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.

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

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.

FUCK

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.

...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.

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......

WTF NYT? Where ya been?

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.

F&%k them!

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

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

Thanks for the correction.

please rectify.

not the NY Times.

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

NTY: Day late and dollar short.

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

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%.

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

I didn't realize their percentage was so small.

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

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

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

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

Not a mandate. Not a majority.

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.

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:

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."

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.

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

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

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.

You're not aware of that?

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

eligible American voters.

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 ...

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.

There it is the whole enchilada in two paragraphs.

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

Part of the complicit MSM.

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.

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.

& 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

“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

So crap on the paper all you want.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

before the election?

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.

They are as guilty as Comey for 2016.

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

AJC - Nov 30th.

Done.