That detail makes the case much stronger. The studio was effectively DeSantis’s campaign trail.

Title: What actually wins elections now?

How does a candidate actually win an election in 2026 and over the next decade? Given finite time and money, what is the right balance between television, digital media, face-to-face campaigning, local events and the traditional ground game?

The case study I always come back to is Ron DeSantis against Adam Putnam in the 2018 Florida Republican primary.

Putnam looked like the ideal conventional candidate. He had been in elected office since he was 22, served in Congress and statewide office, raised more money, built support throughout the Florida Republican establishment and ran a traditional grassroots campaign. He was even a fifth-generation Florida citrus grower and rancher. He looked like someone who had spent his entire life preparing to become governor.

Putnam also did the old-fashioned work. He traveled Florida, held breakfasts, spoke to local groups and met voters face to face. DeSantis largely eschewed the whole shaking-hands-and-kissing-babies style of campaigning. He was still working as a congressman in Washington and used the television studio as his campaign trail.

That is what makes the contrast so compelling. Putnam tried to become known county by county. DeSantis was teleported into voters’ homes through Fox News. An early analysis of their campaigns found Putnam making far more traditional appearances while DeSantis relied primarily on cable television?. By the end of the primary, DeSantis had appeared on Fox News more than 100 times?. Trump endorsed him, and those television appearances became clips that circulated everywhere else.

DeSantis beat Putnam 56.5 percent to 36.5 percent. He became governor, won reelection and later ran for president. Putnam left elected office and now runs Ducks Unlimited.

That happened almost a decade ago, before the current ecosystem of short-form video, podcasts and algorithmic feeds had fully developed. If a screen-first campaign could overwhelm a traditional statewide organization then, what does that mean now?

That does not mean money or organization no longer matter. But Bill Cassidy spent millions on advertising and still finished third behind Julia Letlow and John Fleming. At the same time, I saw hundreds of Fleming yard signs and exactly one Letlow sign, yet Letlow led the primary by a wide margin.

There is also the uncomfortable matter of appearance and camera presence. The better-looking candidate does not automatically win, but voters make quick judgments from faces, voices and short clips. Research has found that appealing-looking candidates can benefit disproportionately from television exposure?, especially among less-informed voters. The halo effect is a real part of politics.

So what is the effective ratio now?

How much should go toward paid television versus earned media and online clips? How much time should a candidate spend shaking hands with hundreds of people when one strong interview might reach hundreds of thousands? Does the answer change completely between local, congressional and statewide races? Are face-to-face events primarily about persuading voters, or are they now more valuable for fundraising, creating content and building an organization?

I am not arguing that the ground game is dead or that campaigns can be won entirely through a screen. I am asking what each part of a campaign is actually worth now.

What does the winning campaign model for the next decade look like?