>>Where I think you're wrong, is in assuming that people think that there's only one possible conclusion. I'm advancing something that I think is reasonable based on the results that you cited. What you call a hypothesis is actually a conclusion based on numbers and facts.

But we're back to the inductive fallacy: "the dog barked, then the house fell down. The dog's responsibility is reasonable based on the results cited. What you call a hypothesis is actually a conclusion based on numbers and facts."

>>Why is it that the media is so negative? I gave you my opinion, as subjective as you think it might be, but it is based on sound logic. You have the numbers and the facts. Stop cherry-picking examples, and give us your conclusion.

What you call "examples" are in fact pieces of evidence disproving your hypothesis. If you want to cite examples (aka evidence) disproving my hypothesis that the MSM is highly partisan, go for it. But doubling-down on your allegations or insisting they're based on facts, isn't compelling.

>>I'll have to refer you back to the coverage of the Republican primaries, when HRC or Podesta had nothing to do with Trump. See what kind of coverage he got back then, and what he was saying about the media.

Except that the leaks confirm that initially they primed the MSM to promote Trump over other candidates, believing he'd be an easier chump to beat. Sorry but that one goes in the partisan MSM column along with all the other ticks. Still waiting for an un-rebutted tick from you.