald Trump.
While she pursued an unsuccessful strategy of wooing scarce “moderate” Republican voters, many in the Democratic base were repelled by the full backing that Harris gave to President Biden’s massive arming of Israel as civilian deaths mounted in Gaza. She adhered to Biden’s admonition that there be “no daylight” between the two of them as she campaigned for president after he withdrew from the race.
At the time, polls showed that Harris was harming her election prospects by refusing to distance herself from Biden’s policy toward Israel. She evades that reality in her post-election book 107 Days, which dismisses antiwar protesters at her rallies as mere “hecklers.”
Harris’s protracted book tour has been beset by disruptions as well as her inability to provide cogent responses.
…
Oh please. If all you “it’ll never work” people would actually try something different instead of stuff that obviously hasn’t been working, it would probably actually work.
https://ballotpedia.org/Current_independent_and_minor_party_federal_and_state_officeholders
I already cited numbers from that same link in my other comment. Perhaps you didn’t read the link and notice how the majority of the state legislators on that link are from US territories rather than states (Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands). Within the 50 states there are 28 out of 7,578 independent and 3rd party state legislators. That’s less than half of one percent. When you keep looking, you often find the many were elected as a Democratic or Republican nominee and then switched in office, and win re-election as an incumbent, rather than first attaining office while running as an independent or third party.
I have voted for 3rd parties in the past but I stopped when I saw the numbers because the reality is that it’s just not feasible at the state and federal level unless you are already have RCV or already have an incumbent third party. I do hope you’re at least noticing that I’m qualifying at what level of government I think it becomes pointless to vote third party. I do want third parties to be viable. But we need politicians at the state level to effect the election reform to make that a reality, and the numbers say that’s not going to happen by voting third party at the state level without RCV.