I took the time to conduct a cursory evaluation of Mr. Pell’s contributions, who I find to be an exceptionally skilled and entertaining writer, before characterizing the “likely” sources of his bereavement. If I had to point to a single article of his that demonstrated his personal election bias, it would have to be his hilarious review of the 2nd Presidential Debate. I should add that I would recommend this as a must-read to anyone in search of comic relief, no matter their political preference.
Relevant to Mr. Pell’s arguments, your question about the origin of bias, viewed in the context of this election, would require us to conclude that there exists unbiased, objective voters whose opinions of Donald Trump have matured since he took office. I accept that this is a possibility, but I have not yet seen conclusive evidence outside of public opinion polls — which I personally distrust — that supports this hypothesis.
The election day exit polls , which I also discount, revealed that 13% of the electorate decided who they would vote for during the last week of the election. However, they also indicated that 15% of the electorate believed that neither candidate was qualified to serve as President. This would indicate that voters either supported candidate Trump (positive Trump bias), supported candidate Clinton (negative Trump bias), or did not support either candidate (negative Trump bias).