“subtlety”, “nuance”, “twitches”, “tremors”, “fine tuning”, these the less visible notations a researcher can find when they look into the quiet data the smart-set stroll past.

However, that said, when the New York Times is noticed shuffling around in the same data sets, you just know they are attempting to quantify the reality behind the stats the MSM consistently, and fraudulently, represent.  In addition, when they stop looking over their shoulder and begin polishing off the dirt from the glowing nugget, well,.. they wouldn’t be standing next to us if they didn’t suspect we were mining in a more lucrative locale.

CTH readers already know the scope of the research we’ve put into this election. Our spidey senses also anticipate a certain republican candidate has previously invested in a very similar endeavor.  Indeed, it would be impossible for us to predict so accurately were it not for an accidental synergy and ideological alignment therein.

In a rare admission today, the New York Times is walking back over 10 years of prior demographic presentations regarding the U.S. electorate.  In essence what they are saying is the voting base is far less ethnically diverse and far more white than historic leftist presentations.

Oh my.

The New York Times is also outlining something, carefully, without actually outlining the something they need to be careful about.  Candidate Donald Trump’s “potential” broad-based coalition is far larger than candidate Hillary Clinton’s “potential” identity-brand political coalition.