For the benefit of people who doesn't watch wrestling, do you mind explaining why the WSJ would support an administration at the end of its term and was likely to lose? Or for that matter, why "major publications" like the new york times have no problem with making anti-incumbent endorsements[1], despite the claim that "The WSJ and other major publications have a vested interest in brokering access by tailoring their coverage to be friendly to those in power"? Whatever you said about "heels" sounds like a "heads I win, tails you loose" sort of proposition, where you can excuse any sort of counter-evidence as part of a greater ruse or whatever, making your theory basically unfalsifiable.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
