Bernie Sanders with Hillary Clinton at the CNN Democratic debate
A New York Times article by Patrick Healy and Trip Gabriel (10/23/15), alarmed that the Republican presidential nominee had not yet been determined (even though it would be more than three months before the first voter weighed in), provided this piece of context as its second paragraph:
With Hillary Rodham Clinton emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest, the unruly Republican presidential field suddenly seemed to lack a center of political gravity on Friday, leaving party strategists and voters to fear a long nomination fight that could end with a damaged standard-bearer facing a more unified left.
At the time, the “unrivaled leader” led her closest rival, Bernie Sanders, by just 7 percentage points in an average of recent polls in the first caucus state, Iowa. In the first primary state, New Hampshire, she trailed Sanders by 2 points. (In an accompanying graphic, the Times ranked Clinton as No. 1 in New Hampshire polls—based on a different polling average that had her ahead by 0.2 percentage points.)
Rather than “emerging” as a leader with no rival, Clinton’s aura of inevitability has faded as Sanders has shown surprising strength in polling, fundraising and ability to attract crowds. Rather than signifying a “unified left,” the race for the 2016 Democratic nomination has revealed deep divides between the party’s grassroots and corporate wings.
The New York Times, which strongly identifies with that corporate wing, would like its assertion that the 2016 Democratic primary season is over before it begins to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Democracy would be much better served if the Times were to allow voters to determine who the Democratic Party’s next presidential nominee will be.
