How the Republican David Beat the Democrat Goliath. Part One

November 13, 2024 Victor Davis Hanson

Yes, the Left controls the Media. But the times they are changing. The biased news network triad of ABC, NBC, and CBS, along with PBS and the cable MSNBC, CNN, and CNBC news channels, may garner over 20 million nightly network viewers. Their anchors may be higher paid and more prestigious than bloggers and podcasters.

But the supposedly hip and coolconnected Left never realized that it is a new age of podcasts and blogsfor the majority of Americans, who are tired of the grim-faced, overpaid, blow-dried anchors who lie to them every night in promoting the progressive project.

So, a Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, and Megyn Kelly can reach more voters than the droning anchorsof ABC or the racialist rants from Joy Reid on MSNBC. Why then did not Harris take Rogan up on his interview offer? Or like Trump venture into high-rated but not always assuredly friendly podcasts?

What makes the podcast crowd more popular? They listen more to their audience, do not talk in politically correct parables, do not shut down to their listeners, and don’t reverberate the daily party lines issued by the DNC.

In sum, the Trump machine for 10 cents on the Democrat dollar got their message out to more voters and more importantly to more swing voters.

Endorsements

Kamala Harris reportedly paid the multi-billionaire Oprah Winfrey $1 million to stage a scripted interview with her—violating journalistic ethics and epitomizing grifter greed. Weirder still,Harris reportedly blew through nearly $20 millionto hire grasping has-been celebrities and entertainers who required pay to perform and endorse her—and all for the supposedly morally superior cause.

Yet how would an endorsement of Kamala Harris from Bruce Springsteen or Cardi B persuade anyone of their audiences to switch over to Harris, given the vast majority of voters either don’t vote or were already committed Harris voters?

In other words,endorsements matter little—no matter the celebrity crush—if the endorsers only appeal to the already converted.

A Joe Rogan does not usually endorse candidates. But when he in the eleventh hour endorsed Trump, he brought with him young menwho might have otherwise stayed home or voted for Harris. Liz Cheney was a pathological Trump hater and only appealed to like kind. Tagging her along on the Harris campaign trail, won no new voters and may have irked the Harris hate Haliburton crowd.

In contrast,a nod from RFK, JR. or Tulsi Gabbard made it socially acceptable for swing voters to support the verboten orange man. As a general rule, rich actors and elite celebrities cannot bring a single new voter to a ticket and are as likely to repel than attract voters.

Polls

We are stuck on the idea that the old familiar polls are still polls.

They are not. They are partisan leftist tools whose duty is to gin up momentum, help raise money for their candidates, and get out the vote.

And they reached a nadir this election—after disgracing themselves in 2016 and trumping that embarrassment in 2020.

So here are the accuracy rate percentages forthe most “prestigious” polls’ predictions, compiled after the election:

Emerson 57%; Wall Street Journal 50%; Beacon (Fox) 50%; Marist 50%; Morning Consult 50%; Suffolk 50%; TIPP 43%; 538 43%; Quinnipiac 40%; Susquehanna 33%; CNN 33%; Bloomberg 33%; GSG 33%; Echelon 33%; Washington Post 33%; Data for Progress 25%; CBS 25%; Siena 14%; Cook 14%

At best, at around 50 percent accuracy, they are no more valuable than a coin toss. At worst, they are guides to believing the exact opposite of what they predict.

In contrast, the supposedly “conservative” polls, or the purportedly “new” polls, or the “outlier” polls were mostly right on the money:

Atlas Intel 100%; PollFair 86%; Rasmussen 86%; Trafalgar 71%; Insider Advantage 71%; Real Clear Politics 71%.

Someone asked me in the week before election day, “How do you know that Trump will win?”, and I said I looked at the three or four polls that were most accurate in 2016 and 2020, and assumed they had no reason to lie in 2024, and they did not.

