PDA

View Full Version : New York Times Endorsement


LDAHL
1-19-20, 2:40pm
I see this year’s Times endorsement for the Democratic President nominee will be a little different this time. Apparently it will be in the form of a reality TV show big reveal. This may be appropriate for our post-literate culture.

How important do you think such endorsements are?
Yppej
1-19-20, 2:58pm
Not very. Corey Booker bragged that he had more endorsements in Iowa than anyone else. Where is he now?
kib
1-19-20, 8:05pm
I don't really care if the arena of politics panders to the illiterati and gets a glamor face lift, if the underlying goal is informed participation. Unfortunately, I doubt the people in search of politics-as-entertainment are going to be all that titillated by the NYT. An endorsement by the Kardashians or Ariana Grande, now ...
Yppej
1-19-20, 8:38pm
Taylor Swift's endorsement bombed.
kib
1-19-20, 9:00pm
Taylor Swift's endorsement bombed.Really? Well, blows my theory out of the water! :D
LDAHL
1-20-20, 4:56am
I see the NYT took the weasel route and endorsed two candidates, Warren and Klobuchar. They couldn’t make a call between radical and realist, so they went with one of each.
SteveinMN
1-20-20, 10:49am
I see the NYT took the weasel route and endorsed two candidates, Warren and Klobuchar. They couldn’t make a call between radical and realist, so they went with one of each.
Seems to be the NYT's stock in trade lately: can't bring themselves to definitive statements. Like calling lies, lies. The Old Gray Lady is going senile.
ApatheticNoMore
1-20-20, 11:48am
Maybe they like Klobuchar but also felt the need to endorse someone people might actually vote for in the primary (just according to polling, they well might not) so their pick wouldn't be entirely irrelevant.
SteveinMN
1-20-20, 3:54pm
Maybe they like Klobuchar but also felt the need to endorse someone people might actually vote for in the primary
Maybe. But imho a double endorsement is just a cop-out. NYT does not need to be part of some hive mind. If they think Klobuchar is the most electable candidate in the actual election, then that's what they should state. Why run primaries if they're only some weird intellectual exercise for party extremists?

Full disclosure: I've voted for Klobuchar in pretty much every election in which she's run. I really haven't examined all of her policy positions to determine if she's the best Democratic candidate to run against Trump. No real issue with Warren at this point, either. In some sense, it does not matter to me; I'll be pulling the Democrat lever regardless of the candidate. But some voters out there will need to be persuaded. The Democrats should choose someone who can win a general election, not merely someone who was voted in by one wing or another of the party or someone who believes its their turn to run for President.