I'm sitting in my apartment watching election coverage on Tuesday night, November 8th. Trump is currently leading with 168 electoral votes to Clinton's 122.

This is not what the media expected to be reporting, to say the least. The CBS News commentators are trying to sound calm, clinging to some form of unbias. But they're stunned. A few comments from them have stood out: "As it turns out, the only poll that matters is on election night," and "If Trump wins, blame the men, not the women." I can already hear the angry, defensive comments now: "Well, I didn't vote for him...guess America got what it wanted." World markets and world media are already reflecting this sentiment.

To be clear, I'm no Trump supporter. Read my article "You Lost Me" for verification of this. In that article, I made it clear that I did not want Donald Trump to be president, and was unsure at best about Hillary Clinton's potential to do a good job. But, at the time I wrote that article, the media was projecting - with polls and general speculation - that Clinton would win in a landslide. Earlier in the election, I told myself that I would vote if Trump were close to winning, to vote against him. That didn't seem like it would be the case, so I felt best about not voting for president (among many other justifications).

Then the investigation into Clinton's emails was reopened, and everything shifted. Popular news media outlets reluctantly released poll results indicating that the race was now very tight. However, these same news outlets, notably the New York Times, still projected a Clinton victory. Why? I thought. Because they want her to win? This morning, NYT's Daily Briefing did everything short of announcing a Clinton victory.

Basically, since the investigation announcement, the retaliatory news coverage of the election has sickened me. The current US President unabashedly and flagrantly endorsing a new candidate doesn't seem like democracy to me. Celebrities getting airtime to voice their support of Clinton seems like outright propaganda if not attempted brainwashing. I've never been a strong Republican (in the short time I've been politically 'active'), and have seen too many conspiracy theories spread around saying that liberal media are controlling people's minds. Too little research is actually done on such stories, like with the one insinuating that the Clintons killed 40+ people that "crossed them". Such tall-tale stories are mostly unfounded as to be beyond suspicion.

Saying all this, the pro-Clinton media coverage in the past week has been ridiculous.

This CBS coverage has been emphasizing that the uneducated vote has been going Trump's way. Whether this is true or not (polls are never going to be completely accurate, clearly) this emphasis implies that 'dumb people' will vote for Trump, whereas the educated will vote for Clinton. Degrading, insidious statements like these seem to be backfiring. They only fuel Trump support. Of course, Trump himself spoke in opposition to the Washington elite his whole campaign. Statements like these should not be, and apparently are not, working in Clinton's favor. The people refuse to allow their vote to be manipulated by the 'elite'.

To be clear, Donald Trump is nearly the very last person I would choose for president. Regardless, his being close in this race speaks to people still having minds of their own. I DO support this implication. America does not yet worship celebrities enough to blindly follow in their opinions. The people can not yet be won over simply by dollar signs, or by not-so-subtle elite intimidation. If Donald Trump wins this election (God help us), at least the American people still have a voice; to some degree, democracy lives on.

Sources: CBS News (election coverage from 11-8 and 11-9-16), and New York Times (Daily Briefing from 11-8-16 and "Hillary Clinton for President" from 9-24-16)