Here is another example of how to lie with statistics.
The article uses fairly-solid social science research in inappropriate ways and meanwhile mostly ignores and minimizes the real reasons why people support Sanders and not Clinton — Sanders is the only person in the race actually addressing a core issue of our time, which is inequality in both opportunity, wealth and power.
Also, they talk about how young people support Sanders in absolutely overwhelming numbers but not before lying about it in a most insulting and obvious way.
Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump’s success to anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to which Mr. Sanders’s support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men.
Well, here’s how not to lie with statistics.
Rolling poll data from Reuters shows that Sanders does especially well among young white women, though he dominates the youth in virtually every group. Taken together, 61 percent of young women support Sanders, versus 28 percent who support Clinton.
Notice that “does especially well among young white women?”
I don’t support Sanders. He’s not nearly liberal or militant enough for me. But the “BernieBros” false narrative is one of the most ridiculous and worthless pieces of successful propaganda I’ve seen in the US.
And of course Sanders never had real shot at being president, but the NYT is so firmly in the tank for Clinton it is just embarrassing. The articles they churn out on her behalf are unfailingly as crooked as she is.
This is the best the NYT can do? That’s all you got? A bunch of lies from some people with fancy (and apparently worthless) degrees?