There is no shortage of political punditry these days where the Trump/Clinton Presidential election is concerned. People are motivated, more than usual this time around, and Donald Trump is the single most important reason why– voters either hate or love him. Nowhere in the nation, perhaps in the world, has there been such a divisive contest.
The principal newsgroups and publishers have all collected their forces to weigh in on the elections, and in many cases, openly supported one or the other of the candidates: The mainstream press favor Clinton, and nowhere is this more evident than in the pages of the New York Times.
The Times chooses to let their readers know they, the editors, writers, and the readers are all a unique group– they are, for instance, much brighter than the rest of the nation. They share mutual liberal beliefs– they collectively rally behind broad and inclusive social policies, gun control, extensive government regulations and freedom of choice in all areas where private options are possible.
If you are not part of the Time’s special assemblage, you are quickly discounted as being less educated or simply not in the loop. Only today, the paper was reporting on Clinton’s likely win in Pennsylvania. They relished over the fact that she was garnering massive support in the major cities such as Philadelphia (minority vote) and that Trump was struggling in most other regions. They wrote, after all, “Mr. Trump improved only with voters who held bachelor’s degrees but did not attend graduate school.” They added, “He does well with white working-class voters, but there simply aren’t enough of them in Pennsylvania to win.
Well, now we know that Trump only has a chance to win Pennsylvania if less educated people show up to vote, and the minority voters don’t feel the same closeness to Hillary that they did with Obama and stay home.