I immediately stop reading when i see sentences like "The Media Lied To Us About EVERYTHING". This is stupid and i don't trust the author anymore. It's a huge red flag. Did the NYTimes ever openly lie (That's not publishing false information)? I only read it for american/international news, but they always seemed very trustworthy and many trustworthy people declared it trustworthy (the guardian and my favourite newspaper, the german sueddeutsche Zeitung are all working with it).

I know about the emails and the investigation, that's nothing new. Please don't write articles about how everybody forgot about wikileaks and how much leaked emails you were posting in social media, because i don't care. These are not facts, they don't help me understand how trump won.

Also it was a very, very close race. Especially in Florida, i was glued to the screen.

EDIT: i read the whole article. Its clickbait. It never even starts trying to explain how hillary lost. It just states things not supported by facts like "Bernie Sanders Would Have Beat Trump". I would like to see Bernie beating Trump, but it is 100% opinion. No facts supported this claim. A third of the article is a positive outlook for the trump-presidency, which has nothing to do with the headline and what i expected to read. Also the first third is all about the leaked wikileaks emails, but no facts are presented that support the conclusion that they were even that important. I doubt it, of course it's a scandal, but the candidates were too different to let the emails be the decisive factor.

I want to understand how hillary lost, but i want facts, polls, interviews, data and experts analysing the data. Not somebody rambling about how he knew it all along.