Losing Power? The Elites And The Leftist Mob Would Rather Burn It All To the Ground

Yowza: Atlas Intel, Cook Report Aggregate Crosstabs Signal Long Night for Kamala

It’s finally over, and the 2024 presidential campaign made history in at least one ignominious respect: Broadcast evening news coverage of the candidates was the most wildly imbalanced in history, favoring Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris over former Republican President Donald Trump by the greatest margin ever recorded. The final Media Research Center (MRC) study released last week showed evaluative coverage of Harris — excluding “horse race” assessments — on ABC, CBS and NBC was 78% positive vs. 22% negative. For Trump, those numbers were flipped: just 15% positive press, vs. 85% negative coverage. Subtracting Trump’s positive press from Harris’s, the advantage to the Democratic nominee was 63 points, the greatest in the modern media age. [See methodology explanation at the end of this article.] The previous worst display of imbalanced campaign coverage came just four years ago. In 2020, the MRC found former Vice President Joe Biden basked in 66% positive network coverage, vs. just 8% positive coverage for then-President Trump, a 58-point imbalance in favor of the Democrats. (That year’s coverage was also the most negative for any presidential nominee, even worse than what Trump received in 2016 and this year.) While the MRC’s presidential campaign studies only reach back to 2016, similar studies were conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) from 1988 through 2008. Using a similar methodology, they found the networks tipped heavily in favor of Illinois Senator Barack Obama in 2008 (68% positive press), vs. just 33% positive for Arizona Senator John McCain, a Democratic advantage of 35 points. “The media has been really, really biased this campaign, I think,” even MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough admitted in the waning days of that year’s campaign.   Rounding out the top five worst/most biased campaigns, based on CMPA’s research: in 1992, when the networks championed Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton (52% positive press) against incumbent President George H. W. Bush (29%, for a gap of 23 points); and 2004, when Massachusetts Senator John Kerry enjoyed 59% positive coverage, compared to just 37% positive for President George W. Bush, a 22 point gap in favor of the Democrats. None of this escaped notice at the time. “Any fair, objective reading of the coverage of 1992 is going to conclude there was very, very substantial bias in the Democratic direction,” political scientist Larry Sabato — no conservative — told the Boston Globe in early 1993. Other years, the gap in media coverage also favored Democrats, just not by as much. In 1996, CMPA’s numbers showed incumbent President Bill Clinton received 50% positive coverage, vs. just 33% positive for Republican Senator Bob Dole, a gap of 17 points. In 2016, the Media Research Center found a gap of 12 points favoring former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (21% positive press) vs. Trump (just 9% positive). In 2000, CMPA found nearly equal bad press for the candidates, but with a slight advantage for Democratic Vice President Al Gore (40% positive) vs. Texas Governor George Bush (37%, for a gap of three points). Journalists should not be proud that their coverage has invariably tipped to the Democrats in presidential elections since 1992. They should be distressed that this partisan tilt has grown much wider over the years. And it is absolutely scandalous that this year’s election — the closest ever in pre-election polls — should have the most preposterously lopsided coverage of all. ++++++++ METHODOLOGY: The MRC studies each determined the spin of news coverage by tallying all explicitly evaluative statements about each candidate from either reporters, anchors or non-partisan sources such as experts or voters. Evaluations from partisan sources, as well as neutral statements, were not included, nor were statements about their prospects in the campaign horse race (i.e., standings in the polls, chances to win, etc.). CMPA explained its methodology thusly: “Our analysis of good and bad press was based strictly on the opinions expressed by any independent observers quoted in the story, or on the stated opinions of the reporters themselves. We coded each comment separately, identifying the source, target, and the direction of the evaluation.” Disclosure: I worked on CMPA’s election studies in 1992 and 1996.    

