10
Loading video...
By Alex J. Rouhandeh
National Political Correspondent
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The 2026 midterm elections delivered the Democratic Party its largest victory since the post-Watergate election of 1974, which the Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin views as vindication of the 50-state organizing strategy he put in place after he was chosen in February 2025 to pull his party from the comprehensive defeat it faced in 2024.
Throughout Martin’s tenure at the DNC, his focus on rebuilding party infrastructure in long-overlooked red states was widely admonished by the party’s D.C. insiders who have complained that his policy of sending $1 million a month to state parties left national Democratic campaign coffers badly trailing their Republican counterparts. They described Martin as thin-skinned, paranoid and insular in his leadership style, and called for his ouster.
In some of his first comments in the wake of the midterm wins, Martin told Newsweek that he feels the results proved the wisdom of his ways.
Read More on Politics
“For me, none of the critics matter. None of the praise matters. None of the lack of praise matters,” Martin said. “What matters is winning.”
Opening up about his experience, Martin described the weight of the pressures of the job and the scrutiny that comes with it. “It was certainly hard on my family over the last two years because in my time in politics over these last 36 years, I've never really had negative stories written about me before,” he said. “For them, it was challenging, but for me, I just kept my nose down.”
Martin sees Democrats’ wide-ranging and unexpected victories in places like South Carolina, Texas and Kansas—places where the party had not won in decades—as showing why the 50-state strategy was necessary.
“After Tuesday, the chair that has had the greatest number of wins in a midterm in the history of the Democratic Party is me. And I don’t say that to brag,” he said, adding that he believes “passionately that the way you actually win elections is by pushing money and resources out to the states to make sure we are investing on the ground.”
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
...
Newsweek: This summer, people were calling for you to resign from your post. How does it feel to be leading the DNC in wake of this historic wind?
DNC Chair Ken Martin: I've always drowned out the critics. There're always critics in these roles, whether you're a state party chair, national chair. If you try to please everyone, you please no one. And I've never took this job to try to please anyone. I had my North Star, which was winning. I've had my North Star, which is always how you win matters, how we actually build this party matters. And, for me, of course, I feel great about the election results, but it was never about trying to please any of the critics or to silence the naysayers. It was always about doing this the right way so we could build power for working people and give people a chance and an opportunity in this country.
You and I have talked about this before—It's very personal for me. So, when you know your why, in terms of why you do this work, everything else swirling around doesn't really matter. But I think it was certainly hard on my family over the last two years because in my time in politics over these last 36 years, I've never really had negative stories written about me before. For them, it was challenging, but for me, I just kept my nose down. There’re folks out there who’ll have a lot to say after this election. I do as well. But the reality is victory has a thousand parents and defeat is an orphan. There're many people who can certainly claim that they were part of this success for sure. And I think the DNC certainly can as well.
Have any of your critics and naysayers reached out after this election to apologize or express confidence in your approach?
No. But that's okay. Again, if I cared about that then that would be one thing. But I really don't. Right after the election when I started campaigning for this job, the three leading candidates were me, then Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler, and former Social Security Administration Commissioner Martin O'Malley. I felt like O’Malley, coming out of the administration, decided to run for this because he thought that there would be relevancy in this role or glory to be found. And I told him at the time, “If you think that being party chair is a place where you find glory or relevancy, you're making a mistake—you'll never get credit for the work you do.” Everyone else will take credit. For me, none of the critics matter. None of the praise matters. None of the lack of praise matters. What matters is winning.
To that point, campaign committees and candidates are receiving great praise. Obviously, candidate quality and fundraising play a great role. Although you may not be seeking praise, explain what credit the DNC deserves for this cycle’s results.
In the last 50 years, the DNC chair that before me that had the greatest record of success in a midterm election was Howard Dean. Howard Dean was the originator of the 50-state strategy, of the kind I employed. During that two-year period, and then whole four years that he served as chair, there was a remarkable number of wins up and down the ballot throughout the country. Now after Tuesday, the chair that has had the greatest number of wins in a midterm in the history of the Democratic Party is me. And I don't say that to brag, but what are the things that we have in common, Howard Dean? Well, we both believe passionately that the way you actually win elections is by pushing money and resources out to the states to make sure we are investing on the ground.
