Democrats' 2024 Autopsy Is Described as Avoiding the Likeliest Cause of Death
The audit, which the committee is calling an 'after-action review,' is expected to avoid the questions of whether former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. should have run for re-election in the first place, whether he should have exited the race earlier than he did and whether former Vice President Kamala Harris was the right choice to replace him, according to the people briefed on the process so far.
Nor is the review expected to revisit key decisions by the Harris campaign — like framing the election as a choice between democracy and fascism, and refraining from hitting back after an ad by Donald J. Trump memorably attacked Ms. Harris on transgender rights by suggesting that she was for 'they/them' while Mr. Trump was 'for you' — that have roiled Democrats in the months since Mr. Trump took back the White House.
Party officials described the draft document as focusing on the 2024 election as a whole, but not on the presidential campaign — which is something like eating at a steakhouse and then reviewing the salad.
Producing a tough-minded public review of a national electoral defeat would be a politically delicate exercise under any circumstance, given the need to find fault with the work and judgment of important party leaders and strategists. It is particularly fraught for the new D.N.C. chairman, Ken Martin, who promised a post-election review from his first day on the job but whose first few months in the role have been plagued by infighting and financial strains.
'We are not interested in second-guessing campaign tactics or decisions of campaign operatives,' said Jane Kleeb, the Nebraska Democratic chairwoman, who heads the association of Democratic state chairs and is a close ally of Mr. Martin. 'We are interested in what voters turned out for Republicans and Democrats, and how we can fix this moving forward.'
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NFLPA's JC Tretter resigns after backlash against candidacy to replace executive director Lloyd Howell
J.C. Tretter was the other name scrutinized in the backlash that led to NFLPA executive director Lloyd Howell resigning. He's headed out too now. The former Cleveland Browns center, who was working as the union's chief strategy officer after two terms as president during his playing days, told CBS Sports on Sunday he is taking himself out of the running for the interim executive director position and resigning from the union, citing the impact on his family. He did so after it was reported he was in a two-man race for interim executive director alongside NFLPA chief player officer Don Davis. From CBS Sports: "I'm not resigning because what I've been accused of is true. ... I'm not resigning in disgrace. I'm resigning because this has gone too far for me and my family, and I've sucked it up for six weeks. And I felt like I've been kind of left in the wind taking shots for the best of the organization," he said. "… I got to the point this morning where I woke up and I realized, like, I am going to keep dying on this f—ing sword forever of, I'll never, ever be able to do what's best for me. And I will always pick what's best for the organization. And in the end, what's the organization done for me? Like, nothing. Tretter played a central role in Howell's hire, which has been increasingly questioned after it was reported the players might have known about a sexual discrimination lawsuit against him at his previous employer and that he had a massive conflict of interest as a Carlyle Group consultant. It was also revealed last week that a grievance successfully brought by the NFL against Tretter was covered up. The news that Tretter might have replaced Howell when the vote went to the players was met with disbelief and criticism from some former players, many of whom worked in NFLPA leadership or as player representatives. A text message was also reportedly being distributed among players railing against him as "the common denominator in all these scandals." Promoting Tretter to executive director would have represented an endorsement of the NFLPA's leadership in recent years, and it has become very clear that would be a hard sell. The NFLPA has had a very bad month The controversy began last month when Pablo Torre and Mike Florio reported that the NFL and NFLPA buried a ruling on a collusion grievance that saw an arbitrator conclude that the league encouraged its teams to reduce guaranteed money in 2022 after Deshaun Watson's unprecedented, fully guaranteed contract. The NFL actually won the grievance because the arbitrator, Christopher Droney, concluded he could not establish a "clear preponderance" that NFL teams acted on that advice, but he still left a damning sentence on page 55 of a 61-page document: 'There is little question that the NFL Management Council, with the blessing of the Commissioner, encouraged the 32 NFL Clubs to reduce guarantees in veterans' contracts at the March 2022 annual owners' meeting.' The NFL's reason for hiding that conclusion is obvious. It validates many critics' portrayals of a league willing to color outside the lines to suppress player compensation in any way it can get away with. What was less clear was why the NFLPA agreed with the NFL that the public, and more notably the players, didn't need to see that a neutral observer concluded its main adversary was acting in such a way. Questions abounded for Howell and the rest of the union's leadership, and it got worse as the weeks went on. After Howell finally resigned Thursday, it was reported Friday he had been discovered to have expensed more than $3,000 at strip clubs. The NFLPA has never been anywhere close to the most prestigious or effective player union in sports, but the latest developments were beyond the pale enough for many that Tretter couldn't escape the backlash either. JC Tretter compares himself to a 'Game of Thrones' character while defending decisions In a lengthy interview with CBS, Tretter defended himself on many of the above contentions, most