When the Democratic National Committee at long last released its "autopsy" report on former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss in the 2024 election in May, one of the most puzzling aspects was the lack of any conclusions related to her and former President Joe Biden's support for Israel's genocide in Gaza.

Holly Otterbein of Axios reported on Thursday that the document's author, Paul Rivera, did indeed look into the issue of Gaza and found it had a role in Harris’ loss. But he did not submit the findings to the DNC for inclusion in the report. Axios did not include an explanation for that decision.

Rivera confirmed Axios’ reporting from back in February that the conclusions had been shared with the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project, a pro-Palestinian think tank, which told the DNC that Harris’ failure to break from Biden’s policy on Israel's US-backed assault on Gaza proved a liability with progressive voters, especially in Michigan.

This news led to speculation that DNC chair Ken Martin, who had resisted calls to release the autopsy in full, was doing so to avoid publicizing findings that portrayed Israel as an albatross around the party's neck.

Rivera alleged earlier this week that Martin and top DNC brass withheld other portions of his report from public view, including a chapter criticizing the party's overreliance on “self-enriching” consultants and party operatives out of touch with voters. Rivera claims to have handed Martin a three-ring binder containing the report, but Martin denies that this occurred.

Rivera, who was fired from his advisory role at the DNC following widespread public backlash to the release of the autopsy, has since published his own 564-page report on the 2024 election, which includes several pages examining the role of Gaza.

As of Election Day 2024, more than 43,000 Palestinians had been killed, including at least 13,300 identified children, according to figures from the Gaza Ministry of Health, and protests had swept the nation demanding that Biden cut off military aid to Israel.

While Rivera's report does not conclude that Gaza alone cost Harris the election, it found that it had a clear role in alienating voters who would have otherwise supported Harris.

It found that in Michigan, one of the key swing states that handed victory to Trump, the losses in heavily Arab and Middle Eastern communities like West Bloomfield, Sterling Heights, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, and Hamtramck, were significant.

In these communities, Harris received 30,850 fewer votes in 2024 than Biden did in 2020, while Trump gained 14,874, a swing accounting for nearly 20% of the 234,291-vote shift that handed President Donald Trump the state.

Rivera noted that the Uncommitted Movement, which garnered more than 700,000 votes nationally in the 2024 primary, originated in Dearborn, where Harris lost nearly a third of the support Biden had received in 2020. In nearby Hamtramck, her support tanked by 39% from Biden's in 2020.

Notably, many of these voters did not flock to Trump, but to Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who received more than 12,000 votes across Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, and Hamtramck.

"The political analysis is simple," Rivera wrote. "The electoral results and voting shifts in Michigan and elsewhere demonstrate the impact the crisis had on the Harris campaign."

He concluded that the issue could not simply be boiled down to "messaging" but to concrete policy.

“For many voters whose family members were displaced, subject to violence, or killed, the inability of the administration to effectively intervene was unacceptable,” he wrote. “In 2024, absent a real end to military action and restoration of civilian control in Gaza, many voters in Michigan and elsewhere would not be satisfied.”

Asked by Common Dreams to elaborate on why he did not provide these findings to the DNC, Rivera did not immediately respond to a request sent through his website’s press contact.

Zeeshan Aleem, a political columnist at MSNOW was puzzled by the decision by Rivera not to provide the Gaza findings to the DNC.

"This is all strange in ways that either suggest dishonesty or stupidity," he said. "The author of the DNC report said he did conclude that Gaza hurt Kamala, but didn’t include that finding in the report he submitted to the DNC. Why?"

The opacity and conflicting narratives surrounding the autopsy's release continue to befuddle critics and onlookers.

Dave Weigel, a political reporter at Semafor, described the idea that Gaza cost Harris votes as "a water-is-wet finding guarded like the Ark of the Covenant."

"Martin could have just admitted that, yes, this issue that got Harris protested everywhere and helped Trump win Michigan hurt the campaign," he said. "Instead, it became a secret that Holly pried loose and generated an extra year of negative stories."

The exclusion of Gaza from the official report released in May became ammunition for some commentators seeking to downplay the idea that Democrats' support for Israel is an electoral liability or to accuse the IMEU Policy Project of spinning a false narrative.

