It's not the article in question. It's the source material.
I never said that the article is
wrong. I'm saying that it's 80% fluff, 15% cotton, and 5% fact.
Which is what I meant when I said:
I mean, if you sift out the partisan portions of the article, you may get a paragraph of incomplete sentences.
I mean, the whole "story" can be summed up in 3 sentences:
Trump is doing poorly with Catholics. Here's the poll that shows that. Republicans and Democrats have split the Catholic vote evenly among the last 5 elections.
That's it. That's the whole article in a nutshell. Instead of the 5000 word essay, that's all the article tells us.
Again, I never questioned the article's point, I questioned the structure of the article.
I mean, MSN and WP are notorious of giving a 3 paragraph "news story" on Clinton and Clinton Foundation investigations, but make anything about Trump last forever, as long as it is negative.