AtlasIntel, among the more accurate polling outfits in the 2020 presidential election, released the results of its final state-level polls in 12 key states Monday night. The numbers do not look good for Kamala Harris. According to the poll, President Donald Trump is positioned to beat Harris in all seven swing states — in Arizona, where he is leading by 5.1 percentage points; in Georgia (+1.6); in Michigan (+1.5); in Nevada (+3.1); in North Carolina (+2.1); in Pennsylvania (+1.0); and in Wisconsin (+0.9). After checking the political pulse in Montana, Ohio, and Texas, AtlasIntel indicated that Trump is also leading in those states by 8.5 points, 10.6 points, and 20.2 points, respectively. Harris, meanwhile, has a healthy 5.4-point lead in Virginia and a 2-point lead in Minnesota, where Trump is 1.2 points behind Harris with likely white voters, significantly behind with Asian voters, but, surprisingly enough, leading among black voters — as well as leading by double digits with independents. The stated margin of error is two percentage points for Pennsylvania, four points for Nevada, and three points for the other key states. The AtlasIntel poll has some Republicans cautiously expressing excitement over the potential of beating Harris nationwide, but particularly in the home state of her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz. The Republican Party of Minnesota, for instance, noted that Trump "is trailing Harris by just 2 pts. In 2016, Trump lost MN by less than 2 pts. VOTE, VOTE VOTE!" AtlasIntel, one of the polling outfits frequently cited by Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight, indicated that where the Electoral College is concerned, "the contest remains open on the eve of Election Day," adding that Pennsylvania has emerged "as the state most likely to decide the race, with its 19 electoral votes potentially securing the Electoral College majority for Trump." 'AtlastIntel has shown a structural advantage for Trump.' AtlasIntel surveyed 1,840 respondents in Pennsylvania, finding that with third-party options available, 49.1% of likely voters would cast a ballot for Trump and 48.4% would vote for Harris. In a head-to-head, Trump was up 49.6% to 48.6%. Meanwhile, Republican Senate candidate David McCormick lagged behind Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey (D) by roughly three points. The gender divide seen elsewhere in the union prevailed in the Keystone State, where once again, the majority of men signaled support for Trump and the majority of women signaled support for Harris. When broken down by age, Harris' strongest support came from respondents ages 30-44. Among voters ages 18-29, Harris was up 46% to 44%. Trump was up by double digits among likely voters ages 45-64. AtlasIntel's findings appear to suggest that with Pennsylvania's 19 Electoral College votes, Trump might win 312-226. "Since the beginning of this race, AtlastIntel has shown a structural advantage for Trump," Andrei Roman, the CEO of AtlasIntel, told Fox News' Jesse Watters on Monday. Roman indicated that there appears to be greater enthusiasm among conservative voters in this election, highlighting an increased turnout in rural areas, which historically vote Republican, and "quite depressed turnout" in historically Democratic urban areas. As for the suburbs, Roman noted that "more conservative voters are showing up and sort of compensating for progressive voters." In its Nov. 4 national poll, AtlastIntel showed Trump leading Harris 50%-48.8%. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Enshrouded Souls of the Frozen Empire is here, and it's a gargantuan update for one of the year's best survival games. Once Human, Nightingale, Abiotic Factor, and even Pacific Drive have all rounded out the 2024 survival experience, but none are shaping up quite like Enshrouded. Today marks the fantasy survival game's fourth major update, and it's brimming with a new biome, extra mechanics, and a suite of reworks. Best of all, we're still on track for 2025's full launch. Continue reading Enshrouded’s biggest update ever is here, as the survival game nears 1.0 MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Enshrouded system requirements, Best survival games, Enshrouded repair guide

Abort ... ABORT! Rob Reiner's Transphobic Tweet About Kamala, Birth, and Democracy Goes HILARIOUSLY Wrong

Originally released back in September 1999, Age of Empires 2 is considered one of the best real-time strategy (RTS) video games of all time. While there is an Xbox version for Age of Empires 2: Definitive Edition released way back in 2019, it seems PlayStation gamers might be getting the tactical game as well.

In Black Myth: Wukong, the Destined One will encounter a myriad of Wukong's old enemies who are ripped from the very pages of the classic Chinese novel.

For about as long as big blockbuster films have existed, so too have schlocky B-movies existed in their shadow.

Arizona Election Preview: Latest Polling in US Senate Race, GOP Outpaces Dems in EV, SoS Releases List