Responding to the release of Rivera's report, media critic Adam Johnson mocked those who framed it as a "conspiracy theory."

"What’s so important to understand is that anyone denying Gaza harmed Harris’ chances is a rank propagandist. Nobody believes this in good faith," he said. "Obviously it did. We can debate the degree of harm it had, but clearly it was significant and had many downstream deflating effects."


From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
15 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 48 points 3 months ago (9 children)

You'd have to be hiding under a rock not to already know this anyway.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    The DNC leadership is famously out of touch, so that's pretty in character for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    The DNC leadership changes every four years...

    The current DNC chair has been saying this the entire time, and no one listened to him. Instead, people kept claiming without any evidence that the chair hid it despite him supporting pro-Palistine candidates like El-Sayed and Mamdani more than literally any prior chair.

    It would appear that you are the one that is out touch with what's actually happening...

    And the outdated information about the party months before an important general election could cause actual damage, helping not just trump but also the neoliberals.

    So I gotta ask:

    Why do you care enough to comment like that, but not enough to actually find out what's happening with the party?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    If Ken martin was so out of touch that he didnt recognize that genocide support played a role in the last election then why is he qualified to lead the DNC at all? And if we are to pretend that he only just now has the clue that it was part of the lost election ,why isnt he saying so and working on it, hrm? He created a task force and called for unrestricted aid. Thats him trying to take both sides rather than addressing the issue like his voters want. You cant have it both ways givesomefucks. Either it was a key reason for the loss and needs to be addressed with real action, or its wasnt an issue in the last election. Which is it.

    Martin knew the entire time that gaza was an issue. He just doesnt want to lose aipac donations. And that is the reasons dems lost and will continue to lose, despite your cheerleading on the sidelines. Your opinion here wont lead to election wins. I dont know how many lost elections you and the DNC need to see to understand this. No genocide, no zionists. Period.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    And the outdated information about the party months before an important general election could cause actual damage, helping not just trump but also the neoliberals.

    Huh? The date on this news item is Aug 7, 2026. How is that out of date? Moving on to your next point, the nearing election, I seem to hear you saying that pushing republicans out of government during the next election is dependent upon censorship? Huh?

    I just checked the writer of the article, Stephen Prager, it seems he has a left, progressive bias, though admittedly it was just a brief look at search results. You seem to be losing on all points of analysis, can you better explain so we know what you're trying to say?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    The DNC leadership is famously out of touch

    That is outdated information.

    You want to say Jamie Harrison who fixed the primary for Biden then forced Harris down our throats was out of touch?

    I agree 100% and was saying that his entire term as chair.

    The chair that was seated in February 2025, wants more candidates like Mamdani and El-Sayed and he believes they're are the future of the party...

    Do you think that position is out of touch with the American electorate?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 3 months ago

    It would not surprise me one bit if they had an off-the-record agreement to not mention Gaza in the report, no matter what.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago

    But he did not submit the findings to the DNC for inclusion in the report.

    Really fucking glad they investigated that...

    It was obviously bullshit cuz Martin had the reciepts via an emailed copy.

    The guy who wrote it tried to claim the section was included in a single hard copy draft which was literally impossible to prove or not because who hangs on to giant hardcopies forever?

    Now all we need, is for voters to realize a bunch of people coming out of the woodwork to kneecap the Dem party months before a general election don't have the best interest of the party in mind...

    And since we've got a bunch of progressives this time, it seems very very weird for people to pick now as the time to dissuade people from voting D.

    I held my nose for Clinton/Biden/Harris, now that we got some actual progressives suddenly everyone wants to say now voting blue is optional.

    Shits like the "we buy gold" commercials. If they're telling you to sell gold, it's the worst time to sell gold. If they're telling you to buy it, it's the worst time.

    The same thing is true when oligarch owned media says vote blue no matter who.

    If a bunch of billionaires want to tell me it's ok not to vote D this time, that's the biggest sign I need to vote D

  • source
  • Party leadership were cashing huge political (and probably person) checks from Israel (and funded by us tax dollars). There was no way they would have looked at or even admitted the data existed if it meant giving up foreign sourced AIPAC dollars.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    I mean... no shit? Hiding under that desk until a week before the election probably didn't help much either.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    The ‘autopsy’ was garbage anyway. Do it right or don’t do it at all.

  • source