Democrats are engaged in a circular firing squad. The finger-pointing, blame game, recriminations, and despair are being shared publicly and privately.

We’ve been there. Republicans engaged in similar exercises in 2012 and to a lesser degree in 2008. The difference is that Republicans weren’t enthusiastic about Romney or McCain. In the end, Democrats weren’t wild about Kamala either.

Most Democrats and the mainstream media don’t get it. Suddenly, Joe Biden isn’t a selfless hero. Now, he’s a scapegoat for the loss. True, they would have stood a better chance if Biden had announced he would not seek re-election after the midterms and if the Party had an open primary.

However, there’s little chance that the Kamala Harris who campaigned as the nominee or the 2020 version, would have won the nomination.

Democrats still don’t understand what happened. It wasn’t racism or misogyny. It wasn’t any one sub-group that they couldn’t convince – every subgroup went for Trump or voted for him in record numbers. It wasn’t that 107 days wasn’t enough time. It wasn’t the state of the country that doomed her – although denying or blaming Trump did.

It wasn’t even the fragmentation of media.

The blame starts and ends with Kamala Harris and her key advisors. She is easily the worst major party candidate of the modern era, including Hillary.

After being anointed the nominee, Kamala’s first decision was selecting Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, instead of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, as her running mate. Presumably, this was her decision alone. Walz was a dreadful pick for multiple reasons.

Walz is further left than Harris. He reinforced that she would govern as an extreme liberal. Shapiro is moderate and could have helped deliver Pennsylvania, while Walz’s Minnesota was never in play. Not selecting Shapiro sent a message to Jewish voters where Harris stood on the Middle East.

Walz wasn’t thoroughly vetted and made several statements that the campaign had to clean up. Many were long-standing lies. If Harris intended to run a campaign dependent on talking about Trump being a liar, having a record as pure as the driven snow is essential. Walz is not.

Considering Walz was the guy who labeled Trump and Vance “weird” every time he flapped his arms, scampered across a stage, and made weird faces during the debate, he became the weirdest of the four national candidates this year.

When Kamala became the nominee, the campaign was about joy, vibes, and memes. She went weeks without having issue positions on her website and did no media appearances. Kamala wouldn’t even talk with the press gaggle covering her when boarding her plane or at events. She looked like she was hiding and unprepared.

Her avoidance of the media became embarrassing and eventually a joke. In mid-August, she said she “hoped” to do a sit-down interview with a news outlet before the end of the month (two weeks later).

When Harris did her first interview on CNN with Dana Bash, Walz sat with her. Having Walz sit next to her made Kamala appear weak.

When she became the nominee, Trump offered a second debate in addition to the one already scheduled with Biden’s team. She didn’t accept. That was a mistake. Kamala needed a second debate. After Harris won their one debate (in all public opinion polls), Trump demonstrated he is less crazy than the media thinks by refusing a second meeting.

Harris’s debate polling bump had faded by early October. Her advisors knew she was behind, so changing strategy was necessary. Suddenly, Harris and Walz were everywhere. They were mostly interviews on friendly turf.

On October 8th, she was on the Howard Stern Show, The View, and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Her appearance on The View may have been one of the most damaging moments of the campaign. When View co-host Sunny Hostin asked Harris if there was anything she would have done differently than President Joe Biden over the past four years. Harris responded, “There is not a thing that comes to mind.” She doubled down on the answer that night with Colbert.

Considering that 70 percent of the public thinks the country is moving in the wrong direction, Harris couldn’t have given a worse answer. She never found a satisfactory response to the question, but she was trying to convince voters she was the change candidate.

Here’s a simple answer that would have worked: To do it all over again, I wish we had done something that would have prevented the death of thirteen service members when we withdrew from Afghanistan. Voters would have understood.

It wasn’t just that question. Kamala couldn’t or wouldn’t answer any questions.

When did she notice Joe Biden’s cognitive decline? She didn’t acknowledge it. She could have said that “Joe lost a little something on his fastball,” talked about the administration’s accomplishments, and finished by saying vice presidents don’t throw their boss under the bus. Voters would have understood.

She wouldn’t say whether she voted for or against Prop 36, California’s referendum making shoplifting a serious crime again (passing with 70 percent). How could voters take her promises on crime and illegal immigration seriously?

Blaming Trump for illegal immigration and price gouging for inflation were terrible answers. Voters didn’t buy either.

Her answer about the Middle East was such word salad that 60 Minutes violated CBS News standards and replaced her actual answer with an edited response. Bill Whitaker narrated her response to another question.

Harris deserves credit for going on Fox News Channel for a contentious interview with Brett Baier. However, when asked whether she supports tax-payer-funded sex change operations for federal inmates and illegal inmates, Kamala could only muster, “I’ll follow the law.” Another non-answer.

There is evidence that interviews worked against Kamala. A USA Today/Suffolk University poll of people who had heard Harris interviewed on a podcast revealed that 51 percent said it made them less likely to vote for her, compared with 34 percent who said it made them more likely to vote for her. While the sample is limited to people who listened specifically to her podcast interviews, it’s likely her media appearances weren’t any more helpful.

Instead of answering questions, Kamala focused on how awful Trump would be if he won. Hitler, fascist, dictator, authoritarian, and unhinged were a few of the names thrown at Trump. Harris raised and spent over one billion dollars mostly to try to make Trump untenable as president.

Voters’ opinions about Trump were long baked into the equation. Better answers about herself and what she would do were Kamala’s only path to winning the election.

In my final column before the election, with polls showing a race too close to call, I wrote, “Do the polls, which have been trending in Trump’s favor, suggest not enough people know who or what he is – or are the polls saying that Harris hasn’t closed the deal?”

Now we know: She couldn’t close the deal.

Liberals can disagree if they want, but if they continue to blame racism and misogyny instead of looking at Kamala’s non-answers and their far-left policies, they will continue to lose elections.

Finally, slow down on Trump. His first move was appointing the first woman White House Chief of Staff. Give him the chance you expected people like me to give Obama and Biden. The United States will survive another Trump administration.

Andy Bloom is President of Andy Bloom Communications. He specializes in media training and political communications. He has programmed legendary stations including WIP, WPHT, WYSP/Philadelphia, KLSX, Los Angeles, and WCCO Minneapolis. He was Vice President of Programming for Emmis International, Greater Media Inc., and Coleman Research. Andy also served as communications director for Rep. Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio). He can be reached by email at andy@andybloom.com or you can follow him on Twitter at@AndyBloomCom.