A NYT opinion column that nails it.

[crud]

reposted from Daily Kos:

And the following are two money paragraphs. It is what every Democrat must come to grips with.

Mr. Trump’s voters are granted a level of care and coddling that defies credulity and that is afforded to no other voting bloc. Many of them believe the most ludicrous things: babies being aborted after birth and children going to school as one gender and returning home surgically altered as another gender even though these things simply do not happen. Time and again, we hear the wild lies these voters believe and we act as if they are sharing the same reality as ours, as if they are making informed decisions about legitimate issues. We act as if they get to dictate the terms of political engagement on a foundation of fevered mendacity.

We must refuse to participate in a mass delusion. We must refuse to accept that the ignorance on display is a congenital condition rather than a choice. All of us should refuse to pretend that any of this is normal and that these voters are just woefully misunderstood and that if only the Democrats addressed their economic anxiety, they might vote differently. While they are numerous, that does not make them right.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/opinion/america-trump-tolerance.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ak4.UpO9.CPRK0OpZ8DZS&smid=url-share

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/11/17/2286880/-A-NYT-opinion-column-that-nails-it?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web

[Blue_Tires]

1. Thanks for this 😊

[rampartd]

2. that one is a few years too late.

[wolfie001]

23. They can never undo all of their sane-washing

And nit-picking of all things Dem. Glad to read that so many have dropped their lifetime subscriptions. Is that hag Haberman still there? What a fucking joke.

[rampartd]

40. "liberal new york times"

has made me cringe ever since the "weapons of mass destruction." .

[wolfie001]

48. Judith Miller barf

I'll bet they all hang out at cocktail parties with the NYC millionaires and billionaires just having a laugh and some fine food and beverages. Of course, while the rest of America burns.

[Skittles]

3. oh NOW they say it

FUCK

[maxsolomon]

56. "They" aren't saying it. This is a Roxanne Gay Op-Ed.

The NYT Editorial Board and multiple opinion writers "said it" multiple times, in multiple ways, for years; it just didn't make a dent in the bubble these ding dongs live in.

Which is the point of the Op-Ed.

[NNadir]

4. The NY Times encouraged and supported, actively, Trump, both in 2016 and in 2024. Fuck that "but her emails..." "old...

...Joe Biden" rag.

They will now be compelled by latter day versions of Goebbels to tow the party line, which won't be hard for them, since they've actively worked the propaganda field before.

[DENVERPOPS]

51. For ALL practical purposes, simply put

The nation's psychiatrists have stated that purely watching only FOX NEWS, Listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh on RW Radio has the overwhelming effect of "classic brainwashing". These Trumphumpers are no longer citizens of the U.S. in effect, but are puppets and tools of the North Korean, Chinese, and Russian Dictators....

That is it in a nutshell........the "Nuevo" RepupliCON party has been totally realized in it's entirety......

[mountain grammy]

5. Oh wow NOW a warning?

WTF NYT? Where ya been?

[maxsolomon]

53. Since its an Opinion/Editorial by Roxanne Gay

Maybe you should ask where she has been.

The NYT has consistently published official opinions and guest editorials against MFer & MAGA since the moment he began to blight our nation's history. DU's quibbles with the "sane-washing" tone of their MFer reportage don't change that.

And NYT Guest Op/Eds don't move the needle on the votes of the uninformed dipshits who put Trump in office. Or the Muslims in MI who voted for Jill Stien. Those folks never see them.

[Grumpy Old Guy]

6. And yet, somehow, they couldn't endorse Harris.

F&%k them!

[Seeking Serenity]

8. I'm pretty sure NYT DID endorse VP Harris

[Shrek]

13. False

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/opinion/editorials/kamala-harris-2024-endorsement.html

[radical noodle]

14. It was the Washington Post that didn't endorse her

but they've been complicit in other normalizing of TSF.

