The Political Version of “It Couldn’t Possibly Be the Candidate”
When a political party loses a presidential election, there is usually a period of mourning, denial, bargaining, and finally acceptance. Democrats, however, appear to have added a fifth stage: writing a 192-page “autopsy” that somehow manages to blame almost everything except the person standing center stage.
The Democratic National Committee’s long-awaited review of the 2024 election defeat was supposed to explain what went wrong. Instead, according to even many Democrats, it became an embarrassment. The report was released incomplete, heavily annotated with warnings, and so disorganized that party leaders practically attached a disclaimer reading: “Please do not laugh too hard.” Critics inside the party described it as “not worth the paper it’s written on,” while others openly questioned why it had been released at all.
Still, beneath the confusion lies an unintentionally funny exercise in political self-reflection. Democrats appear to be wandering through a maze asking, “What happened?” while repeatedly bumping into a giant flashing sign labeled Kamala Harris and somehow deciding the real culprit must be poor messaging.
The Official Diagnosis: More Anti-Trump, Please
The autopsy’s main complaint is that Democrats failed to make voters dislike Donald Trump enough (and BOY did they try…).
According to the report, the Harris campaign suffered a “major failure” because it did not effectively remind voters of Trump’s “incompetence” and relied too heavily on the assumption that Americans would reject him automatically. The campaign, Democrats argue, needed a stronger case against Trump while also making an “affirmative case” for Harris.
That sounds reasonable until one remembers that presidential campaigns generally work best when voters are excited about the candidate themselves.
The report openly admits that Harris struggled to define herself beyond “not Trump.” Democrats now say “base voters needed reasons to vote FOR Harris as well as against Trump.”
This feels a little like realizing halfway through dinner that you forgot the main course.
For years, Democrats appeared convinced that anti-Trump messaging alone would carry the day. Then election night arrived, and suddenly the strategy resembled showing up to the Super Bowl with an elaborate halftime show but forgetting to field a quarterback.
The Biden Problem Democrats Cannot Quite Admit
The funniest part of the autopsy may be its handling of Joe Biden.
On one hand, Democrats quietly blame Biden for setting Harris up to fail. The report says the White House displayed a “significant failure of imagination” in preparing her for leadership and failed to position her as a strong successor. Harris, they argue, was saddled with difficult assignments such as immigration while never being fully elevated inside the administration. The report concludes bluntly: “The White House did not position or prepare the vice president.”
On the other hand, the report somehow avoids discussing Biden’s age at all.
Not once.
This omission is remarkable given that Biden’s disastrous debate performance, concerns about his stamina, and widespread public anxiety helped trigger the last-minute campaign shuffle that put Harris on top of the ticket.
Imagine writing a Titanic investigation that never mentions the iceberg.
Democrats seem willing to whisper that Biden caused problems while refusing to discuss the giant, highly televised reason the transition happened in the first place.
The Candidate Nobody Wanted to Talk About
Then comes the uncomfortable question hanging over the entire document: what if voters simply did not think Kamala Harris was very convincing?
Even before 2024, Harris struggled with public perception. Polling cited in supplied material showed many voters viewed her unfavorably, with a large percentage believing she hurt Biden politically rather than helped him. Critics argued she struggled to communicate clearly, often drifting into what even detractors and comedians labeled “word salads.”
Her public appearances frequently became viral moments for unfortunate reasons. One speech awkwardly explained artificial intelligence as “two letters.” Another saw her mistakenly saying clean energy policies should “reduce population” rather than pollution. Yet another attempted to define transportation as helping people “get where they need to go,” a statement so obvious it almost sounded philosophical (Kamala? Philosophical?).
The autopsy keeps suggesting Harris was not sufficiently marketed to voters. But Democrats may be confronting a deeper issue: what if voters saw plenty and simply remained unconvinced?
At times, the report reads like political consultants staring at a burned dinner and concluding the real tragedy was insufficient garnish.
The Ad Democrats Couldn’t Escape
The report also admits that one Trump attack ad proved devastating.
The ad highlighted Harris supporting taxpayer-funded surgeries for transgender inmates and used the memorable line: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”
Democratic pollsters concluded it was “very effective,” and campaign officials reportedly felt trapped because Harris had actually said what appeared in the footage. Worse, according to the report, there was little meaningful response available if Harris refused to change her position.
In political terms, this was the campaign equivalent of trying to argue with security footage.
The Peter Principle Comes to Washington
Perhaps the simplest explanation comes from the old “Peter Principle,” the idea that people rise until they reach their level of incompetence.
Harris had success as California attorney general and senator, roles where scrutiny was narrower and responsibility shared. But the presidency is different. The spotlight becomes blinding. Every awkward phrase becomes national news. Every uncertain answer echoes.
Yet Democrats’ autopsy spends page after page searching for messaging tweaks, organizational reforms, and better advertising strategies, while many voters may have reached a far simpler conclusion: they simply did not trust Harris to run the country.
Harris entered the race carrying political baggage that Democrats’ autopsy only briefly hints at. The Biden administration placed her in charge of addressing the “root causes” of migration, a role that conservatives successfully framed as making her the face of border problems during years of sharply rising crossings. The report itself calls assigning her immigration responsibilities a “massive missed opportunity,” arguing the White House saddled her with one of the administration’s weakest issues rather than preparing her for national leadership. But immigration was only part of a broader perception problem.
Harris developed a reputation for awkward public communication, with critics frequently mocking her tendency toward vague explanations and “word salad” answers. Viral moments piled up, from describing artificial intelligence as “two letters” and “machine learning,” to mistakenly saying clean-energy investments would “reduce population” instead of pollution, to offering explanations of transportation so obvious they sounded like accidental parody.
Even critics inside and outside the Democratic coalition increasingly questioned whether she projected competence under pressure. Polling cited in supplied material found many voters viewed her unfavorably and believed she hurt rather than helped Biden politically, reinforcing the impression that Democrats were trying to market a candidate many voters had already quietly judged and found unconvincing.
The DNC seems determined to ask, “How did this happen?” while carefully stepping around the possibility that voters answered the question long ago.
Sometimes, the funniest joke in politics is the one politicians accidentally tell themselves.