notably the notion that he pushed Howell into the executive director role from the shadows. Howell was one of two finalists, alongside former SAG-AFTRA director David White. Tretter said that while Howell performed better in interviews, the NFLPA executive committee voted 10-1 in favor of White over Howell, with Tretter among the 10. However, the committee did not share its preference with the board of 32 player representatives, who voted for Howell. Tretter said her expects there will be changes to the approval process in the next go-around. From CBS Sports: "We did hundreds of hours of work, and we did multiple rounds of interviews. We had people flying into D.C. regularly to meet candidates in person. I don't think it's feasible to do that for everybody," he explained. "… The executive committee is in the day-to-day of it. The board has the approval rights. "It's a fair question. I think that's something that the board and the [executive committee] and the players need to wrestle with as they launch the next search is like, 'How is it set up?' I'm not saying we did everything right. I think we made decisions based off what we had done historically and wanted to do something different and thought what we were doing was the best option. We've learned more since then. There are probably going to be changes. There should be changes. They should do something that they feel confident in and they should learn from every experience they have." Tretter also said he regretted the quote that led to the covered-up NFL grievance, calling it a "dumb tongue-in-cheek remark" and denied having any access to the collusion grievance Howell agreed with the NFL to keep secret. Overall, Tretter had a comparison for his role in all this: Tyrion Lannister. Let's hear him out: Tretter has been thinking about one specific scene from "Game of Thrones" over the last few weeks. Tyrion Lannister is on trial for killing his nephew, King Joffrey, and though he didn't commit the murder, he says that he wished he had. "I wish I was the monster you think I am," Lannister says at his trial. "I felt a lot of that over the last six weeks," Tretter said Sunday. "I'm being accused of being this all-controlling, all-powerful person, and I'm not. And I f—ing wish I was because I don't think we'd be in the same place we are now if I was.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If Trump's Wealth Was Evenly Distributed Across America, How Much Money Would Every Person Get?
We hear numbers like 'billions' thrown around all the time, but what does that really mean for the average person? Let's break down what would happen if billionaire President Donald Trump split his entire net worth evenly among every American (and whether that could actually happen). Find Out: Read Next: What Is Donald Trump's Net Worth? Donald Trump is a real estate mogul turned reality TV star, turned president, turned…influencer? It's been quite a ride. Trump began his business career working for his father, Fred, who built affordable housing in Brooklyn and Queens. He later moved the business into Manhattan, building skyscrapers and casinos and eventually branding nearly everything from steaks to ties. As of June 2025, Trump's net worth is estimated at over $5 billion, according to Forbes. That figure includes: High-end real estate (commercial and residential) Golf resorts across the globe A winery A Boeing 757 known as 'Trump Force One' Stakes in companies like Trump Media & Technology Group (home of Truth Social) He's also made millions in recent years by selling NFTs, coffee-table books and shares in his social media company, despite it losing money. That said, a New York judge ordered him to pay $454 million in 2024 for allegedly inflating his assets to look more creditworthy. Trump appealed the ruling and is awaiting a final decision to be made. But until then, his net worth remains hovering above $5 billion. Discover More: How Much Would You Get? Now for the fun part. If Trump's $5.4 (or so) billion was evenly distributed among all 347,181,484 people in the U.S., every person would get $15.55. What Can $15.55 Buy You in 2025? In today's dollars, here's what you could spend your Trump dividend on: Three gallons of gas (maybe) One month of a streaming service (until you forget to cancel) A fast-food combo meal…with extra fries A high-quality phone charger 0.00016 shares of Nvidia A movie ticket So while $15.55 isn't quite yacht money, it's still a tangible amount of money for something many Americans could use. Could This Actually Happen? Not really. Most of Trump's fortune isn't sitting in a checking account but rather tied up in real estate and business equity. Meaning to give away his billions, he'd have to liquidate assets, sell property and cash out of his companies. And that's no easy task since many of his holdings, like golf resorts and commercial buildings, aren't exactly quick or easy to sell. It would take time, come with massive tax implications and could tank the value of his holdings in the process. Large-scale asset sales could trigger capital gains taxes in the hundreds of millions, depending on how long he's held each property and what he originally paid. Worse, the sudden flood of properties or shares could depress market prices, causing his remaining wealth to drop even further (and hurting others invested in the same markets). Plus, there's no legal or logical reason he'd want to do this. U.S. law doesn't require billionaires to redistribute their wealth, and most don't unless compelled by court order (or extreme personal conviction). Final Thoughts No, Trump's not going to hand you $15.55 any time soon, but it's still fun to realize just how small a billionaire's fortune becomes when it's shared across a population of hundreds of millions. More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 5 Cities You Need To Consider If You're Retiring in 2025 The New Retirement Problem Boomers Are Facing This article originally appeared on If Trump's Wealth Was Evenly Distributed Across America, How Much Money Would Every Person Get?
