Vin Suprynowicz

What do we mean when we say the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CNN, etc., are “in the bag” for Hillary Clinton?

Early in September, the Times was declaring Ohio (see . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/us/politics/donald-trump-ohio-john-kasich.html?_r=0 ) to be “an essential swing state,” where the “paper of record” gleefully reported Gov. John Kasich threatened to destroy Donald Trump’s presidential hopes by withholding his endorsement and denying Trump use of his voter turnout machine.

The Times added: “No candidate since 1960 has made it to the White House without winning Ohio. And while Mrs. Clinton could afford to lose there given her advantage in other battlegrounds like Virginia and Colorado, Ohio is a must-win for Mr. Trump.”

(Actually, since we now know Kennedy money and mob connections stole the electoral votes of Illinois and West Virginia in 1960, it’s not clear Ohio failed as a bellwether by going for Nixon in 1960, either — not that you’d expect the New York Times to point that out.)

But what a difference three weeks can make!

Although Hillary Clinton had led Donald Trump in Ohio since comparison polling started last April, Trump pulled ahead of Clinton in the Buckeye State in the RealClearPolitics poll average on Sep. 13, and has never looked back. The latest average, compiled Sept. 24 — prior to the presidential debate on Sept. 26 — showed Donald Trump ahead of Mrs. Clinton by 2 percent. (see . . . http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton-5634.html .)

So suddenly, now that Trump is winning the “must-win,” the Times has revised its view of Ohio’s importance: “After decades as one of America’s most reliable political bellwethers, an inevitable presidential battleground that closely mirrored the mood and makeup of the country, Ohio is suddenly fading in importance this year,” wrote Jonathan Martin for the Times on Sept. 29.

Why? Because Hillary Clinton has given up on trying to win the state.

Mind you, if Donald Trump gave up on winning an “important bellwether state,” the Times would already be cueing the funeral dirge for his campaign (or, more likely, dancing a polka.)

But if Hillary gives up, it must mean that the state just doesn’t matter as much as it did, way, way, way back on, um . . . Sept. 6.

Meantime, of course, the Times’ pro-Hillary “political correspondent” (just look up his coverage of her debate with Bernie Sanders, back in February) can’t resist getting in another iteration of that paper’s stereotype of the typical Trump voter, the illiterate redneck retard, as Mr. Martin mentions on Sept. 29 “Ohio has not fallen into step with the demographic changes transforming the United States, growing older, whiter and less educated than the nation at large. . . . As Mrs. Clinton’s aides privately note, the demographic makeup of Florida, Colorado and North Carolina, which have a greater percentage of educated or nonwhite voters, makes those states more promising for Democrats.”

So voters in states that are “less promising for Democrats” are no longer as significant to the outcome of this race as the small blue minority islands of America’s cities? And white high school graduates are now to be branded “not educated” . . . because they didn’t go to some prestigious Northeastern University and become Saul Alinsky disciples or Muslim jihad enablers or “tax the rich” politicians after reading the works of Herbert Marcuse and Franz Fanon?

And this puzzling failure of old white folk (unlike, say, the young blacks, Hispanics and Muslims who own, operate, and cover politics for The New York Times?) to die off quickly enough in Ohio grew obvious on Sept. 29, but had remained invisible to the Timesmen as recently as Sept. 6?

I know quite a few people from Ohio. Some are white, some are black, and I see very little correlation between their intelligence or common sense and how prestigious a Northeast college or university they attended — or whether they attended any university, at all.

The more precise correlation in this race is to whether a certain set of voters rely exclusively on the highly filtered “news” products of CNN, NBC, and The New York Times. Why not report “The demographic makeup of Florida, Colorado and North Carolina, which have a far smaller percentage of voters who go to the Internet to find out all the stuff about Hillary that we’ve been hiding from them, makes those states more promising for Democrats”?

Furthermore, “With a once-competitive Senate race in Ohio turning into a rout for Rob Portman, the Republican incumbent, Democrats can quietly pull back from the state with little fear of down-ballot consequences,” Mr. Martin of the Times concludes.

What?

“With no down-ballot consequences” . . . because Democrats have given up on winning ANY races in Ohio, as well as (quite possibly, given the way Joe Heck is stomping Harry Reid’s hand-picked successor, Catherine Cortez Masto, here in Nevada) their always slim hopes of gaining majority control of the United States Senate — which means a Trump victory could put Republicans in control of every branch of the federal government?

The New York Times has just discovered a potential national disaster for the Democratic Party (whose nominee accepted millions in “Clinton Foundation” bribes while Secretary of State, was saved from an FBI indictment only by the intervention of fellow jihad-enabler Barack Obama, and who shows symptoms of suffering a serious, degenerative neurological illness) brewing up with its epicenter in little Athens, Ohio — and just proceeded to do a pretty good impersonation of the traffic cop who advises passers-by to “Move along; nothing to see here; move along.”

Does anyone still wonder why 70 percent of Americans no longer trust these guys to even give us the straight word on whether it’s raining outside?

Tip of the hat to our source for this report:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/09/30/ohio-new-york-times-declare-no-longer-bellwether-trump-pulls-ahead/

Also picked up by

http://newzsentinel.com/new-york-times-declares-ohio-no-longer-bellwether-as-trump-pulls-ahead/