For weeks, Ken Martin has faced a barrage of criticism over his handling of the Democratic National Committee's post-2024 election review. Some of his critics have been named and willing to own their arguments. But a significant portion have remained anonymous, hiding behind labels like “DNC members” or “senior Democrats” in outlets such as Axios and ABC News. That anonymity is telling: people confident in their case usually sign their name.
Martin did make a mistake when he promised an after-action report on the 2024 election and then delayed its release for months. When he finally acknowledged the error and published the report, it was the right—if overdue—move. But calling for his removal over a single botched rollout, 18 months before the next presidential primary, is not a serious argument. It’s using a real misstep as cover for a fight that was already brewing.
That fight began in February 2025, when Martin defeated Ben Wikler for the DNC chairmanship. One faction of the party has never stopped relitigating that race. Every leaked complaint, every resignation demand, every gloomy think piece traces back to the same disappointed corner. They lost an election and are now trying to win it through attrition. The question they should answer honestly is whether they care more about electing Democrats or protecting their own consulting contracts and access.
What Martin Is Actually Building
Look at what Martin is doing. The DNC, in partnership with the Association of State Democratic Committees, is now delivering over $1 million every month to all 57 state and territorial parties—the largest sustained investment in state parties in party history. Red-state parties receive an additional $5,000 per month through the Red State Fund. State parties from Mississippi to Alaska are growing their staff and infrastructure for the first time in years. This is the same strategy Howard Dean used to deliver wave elections in 2006 and 2008. It works.
This strategy is exactly what Democrats need. Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign contested more than two dozen states. In 2024, Democrats played in just seven. Over three decades, the party surrendered the map, and the math is closing in. Population projections for the 2030 Census show between eight and 12 electoral votes shifting from blue states to red states ahead of the 2032 presidential election. If Democrats keep writing off Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and the rest of the Sun Belt, they will lose the Electoral College permanently. Martin understands this. His critics apparently do not.
Meanwhile, the results keep coming. Democrats have won or overperformed in hundreds of special elections under Martin’s leadership. They swept Virginia and New Jersey in November 2025. Grassroots fundraising hit record levels in his first months as chair—more than any DNC chair raised in their first four months ever—and continues at a historic pace. Small-dollar donors are responding because they see the strategy: building Democratic power in places where the party hasn’t shown up in a generation.
The Cash Gap and the Real Choice
Yes, Democrats have a cash gap with the Republican National Committee. Every honest Democrat should acknowledge it, and Martin does. But that gap exists partly because he chose to spend on state party infrastructure rather than hoard a war chest in Washington. I would rather have $1 million a month going to organizers in 57 states than another $12 million sitting in a bank account while Republicans consolidate power in abandoned states.
To my fellow members of the national finance committee, and to every Democrat watching this debate: ask yourself who actually benefits when we tear down the person trying to rebuild this party from the ground up. It is not voters. It is not candidates. It is not us. Martin is doing the work. His critics owe the party a more honest accounting of what they actually want—and the courage to argue for it openly.
Tim Wegener is a member of the DNC’s National Finance Committee.