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
GOP push behind Trump agenda has Congress in an uproar
Advertisement And that was just last week. Veteran lawmakers said that the level of vitriol and dysfunction in the Capitol had reached a fever pitch. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'It is bad — really bad,' Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said when asked to assess the mood on Capitol Hill. 'There's a level of frustration. How do we get back to doing our jobs?' Republicans have achieved hard-won legislative victories, but those have come at a cost, setting the stage for a meltdown that has, among other things, raised the prospects of a government shutdown this fall. Some GOP lawmakers are feeling squeezed, while Democrats, outraged that the White House is shredding funding agreements and doling out money however it wants, are threatening to abandon a tradition of bipartisan spending deals. Advertisement 'I want to warn my colleagues once again: If you keep going down this path, you are going to further undermine our bipartisan process,' said Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee. 'The more bridges you burn, the fewer paths you leave to get things done.' Her comments came as all but two Republicans banded together to push through legislation around 1 a.m. Friday allowing the Trump administration to cancel $9 billion in previously approved spending on foreign aid and public broadcasting. Murkowski, one of the two opponents in her party, said the measure was an unacceptable breach of congressional spending power. It was not just the spending divide that was inciting tumult on Capitol Hill. In a lengthy session Thursday evening, Democrats and Republicans on the powerful House Rules Committee engaged in nasty back-and-forth over the rising clamor for Congress to vote on releasing criminal files in the investigation of Epstein, who died by suicide in a federal jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. That morning, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee had stormed out of a meeting in protest after Senator Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who leads the panel, cut off debate and forced a committee vote on the disputed judicial nomination of Emil Bove. Bove, a Justice Department official and former defense attorney for Trump, is up for an influential post on a federal appeals court that encompasses Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. He has been accused by a former Justice Department colleague of declaring a willingness to defy court orders on immigration, a charge Bove has disputed. Advertisement Democrats wanted more time to examine the nomination. But Grassley forged ahead despite those demands, ramming the approval through in one of a series of Republican-only votes. Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, implored him to stop, accusing the chair of 'an abuse of power.' The two had worked closely in the past on criminal justice issues. 'To me, it is a president who has such a thrall over the Republicans in the Senate that he could get them to surrender not just their power, but their constitutional obligations,' Booker said after the blowup, adding that Republicans were relinquishing their ability to provide a check on White House nominees. Grassley dismissed the complaints, claiming Democrats had executed 'a political hit job' on Bove. He said Democrats had shut down Republican members of the committee in the past, when they held the gavel in the majority. 'This is not unprecedented — either the walking away or what we did as a majority,' Grassley said. 'It has happened before, and we have to move things along.' Russell T. Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget and the chief architect of a campaign to pry spending power away from Congress, exacerbated tensions on Capitol Hill. He told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast that there needed to be less bipartisanship around federal spending — not a sentiment typically heard on Capitol Hill. He also reiterated his contention that spending levels set by Congress were an advisory ceiling, not a floor. His commentary infuriated Democrats already bristling at the $9 billion in added cuts — the first approved by Congress in decades under a special procedure that allows the president to cancel spending. Advertisement 'He wants to destroy,' Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, the minority leader, said as he called for Trump to fire Vought. 'Destroy the way that Congress works, destroy the balance of power and upend our entire Constitution. Russell Vought doesn't believe in this democracy.' Vought's comments could complicate efforts by Republicans and Democrats to work out spending levels for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Democrats said that his argument destroyed any incentive for them to strike deals, since he made clear the White House would seek to unravel them later with an assist from Senate Republicans. A test vote in the Senate on the first of the annual spending bills is scheduled for Tuesday. 'That just profoundly undermined the stability and purpose of a bipartisan appropriations process,' Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, a member of the Appropriations Committee, said of Vought's comments. Some lawmakers attributed the congressional edginess to lawmakers being wrung out from repeated all-night sessions to push through the Republican tax cut and domestic policy bill, and from late-night Senate debate over the additional cuts sought by the administration. 'A lot of this is people are just tired,' said Senator John Boozman, Republican of Arkansas. 'Hopefully this all blows over soon.' Some of the fights have occurred within Republican ranks. On Wednesday, an internal House Republican dispute over cryptocurrency legislation led to a usually routine process vote being held open for more than nine hours as leaders toiled to secure the necessary support. It was just the latest in a series of congressional records being set with extended floor fights and speeches. 'I am tired of making history,' Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Wednesday night. 'I just want a normal Congress.' Advertisement Given the intensity of the divisions so far and the potential momentous clashes ahead, normal seems out of the question. This article originally appeared in
