At this point, the 2024 Democratic autopsy has taken on something of a mystical air. The still-unreleased report was meant to provide a comprehensive diagnosis of how and why Kamala Harris lost the presidential election two years ago. Ken Martin, the embattled chair of the Democratic National Committee, ordered it soon after he was elected to the position last February. But in November, Martin announced that he would not release it after all, arguing — rather unconvincingly — that it would not be productive to dwell on the past.

Last week, Rob Flaherty, the deputy campaign manager for Harris’s campaign who co-hosts the podcast Nobody Knows Anything, offered his unique perspective on the matter. In a widely shared article he wrote for The Bulwark, Flaherty disclosed that he had been interviewed for the infamous autopsy — which he described as haphazardly produced — and explained what he had told the team behind it. Flaherty gave his unvarnished thoughts on Harris’s loss, arguing that endlessly dissected campaign moments — Donald Trump’s anti-trans ad, Harris’s failure to appear on Joe Rogan’s podcast — and contentious issues like Gaza were less important factors than the Democratic Party’s shattered “brand” amid widespread discontent around inflation and Joe Biden. He also opined on how a hidebound party can appeal to today’s anti-institution electorate. I spoke with Flaherty about the reaction to his article, why Democrats should stake out an aggressive position on AI, and who in the party he thinks is particularly intriguing right now.

Your article got quite a reaction. Have you heard from a lot of people about it?Yeah, I’ve gotten a lot of good feedback. I’ve heard from a lot of folks who have found it useful, and I’m glad. I’ve heard really constructive places where people disagreed, and it’s sparking a conversation, which is what I hoped it would do.

Any points of disagreement that struck you?People had some really interesting thoughts about the brand stuff. My stipulation is that the campaign didn’t have a brand that could stick out, and to the extent that we did, it was yoked to the party’s terrible brand. There was some feedback that — no, there was a brand, and people didn’t like it, which I think is a fair thing.

What I’ve been sort of shocked by is that the conversation has been very constructive. Even the people who think it was wrong are constructively bouncing off of it, which is actually why I think an autopsy would’ve been important and still can be done without ruining the party.

On the topic of the autopsy itself: you write that it wasn’t much of one — that what the DNC produced was a “loose summary of a bunch of interviews that were largely done without talking to the campaign or big spenders.” Why do you think Ken Martin and the DNC have been so vague about why they’re not releasing it? It makes it sound like they found something horrible.You’d have to ask Ken Martin that question. I can see an argument for what he’s doing if the leading rumor is true — that this all might be so embarrassing that it could topple his chairmanship. Then you’d rather say, “No, I didn’t mismanage this.” But to me, you probably should just say, “Hey, this is going to take longer than expected, but we’re really going to do this right.”

Do you think Ken Martin is the right guy for the job right now? The recent Pod Save America interview he did was very uncomfortable, and he’s got other problems. And while a lot of people argue that the DNC doesn’t matter that much, you have a different view.I’m such a softie for the DNC. I worked there 10 years ago; it’s........

© Daily Intelligencer