How could any poll claim Trump was going to lose Pennsylvania when it was widely reported that in 2024, 600,000 more Republicans had newly registered than Democrats’ newly registered from the 2020 election—that saw Biden win the state only by about 80,000 votes? Did preelection reports of the Amish registering, of Hispanics breaking near even for Trump, of African American men perhaps going 20 percent or more for Trump, of union members’ defections from Harris—.all nonexistent in 2020when the election was close—matter nothing?

https://victorhanson.com/how-the-republican-david-beat-the-democrat-goliath-part-one/

repost from LB

How the Republican David Beat the Democrat Goliath. Part One

November 13, 2024 Victor Davis Hanson

Yes, the Left controls the Media. But the times they are changing. The biased news network triad of ABC, NBC, and CBS, along with PBS and the cable MSNBC, CNN, and CNBC news channels, may garner over 20 million nightly network viewers. Their anchors may be higher paid and more prestigious than bloggers and podcasters.

But the supposedly hip and coolconnected Left never realized that it is a new age of podcasts and blogsfor the majority of Americans, who are tired of the grim-faced, overpaid, blow-dried anchors who lie to them every night in promoting the progressive project.

So, a Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, and Megyn Kelly can reach more voters than the droning anchorsof ABC or the racialist rants from Joy Reid on MSNBC. Why then did not Harris take Rogan up on his interview offer? Or like Trump venture into high-rated but not always assuredly friendly podcasts?

What makes the podcast crowd more popular? They listen more to their audience, do not talk in politically correct parables, do not shut down to their listeners, and don’t reverberate the daily party lines issued by the DNC.

In sum, the Trump machine for 10 cents on the Democrat dollar got their message out to more voters and more importantly to more swing voters.

Endorsements

Kamala Harris reportedly paid the multi-billionaire Oprah Winfrey $1 million to stage a scripted interview with her—violating journalistic ethics and epitomizing grifter greed. Weirder still,Harris reportedly blew through nearly $20 millionto hire grasping has-been celebrities and entertainers who required pay to perform and endorse her—and all for the supposedly morally superior cause.

Yet how would an endorsement of Kamala Harris from Bruce Springsteen or Cardi B persuade anyone of their audiences to switch over to Harris, given the vast majority of voters either don’t vote or were already committed Harris voters?

In other words,endorsements matter little—no matter the celebrity crush—if the endorsers only appeal to the already converted.

A Joe Rogan does not usually endorse candidates. But when he in the eleventh hour endorsed Trump, he brought with him young menwho might have otherwise stayed home or voted for Harris. Liz Cheney was a pathological Trump hater and only appealed to like kind. Tagging her along on the Harris campaign trail, won no new voters and may have irked the Harris hate Haliburton crowd.

In contrast,a nod from RFK, JR. or Tulsi Gabbard made it socially acceptable for swing voters to support the verboten orange man. As a general rule, rich actors and elite celebrities cannot bring a single new voter to a ticket and are as likely to repel than attract voters.

Polls

We are stuck on the idea that the old familiar polls are still polls.

They are not. They are partisan leftist tools whose duty is to gin up momentum, help raise money for their candidates, and get out the vote.

And they reached a nadir this election—after disgracing themselves in 2016 and trumping that embarrassment in 2020.

So here are the accuracy rate percentages forthe most “prestigious” polls’ predictions, compiled after the election:

Emerson 57%; Wall Street Journal 50%; Beacon (Fox) 50%; Marist 50%; Morning Consult 50%; Suffolk 50%; TIPP 43%; 538 43%; Quinnipiac 40%; Susquehanna 33%; CNN 33%; Bloomberg 33%; GSG 33%; Echelon 33%; Washington Post 33%; Data for Progress 25%; CBS 25%; Siena 14%; Cook 14%

At best, at around 50 percent accuracy, they are no more valuable than a coin toss. At worst, they are guides to believing the exact opposite of what they predict.

In contrast, the supposedly “conservative” polls, or the purportedly “new” polls, or the “outlier” polls were mostly right on the money:

Atlas Intel 100%; PollFair 86%; Rasmussen 86%; Trafalgar 71%; Insider Advantage 71%; Real Clear Politics 71%.

