= new reply since forum marked as read
We know the NYT, as a media outlet, has a vested interest in an artificial horse race. We know that their coverage is unbalanced, designed to favor Trump and malign HRC. We know that they employ long-time columnists who fill the opinion page with anti-HRC nonsense. We know that even their supposed legitimate news articles have been exposed as over-hyped garbage and poorly researched manure.
And you're still going to cite one of their articles about a supposed "secret reserve" of older white voters? Even as a sentence in the middle of your own quote undermines your own argument?
The data implies that Mr. Obama was not as weak among white voters as typically believed. He fared better than his predecessors among white voters outside the South. Demographic shifts weren’t so important: He would have been re-elected even with an electorate as old and white as it was in 2004. Latino voters did not put Mr. Obama over the top, as many argued in the days after Mr. Obama’s re-election. He would have won even if he had done as poorly among Latino voters as John Kerry.
I think the pollsters are making it seem like a close race because they're sick and tired of always reporting that HRC will win. With slightly less than two months left (god, can you believe it?), I think they're making it look close to spark some interest, or spirit of competition, or something-- anything to liven things up. Then, as Nov. 8th nears, things will fall back into place.
Otherwise, the fact that dumdum's transgressions are looking worse every day is causing massive numbers of people to decide they want him to lead our country. Now, does that make even one iota of sense?
BUT I'm not saying we can rest on our laurels-- the battle is still on and complacency is ANATHEMA!!
