Trump is a very good example of his hypothesis on the Republican side but he left an impression of bias by not balancing that with an example from the other side of which there are also plenty.
Repealing the bill of rights is obviously not something Clinton or Sanders have ever proposed and certainly have not been screaming it on national television like Trump
This is absurdity of the tribe of Alex Jones
Hillary "It was all just a response to a video" Clinton
Bernie "Terrorism is caused by global warming" Sanders
Harry “light-skinned” and speaking “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Reid
Al “White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” Sharpton
Barack "If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance" Obama
Nancy "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" Pelosi
Elizabeth "I'm Indian because my ancestors had high cheekbones" Warren
Harry "Mitt Romney didn't pay any taxes" Reid
Hank "I'm not sure if Guam can tip over" Johnson
Leland "I am a leading gun proponent, but am running a illegal gun trafficking business on the side" Lee
Al "the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years" Gore
Just a few
The difference is that the fringe, radical right wing beliefs have been mainstreamed. The left has nothing like that.
David Neiwert (Orcinus) has done a great job chronicling the steady encroachment of hate speech, eliminationist rhetoric, white supremacy, etc. As a journalist, Neiwert has long history with many of the players. He attends their events and interviews them. Kind of like watching Fox News, so we don't have to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Neiwert
Every person has some goofy beliefs. If the wingers keep to themselves, I don't mind.
But some things do push my buttons.
#1 Hypocrisy. Like hating on "illegals" and then hiring them to work on your house. Or railing against welfare while sucking on the government's teat.
#2 Victimhood, persecution complex, clutching at pearls. There's a subset of the right wing that are just a bunch of cry babies, with no real equivalent on the left.
#3 False equivalence. Personal example. A political colleague wrote that our senator should be burned at the stake for some imagined betrayal. Flat out hate speech. So I called him on it. In turn, he stated that the Rodney King riots in LA were an example of left wing hate speech. Um, what? And then he wanted me to be accountable for the actions of some people 20 years past. Um, okay.
Like goofy beliefs, I don't mind cognitive dissonance either. But trying to wrap an opponent up in one's delusions is just trolling.
For any of the above, trying to "balance" reporting leads one farther from the truth, not closer. It's not even the case that they must both be right or wrong equally in aggregate.
Similarly, just because there are prominent, awful people getting a lot of press and support on one side doesn't mean that each of them must have mirror images on the other.
Failing to manufacture false balance isn't evidence of bias.
Then name some.
Methinks this endless whining about "bias" when people rightly call out a certain endlessly ignorant political party for that ignorance is the last refuge of people who really have no cogent arguments in them.
Let's say that Trump is an egregiously bad candidate. (Please note I'm trying to make a logical point, not give informed comment on US politics). Offering up the worst candidate from the other side as an equivalent might well appear to reduce bias, and yet be wrong in an objective sense.
Not that I'm trying to claim there's much objectivity to be found in party politics, but it seems reasonable to treat egregious-badness that way. Also, I have no doubt one could delve back through the years to find truly woefully dreadful Democratic presidential hopefuls, but since hopefully they are history's also-rans it's starting to ask a lot of knowledge from the audience. Just as with the debate of whether it's a good idea to fill one's lungs with toxic smoke, balance doesn't always help.