In the aftermath of Tuesday night’s election, Republicans are celebrating big wins with Donald Trump clinching a landslide victory and the GOP poised to maintain both congressional chambers.

As post-election reflections pour in, the Democrats face internal tensions. Lindy Li, a Democratic National Committee (DNC) official, openly criticized the campaign choices, signaling a brewing civil war within the party.

As reported by Red State, a candid conversation with White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich shortly after midnight on Wednesday, Li pointed to several campaign missteps, particularly the decision to pair Kamala Harris with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate.

Celebrate Trump's Historic 2024 Victory with the Exclusive Trump 47th President Collection!

She remarked, “People are wondering tonight what would have happened had Shapiro been on the ticket…He’s famously a moderate. That would have signaled to the American people that she is not the San Francisco liberal that Trump said she was, but she went with someone actually to her left.”

Li’s observation that Walz’s involvement hurt the ticket due to his association with Minnesota’s controversial protests holds some truth. However, the notion that Pennsylvania’s Governor Josh Shapiro could have flipped the election entirely is wishful thinking.

Shapiro’s popularity in Pennsylvania may have swayed some local voters, but polls suggested he had minimal appeal in other blue-wall states like Michigan and Wisconsin. While Shapiro could have been an asset, he likely wouldn’t have tipped the scales enough in Harris’s favor given the strong rightward movement this election cycle.

Li also criticized Harris’s failure to differentiate herself from President Biden’s policies. Reflecting on Harris’s comment on The View, where she admitted she’d do “nothing differently” from the Biden administration, Li said, “That was an opener for her to show Americans that she’s going to get tough on the border, that she’s going to take drastic measures to bring down inflation…And she knew that she maybe should have done two things differently.”

According to Li, Harris missed a prime opportunity to connect with undecided voters, presenting herself instead as a clone of Biden—a weak image she couldn’t shake.

Another point of contention for Li was Harris’s focus on “fascism” in her campaign. “Future Forward, they were right,” Li admitted, acknowledging that the narrative fell flat with persuadable voters who dismissed it as hyperbole.

This focus detracted from more pressing issues like inflation and immigration, which resonate far more with the average American. Even Democratic turnout was notably lower than in 2020, reflecting the lack of enthusiasm for Harris’s rhetoric.

Li’s critique extended to the chaotic structure of Harris’s campaign, particularly in Pennsylvania. According to her, out-of-state operatives filled key roles, which weakened the campaign’s local relevance.

Li stated, “We should have people who deeply understand, intimately understand the contours of the state rather than out-of-state operatives who move from campaign to campaign.”

Ultimately, these reflections reveal a deeper problem than campaign blunders. Harris’s inability to connect with the American public and the Democratic Party’s elitist image contributed to the downfall.

For Democrats to mount a comeback, they’ll need more than polished slogans and high-profile endorsements. A real shift in priorities, along with some honest self-reflection, may be the only way forward.