The Daily Populous Friday May 22nd, 2026 morning edition
Authored by theintercept.com and submitted by NoahHurowitz

An in-depth analysis of the 2024 presidential campaign commissioned by the Democratic National Committee fails to mention the party’s position on Israel’s genocide in Gaza, prompting harsh criticism from Arab American members of the party.

The 192-page report, authored by a Democratic strategist and first published by CNN on Thursday morning, goes in-depth on several factors found to be detrimental to Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign in its ultimate loss to Donald Trump. Despite the contention within the party over then-President Joe Biden’s support for Israel’s genocidal campaign against Palestinians in Gaza, however, the war doesn’t get a single mention.

Also missing from the document are the words “Israel,” “Palestine,” “Arab American,” and “Muslim.”

A spokesperson for the DNC declined to comment on the omission of anything having to do with Gaza, instead pointing The Intercept to a Substack written by party chair Ken Martin in which he acknowledged what the committee found to be several shortcomings by the report’s author, Democratic strategist Paul Rivera.

“The data clearly showed that Gaza had hurt Biden and Harris.”

One policymaker who spoke with Rivera in July 2025 for the qualitative, fact-finding portion of the autopsy research told The Intercept that he was surprised when the report emerged with no mention of Gaza or the resulting conflicts within the Democratic coalition. He said that his group had discussed the impact of Gaza policy with Rivera at length.

“Paul was very clear with us in our conversation that they had done the quantitative review,” said the politico, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue, “and that the data clearly showed that Gaza had hurt Biden and Harris.”

In recent weeks, pressure mounted to release the report in full — a move Martin said he was reluctant to take due to major flaws in the report, which he dubbed “not ready for primetime.”

“I am not proud of this product; it does not meet my standards, and it won’t meet your standards,” Martin wrote Thursday in a post on the DNC’s Substack. “I don’t endorse what’s in this report, or what’s left out of it. I could not in good faith put the DNC’s stamp of approval on it.”

Martin also fails to mention Gaza, Israel, or any other terms related to the genocide in his post.

The policymaker said he had found Rivera to be thorough and professional, and he believes Martin is shifting the blame.

“My strong suspicion is that Paul was being thrown under the bus,” he said. “It’s very convenient to a lot of people that a lot seems to be missing, and it would be very convenient if the reason it’s missing is ‘oh, Paul’s really bad at his job.’”

Others defended Martin’s conduct. James Zogby, a founder of the Arab American Institute and a candidate for vice-chair of the DNC in 2024, praised Martin’s leadership but called his pledge to release the report an “unforced error” that was being seized upon by a consultant class hostile to his on focus rebuilding state party infrastructure.

“We know what the mistakes were,” Zogby said. “The question now is how do we not make them again, and we didn’t need to make a fuss over a report that wasn’t going to tell us anything we didn’t know.”

The Intercept attempted to reach Rivera via The Capacity Shop, a firm that lists him as an advisor, but the group did not respond to a request for comment.

“Nothing about this surprises me,” said Linda Sarsour, an organizer from Brooklyn who was active in organizing a campaign to pressure Harris to take a stance against the war. “If they don’t change course quickly to center Palestine, foreign policy and recognize the influence of Arab/Palestinian/Muslim/young/progressive American voters, they will likely have to write another autopsy report post 2028 presidential elections.”

In the run-up to the 2024 presidential election, Biden’s support for Israel’s war on Gaza became a key point of contention between the Democratic establishment, on one side, and progressive Democrats, including Arab Americans, on the other. The progressives argued that the failure to take a stance against unflinching support for the genocide was tamping down excitement among the party’s base, especially young voters.

A group of delegates that dubbed themselves the “Uncommitted Movement” fought to get push the party left on Gaza. The activists put forward a slate of suggested speakers at the party convention in Chicago, including Ruwa Romman, a Palestinian-American state representative in Georgia, but none of the speakers were accepted.

