When it comes to the inevitable showdown between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, it should come as no surprise that liberal media outlets have a preferred favorite.
No, Clinton is not a particularly great candidate and few have yearned to see her become the Democrat nominee. However, as a testament to how filthy politics in America has become, Clinton is the presumptive nominee for no other reason than “it’s her turn.” She has made the right connections, she has played the game, she has properly radicalized in line with the rest of the DNC and she has amassed a war-chest. It’s her and the mainstream media has to now find a way to “sell” Mrs. Clinton to the American people.
Thus far, their strategy has rested on an assurance of practicality. They have entertained idealistic Bernie Sanders supporters but have largely concluded that Clinton is the only one in the Democrat roster that can deliver.
As Donald Trump emerged to become the GOP nominee, the leftist mainstream media began working overtime to craft a narrative that centered on a central premise: Hillary simply cannot be bested by Trump.
The polls have shown time and time again that Trump falls short. However, as we are mere months away from the final showdown in the general election, Hillary still cannot seem to put her primary opponent away and she still has yet to settle on any kind of coherent message. She’s “pro-coal,” she’s “anti-coal,” she’s a champion of big business to support middle class jobs, she’s a supporter of punishing big business as an economic crusader.
Truly, I haven’t seen a worse Democrat candidate since Chappaquiddick and yet, Hillary keeps right on rolling if for no other reason than the DNC is on their fourth-string candidates and there’s nobody left on the bench.
So, the last vestige of “good news” the media can report is, “Hey, at least she can still beat Trump.”
However, that may no longer be true.
Trump has emerged to best Hillary (albeit only slightly) in a Washington Post-ABC News poll. The Washington Post, however, has worked double-overtime in order to try and obscure this inconvenient fact.
Two months ago, the spread between Clinton and Trump was 50.0 to 39.8 in favor of Clinton. Now, the poll is 43.4-43.2 in favor of Trump.
This doesn’t sound like much when we see just the numbers, but from a trending perspective, this is huge. It represents an 11.4-point swing in a matter of eight weeks during a time when the mainstream media was working hard to swamp Trump and offer every advantage to Hillary as a means of helping her best Bernie Sanders finally.
So, what did the Washington Post report with their headline? “Trump Bests Clinton”? Certainly not.
They, instead, omitted the actually newsworthy piece of the article and for their headline went with: “Poll: Election 2016 shapes up as a contest of negatives.”
Because, evidently, they were saving “Breaking: Water is Wet” for next week’s bombshell…
The authors of the article did literally everything they could to bury the lede. They finally arrived to the point that Trump bested Hillary after first including a misleading headline, a chart, sourcing and five full paragraphs before finally admitting that oh, by the way, Trump is leading Hillary for the first time.
When authors Dan Balz and Scott Clement finally grudgingly offered the news in the fifth paragraph, they immediately qualified in order to comfort the liberal readers, writing,
Nonetheless, Clinton is rated ahead of Trump across a range of attributes and issues, and she is seen as having superior experience, temperament and personality to be president. Trump is viewed as unqualified by a majority of adults, but he has strong appeal to voters as the anti-Clinton candidate who can bring change to Washington in an election year in which outsiders have thrived.
Several paragraphs later, the article explained that Trump would fare poorly if, for example, Mitt Romney arrived on the electoral scene.
To summarize: not only did The Post bury the lede and work very hard to undermine the very news which they were reporting, but then they conjured a laughably fictitious scenario in which 2012 loser Mitt Romney was considered and then celebrated as Hillary Clinton triumphed in a fractured three-way race.
Similarly, if a puma pounced-upon Mrs. Clinton and mauled her to death, it would likely affect Mr. Trump’s electoral prospects positively. However, making-up wildly unlikely scenarios is not news; it’s pathetic and far beneath the stature of The Washington Post, a once-prestigious newspaper with integrity that now is worth little more than serving as toilet paper for the Beltline’s homeless population.
It has been decades since we should have expected any greatness from the Washington Post, but even this level of asinine bias is cringe-inducing and pathetic.