Someone asked me in the week before election day, “How do you know that Trump will win?”, and I said I looked at the three or four polls that were most accurate in 2016 and 2020, and assumed they had no reason to lie in 2024, and they did not.

How could any poll claim Trump was going to lose Pennsylvania when it was widely reported that in 2024, 600,000 more Republicans had newly registered than Democrats’ newly registered from the 2020 election—that saw Biden win the state only by about 80,000 votes? Did preelection reports of the Amish registering, of Hispanics breaking near even for Trump, of African American men perhaps going 20 percent or more for Trump, of union members’ defections from Harris—.all nonexistent in 2020when the election was close—matter nothing?

https://victorhanson.com/how-the-republican-david-beat-the-democrat-goliath-part-one/

>>22003749

repost from lb

>>22003470

How the Republican David Beat the Democrat Goliath. Part Two

Nov. 15, 2024 Victor Davis Hanson

Money

Harris and her PACs supposedly outraisedtheir Trump counterparts byabout $1 billion and spent that huge sum in little over 100 days. Would that not ensure Trump was crushed under a landslide of ads and commercials?

Not necessarily. What if the commercials for Harris were both more costly and worse? What if a campaign flush with someone else’s money spends it foolishly and quickly as did Harris? What if $300 million of finely tuned commercials can saturate a mere seven states as effectively as $600 million of “white dude” and “real men” absurd televised appeals? Does it hurt or help a candidate to buy over five hours some six airings of the same terrible commercials?

If you are remodeling a small 1,000-square-foot house, does a $5 million improvement look any different than a $200,000 one? So how many hundreds of millions can you cram intoan election decided by a mere seven swing states?

If one candidate does ten more public town halls, press conferences, or interviews than another, does not that nonstop exposure save millions of dollars in paid publicity? Can the lesser funded candidate make up with sheer energy,mostly free rallies, and covering more ground what he lacks in paid commercials or huge staffs?

Are brags thatHarris had raised a billion dollarsmore than Trump through her vast networks of PACs a sign of her competence, her momentum, her future success—or proof enough that a leftwing Democrat is the pawnof the unpopular billionaire California tech class?

Ground game?

Was it wiser to hire out sympathetic fellow travelers who rounded up voters in part for the “cause” and at cheaper costs than to simply pay out campaign workers to show up at people’s houses?

In general, a lower-paid zealot who has previously vote harvested or believes he can change an election by registering more votersis a superior investmentto functionary campaign workers while even he is paid a lower wage.

Is it wiser to get people to vote by mail and early in toto, or to refine such nontraditional balloting by using the available weeks mostly to focus on andtarget low propensity voterswhile assuming high propensity voters would take care of themselves and turn up on their own?

So, was there one sort of targeted early voters and yet another sort as well, and conflating the two diluted the effort?

And was part of Harris’s problem that its supposedly smug, young, hip, tech-savvy supporters without evidence were assumed to be more up on gadgetry, electronics, and internet modeling while the deplorable Trumpsters were deemed Neanderthals in comparison—when in fact the Trump people were far more sophisticated in the way they identified persuadable, swing voters and ensured the entire base voted?

So how did Trump beat the overfunded Harris?He proved the more sophisticated in registering voters, getting out the mail-in and early vote,maximizing free publicity, covering more ground, using money more effectively, and garnering more high-exposure interviews—but all in an effort to advance a middle-class agenda far more attuned to the needs of a damaged and hurting middle class mostly ignored by Harris and the new elite and progressive Democratic party.

https://victorhanson.com/how-the-republican-david-beat-the-democrat-goliath-part-two/

>>22002119 Hillary Clinton covered up elite pedophile ringsPN

Save this video anons. 1:51

illuminatibot

@iluminatibot

NBC News : "Hillary Clinton's State Department covered up elite pedophile rings."

Jen Psaki helped Hillary Clinton's State Department cover up elite pedophile and human trafficking rings as reported by NBC themselves

12:17 AM · Nov 16, 2024

·1.8M Views(the world is watching)

https://x.com/iluminatibot/status/1857654203872838136