Romman, who is currently running for Georgia’s state Senate, said she was deeply disappointed to see the lack of mention of Gaza in the report.

While the Gaza war was a key issue for many Arab American and Muslim voters, particularly in a swing state like Michigan, Romman acknowledged that most voters nationwide and in her home state of Georgia were not listing Gaza as their top concern. Still, she said, the issue emerged as something of a smell test for the integrity of Democratic politicians hoping to sell their message to an electorate beset by financial insecurity and healthcare woes.

“For most voters, if you look at what was their top issue, it’s the economy — of course,” Romman said. “But if you want politicians that are going to put you first and implement the kind of economic issues that you need to have a better life, those are going to be the politicians that are not beholden to special interests. And so Gaza became a way to look for that.”

The Democratic Party, meanwhile, has sought to thoroughly distance itself from the report, going so far as to release an annotated version highlighting missing data and unsubstantiated claims.

The document contains a disclaimer at the top of every page: “This document reflects the views of the author, not the DNC. The DNC was not provided with the underlying sourcing, interviews, or supporting data for many of the assertions contained herein and therefore cannot independently verify the claims presented.”

Update: May 21, 2026 2:35 p.m. ET

This story has been updated with comments from a policymaker who spoke with Paul Rivera for the DNC autopsy report.

NotTheRightHDMIPort on May 21st, 2026 at 19:38 UTC »

I read some highlights of the report.

It sucks.

However, there are some good takeaways that are infuriating and these are less than obvious ones.

Divesting from state and local party infrastructures and outsourcing to independent and soft "side groups". Basically, they third-partied their funding and organization. However, some states have strict laws on coordination so they actually couldnt work with the candidates. They spent a billion dollars on media (old media for that matter) and only $150 million on voter contact. They had literally no money for ground game. They didnt both aggressively going after Trump because they believed negativity about Trump was already "baked in" to the voting collective and didnt focus on failures of his first admin. In short, they had no plan to disqualify Trump because they assumed voters already did. National campaign wrote off rural voters entierely and believed urban and suburban margins would compensate. Unfortunately, when the election happened, they saw a decline. Additionally, they focused so heavily on female voters that they demographically lost non-white male voters. Overeliance on outdated media delivery. Simple. Republicans figured it out. Dems didnt. There is now a concern of access because networks are owned by Republican friendly ownership. The White House did absolutely nothing to help Harris at all even after endorsing her. The lack of support was shocking to say the least.

Take all the optics out and we have the worst kind of incompetence I have ever seen.

Tl;dr 1. They have abandoned both state and local politics and undervalued rural voters. 2. Messed up on new media. 3. Did not remind voters why Trump bad and assumed they knew.

South-Attorney-5209 on May 21st, 2026 at 18:05 UTC »

Their biggest take away was that Biden didnt support Kamala well enough, and let her differentiate herself. Which is the lame DC takeaway. Realistically maybe would have helped on the margins, if that.

What I thought was by far the most interesting is this tidbit from NYT.

“A thread that appears throughout the draft report places blame on a broader Democratic Party infrastructure that is seasonal while conservative organizations like Turning Point USA have a permanent presence.”

This is so true it is painful. Republicans play culture wars all day every day. They spend money all the time. Democrats stack it up and spend in a month or two.

Democrats drive a quick message, but republicans drive a daily culture.

There exists a vacuum from Dem leadership FOR MONTHS, then suddenly they are everywhere. That is not how you build followers, thats how you get people to make a last minute decision.

baylaust on May 21st, 2026 at 17:10 UTC »

Alright, so here's what I'm wondering. The DNC was clearly ashamed of this report. They knew it was bad, and poorly written, and said nothing of value. That's why they tried to avoid releasing it.

So if they knew all of that... why didn't they commission a better report? To me, there's only two logical options: they're too lazy to do it, or they already know what their issues are and don't want to put them on paper for everyone to read.