In the course of berating the Trump campaign Timesfolks Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman include this assertion:
But Mr. Trump, who records little support in the polls among racial minorities and educated whites, did not address any of the past remarks that have contributed to his low standing with those groups.
They link to an article noting that Hillary leads Trump among blacks by 91-1, so we might say "little support" was spot-on and "low standing" was overly generous.
But college educated whites? Trump is doing historically poorly in an area of historic Republican strength, but still - "little support"?
Per a recent CNN/ORC poll linked by the Times, we see (p. 22) that among non-whites Clinton leads Trump 70-17. OTOH, among college-educated whites Clinton leads by 49-35, a 14 point spread far above historical norms. But is that really "little support" comparable to the 91-1 trouncing among blacks? If a 14 point margin represents "little support" the Times might one day report (No they won't) that Ms. Clinton has little support among people 45 and older (minus 15 points), men (-20) or non-college grads (-15).
Somewhat like Pauline Kael the Times wants to convince its readers that People Like Us (i.e., them) simply don't imagine for a moment supporting Trump. Facts can't be allowed to trump fashion!