In 1996, as a fledgling young political campaign worker traveling to election states, upon returning to my hotel room each night, I was captured by a new voice on the only 24-hour cable news network (CNN). It was a lovely, bright, young conservative giving reasoned and pointed answers to questions about the election. Teamed against a young Democrat, this young lady was articulate beyond her years and had the capacity to turn around the other side’s arguments with grace and skill.
The young woman was Kellyanne Conway, then known by her maiden name, Fitzpatrick.
Last week, top staff from both presidential campaigns gathered at Harvard University to discuss the election. The confab proved once again that the media and the Democrats are having a hard time coming to grips with what happened during this election cycle. There is one factor that is perhaps incalculable and again was proven in Kellyanne’s rebuttals to Jennifer Palmieri. The indefatigable Donald Trump defender and campaign manager, who also happens to be a woman, and who can turn biased or loaded questions from the media back on them, was the missing factor in this election.
While it was presumed that all women would have to vote for Hillary Clinton so she could break the glass ceiling, the exit polls show something different entirely. Women did vote Clinton over Trump 54 percent to 42 percent, but it was not nearly the showing that the Washington corridor (and the Clinton campaign) thought it would be.
Maybe Madeleine Albright’s “special place in hell” is getting warmed up for all those women who voted along party lines and who thought the economy was a more important issue (62 percent) than basing their vote on gender. They want their husbands and their sons to have jobs.
Married women supported Trump, single women did not, neither did African-American women, who vote 94 percent for Clinton.
Nineteen percent of Democratic white men voted for Donald Trump over their candidate. And surprisingly to most, 13 percent of African-American men voted Trump. Maybe men are tired of being the brunt of every stereotype on television, always the one in the wrong and making mistakes. Perhaps they didn’t want a woman lecturing them for the next four years.
The gender gap may well have been minimized by one woman’s constant, reassuring message.
Or maybe men appreciate someone who speaks to them the way Kellyanne did. She was truthful and frank, while Hillary was perceived as deceitful and dishonest.
A friend who self-identifies as a “male chauvinist” told me in the last two weeks he would vote for Kellyanne for president. He was so impressed by the way she communicated conservative principles and the ideals Trump was trying to convey to the American people.
Unfortunately, the major media outlets did not poll on the Kellyanne factor. A lovely yet unabashed conservative setting the record straight on show after show. Turning loaded questions right back onto the questioner, Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper, Chuck Todd and more. And she was willing to take it all on with a smile, confident that her positions were true and right.
Like Trump, she also gave voice to the voiceless. Not only did her media skills turn the tables, she gave conservatives everywhere a renewed energy to fight back against the Left’s continued mantra. The “alt right,” “sexual predator,” “party of the rich,” “anti-immigrant,” “war against women,”— the name-calling would not go unchallenged.
Conservative writers, bloggers, thinkers and TV pundits would take her lead and not allow the other side to define who they are. On Twitter, the back and forth between mainstream reporters and the conservative movement is something to behold.
Now the media have been speculating about “fake news,” implying that these news sites influenced the election. Maybe the NBCs, CNNs, MSNBCs, New York Times and The Washington Posts ought to do a little more introspection. It was those outlets that told the country for months that Hillary had this election sewn up. Headlines indicated that she was ahead by double digits, she’s got the money, she’s got the ground game, she’s going to win.
Perhaps it is these outlets that are the “fake news.” These are the outlets that gave 62 percent of this year’s primary coverage to Donald Trump. These are the outlets that focused on every flaw in the man’s life. Their reason for not zeroing in on Hillary’s flaws is that the news had already been reported.
Can these outlets be surprised that the American people are turning to other sources for news?
The lessons from this campaign will long be felt and analyzed. Last week’s Harvard confab indicated that the Clinton campaign, the Republican competitors of Trump and the media are finding it difficult to get their head around it. They did not count on Trump, Kellyanne and conservatives punching back, no longer shutting up and taking it from the media and being cowered to submit to their storylines.
Most of the other candidates, as advised by their establishment consultants, would have rolled over, changed their position and acquiesced to the media. Let’s face it, they would have been afraid to go on offense. Mitt Romney and John McCain cowered away when attacked by the media.
Americans, men and women both, want a fighter, someone who is not ashamed of what they believe, who will not cave to others.
Trump and the Kellyanne factor have made this a brave new media world.
Diana L. Banister is President of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs, a Washington media relations and political consulting firm. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
