The New York Times is so adorable, and by adorable we mean ridiculous and annoying. Thanks though, Ian, for posting this snippet of their lame article because it would appear you have to subscribe to read the whole hot mess …
And look out folks, there is CHATTER.
— Ian Sams (@IanSams) November 19, 2016
Chatter leads to a rallying cry for Democrats in 2018?
— TeamTransition 2016 (@ProgPoker) November 20, 2016
@IanSams Who cares if it happens when you can make it up ahead of time and publish it in the NY Times?
— Bob Fary (@BobFary) November 20, 2016
@IanSams Wow. You guys are really stretching it, and there are still two months until he becomes President.
— lll llllll (@lunatickfringe) November 20, 2016
They seem awfully anxious …
This is why the Democrats keep losing, Ian.
It's usually a good idea to ignore any sentence that begins "there is chatter…." https://t.co/XzRVqbu5OD
— Brit Hume (@brithume) November 20, 2016
BINGO. With so much reporting about fake reporting you’d think the New York Times would maybe figure out that chatter doesn’t mean a whole lot.
In fact chatter could just be two snotty little aides sitting around a Starbucks bitching about Donald Trump over a soy pumpkin spice latte and talking smack on Twitter.
Granted, the NYT would likely still consider them a solid source but still.