[Grumpy Old Guy]

30. I stand corrected.

It was WAPO and the L.A. Times that didn't endorse Harris.

Thanks for the correction.

[maxsolomon]

52. And yet you did not correct the post that accused them of not endorsing Harris

please rectify.

[whathehell]

49. No, the Washington Post refused endorsements,

not the NY Times.

[B.See]

7. Wtf?? WE'VE been saying the exact same

s-------- for YEARS now.

NTY: Day late and dollar short.

[Pinback]

9. Great piece by Contributing Opinion Writer Roxane Gay.

I read this earlier today and thought it was one of the best summations I’ve seen this cycle.

[ancianita]

10. This piece makes a too-common, WRONG assumption about who "we" are. 22% of Americans is NOT who 78% of Americans are.

76,510,127 of trump voters out of 346,134,190 equal 22% of the nation. The other 269,624,063 did not vote for trump, and that number rises every minute of every day.

We must not keep speaking of that 22% as "who we are." That 22% are the stupid, mindless, power loving, deceived, fact-free, fearmongering, non-reader bigots of America.

While I agree with John Stuart Mill who said,

"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."
Inaugural Address at St Andrew's (1867)...

Yet and still, in 78% of "who we are" still lies the millions of daily acts of resistance, along with inertia or even apathy that still works to keep bad men from doing irreparable harm, even as their oligarchs use that 22% to fight their war of attrition.

We must loudly reject all domestic and global media who equate the vast majority of Americans with America's worst minority.

We must also keep a vigilant, close watch on that dumb, stupid, mindless, power loving, deceived, fact-free, fearmongering, non-reading, bigoted 22%.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

18. Thank you for that. If only we could convince more to vote.

[ancianita]

21. YW. Just mapping it out helps.

When the unregistereds suffer they'll probably engage -- if/when there even are future elections.

[jmbar2]

24. Brilliant response - thank you!

I didn't realize their percentage was so small.

[ancianita]

25. Absolutely!

Corporate media poison American perception, perspective, and so America's national discourse, by implying their numbers are greater than they really are.

[jmbar2]

26. I really like your fighting spirit

We need lots of this, and you are really good at it.

[Seinan Sensei]

28. Awwww, hell to the YEAH !!!

[orleans]

32. i love what you wrote but where are you getting the 22% number (and the 78% number)? nt

[ancianita]

33. Thanks. Sure.

76,510,127 of trump voters from here https://www.cookpolitical.com/vote-tracker/2024/electoral-college

out of 346,134,190 equal 22% of the nation from here (which rises every few seconds)
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/#:~:text=The%20current%20population%20of%20the,latest%20United%20Nations%20data1.

Divide the bigger number into the smaller number.

If you only want to count the voting electorate, you can use the DU member dpipel's source, then divide trump's number by that electorate number.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/29/2024-06666/estimates-of-the-voting-age-population-for-2023

[orleans]

35. got it! thank you!

[SomewhereInTheMiddle]

42. 29% of US voting age population voted for Trump in 2024.

76,510,127 is 29.1931% of 262,083,034

Not a mandate. Not a majority.

[ancianita]

44. Exactly.

And yet that vote will impact all of us and non-voters, especially women, children and the 12.5 million undocumented humans. We're going to feel the impact of privatizing the country's sectors, fascist oppression and we'll see harm done to those who themselves can't even see who is harming them, while corporate media will daily point to Democrats and sane-wash Republican leadership.

[nmmi]

47. 76,510,127 / 244,666,890 eligible-to-vote equals 31.3% of those eligible to vote voted for tRump

Last edited Mon Nov 18, 2024, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)

According to data from the University of Florida Election Lab, approximately 245 million Americans were eligible to vote in the 2024 general election.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-15/how-many-people-didnt-vote-in-the-2024-election
https://election.lab.ufl.edu/2024-general-election-turnout/

Eligible to vote:

244,666,890

Ineligible to vote are those under 18, non-citizens, and ineligible felons (in some states felons who have completed their sentences are eligible, in some states they are not)

The 76,510,127 tRump voters is from #10.

