Rarely in recent politics has there been a bigger disconnect between the public perception of an organization and reality than there is between base Democrats and the Democratic National Committee.
Go on any online forum, and you will see progressives decry “the DNC” as a corrupt bastion of the insider establishment politics that has become toxic to so many primary voters. Meanwhile, DNC Chair Ken Martin has come under heavy fire from nearly the entire Washington, D.C. establishment for supposed failures of leadership and fundraising.
But the truth of the DNC is far different.
Let’s start with Ken Martin. As I wrote a few weeks ago, his leadership at the DNC has resulted in a bonanza of record-breaking fundraising for the out-of-power party. (Again, for the record, I’m a DNC member and supported Martin’s bid to chair the party.) Yes, the DNC is in debt, but that is because it has made wise and effective investments in state parties and local organizing, many of which have already paid dividends in successful election outcomes. Few will remember or care about the DNC’s debt if the party retakes Congress and holds Trump accountable.
While a stunning 31-0 record in state legislative flips reflects national political dynamics more than any DNC strategy, local Democrats are also enjoying significant successes. Even with tailwinds, flipping local mayorships, city councils, and school boards in red states requires a party infrastructure that capitalizes on these moments to wage organized campaigns and get out the vote. The Martin administration has raised $20 million in 2026—a 30 percent increase from the same period in 2018. The DNC’s donation of $22,500 per month to each state party ensures Democrats in these states have the funding to invest in organizers and infrastructure and flip winnable seats in wave elections, but often only after the wave crests due to a lack of early investment.
Meanwhile, the DNC is not what its progressive critics allege. At the DNC’s meeting in Austin earlier this month (which I attended as a voting member), the party did three big things of note: it passed a resolution calling to abolish ICE, rejected an amendment that would have banned ranked-choice voting in the 2028 primary, and adopted an early state primary calendar that arguably gives progressive candidates a much more viable path to the nomination than they have had in recent memory. Resolutions give legislators a non-binding sense of direction, and the DNC passed resolutions to both reform and abolish ICE, giving candidates flexibility in their own messaging. The calendar adds much greater diversity across ethnicity, age, and class lines without giving any one coalition excessive power to determine the nominee. States with younger, more diverse, and more progressive electorates will have the opportunity to determine the final nominee after South Carolina winnows the field.
These are not just good outcomes for progressive politics and good government reforms. They also reflect directly on Martin’s different leadership style. Under him, the DNC is behaving less like an autocratic party machine, and more like a small-d democracy receiving input from organizers on the ground across the country.
One of Martin’s reforms (central to what DNC members like myself had sought in a new party chair) was to promise that all kinds of DNC members, from the ranks of national appointments, state party leaders, and members elected by state party grassroots, would have a bigger say instead of being a rubber stamp for decisions by leadership and those close to it.
Overturning the Ranked Choice Voting amendment serves as a good example. Partly due to reforms spearheaded by Martin, the membership of the Rules and Bylaws Committee was expanded to include members beyond those appointed by the chair. This resulted in a more diverse (and divided) committee. It adopted a rule preventing states from using ranked-choice voting in the 2028 primaries by a razor-thin margin, despite objections from many other members elected by state parties. The proposed rule was unpopular with the broader membership, which organized against it before it came to the floor.
Rather than put his thumb on the scale in either direction, Chair Martin oversaw the process. An agreement was ultimately reached: The proponents moved to strike out their own proposed ban, and the membership overwhelmingly voted in agreement through a transparent, democratic process. This is what a healthy, from-the-ground-up political culture looks like.
This is a far cry from the stereotype many progressives have of a top-down DNC that stymies progressives and ensures establishment moderates have an inside track. The current version of the DNC functions exactly as progressives have long wanted—with input from all stakeholders, and with the membership—mostly elected by state and local leaders—having the final say in a democratic process.
This is not to say that the DNC can’t do better, or that Martin has made no mistakes. There is always room for improvement. But insofar as there has been wasteful spending and ineffective organizing against Trump, the DNC itself is not the main culprit. And insofar as progressives have reason to grouse at the politics of congressional party leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, it is not the DNC that is to blame. Indeed, the other organizations in left-of-center spaces could take a few pointers from Martin and his revitalization of the party.
