LOL! great comments from the (per usual) biased NY Times summary of Super Tuesday:

[amborin]

really like the NY Times, but it is really starting to feel like they are championing the Clinton cause to a point where it's annoying. How was tonight a decisive victory for Clinton? Sanders won the states that actually matter to Democrats in the general election. Poll after poll shows that Sanders is in fact more electable than Clinton, and he has a lot of states coming up where he has a lot of support. Please offer accurate coverage the election as it is really starting to feel like the Times is in the bag for Clinton.

Maybe I've suddenly gone colorblind, but I could have sworn that at least four of those states turned bright green on the map...

But no mention of Bernie until halfway down the page, NYT? Funny, that...

Once again, the wrong headline. Bernie Sanders pursued a strategy focused on Vermont, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Minnesota and Colorado. He's won four of these five and Massachusetts is nearly a head heat. Certainly Hilary Clinton has the upper hand in the nominating contest, but the depiction in this article of Bernie as a virtually insignificant "also ran" does not do justice to Sanders' successes in mobilizing new voters. Still lots of places ahead where Bernie will do well.

According to other web sites, Hillary won 7 states to Bernie's 4. Delegates are proportional in all, so that Hillary gained about 3:2 in delegates bound by primary results.

That is a win for Hillary. That is not the blow out we were told to expect as a firewall.

Yet again, her boasted-of firewall fails to be a firewall. Yet again, we are told here of what a mighty win it is anyway. That is bias.

Furthermore, Hillary won her primaries mostly in states that will go Republican in any election. So today does not represent Hillary's ability to win a general election for the Democrats.

In contrast, Bernie could expect to carry in the general election that states in which he won the primary.

The DNC may yet crush Bernie with the help of a lot of Wall Street money, but they'll only succeed in electing Trump.

Two MAJOR Things stand out to me today.

First, I do not understand why minority voters favor Hillary so much, especially when there is PHOTO EVIDENCE of Mr. Mr. Sanders protesting segregation. He is someone who is geniuene and does not change his stand on issues and has literally WALKED THE WALK for African Americans.

Second, The New York Times bias on Mrs. Clinton has been much too apparent this election year. I understand if the Opinion columns are supporting her because the editorial board did but when you start to present facts in ways that are leaning toward Mrs. Clinton in factual articles, that is when I get angry. This publication should be holding itself to a higher standard than that.

Sanders with 4 states, and MA very very close. I'm not even a big advocate of Sanders, but this strikes me as bad reporting...Weird, too, that the Sanders campaign did not seem to see the big wins in CO and MN coming, but if you were watching the incoming results, this outcome was pretty clear (and at the very least should have prompted questions) several hours before the states were called...

I really had faith that the NY Times would not pander to bias and yet that's all its been, even before the Editorial Board decided to come out in favor of Hillary months before this moment. Shame on me for trusting the integrity of such a great institution I've been reading for more than 30 years.

Absolutely no mention of the considerable delegate counts from CO and MN -- because they don't really fit into the narrative being repeated mindlessly in the NYTimes these days. What's up?

Do better, New York Times. The "news" aspect of this pro-Hillary paean is thin and incorrect. Sanders won 4 states handily. MA is only a slim margin of victory for Hillary. Hillary's control of the south, where a Dem will not win one Electoral College vote come general election, is not half as important as Sanders' wins in CO and MN.

Do better.

I didn't realize Oklahoma was a liberal stronghold.

"Sanders wins in Liberal Strongholds" says the Times. Liberal strongholds like Oklahoma and Colorado? More egregious Clinton propaganda from the Times.

Did you expect Sanders to win 60-40 in Minnesota and Colorado, to top Clinton by 10 points in Oklahoma, and run pretty much dead heat with her in Massachusetts? If so, please let us know the basis for that expectation and where it was reported. If not, please let us know why you say that Sanders ran as expected. Your reporting seems demonstrably biased to me, too,

Clinton won a number of states the Democrats will not win in November. Meanwhile Sanders did much better than expected, taking four states and pretty much tying in Massachusetts. That's the story.

Hillary Clinton wins several deep south, deep red states that have ZERO chance of swinging Democrat come the general election. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders wins commanding victories (by nearly 20%) in two critically important swing states: Colorado and Minnesota. And yet one has to scroll down to the fine print to learn this.

As the Times continues to act as Hillary's greatest cheerleading squad, many of us look at these primary results as extremely foreboding should this turn into a Trump / Clinton contest. Mistrust of Clinton among independents is staggering. You are never going to convince such a large number of people that Clinton is anything but a narcissistic, corrupt Wall Street puppet with a history of majorly flawed decisions in time for November. Meanwhile, Trump's fanatics will be out with unrelenting enthusiasm on Election Day.

A Democratic winning a primary in Texas or a Republic winning a primary in Massachusetts does not win a general election. It's time to turn our attention to that, and Hillary's abysmal poll numbers among moderate voters. Suddenly we may be rethinking the narrative on how Sanders continues to be labeled the "unelectable" one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/us/politics/democratic-primary-results.html?hp&target=comments&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&modref=HPCommentsRefer&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region®ion=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region#commentsContainer

[RufusTFirefly]

1. C'mon! The Times, like Hillary, was totally right on that Iraq War thing. n/t

[AmBlue]

2. It was BIAS all around on the plutocracy propaganda channels...

that masquerade as news outlets (cnn, msnbc....). We could hardly hear a word about Bernie OR HRC for that matter. It was Trump, Trump, Trump, Rubio, Trump, Trump, Rubio... all freaking night. OVER IT!!!

[renate]

3. thank you so much for putting this together

[Todays_Illusion]

4. Yes, of course, the New York Times did officially endorse H.C. the corrupt and the crooked.

Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-endorsement.html?_r=0

[Doctor_J]

5. Hrc: establishment conservative candidate. Nyt: establishment conservative paper

A no brainer, literally