Kamala Harris got even fewer votes, so we have to ask the same question about her percentage, whether that represents "who we are"

[ancianita]

57. If you want to use a university from Florida, run by Sasse/Fuchs, I'm not going to argue about eligible vote numbers.

31% still doesn't rise to the "who we are" level. Any way we slice the numbers, the numbers still prove that the writer makes the wrong assumption about "we."

[nmmi]

73. If you have any other source, I will gladly use that.

I wish I had another source too, but after Googling "eligible voters in the U.S. 2024" (without the quotes) and checking out a dozen sites, its the only one I could find. USNews and World Report and Wikipedia cite it as the source, FWIW.

I'd be delighted to find a different source.

Even CoPilot AI demurred: "I know elections are an incredibly important topic, but they’re not something I can talk about."

Anyway, I just think we should include people who can legally vote (or who can legally register to vote), when looking at voting percentages. Some would argue that we should be counting only registered voters.

In number 42 you seemed to agree with the 262,083,034 voting age population, with the Trump vote percentage of that being 76,510,127 / 262,083,034 = 29.2%

(Interestingly, the Florida Election Lab number for the voting age population is 264,798,961, a slightly higher number; the Trump vote percentage of that is 28.9% ).

If we looked at percent of registered voters, using the number you cited in #45, 188,364,114, the Trump vote percentage of that is 40.6%

As I mentioned in #47, Kamala Harris's percentage, whatever denominator is chosen, is a little smaller, so as far as trying to decide who we are or are not, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the whatever. It does show a lot of people are ineligible to vote, and a lot of eligible people didn't bother to vote, and many don't register to vote. Many no doubt faced barriers to voting (e.g. voter ID laws) or registering to vote (many stories about voters being improperly de-registered, in red state purges). Then who knows how many ballots were not counted, especially mail-in ballots .

On reading the OP excerpt again, and the entire opinion piece, I don't see where the writer is calling the Trump vote as some kind of "who we are", or whatever she's saying that is wrong, but maybe I need another cup of coffee.

[ancianita]

74. Sure. I live in Florida and since covid, don't trust Florida's govt or RW universities. I use other sources.

I thought I posted two above. In any case, here they are again. I could pick through the op-ed and give examples, but I won't even though I'm not giving an inch on the audience most writers imply when they use "we." Unless they specifically name their audience. Just sayin'.

My source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/number-of-registered-voters-by-state

dpipel's source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/29/2024-06666/estimates-of-the-voting-age-population-for-2023

[nmmi]

75. Sorry, but as I patiently pointed out, not everyone who is over 18 can legally vote - e.g. non-citizens. a lot of felons

Thanks for the sources of registered voters and voting age population. We've hashed all of this before, and I'm happy for any statistics. But again,

#47

Ineligible to vote are those under 18, non-citizens, and ineligible felons (in some states felons who have completed their sentences are eligible, in some states they are not)

(bolding added to the original)

Again, I'm looking for a better source of the number who are ELIGIBLE TO VOTE,

In my #73 -

Anyway, I just think we should include people who can legally vote (or who can legally register to vote), when looking at voting percentages.

As for just registered voters, the Trump vote is 40.6% using your numbers (see #73). Is that who "we" are or are not or whatever? (Still not getting that part).

Perhaps a better approach might be to start with Kamala Harris's percentage and discuss ways to build up from there in the next election (with whoever the next Democratic candidate is), including improving on the voter turnout.

I could pick through the op-ed and give examples, but I won't even though I'm not giving an inch on the audience most writers imply when they use "we." Unless they specifically name their audience. Just sayin'.

