Put me down as one of those (probably very rare) conservatives who can’t wait to read Kamala Harris’s campaign memoir. Beyond my thoughts in today’s Morning Jolt, Maeve Reston and Sophia Nguyen of the Washington Post have the scoop on what Harris writes about Election Night:

The book also offers a detailed personal account of Harris’s experience on the night of the election. “It says a lot about how traumatized we both were by what happened that night that Doug and I never discussed it with each other until I sat down to write this book,” she writes. Her team felt confident that they would win, in part because their internal analytics had found that they were ahead in all the battleground states as of the previous Friday.

“We had plans for all kind of contingencies — that Trump might win Pennsylvania and claim premature victory, that we might win narrowly and Trump’s supporters would react with violent rejection of the result, that the count might drag on for days. We’d planned for everything, it seemed, except the actual result,” she writes.

But as votes were counted, and Harris’s team struggled to workshop a “rally the troops” speech that she would give to supporters at Howard University, they realized they were likely to lose. Harris’s social secretary peeled icing that read “Madam President” off the cupcakes that had been ordered for the occasion, and sent them out to the campaign staffers, along with wine.

Hold up. On the Friday before Election Day, the Harris campaign team believed she was on track to win all seven swing states? (As you’ll recall, she went 0-for-7.)

First, that directly contradicts what Harris staffers said after the election on the Pod Save America podcast. David Plouffe revealed, “Even post-debate, we had ourselves down in the battleground states. . . . I think it surprised people, because there was these public polls that came out in late September, early October, showing us with leads that we never saw.”

It certainly looks like someone here is not telling the truth. Or were the campaign staffers sharing a rosier outlook with the candidate than the actual numbers suggested?

For what it’s worth, public polling tended to show either Trump narrowly ahead or a tie in places like Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Georgia, and not-so-narrowly ahead Arizona. Harris was (very) narrowly ahead in some of the polling in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Second, this should prompt another round of tough questions of where all that money on the Harris campaign was going. The campaign spent $1.5 billion in 17 weeks, and all the best minds and pollsters and analysts concluded that Harris was going to win all the swing states but instead won none of them? Was somebody getting scammed here?