Weeks ago, it was all anyone in the mainstream media could talk about: the importance of winning Ohio in a presidential election, because no sitting president ever secured his place in the Oval Office without it.
Now that Donald Trump is leading Hillary Clinton in the Buckeye State, however, the New York Times no longer deems the flyover outpost all that important. Because, after all, it's just chock-full of uneducated white folk.
Newsbusters again exposed the unscrupulous Times after the outlet's Jonathan Martin penned an article Thursday lamenting how difficult it is going to be for Clinton to beat Trump in Ohio, but then spun that fact into a positive for Clinton, positing that Ohio is out of step with educated parts of the nation anyway:
But it's all good, says Martin, because the Buckeye State, which no victorious presidential candidate has lost since 1960, is now "fading in importance." Why? Because "Ohio has not fallen into step with the demographic changes transforming the United States," in that is it "older, whiter and less educated than the nation at large." Reviewing previous Times coverage, it seems that Ohio's supposed lesser importance magically came about in the past four weeks.
Newsbusters points out, however, that despite the new spin the Times has been very focused on the importance of Ohio. Articles like those titled, "On Labor Day, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Begin a Final Sprint [in Ohio]" touch on that very point:
September 5 (front-paged on September 6), Times reporter Ashley Parker covered the activities of Democratic nominee Clinton and Republican nominee Trump on Labor Day.
Imagine that — Both candidates spent their day in Ohio, and Parker emphasized the Buckeye State's importance:
So both presidential candidates and their running mates were in Ohio on Labor Day in a state "Trump must win." Additionally, Parker missed the fact that Bill Clinton also appeared and gave a speech at Cincinnati's traditional Labor Day AFL-CIO picnic later that day. It seems that Team Clinton also saw Ohio as a state "it must win" four weeks ago.
Now the elitists at The Times, resigned to losing that state to Trump, must diminish its importance and disparage its constituents as white, uneducated cave dwellers.
So Hillary Clinton calls Bernie Sanders supporters basement dwellers; she calls Trump supporters a basket of deplorables; and her surrogate the New York Times pans an entire State painting its inhabitants as nothing more than troglodytes. Meanwhile, they were too happy to pander to said troglodytes when they thought they could squeeze votes for Hillary out of them.
The contempt Hillary and her surrogates have for the majority of the American electorate is more than palpable this election cycle -- and we think voters aren't going to overlook this fact come election day.