Edited by Amelia Cantwell and Rishi Chandra

Following Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012, the Republican National Committee organized the “Growth and Opportunity Project” to create what would eventually be called the “RNC autopsy.” This report, released in spring 2013, detailed the reasons behind Romney’s defeat by Barack Obama as the GOP re-assessed itself following a second consecutive presidential election loss. The team included a press Secretary for George W. Bush, state party officials, and other Republican officials.

In a similar vein, following Kamala Harris’s defeat in 2024, Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin authorized the “Build to Win. Build to Last.” report, commonly referred to as the “DNC autopsy.” This report was released by CNN on May 21, 2024, and purports to explain why Harris lost to Trump amid the Democratic Party's losing the national popular vote for president for the first time since 2004. The “team” behind the report consisted of only one person—Paul Rivera, who no longer works with the DNC—handpicked by Martin.

The report sparked controversy for several reasons—it was kept unreleased for a significant period of time, it was released long after the election had concluded and was thus seen as a distraction, and the final product was either incomplete, incorrect, or both.

At best, the report and its release proved a boondoggle for the DNC; at worst, it showcased a party deeply disorganized and unwilling to correct its past mistakes. Although it might be one of the best examples of “Democrats in disarray” seen in previous months and years, it by no means had to be that way.

The Release

In April 2026, Martin appeared on the liberal podcast Pod Save America to have a conversation with its host Jon Favreau, a staffer to former President Barack Obama. During the 33-minute conversation, the topic of a post-election report came up. Favreau quoted Martin’s own words from his run for party chair, referencing his previous statement: “Of course [the report] will be released.” Martin immediately shifted past the reference, giving a bland answer about looking ahead. Martin’s response can be summed up as an angry refusal to release the report.

The interview gained a minor amount of virality, especially in chronically online liberal and progressive circles. However, it was amplified in early May, when Harris said that she would like to see the report released.

On May 21, the autopsy was released after CNN obtained it. Martin put out a statement alongside the release, stating, “I didn't want to create a distraction, but by not putting the report out, I ended up creating an even bigger distraction. [...] I am releasing the report as we received it, in its entirety, unedited and unabridged. It does not meet my standards, and it won't meet your standards, but I am doing this because people need to be able to trust the Democratic Party and trust our word.”

Although Martin can and should be criticized for much in and about the autopsy, the above statement is honest and ultimately accurate once one examines the report itself—a clunky, unfinished, occasionally straight-up wrong, and overall displeasing document that may have been better prepared by almost anyone besides the one person who compiled it.

The Report

What is immediately apparent upon opening up the report is its incredibly basic nature, with no regard to formatting or design. That much can be criticized, but it can also be forgiven if there is sufficient focus on content. Not only is there a lack of content, but there is also no confidence in the report: On every page, a red-text statement assures the reader that these are not necessarily the views of the DNC.

In the opening pages, there is a message detailing the need for such a report that reads as awfully ironic given the hullabaloo leading up to its release. However, that commitment is weakened by a marker noting that the material in the opening statement was not sourced and cannot be verified. Following that is an executive summary, from which nothing can be gleaned, as there is no text. This is a recurring theme in the autopsy, as full sections are left blank at times. 

Put yourself in the shoes of the author, Paul Rivera. You have been asked by the chair of the Democratic National Committee to compile a report on why Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party writ large fell short in 2024. Ken Martin made it a campaign priority, highlighting his intent to release an autopsy and stating it was a failure that the party did not do so when it lost the White House in 2016. You have had over a year since Martin was elected national party chair in February 2025, and your own document states that you concluded surveys and interviews in October 2025. What could you be waiting for to start writing? 

There is hardly a conclusion that can be taken from the document because the section titled “Conclusion,” all the way down on page 189, is blank. Moreover, the appendices are blank, and the notes to the reader contain a paragraph of boilerplate and text clearly intended to be changed later.

The work of it all is just plain sloppy—early on, they cite a claim by linking to a Google redirect page of a Cleveland, Ohio, area newspaper. That example is one of the few times claims are sourced at all, as there are annotations all up and down the document noting where sources are missing. At times, they just state information incorrectly, mentioning that Republican Mark Robinson of North Carolina earned 45% of the vote instead of the actual 40.08%, or by calling Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin reliably Democratic states.

All in all, it is a document of poor quality, and one that reflects badly on the broader Democratic establishment. In this, one can understand why Martin did not want to release this report—to speak colloquially, it sucked.

The Response

What garnered significant attention after the report’s release was what was left out: The entire “what happened” section is blank, Joe Biden’s age was not mentioned, and it barely discusses Joe Biden’s run and subsequent dropout. Furthermore, especially noteworthy for those on the progressive side of the Democratic Party, the conflict in Israel and Palestine received no mention whatsoever. While I make no predictions about what would have happened if Harris had taken a different position on the conflict, I would like to take a look at Dearborn, Michigan, the first Arab-majority city in the United States, as an example. 

In 2020, Joe Biden won the city with 68% of the vote. In 2024, Harris earned just a shade over half that percentage, only bringing in 36% of the vote, with Trump winning the city with 42% and third-party candidate Jill Stein taking 18%. It is clear that her connection through the Biden administration—a connection she has softened after leaving office—and its stance on the conflict in Gaza and the Israeli genocide of Palestinians tanked her support in this Arab-majority city. Thus, voters fled to other candidates—a trend replicated, to a lesser extent, nationwide, with the proportion of third-party voters increasing slightly compared to 2024. To have this not be mentioned in any way, shape, or form is tantamount to disingenuousness, though, seeing the rest of the document, it might just be a case of the par-for-the-course sloppiness visible elsewhere.

To give the Democratic Party some credit, it was the right move to create a report. Any decision beyond that was decidedly poor, from the person they chose to create it to the effort that they put into the content to the sourcing (or lack thereof) to what was included and what was left out. The autopsy saga was a series of own-goals and self-owns that could and should have been avoided with competence and c