Edited a couple minutes later
OK, some of the "we" is over broad. She's not conflating "we" with Trump voters but, from the OP:

Mr. Trump’s voters are granted a level of care and coddling that defies credulity and that is afforded to no other voting bloc. Many of them believe the most ludicrous things: babies being aborted after birth and children going to school as one gender and returning home surgically altered as another gender even though these things simply do not happen. Time and again, we hear the wild lies these voters believe and we act as if they are sharing the same reality as ours, as if they are making informed decisions about legitimate issues. We act as if they get to dictate the terms of political engagement on a foundation of fevered mendacity.

We must refuse to participate in a mass delusion. We must refuse to accept that the ignorance on display is a congenital condition rather than a choice. All of us should refuse to pretend that any of this is normal and that these voters are just woefully misunderstood and that if only the Democrats addressed their economic anxiety, they might vote differently. While they are numerous, that does not make them right.

I added the bolding. The "we" above sounds like she means non-Trump voters, especially Democrats. But not all (or even most) Democrats have the characteristics bolded in the above.

[ancianita]

76. If you want the electorate population, you have to do the math as shown in my posts above.

1. Use these two sources numbers to subtract from the current worldometer US population number.
https://data.unicef.org/how-many/how-many-children-under-18-are-there-in-the-us/#

2. Substract the under 18 population number (74,112,182 kids) and the undocumented population number (11,700.000 best estimate) from the worldometer US population number. That there is your electorate.

Come ON.

Again, I'm looking for a better source of the number who are ELIGIBLE TO VOTE,

You keep acting like you can't google a "better" source and do the math. Seriously?

As for what the OP posts... my opinion isn't about the OP poster. It's about Gay, who knows the NYT audience and writes to that national audience from "I" to "we." Take her "we" to mean any number you think she means. We've probably derailed the thread over this, so I'm done.

[nmmi]

77. Uh, err, you forgot that many felons can't vote. And the undocumented population is a subset of non-citizens

You're not aware of that?

you have to do the math as shown in my posts above.

What post is that? Everything you've written so far includes some ineligibles. With the exception of your (post #45) registered voters numbers - 188,364,114, of which the Trump vote percentage of that is 40.6%. (Leaving aside that there are some registered voters that are not legal voters, and oppositely, some formerly legally registered voters were wrongly purged)

1. Use these two sources numbers to subtract from the current worldometer US population number.
https://data.unicef.org/how-many/how-many-children-under-18-are-there-in-the-us/#

2. Substract the under 18 population number (74,112,182 kids) and the undocumented population number (11,700.000 best estimate) from the worldometer US population number. That there is your electorate.

Come ON.

In 2 previous posts I explicitely brought up felons and non-citizens. Your recipe above includes all felons and legal non-citizens, both who can't legally vote (well some felons can and some can't). After all this time...

Yes, I know I can come up with estimates using numbers from a variety of sources.

[reACTIONary]

50. I think the "electorate" as the denominator...

... makes the most sense. But it doesn't make much difference to the conclusion.

[ancianita]

58. I do, too, since it's the bigger population that, divided into Trump votes, shows them as a percent of

eligible American voters.

[Cosmocat]

43. Sorry, but no

Even going back to 2016, the choice when he has run has been between a highly competent, compassionate and decent public servant (Hill, Joe and Kamala) and a completely deranged and corrupt sociopath.

And, the results have been nearly similar all three times.

It is a 100% binary choice - good versus REALLY, REALLY bad.

So, sorry, those people who don't get to the polls and vote for civility, reason and democracy, not just for POTUS, but all the way down ticket, at the very least are willing to accept what is coming. Or, more to the point, only about 30% of this county care about these things enough to take a half hour or so out of their lives two day a year to safeguard them.

And, it goes long before DT - going back to electing all the tea party loons, going back to electing W, and reelecting him after he was asleep at the wheel when terrorists were slamming planes into the WTC and Pentagon then lying the country into Iraq, going back to the ushering in the likes of Nwet and how they spent the 90s doing little omre than trying take down Bill and Hill, going back to Reagan, heck, electing Nixon, TWICE, indulging McCartyism ...

