By Tom Blumer | November 30, 2016 | 11:01 AM EST

On Tuesday, Zach Schonfeld, a senior writer for Newsweek, decided to mine what is "now a massive, unprecedented content graveyard of articles celebrating or analyzing Hillary Clinton's would-be historic victory," presenting "a small sampling ... of what the internet would have looked like on November 9 if Clinton beat Trump, as so many pundits forecast."

It's mildly entertaining, but it comes with heavy and offensive dose of smug self-importance.

By Tom Johnson | November 14, 2016 | 7:41 PM EST

Is the Social Network also the Electoral Network? Yes, says Max Read, who suggested in a piece for New York magazine that Mark Zuckerberg had more to do with Donald Trump’s win than did James Comey, Julian Assange, or Bernie Sanders. “It can be clarifying,” Read wrote, “to identify the conditions that allowed access to the highest levels” of politics to Trump, “a dangerous and unpredictable bigot…In this case, the condition was: Facebook.” To Read, “the most obvious way in which Facebook enabled a Trump victory has been its inability (or refusal) to address the problem of hoax or fake news.”

By Tom Johnson | November 5, 2016 | 9:50 PM EDT

New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who’s also Donald Trump’s transition director, was not a defendant in the Bridgegate trial, in which two of Christie’s allies were just convicted on all counts. Still, argues New York’s Chait, the verdicts “would shake up an ordinary presidential election,” since Trump himself has said that Christie “totally knew about” Bridgegate, and since the Donald has made “ethical and legal propriety…the most prominent theme of [his] campaign.” But Chait acknowledges that in the “surreal” electoral atmosphere of 2016, there’ll be no such shakeup of the race. Chait explains that the Bridgegate verdicts won’t hurt Trump because “the news media has figured out that Trump’s supporters’ beliefs about his ethics, and the criminality of his opponent, are not subject to amendment on the basis of evidence.”

By P.J. Gladnick | October 15, 2016 | 12:34 PM EDT

He was the toast of the liberal media for a few days after first hitting the national scene last Sunday in St. Louis during the second presidential debate. For a very brief time he was hailed as a cuddly bear stuffed into a tight red sweater who was so cute that it made you want to hug him. And then by Friday...he became an instant non-person to liberals due to very un-PC Thought Crime remarks from his past on Reddit. 

Of course, I am referring to Ken Bone who appeared as one of the undecided voters asking a question during the presidential debate. By the next day he was fully embraced by the liberal mainstream media. To get an idea of the extent of their idolatry, here is Jake Tapper gushing over how awesome Ken Bear is on The Lead:

By Tom Johnson | October 11, 2016 | 5:58 PM EDT

Liberals like to allege that Donald Trump turns the bigoted subtext of longstanding Republican ideas into text that’s about as subtle as a whoopee cushion. As Rebecca Traister put it in a Monday article, the GOP traditionally has been “covert” about “the very biases that [Trump] makes coarse and plain.” Regarding the uproar over the Access Hollywood audio, Traister wrote, "Trump…is not distinct from Republican nature or motivation; he is its slightly more unruly twin. At the debate on Sunday, two days after being revealed talking about grabbing pussies, he claimed that 'nobody has more respect for women than I do.' And there it was: the giant Republican lie about an interest in gender equality exposed as pure snake oil by their front man."

By P.J. Gladnick | September 28, 2016 | 7:03 PM EDT

Lester Holt was wrong on the subject of "stop and frisk" during Monday's presidential debate. Is that criticism coming from supporters of Donald Trump? Yes but, more importantly, it is also coming from liberal sources as well including Ed Kilgore of the not exactly Trump-friendly New York Magazine. 

You can see Holt make his claim about "stop and frisk" being ruled unconstitutional in the video below followed by Kilgore's critique:

By Tom Johnson | September 28, 2016 | 5:18 PM EDT

Unlike a lot of his fellow liberals, Jonathan Chait doesn’t believe presidential-debate moderators should be on-camera fact-checkers, but Chait’s reason for opposing the idea is unambiguously anti-conservative. In an item posted a few hours prior to Monday night’s Clinton-Trump clash, Chait argued that the way Republicans dealt with Candy Crowley’s intervention in a 2012 Romney-Obama debate “suggests the party would never tolerate such a role by the media on an ongoing basis,” given that “the GOP exists within an epistemic bubble that creates its own reality and disregards the findings of mainstream experts in economics, science, and other fields…Conservatives created this alternate ecosystem precisely to insulate their side from scrutiny from journalists who were not working within the conservative movement. And the simple reality is that, if debates become forums for media to subject candidate claims to fact-checking by the standards of independent arbiters, Republicans will refuse to participate in them.”

By Tom Johnson | September 21, 2016 | 5:28 PM EDT

Many consider Donald Trump an anomaly in the Republican party, but they really shouldn’t, suggested New York’s Chait in a Tuesday piece. Chait argued that the GOP which nominated Trump for president is pretty much the same GOP which has freaked out for several years over the Affordable Care Act. As Chait put it, “Republican hatred of Obamacare exemplifies the madness that left its elite unable to stop Trump.”

By Tom Blumer | September 20, 2016 | 1:19 PM EDT

In early August, a CNN reporter tweeted an email he purportedly received from a donor to Republican Party nominee Donald Trump's presidential campaign alleging that there was no way that a donor could cancel a recurring contribution. That got the attention of several establishment press outlets and the left-biased "fact checkers" who thought they smelled smoke, but ultimately found no fire.

Several days ago, the New York Observer followed up on a documented complaint by a Minnesota woman first reported at a local TV station in early June. Claiming communications with "multiple sources," reporter Liz Corkin asserted that the Clinton campaign is "purposefully and repeatedly overcharging" small-dollar contributors "after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website." Establishment press interest this time? None — except to have one of the so-called "fact checkers" dismiss Corkin's contentions as "unproven."

By Tom Johnson | September 3, 2016 | 1:32 PM EDT

To borrow a phrase from President Obama, let New York magazine’s Chait be clear: “Republicans nominated Donald Trump [because] Republican voters like Donald Trump. This theory has the virtues of simplicity and truth.” Chait’s peg for his Friday post, however, was an “alternate theory” he rejects: that “Trump prevailed at least in part because liberals blew their credibility by hyperbolically denouncing previous Republican presidential candidates, thereby conditioning Republicans to ignore the warnings when Trump came along.”

By Tom Johnson | September 2, 2016 | 9:02 PM EDT

Shorter version of Brian Feldman’s Wednesday article: Sure, Mark Zuckerberg’s a genius, but he still hasn’t come up with a foolproof way to keep Facebook from promoting right-wing propaganda. “Facebook’s problem isn’t that it suppresses ‘conservative news’ or allows ‘fake news,’” wrote Feldman. “It’s that those two categories are increasingly indistinguishable.”

By Tom Johnson | August 24, 2016 | 8:45 PM EDT

This past January, Donald Trump said, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters.” A rough counterpart to that remark came Wednesday from Eric Levitz, who wrote that a Trump presidency would be so dreadful that “it would be reasonable for the average voter to prefer Hillary Clinton, even if she really did order the murder of Vince Foster.”