Five Strategic Insights from the DNC’s 2024 Autopsy Report

The Democratic National Committee on Thursday released a draft of a sweeping postmortem of the 2024 election and the shortcomings that led to a string of Democratic defeats, including former Vice President Kamala Harris’ loss to President Donald Trump.

The nearly 200-page report, prepared by Democratic strategist Paul Rivera, ends months of speculation after DNC Chair Ken Martin made the decision last year to withhold the autopsy from public release. But even in unveiling the report, the DNC cast the draft as incomplete and inaccurate, including a disclaimer throughout that says the report that it “cannot independently verify the claims presented.”

Still, the report offers a thorough examination of Democrats’ strategies, tactics and missteps, as well as a series of recommendations for fixing longstanding challenges faced by the party and its candidates. Here’s a look at a few of the strategic insights mentioned in the DNC’s 2024 autopsy:

The New Media Landscape

The report calls out a long series of shortcomings in how Democrats approach media – from an overreliance on legacy platforms to a failure to establish and maintain a permanent media presence. 

The party and its candidates, the postmortem argues, ultimately failed to adapt to the new realities of a fragmented, always-on digital media ecosystem. They often show up “in the last few months of a campaign” when their opponents have been “framing and shaping partisan information flow for months, if not longer.”

“Those who argue voters only tune in towards the end of a campaign are wrong. In an age of misinformation and disinformation, the answer to the question of ‘when is the right time to engage actual and potential voters’ must always be ‘now.’ ” the report reads. 

“When Democrats ‘go dark’ between cycles, it is ceding too much ground and share of voice – making it easier for Republicans and foreign actors to fill the messaging vacuum, push false narratives, and to define and brand Democrats on their terms.”

The report also points to the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, but acknowledges that traditional fact-checking hasn’t been effective in countering smears and attacks. In fact, the postmortem argues, such fact checks “can be perceived as counterproductive by bringing more attention to the underlying smear.”

“Countering false information comes down to both making an affirmative case, and pushing back on the motivations behind the smears, rather than responding to the lack of substantive truth,” the report reads.

Rethinking Organizing

The autopsy report also calls for a rethinking of Democrats’ current organizing model, noting that “shifting legal parameters” around how parties and outside entities can coordinate demand “a serious conversation about roles and lanes and what the future can be.”

But it also reflects on past missteps. Campaigns and committees “are focused on winning the elections right before them” – not long-term organizing and party building. Organizing efforts in states or jurisdictions outside of the so-called battlegrounds haven’t received meaningful investment or support for years, or even decades. Meanwhile, Democrats and Democratic-aligned groups began relying on “seasonal talent” to organize communities rather than cultivating year-round talent in those communities.

Republicans, the report argues, have taken a different approach.

“Turning Point USA is not a seasonal, churn and burn ecosystem,” the postmortem reads. “They run program around the calendar, and across the nation. The Koch-funded entities and other organizations started more than a decade ago, and remain in communities. These efforts are targeted to specific elements of the electorate, and generally remain ‘always on.’ Democrats and allies must consider how to match and exceed these investments.”

The Shortcomings of Research

One challenge raised in the report with no clear answer: the future of data modeling and research. 

Fewer Americans are answering their phones for callers they don’t know. Response rates have dropped off. Polls have missed issues and concerns “bubbling in culture because surveys can only give you the answers to the questions that you ask.” There’s a lingering tension between those who drive decisions based on science and those who argue that sometimes campaigns should look beyond the data and “believe our eyes, no matter what the math says.”

“In general, more information is a good thing – and decision makers can and should base their decisions upon it,” the report reads. “But models are generally lagging indicators of voter choice.”

In short, it argues, there are limitations to an analytics-driven campaign. 

The report argues for a multifaceted approach to understanding public opinion research. Qualitative and social listening, it reads, can give parties, campaigns and causes a sense of where voters are, while polling can measure the frequency and distribution of new information and trends.

“Democratic candidates and incumbents need to understand the ins and outs of the research business, because it drives so much of the decision-making within a campaign,” the report reads. “Everything about what a candidate says to how your resources are allocated, and how the campaign tries to reach your voters with your message.”