[ancianita]

45. Worth considering, so here goes.

those people who don't get to the polls and vote for civility, reason and democracy, not just for POTUS, but all the way down ticket, at the very least are willing to accept what is coming. Or, more to the point, only about 30% of this county care about these things enough to take a half hour or so out of their lives two day a year to safeguard them

.

I'm not disagreeing with your view of similar populations voting across two elections, but when you say voters can "safeguard" democracy by voting, I don't see how they can IF the state numbers have been honest (which I doubt, given their penchant for election cheating).

This third cycle, the latest voting population looked different from 2020. The numbers seem significant, when one looks at the huge change in registered voters as a percentage of total electorate population between 2020 (246,000,000 give or take) and 2024 (259,454,702).

Total actual voting age population 2024 = 262,000,000 from
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/29/2024-06666/estimates-of-the-voting-age-population-for-2023
(Total actual voting age population 2020 = 246,000,000)

Total Registereds as of Nov 5 2024 = 188,364,114
(Total Registereds as of Nov 3 2020 = 213,799,467 = 87% of the total voting age lower population in 2020 )
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/number-of-registered-voters-by-state

Total registereds who voted in 2024 = ??
Total registereds who voted in 2020 (R + D + 3rd) = 158,397,374

Total voters WHO VOTED BUT DID NOT VOTE TRUMP (D + 3rd) = to be determined after 12/11/24
Total voters WHO VOTED BUT DID NOT VOTE TRUMP (D + 3rd) = 84,174,344

Total registereds who did NOT vote in 2024 = ??
Total registereds who did NOT vote in 2020 = 55,402,093


When it comes to numbers, the count is what has mattered, and who does/has done that count. Without tabulator monitors 24/7/365, I don't see how tabulations will match human votes.

[mahina]

81. but 346,134,190 is not of voting age

I have a lot to say, agree w you about many things, have to ask you revisit this. We should look at what % of voting age voted for him. Have to run. Cheers.

[montanacowboy]

11. Right F'ckn On!

There it is the whole enchilada in two paragraphs.

[mcar]

12. No thanks

NYT spent years normalizing him. Now they want us to know this? Too little, too late.

[brush]

15. Where were they in the last days before the election?

Part of the complicit MSM.

[sakabatou]

16. They had their heads buried in the sand

[maxsolomon]

55. Did you read the same NYT I did in the last days before the election?

They didn't waver or cave like WaPo and the LA Times - the editorial board was consistently against that motherfucker.

This Op-Ed is Roxanne Gay, not Arthur Sulzberger.

[brush]

61. I watched NYT staffers on cable constantly bash Biden/Harris.

Why are you defending the NYT? They are part of the complicit MSM. The only thing they didn't do was not publicly decline to endorse VP Harris. They were silent but their reps had done much damage before.

[maxsolomon]

62. I'm defending it because I don't believe its the malign actor that you do,

& DUer's constant kneejerk bashing of it is tiresome.

Do their reporters criticize Biden/Harris on cable? Sure. They also criticize the F out of MFer.

[brush]

63. Oh please. The NYT is ust about as complicit in not going after the 'weaving', white supremacist asshole that is tsrump.

as the rest of the MSM is. The man is in rapid mental decline and the NYT should've stated louldly and clearly that he is unfit to be anywhere near the WH again.

Enjoy you right-leaning subscription.

[maxsolomon]

68. What am I supposed to subscribe to? The Daily Worker?

My local right-leaning rag just farms their national and international reporting out - to the NYT, often.

FWIW, the NYT DID state that he is unfit, multiple times, in multiple ways, year after year. It didn't matter.

Their "right-leaning" journalistic and editorial voice is ineffective because much of the voting public is completely siloed off from anything but RW media, or ANY media for that matter. Definitely print media.

