"The article described how Bloomberg operatives sold “inevitability” while secretly fretting over private polls showing “alarmingly low” numbers. It included accounts of how the campaign strong-armed one potentially difficult foe out of the race and pressured the White House to keep President Obama from helping Thompson, the Democratic nominee.
"Some readers were incensed that they did not get such details before the election. Scott Kolber of Brooklyn said the information “might have made a difference to voters.” Abby Levine of Manhattan said he suspected an ulterior motive, given how unflattering the article was to Bloomberg, whom The Times endorsed.
"Did The Times withhold crucial information? Did it swallow what its own day-after-election article described as the Bloomberg campaign’s “charade”? Did it pay too much attention to polls showing a huge gap between a well-known incumbent and a little-known opponent? Did it fail to pay enough attention to signs within the same polls that many voters were weary of Bloomberg, offended by his campaign spending and his effort to change the law so he could seek a third term?
Chaz: "Where Does The Money Go When Teachers Either Settle With Or The Arbitrator Awards Money To The DOE?"