Why the New York Times
is so bad for Trump article I’m a big fan of the New Times article.
The article was one of the few things that got me to read the paper.
In it, Trump is portrayed as a victim, an idiot, a coward.
I agree with the premise of the article, but I think the writer needs to clarify why this is so.
I’ve read other articles from the Times over the years that I think are equally bad, and they tend to be from people who are not experts.
The New York article is just a great example.
It doesn’t make sense.
Why is it so bad?
First of all, the article starts out by calling Trump “the most popular person in the United States.”
This is just flat wrong.
In fact, Donald Trump is a very unpopular person, with a net approval rating of -22% in the RealClearPolitics average.
Second, the author says that Trump “may have been the most popular president since Dwight Eisenhower.”
This ignores the fact that Trump was unpopular in both parties and was a total disaster from Day One.
Third, the NYT article says that “he may have lost his grip on the Republican Party.”
In fact he did a lot of damage to his party and it’s clear that the party will never recover.
In a way, this article makes Trump look like a failure by implying that he is not a competent leader.
There are a number of things the New Yorker could have done better.
The first is to try to explain the president’s unpopularity and the lack of popularity that he enjoyed during his term.
The authors suggest that the president was “pushed to the margins of American politics.”
This doesn’t fit with the facts.
It’s obvious that Trump’s approval rating was lower than it would have been if he hadn’t been in office, but he did not have to win the popular vote.
Trump lost the popular and electoral vote by about 3 million, which is a tiny fraction of the 270 electoral votes he would need to win.
Trump also lost the national popular vote by more than a million votes.
If you want to know why Trump lost, just look at the map.
Trump won the popular votes of all the states in which he ran, but lost the Electoral College votes in all but four states.
Thirdly, the New Republic article says “there is no evidence that Mr. Trump has done anything illegal, a common refrain among the Republicans who were his most vocal critics.”
This makes it sound like Trump is just another politician who has done nothing wrong.
It does not add up.
If Trump had been indicted for any criminal wrongdoing, Trump would have faced jail time, but his impeachment was based on the same baseless charge that he has been charged with for decades.
Trump was the most unpopular president in the history of the United State, and he won’t be for much longer.
So what’s the deal with this article?
I’d love to see a detailed analysis of the various reasons Trump’s popularity plummeted.
But even if you do a detailed and honest analysis, it’s still wrong.
The Times article was based solely on a single tweet, which was sent in late March 2017.
It did not even mention the president by name.
The author then goes on to explain why Trump’s unpopularities have been so bad.
Trump’s tweets are the result of “a toxic mix of anger, frustration, and ignorance” that he “has not been able to contain.”
This was the point where I realized I should write a book on Trump.
I had hoped that I could make it a little more complicated than that.
After reading the article about Trump’s lack of credibility, I thought to myself, “Well, this is why Trump is the least popular president in history.”
I’m not saying this was a good idea.
The NYT article has a lot going for it.
But, I don’t think it’s a good way to write about an unpopular president.