Discussion about this post

User's avatar
June Boyce's avatar

I'm curious. Kamala went over budget on her campaign -- waaaayyyy over. So, who pays that overage?

Expand full comment
James Schumacher's avatar

"According to The Wall Street Journal, Kamala’s campaign had a war chest of $1.2B. She started this campaign fund with the money she stole from Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign. According to OpenSecrets.org, Kamala’s people raised $1.0B and got $649M on top of that from “outside sources,” meaning other donors."

These numbers overlook something really big ... the value to Kamala of positive media coverage of her and the value to Kamala of negative media coverage of Trump. Considering the amount of bias in the MainStream Media this election cycle, it's likely a staggering number.

First, according to a study by Media Research ( see https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2024/11/05/its-official-2024-campaign-news-coverage-was-worst-ever and https://www.nationalreview.com/news/harris-benefitted-from-unprecedented-bias-among-major-news-broadcasters-study-finds/), "Across ABC, CBS, and NBC, coverage of Kamala Harris was found to be 78 percent positive and 22 percent negative, according to the study conducted by the Media Research Center, a conservative-leaning media watchdog group. By contrast, Donald Trump received 15 percent positive coverage versus 85 percent negative, trailing Harris by 63 percent in terms of positive coverage." Other sources corroborated these numbers or numbers close to them.

Second, it wasn’t just the percent positive versus negative coverage that was in Harris' favor, it was the amount of coverage she got compared to Trump as well. For instance, Back in August this source (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/harris-89-negative-for-trump/ ) noted that “Harris received 66% more airtime than former President Donald Trump”.

Here's an interesting tool: https://mediabiasdetector.seas.upenn.edu. If you tell it to look at all coverage from Aug 1st to October 31st of the Kamala Harris Campaign and show the leaning of the articles (democRAT versus Republican) in various mainstream media, you find that the Huffington Post put out 672 articles and only 2% leaned Republican, while 90% leaned democRAT. CNN put out 489 articles … 4% leaned Republican while 74% leaned democRAT. The Washington Post put out 703 articles and 5% leaned Republican while 80% leaned demoncRAT. The New York Times had 636 articles with 4% leaning Republican and 78% leaning democRAT. The Associated Press put out 208 article with 1% leaning Republican and 71% leaning democRAT. Even the Wall Street Journal, with 204 articles, had 5% of them lean Republican while 57% leaned democRAT. Of course, there were a few outliers. Fox News put out 743 articles with 62 leaning Republican versus 21% leaning democRAT. Breitbart had 873 articles, with 67% leaning Republican and 25% leaning democRAT. Given that website ignores scads of left leaning media ... USAToday, Newsweek, Reuters, the LA Times, and on and on and on, suffice to say that the Kamala/Harris campaign were the beneficiaries of MANY, MANY, MANY times more positive MSM articles than negative ones.

Now note that the developers of the tool (which likely are left leaning university professors) didn't do the same analysis for the Trump Campaign, but I'm willing to bet that far more MSM articles again leaned democRAT rather than Republican in the reporting on him (in other words, they hurt Trump). And what’s that worth considering that most people (as opposed to people like us) probably developed their opinions of Harris and Trump from that unpaid MSM coverage of them, rather than from paid MSM ads? I would assert it was worth billions to the Harris campaign, since according to Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-political-ad-spending-soar-2024-with-tv-media-biggest-winner-report-2024-01-11/) the cost of US political advertising on traditional media, most of which is TV, in 2024 was about $8.9 billion. That means the leftist MSM wasted billions of dollars themselves trying to get Kamala elected (GOOD). But maybe this is something that the FEC needs to look at very carefully in future elections. It's appears to be a form of political donation that the MSM is getting away with making that all others would not be allowed to make with consequences.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts