Fuzzy New York Times Math

And the New York Times was doing so good...

Now they print an article with a very biased view, and I am not talking Leftist either. "Delegate Count Leaving Bernie Sanders With Steep Climb" would have you thinking Bernie Sanders is ready for the fork treatment (as in, "stick one in him, he's done"):

Senator Bernie Sanders vowed on Sunday to fight on after losing the Nevada caucuses, predicting that he would pull off a historic political upset by this summer’s party convention. 

But the often overlooked delegate count in the Democratic primary shows Mr. Sanders slipping significantly behind Hillary Clinton in the race for the nomination, and the odds of his overtaking her growing increasingly remote. 

Mrs. Clinton has 502 delegates to Mr. Sanders’s 70; 2,383 are needed to win the nomination. These numbers include delegates won in state contests and superdelegates, who can support any candidate. 

Wow Bernie. Time to mail it in, right?

Except for this problem: The "official" delegate count, those committed by the primaries and caucuses so far, and will most likely remain unchanged, stands at 51-51, according to the Times' own graphic, when you remove the superdelegates.

Why do I remove the superdelegates? Because some of these are Democratic Party bigwigs, no doubt looking for some sweet appointments in the administration of the winner. They assume that will be Hillary at this point. Now imagine Bernie ends up winning a majority of all of the primary and caucus delegates. We're going into the Democratic convention. Do you really think the party wants to use the superdelegates to overrule what the primaries and caucuses voted for? Can you say "President Trump"?

But seriously, if you need any proof the Clintons own the New York Times, here you have it.