Evidently it is not enough to simply rewrite stories the Clinton campaign doesn\’t like. Now we have this.
The New York Times, in its “First Draft” blog written by Alan Rappeport, reported that the latest WMUR poll in New Hampshire shows Bernie Sanders, who trailed Hillary Clinton by a ton months ago, and just 10% last month, has pulled to within 6% of Ms. Clinton (42% – 36%). The analysis of this movement was just fine…until the end.
Here is the final part of the blog:
A bright note for Mrs. Clinton, however, is that only 20 percent of New Hampshire voters said they had definitely made up their mind about a Democratic candidate. Although the former first lady and senator is no longer the clear favorite in the state, she still has time to win over more of its voters.
Am I missing something here?
If 80% of New Hampshire voters are undecided about which Democrat to vote for, how does this specifically benefit Hillary Clinton? How does it not benefit Bernie Sanders? If they are undecided, why is it more likely than they would vote for one instead of the other…or for a third alternative; maybe O\’Malley or yet-to-announce Joe Biden?
Why is the analysis not that Hillary Clinton, universally known, a Presidential candidate for the second time, and potentially the first woman President (as she never forgets to remind us), incapable of sealing the deal against as improbable a national candidate as Bernie Sanders?
It is exactly this kind of “reporting” that demonstrates how how in love The New York Times is with Hillary Clinton…and how deeply partisan the paper has become.
