The NYT is trying to do an overview of the political ads, and it begins with what is plainly the most effective ad, the Bernie Sanders ad with the Simon and Garfunkel song. The article proceeds to talk about a bunch of other ads and to fit them into the tepid template did they make us feel happy and hopeful? The author, a political science professor, is trying to do an overarching analysis of how political advertising works.
But the readers' comments are all just crying out for Bernie — Bernie, the President who could have been! They're not analyzing ads. They're reliving the experience of loving Bernie and anguishing over having been deprived of him. And they are blaming the NYT. The most up-voted comment is:
I started to cry watching Sanders' ad.
And then I started to get angry. Angry at the Times for never showing the enormous crowds gathered at his rallies. For always having some kind of put down in stories on him. For framing stories about him in terms of what it meant to Clinton, eg, if Clinton was up in a state, it said, "Clinton winning." If Sanders was winning, it would say "Clinton within 2 points of Sanders."
I'm angry at the Clinton supporters who trashed Sanders supporters, while demanding they vote for Clinton.
I'm angry at all the media who took the unpledged delegates--not supposed to be counted until the nomination--as part of the running total of delegates for Clinton during the primaries.
Mostly I'm angry because if it hadn't been for the DNC having its thumb on the scale; for media obsessed with getting a woman, Clinton in particular, into the White House; for journalists who thought it clever to ignore voters in favor of their own bias…
We might not be looking at Trump being the president-elect.