Obama Privately Tells Donors That Time Is Coming to Unite Behind Hillary Clinton

[thesquanderer]

109. I don't think they have an aversion to publishing things that are helpful to Clinton.

I assume you are aware of how a Sanders piece was edited to be far less favorable to him?

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/?ref=topics&_r=0

Honestly, I think the Times has, at times, treated both of them unfairly. For all the talk of their being a liberal paper, they seem kinder, in general, to the Republicans! Maybe because they feel they have to bend over backwards to not be so perceived as a liberal paper. Or maybe because, at the heart of it, they see that as where their bread is buttered.

I agree it's mostly about selling papers, though.

Back to timing... prior to last Friday, there was no talk of Sanders being competitive in Illinois. There was a chance he could make a run at Ohio, though the polls were still heavily against him. Expectations did get raised between Friday and Tuesday, but in the end, he performed about as had been expected up until that point. 538 did not have him favored to win any state, as I recall. Though of course, with proportional allocation, that doesn't tell the whole story, since winning or losing is not necessarily as important as how much you win or lose by.