"The OP is a shameful blot on Bruce Schneier's record [imo].
For "evidence" we are directed to The New York Times -- a political organization."
I originally skipped that blog entry but all these anti-Schneier comments make it worth reading. Reading it shows the opposite of the claims I'm seeing on HN. It's in the style of his other reporting on stuff, like Sony situation, where he lists the official position on it in non-committal way (note the "if"), optionally lists alternative theories (apparently has none or doesn't care), focuses on meat of situation (election insecurity), optionally notes prior warnings/work (his and others), and then delivers recommendations to reduce or eliminate the risk. Common pattern on his blog very evident from a guy reading it for about eight years.
Far as personal bias, I've regularly counterpointed him on his own blow & even wrote a character assessment of him based on reading many claims:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/can_i_be_trus...
Schneier's moderation style is so permissive we get the thoughtful and trolling alike. Yet, far as political or technical points, he doesn't expect lip service from anybody. Let's the "yay," "nay," and "screw you all" posts all stand. So, I speak for myself noting he's not pushing New York Times, the main theory, anything but the topic of elections security & recommendations to get it on track. Those recommendations also reflect both his own research and tons of discussion on those topics on his blog that came to same conclusions. They're the blog's consensus.