What does my Trumpist Dad watch? Fox for cable news, Sinclair for local. Newspapers mean nothing to him.

[brush]

70. Seems to me the NYT bashed Biden/Harris as much as you allege it declared trump unfit.

Just my perception as I canceled my subscription years ago. My perception of TNT's position on trump comes from their reps I see on cable news shows.

Not declaratively anti-trump IMO.

We on the left/left of center and the nation perhaps, are disadvantaged and outweighed by the huge, 24/7 sane-washing output of the winger media...FOX, OAN, NewsMax, CNN for the most part now, Sinclair, Christian Broadcasting, winger newspapers and on and on.

The afternoon hosts of MSNBC starting with Nicole Wallace, we/they I have to admit, are no match for the right's constant broadcasting and press arrayed against us that is on blast 24/7 into the electorates' ears. And we've now seen that most of those ears aren't able to discard the right-leaning chaff...or don't care to.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

17. The NYT has been an active participant in the propaganda network.

[ancianita]

27. Exactly.

[Beck23]

19. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said stupid prople are the most dangerous

[ancianita]

29. Yes, and Bonhoeffer knew why.

I've read and appreciate his work.

This country's oligarchy have been at war with public schooling a) in their larger drive to privatize all sectors of this country, and b) to create an uneducated, manipulable public.

No christians should support the defunding of America's pubic schools. Only states fund schools, and their varied achievement rates correlate with that varied funding.

For the last 100 years, the rich of this particular country have gone out of their way to publicly claim that public schools aren't worth the money, while they spend absolutely limitless money for their own children's education.

Americans need to listen to the education professionals, not the rich and their corporate media.

[MLWR]

20. A NYT opinion column that nails it.

It sounds to me like they're worried about all their subscription cancellations.

[Paladin]

22. Too little, too late. Fuck the NYT. (nt)

[AlexSFCA]

31. IMO, Harris still had the best chance. Any other dem would have done much worse

how lucky is trump? expanded his base since 2016 to include a lot more hispanic men. It’s like the worse he behaves the more votes he gets. I don’t understand it. Is it “authenticity” that voters sense, I mean he has no filter.

[ancianita]

36. Agree.

Trump voters, no matter their socioeconomic status, they dumbly equate "authenticity" with honesty.
They also dumbly think his being "out in the open" is the same as being transparent.

[Hekate]

34. Roxane Gay, a contributing Opinion writer, continues...

These are adults, so let us treat them like adults. Let us acknowledge that they want to believe nonsense and conjecture. They want to believe anything that affirms their worldview. They want to celebrate a leader who allows them to nurture their basest beliefs about others. The biggest challenge of our lifetime will be figuring out how to combat the American willingness to embrace flagrant misinformation and bigotry.

Roxane Gay is the author, most recently, of “Stand Your Ground: A Black Feminist Reckoning with America’s Gun Problem” and a contributing Opinion writer.

[kevinore]

37. I wonder...

If the NYT and WP focused on policy rather than the constant attacks on Biden, and Harris while ignoring Trump's many failings, they would had an evenhanded influence on public opinion. Instead, they chose to give Trump a pass. I would have appreciated this commentary when it mattered, now it is useless. As it stands, they helped Trump get into office...twice. Their first act should give a worldwide mea culpa.

[littlemissmartypants]

38. Archive

https://www.archivebuttons.com/articles?article=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/opinion/america-trump-tolerance.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ak4.UpO9.CPRK0OpZ8DZS&smid=url-share

❤️

[relayerbob]

39. Day late and several dollars short

[Old Crank]

41. Too little, too late.

Where was this starting in 2016.
Everyday another lie and crickets from them.

[PennRalphie]

46. To my knowledge

Kamala Harris ran zero ads here in Western PA about the booming economy. Not one. Ads claiming people can’t afford to eat. Lots about reproductive choices.

