Observing the facial expressions of television anchors during the US election, it was evident they knew 'their' team was not winning. It was like Vancouver fans' disappointment when the Canucks lost 6 to 0 at home to the New Jersey Devils on October 30.

However, if we were to award a 'Fright Night prize' for the most biased election coverage, it would undoubtedly go to CBC. I had to turn to Fox for a semblance of balance while In the background, the Western Standard feed provided cogent and insightful commentary, from a very credible Western Canadian perspective.

It is now time for voters to clearly identify the media culprits. If you never knew before who was reasonable or credible, remember the Trump coverage in these first few days. They can't help themselves:. So, recognize the underlying themes. Trump won for the wrong reasons, such as fear, vengeance, racism, economic hardship, resentment, yadda yadda.

However, the unbiased numbers say Trump was the clear people's choice after handily winning swing states. We knew weeks ago who would win Washington State, Oregon, California, New York, and the New England states. The media had invented “the blue wall” that was touted as the stopping point for ‘miscreant Trump’.

But in th end the wall fell down. Trump won the general popular vote, and his numbers are better in almost all cultural and ethnic demographics across the nation in 2024, beyond the 2020 election. The numbers are not equivocal or partisan. They state a clear and resounding choice for Trump and a rejection of what Harris offered.

For the past week, the public has been fed a steady diet of a “tight race” and ”too close to call,” yet the polling numbers were correct, and Trump was slightly ahead in most jurisdictions. The media myth was that it was a hard-fought battle and neck and neck until the final day.

But if one could turned off the sound and just looked at the numbers, county by county, Trump was usually on top with a few points. It was a solid trend, not a patchwork. It meant despite the media bias, the over-reporting of positive Harris stories, and the negative Trump emphasis, the public was choosing for itself despite being told what to do.

In retrospect, we will be told that the vote was anti-women and anti-black -misogynist and racist. The myth of the Oval Office glass ceiling is back again. The story spin is that Harris ran a disciplined campaign against a criminal opponent, and Trump is the manakin for a racist society.

The ‘splainers’ say gender played an outsized role in the election. The overturning of Roe-v-Wade (abortion law devolved to States) in June 2022 was hoped to galvanize women across the U.S. Harris went overboard on that issue and likely turned off as many women as perhaps could have coalesced behind her.

But, it seemed the only issue about which Harris could be genuinely passionate. Her campaign spent too much time on it claiming, without hard evidence, the deaths of several women after being refused pregnancy or miscarriage-related “health care.” Their point was that the future of the nation turned on mothers being encouraged to kill their children if they wanted, without guilt or regret, because it was their right.

The Harris campaign expended a lot of time and energy to illustrate the consequences of the “extreme anti-choice position.” The tactic was to create concern about women’s reproductive rights (abortion) and associate Trump with a casual dismissal of sexualized violence.

But it was not enough, even though exit polls suggest many women cast their ballots for Harris. Women preferred Harris, but not en-mass.

Then the media put men ‘on the other side’. But Trump’s appeal to men increased as the Democratic Party's voice became shriller. The dividers divided, but the cut slice did not work as planned. The media tells us that young women have become more liberal while young men, in reaction, have become more conservative because they are angry at losing their male advantage of dominance and control. It is a feminist spin from the TV show 'The View'. They call the vote 'hegemonic masculinity', where Trump’s endless belittling of women is their theme.

Another factor in the Harris campaign was race. Democrats tried to use it, but the numbers say otherwise about results. Then, education was seen as a divider, claiming that the uneducated would vote for Trump, but the enlightened would support Harris. That did not play out, either.

Trump chattered away about economic hope, supporting American workers with tariffs and protecting neighborhoods being overrun by an open southern border where the world was crashing in, not just displaced Latin Americans. Trump's willingness to stir the pot internationally was attractive compared to the present stuck dismal outlook with Russia, Iran, and China delivered by the Democrats. He promoted himself as “Mr. Fix it” with the subtitle that change begins with the recognition that a problem exists.

Harris could not sufficiently defend the government record. She never convinced voters a Democratic Party led by her would be different and better in the White House. Trump offered “things”. Harris asked voters to reject “things”, without sufficient replacements. Voters didn’t know what she offered, other than that she was a woman who was passionate about abortion. No other message from her cut through.

What the media's behaviour means for Canada is predictable. The media will fear-monger that a Conservative government might have to cut spending to balance the budget. Every negative associated with Trump will be attached to Poilievre. Fiscal wisdom will not be valued; rather, voters should be afraid of fiscal responsibility because the meanspirited Conservatives will cut program spending.

It is a repeated theme from the Canadian Marxists in the NDP and Liberals. They believe the government can buy its way into voter favour, and spend other people's money, and there will never be consequences. They lie about how well the current national finances are. In fact, they are so bad that they borrow more to pay interest on the money they borrowed last year.

So, the lefties assume that voters are dumb and short-term greedy only for themselves, with no thought for tomorrow or the next generation. It is, spend now and the hell with the consequences. These radicals keep saying, “be fearful — look out for the cutting Conservatives,” as they will take away your goodies. The problem is that this thinking is the greatest threat to healthcare and every other social program we value. When the miscreants max out the credit card, the whole thing collapses.

There is a deeper issue, as various sub-ethnic groups have a unique inside track into the Liberal Party, and they merchandise their block of votes in exchange for political favour. Foreign Affairs Minister Joly wants to avoid crossing them. Of course, these groups' long-term strategy is to undermine mainstream Canada and develop points of their own political power. It is not much different from blackmail gangsterism. The evidence is in the Liberal behaviour, which Poilievre is trying to expose.

The media dividers we saw for the US election will be used in Canada. Resentment will be used. So now the media story is raw fear. Canadians must fear Trump and Poilievre, as he will take away and destroy. Trump must be feared, for with no guardrails, no checks and balances in place, and billionaires by his side, he remakes America in his own authoritarian image. Likewise, Canada must fear Poilievre, because where the majority rules, members of minority groups can’t feel safe.

Consequently, the commentary about the US election reveals much about Canadian opinion makers. The anti-Trumpers will be anti-Poilievre. These cynics will invent stories about personality rather than policy, as was done south of the border. Fortunately, voters are aware and will freely make choices without fear.

WATCH: Harris says Trump should not be president due to support for Putin

Related Stories