Kamala Harris was so stunned by her crushing loss to Donald Trump last November that she reportedly asked aides, “Should we do a recount?” That moment of disbelief is one of many explosive details emerging from the new insider book FIGHT: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House, co-authored by Amie Parnes.

Parnes shared the scoop on the latest episode of the podcast Somebody’s Gotta Win, hosted by journalist Tara Palmeri. According to Parnes, Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, were blindsided by the results on election night and simply couldn’t process the reality that they had lost.

“She was completely shocked, and Tim Walz was shocked,” Parnes said. “He was sitting in his hotel room stunned.” Campaign staff reportedly had to “explain things slowly” to the shell-shocked pair. Harris, in particular, appeared incapable of grasping the outcome. “She’s like, ‘Are you sure? Have we done a recount? Should we do a recount?’” Parnes revealed.

For a party that spent years demonizing Trump supporters for questioning election results, the irony is rich. But it gets worse.

Harris and Walz truly believed they were on the brink of victory. According to Parnes, their confidence was driven by misleading campaign metrics — crowd sizes, fundraising tallies, and boots-on-the-ground enthusiasm. “Kamala Harris was looking at her crowd size, and they felt like the vibe was strong,” she said. “She bought all of that. So did a lot of people in the campaign.”

That misplaced optimism echoes comments Walz made during his first post-election interview, in which he claimed he was “surprised” by the loss because the rallies he attended seemed full of energy and positive momentum. “It felt like the momentum was going our way,” Walz told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. “I thought we had a positive message.”

What he didn’t mention? That much of their rally enthusiasm was artificially inflated. Harris events were infamous for flying in celebrities and influencers just to put warm bodies in the crowd. Some fans came to see the stars, not the candidates. Meanwhile, Trump was packing arenas from coast to coast — without gimmicks.

Despite losing by a wide margin in both the Electoral College and popular vote, Harris insiders reportedly deluded themselves into thinking they just needed “a little more time.” One adviser even told the book’s authors, “If Election Day was October first, we might have actually somehow pulled it off.”

Another friend of Harris responded bluntly: “That is f—ing bonkers.” The reality, they admitted, was far more damning. “We didn’t need more time… We needed more substance. And she did not have more substance.”

That last line says it all. Kamala Harris had the full backing of the corporate press, the Democratic machine, and the Obama-era donor class — and still fell flat. No amount of celebrity endorsements or slick campaign ads could cover up the gaping void at the heart of her candidacy.

It was a rude awakening not just for Harris and Walz, but for a Democratic Party that has spent years propping up empty suits with no clear agenda beyond opposing Trump. Even Barack Obama, reportedly reluctant to fully back her in private, seemed to recognize Harris didn’t have the political chops to go the distance.

In the end, the election wasn’t stolen. It wasn’t rushed. It wasn’t sabotaged. It was a clear, resounding rejection of a ticket that had nothing real to offer the American people.