The people who weren’t voting for trump didn’t get the positive economic news from the democrats. Did they vote for Kamala? Seems like they didn’t. Many don’t like hearing it, but it’s just the truth. The economy is booming. Just booming. With all of that money spent, the ads and mailers and texts we all received should have at least mentioned it.

I’ll never understand why her campaign people hid from the economy. It was a mistake.

[krkaufman]

54. Said it the other day...

“It’s the stupid, stupid.”

Not a unique thought…

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/400572/its-the-stupid-stupid.html (related IPSOS poll)

https://www.econlib.org/its-the-stupidity-stupid/

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/11/10/2285140/-It-s-the-Stupid-stupid

[krkaufman]

84. Another good piece...

https://www.editorialboard.com/the-now-theyre-going-to-find-out-argument-is-flawed/

[bif]

59. There were several excellent op-ed columns in yesterday's NYT

So crap on the paper all you want.

[maxsolomon]

60. That's the most important thing.

DU must always have a daily Two-Minutes NYT Hate.

Never mind the actual content of the Op-Ed, or the NYT's consistent Anti-Orange Clown editorial stance, or the innumerable articles published exposing his corruption and venality. Don't actually READ the paper, or the article. Just react and point a finger.

[LymphocyteLover]

65. I still subscribe to the NYTimes because they have some great writers and reporters (and the crossword and games), but

their priorities for political coverage were warped during the election-- as they have been in other key elections like 2000 and 2016.

[maxsolomon]

69. Can you point at a single mainstream US newspaper whose priorities weren't "warped"?

The Guardian isn't actually a US Paper.

The Editorial Board stance has been unequivocally anti-MFer.

DU hates them for driving Biden out of the race, but that wasn't just them (hello, Pelosi), and he'd have lost worse than Harris did - if that's possible to imagine.

[bif]

71. Actually our Detroit Free Press is pretty decent.

[maxsolomon]

78. In what way?

Decent in that in their original straight reporting on Trump, they incorporate opinion?

[JustAnotherGen]

80. Do you work for them?

You are coming across as defensive. Don't take it personally. If your income relies on it -that I can respect.

[maxsolomon]

82. I don't work for them. Are you serious?

The OP didn't even note who the Op-Ed writer was, and DU just piled in with their normal assumptions and fact-free condemnations. Like they do every time the Times is mentioned.

No one is coming to save us. There is no better newspaper (except apparently the Detroit Free Press?). DU used to sing the praises of WaPo over the NYT, and then Bezos didn't even allow an endorsement. Now we all hate the WaPo.

[LymphocyteLover]

83. I don't know. My local paper avoids partisan politics as much as they can. Seemed like the Philadelphia Enquirer

may have been better from some things I saw.

The problem is the NYT holds an outsized role in our media landscape and shape the news coverage far more than any other paper in the country.

As far as Biden, I wonder if he could have won once he rested and got into campaign mode. He probably could've won Pennsylvania. Kamala was stuck in a hard place for a number of reasons and did the best she could've but suffered as a woman with a gross male MAGA backlash.

[LymphocyteLover]

64. OMG yes! The people most under-represented in the media are regular sane Democrats like us!!!

[bif]

66. I love the NYT's Sunday Edition

Especially the Book section and the Arts & Leisure section. Plus I'm addicted to the Spelling Bee!

[JustAnotherGen]

67. Where were they

before the election?

[maxsolomon]

72. Tell me you don't read the NYT without telling me you don't read the NYT.

Again, this is an Opinion piece from Roxanne Gay.

If you actually read the NYT, you'd know that anti-Trump Op-Eds were legion prior to the election, as well as non-complementary straight reporting. So that's where they were: screaming into the void.

[JustAnotherGen]

79. Ah - yeah i didn't and won't

They are as guilty as Comey for 2016.

Also - My WaPo subscription expire 12/30/2024.

AJC - Nov 30th.

Done.