Pre-Mortem, not Autopsy
Democrats must avoid learning the wrong lessons from narrow victories
The Democratic National Committee is under fire for not releasing its autopsy report on the 2024 election. But the real danger isn’t failing to explain how Democrats lost, it is the party repeatedly mistaking narrow or contextual wins as proof that nothing needs to change.
That unhealthy pattern is reflected in DNC Chair Ken Martin’s explanation for burying a report he had promised to release, in which the only bolded line is that “Democrats have won or overperformed in 226 of 254 key elections” this year. The statistic is true, but misleading. Special elections systematically overstate Democratic strength because they are dominated by high-information, high-engagement voters and shaped by backlash to an unpopular Republican president.
A similar dynamic occurred in 2022, when Democrats misinterpreted the relatively few losses as public satisfaction with Joe Biden, who then sailed to renomination without any course correction despite low approval and deep voter concerns. This was like a postgame locker room celebration because a team lost by four but beat the spread, as we centrists lamented at the time.
The closer analogy to the current situation is 2018, when - after flipping forty-one House seats - progressive politicos largely ignored the lessons of the majority-making moderates who beat Republicans. The focus instead went on the handful of primary upsets in deep blue cities. After misreading those matcha leaves, Democratic elites lurched left on everything from climate to culture to immigration ahead of the 2020 primary, until normal voters saved the party by nominating Joe Biden.
But it didn’t save all the frontliners, as Democrats broke historical trends by losing House seats while winning the White House.
Democrats should fear complacency from a midterm win more than squabbling after last year’s loss. Not releasing an autopsy after a presidential loss is normal for both parties. The DNC did not issue formal reports after presidential losses in 1988, 2000, 2004, or 2016. The most recent prominent such report, by Republicans after 2012, is famous for recommendations on immigration refuted by the winning campaign of Donald Trump four years later.
Autopsies focus on proximate causes of death. But elections aren’t random accidents, they follow the same logic as health outcomes.
In humans, causes of death are rarely mysterious. They are typically preceded by years of elevated risk: untreated chronic disease, unhealthy environments, and denials that mistake temporary stability for recovery. Long before the heart attack, the health chart shows hypertension, obesity, smoking, and missed checkups.
Politics can work similarly. By the time a party totally loses power, the outcome has already been forecast by years of ignored warning signs.
Pre-mortems focus on those underlying risk factors which may prove fatal. And Democrats could surely use some warnings.
In Deciding To Win: Toward a Common Sense Renewal of the Democratic Party, we take a look at the party’s health chart from the thirteen years since Barack Obama’s re-election. Poll results of 500,000 voters, combined with dozens of expert interviews and reviews of election results and political science literature find poor predictors of health. Democrats are viewed as too liberal and out of touch due to substantive reasons: the party, as evidenced by its platform and congressional bill sponsorships have moved to the left. Its highly-educated voter base prioritizes issues out of touch with the country.
With this clear trajectory, and an assist from prediction markets, a clear story of the next three years emerges.
The most likely scenario: In 2026, Democrats will exceed the paltry handful of seats required to flip the House (75% chance). And then promptly misread the mild correction as a new trajectory, as our own Adam Frisch told The New York Times:
“What I’m worried about in 2026 is like a ‘dead donkey bounce,’” Mr. Frisch said, borrowing a Wall Street phrase for an upward blip amid a broader decline.
Despite falling short in the Senate (70% chance) and lacking any realistic plan of winning the upper chamber in the near-term, the progressive and Resistance base celebrates a major midterm victory, with cheerleading PACs, NGOs, and influencers reinforcing an echo chamber detached from the median voter.
The odds of winning the 2028 presidency (50% chance) are sharply diminished throughout 2027 with another bonkers primary season, featuring renewed calls to Abolish ICE along with gender, race-neutral hiring, and K-12 school options. It is like 2020, but without the popular moderate former Vice President waiting for voters to choose the electable moderate.
In the letter from the DNC Chair on ditching the report, the last of five major points contains a phrase more telling than any full autopsy: “voters were telling us what they cared about and we were not responsive to these concerns.”
That has been growing more and more true for a decade.
This sentence may get lost amid the intraparty drama over a report that is alleged to be shielding high-priced consultants and the future candidacy of Kamala Harris.
Instead, it should serve as motivation for a 2028 pre-mortem. And for making 2026 the type of victory that sets a new course.