One day before a monumental American election, The New York Times decided President Donald Trump’s fixation on rear ends deserved serious political examination. With millions of Americans preparing to vote, the paper went searching for electoral meaning in presidential commentary about an Ohio senator’s butt.

The resulting story carried the headline “Trump Says a Senator Has a ‘Powerful’ Rear. Will It Help Him Win?” Reporter Emily Davies devoted more than 800 words to exploring what Trump’s remarks about Ohio Senator Jon Husted might mean for the senator’s political fortunes.

Trump had called Husted’s rear end a “great ass” and a “pile of muscle.” The rambling comments renewed concerns about Trump’s mental health and his habit of dragging public discourse toward the crassest available subject.

The remarks also highlighted what the source described as the Trump campaign’s pathetic use of homophobia in the Texas Senate election. Yet the Times focused instead on whether the attention generated by Trump’s fixation could somehow become politically useful to Husted.

Davies observed that people did not know much about “Mr. Husted’s allegedly powerful glutes,” but were now talking about him. She then considered how Trump’s remarks might be landing with voters, treating presidential commentary about a senator’s backside as an electoral messaging question.

The paper also quoted multiple Ohio residents after asking them about Husted’s rear end. That choice came instead of centering issues cited in the source, including gas prices, the war in Iran, and federal immigration agents abducting children and U.S. citizens.

Davies wrote that she contacted Husted’s campaign to ask what exercises he performs to maintain the physique that attracted Trump’s attention. According to the account, a reporter even offered to exercise with the senator in an effort to understand the matter.

This was not presented during a slow political week with nothing consequential happening. The Times published the story one day before millions of Americans were set to vote and help determine the future direction of the country.

The source framed that choice starkly, describing the election as a decision between moving further into authoritarianism and rebuking fascism. Against those stakes, an extended investigation into Trump’s appraisal of Husted’s backside looked less like illuminating campaign journalism than an astonishing collapse of priorities.

The criticism extends beyond this single article. The source argues that the Times has repeatedly cleaned up Trump’s remarks by removing the full context of his racism and mental confusion while elevating his attacks against Democrats.

It also accuses the paper of promoting Trump’s political dominance by proclaiming this “the age of Trump.” In that telling, the Husted article is not merely an isolated piece of fluff, but another example of the Times treating Trump’s bizarre behavior as content to analyze and amplify.

The contrast is especially glaring because Trump’s comments themselves were already the story. A president publicly obsessing over a senator’s rear end, calling it muscular, and continuing at length offered plenty for readers to evaluate without a journalistic detour into workout routines.

Instead, the Times asked whether the spectacle might help Husted win. That framing converted concerns about Trump’s mental condition, crassness, and campaign tactics into a tactical political question about whether bizarre attention can function as useful publicity.

The paper’s famous slogan is “All the news that’s fit to print.” In this case, the source concludes, the Times was all about ass, while the election and its consequences waited just beyond the newsroom’s peculiar fixation.

The mockery lands because the article’s priorities are difficult to miss. On the eve of a consequential vote, the Times devoted substantial space, reporting effort, and interviews with Ohioans to determining whether Trump’s praise for one senator’s butt could deliver an electoral benefit.