The DNC, under my leadership, we started immediately pushing out resources, making sure we were investing in the whole ballot strategy, making sure that we were partnering with our state and local parties like never before and building the infrastructure to meet the moment. No one could have predicted how big the wave would be. No one could have predicted the great candidates that would emerge. No one could have predicted the abject failure of the Republican Party to meet this moment. But the key is the Democratic Party needs to be prepared for anything. For me, that’s exactly what we did—relentlessly stay focused on building the infrastructure, pushing out resources, building up capacity, working with state local candidates and federal candidates in a way we haven't done before, and make sure that we’re building something to meet the moment.
That begs the question: What do you think is the role of the modern National Committee Chair? History has shown that when the president chooses the chair, the party consistently sees midterm losses.
If I'm successful in two years, we'll have elected a Democratic president. And the typical practice, dating back well before I was born, was that the President of the United States is the standard bearer of our party and the leader of our party. And as a result, they will pick who will be the national chair. And in some ways, it makes perfect sense. But my hope is I build the build the type of infrastructure that is so indispensable to the ecosystem and to the next president of the United States, that when they come in, they don't want to disband that infrastructure.
We saw when President Obama came in, and he was an exceptional president, is their team decided they were going to go in a different direction than what Howard Dean had laid down. And that was a disastrous decision because during those eight years under President Obama, we suffered the deepest and most significant losses in our party's history. I really hope we break this boom-and-bust cycle of elections. Midterm elections almost always are difficult for a president in either party. And so, the question will be for that next president, how do you make sure as you go into your first midterm that you have the type of infrastructure and the type of operation that can either minimize that or frankly put you in a position to win? The one thing that whoever the next president is shouldn't do is get rid of the 50-state strategy.
I’m sure most party members would likely want to follow the president’s judgement. However, do you think it’s worth considering not having the role of chair be chosen by the president, having it be a position that’s elected like when the party doesn’t hold the White House?
There's been conversation over a long time on that. I don't see that changing necessarily. A Democratic president is a leader of our party, and they are the greatest asset, and, of course, they need to have complete control of the party apparatus. I know people talk about this. I do think continuity really matters. And I really wanna make it very clear—I'm not advocating for myself in this conversation. But one of the challenges we've had at the state party level, that I worked hard to fix when I was Association of State Democratic Committees president, was that the average life cycle of a state party chair was two years. We’d be churning over new party chairs every two years and as a result, in some ways, we were recreating infrastructure.
I would argue that, nationally, that's also been a little bit of a challenge when you change courses, so to speak, every four years at the DNC. The next chair, no doubt, will want to come in and put their mark on things. And invariably, what we've seen is that they sort of just start from scratch. They throw everything out and they start over. And that is something we have to actually look ourselves in the mirror and ask, “Is that the right strategy?” I'm trying to build not only a new culture of how we do this work but also a new utility where people rely on and recognize the importance and value of the infrastructure we're building. So, my hope is that they'll want to build on top of it and don't want to destroy it.
Looking to 2028, there will be different degrees to which candidates have been involved with the DNC or their state party. How do you think these individuals should be looking at this infrastructure as something they can leverage?
It’s very important to me that the DNC is completely neutral in the primary. Most importantly is to make sure that those candidates understand process, they understand every step of the way how to engage the DNC and to engage state parties, and frankly that at the same time we are also budling pieces specific to the presidential campaign that will be helpful to them. We have the most significant research team in Washington, D.C. and part of what they're already working on is books on potential Republican presidential opponents, massive opposition research that we will hand over to every Democratic nominee when they get into the race. We work on all other sorts of research we will provide.
The infrastructure we build as we had in the ‘28 will be of great value to them as they pivot away from the internecine battle of a primary contest. They're going to need to scale very quickly to be able to run a national campaign, and that's where the national infrastructure and the DNC will be incredibly helpful. In the past, what we've seen where we've been successful in winning the presidency is that the presidential campaign and the DNC are completely folded together in a way that makes them one organization focused on a whole ballot strategy. We have a much greater responsibility than anyone else here in D.C. on making sure we win the presidency. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and other organizations will be focused on their races
What is one thing you’d warn congressional Democrats not to focus on as the party aims to build upon its gains in 2028?
We need to stay focused on the issues that we ran on—affordability and accountability. But to your specific question, as it relates to accountability, there is a high degree of cynicism in this country about government and politicians generally. Americans believe that there're two sets of rules, that the rich, the powerful, the well-connected can get away with anything and that there're two separate sets of rules, one for them and one for the rest of us. That there's two separate economies, one where the rich are getting richer and everyone else is actually falling behind. And so, in some ways, this corruption that we've seen, there has to be accountability. And that's what I think you will see in addition to our focus on affordability, you will see a focus on holding people to account.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines