The New York Times endorses Democrats every four years, so there’s no surprise there.
However, this year they have endorsed two candidates for some strange reason.
They picked Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
The Washington Examiner reports:
‘May the best woman win’: New York Times hedges by endorsing Warren and Klobuchar for 2020
After traling their announcement all weekend. the New York Times editorial board announced that it could not decide between two choices for democratic presidential nominee, one one the left, the other a centrist.
Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota got the endorsement, which was declared Sunday on an episode of The Weekly podcast. A 3,452-word rumination by the editorial board concluded: “May the best woman win.”
The board wrote: “Amy Klobuchar has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic center. Her vision goes beyond the incremental. Given the polarization in Washington and beyond, the best chance to enact many progressive plans could be under a Klobuchar administration.”
The two candidates take different approaches to their candidacies, with Klobuchar, 59, offering a pragmatic approach and Warren, 70, pitching a left-wing vision of dramatic structural change.
Trending: Victor Davis Hanson Offers Analysis On Outcome Of The Midterms
“Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another. Good news, then, that Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic left,” the board said.
The Times has been widely mocked for calling Elizabeth Warren a talented story teller. LOL.
— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) January 20, 2020
And for other reasons:
"everyone left is white so we picked teh wymynz"
— neontaster (@neontaster) January 20, 2020
Best thing about NYT presidential endorsements is historically how much variety they have pic.twitter.com/jAWkqoXy0r
— Ben McDonald (@Bmac0507) January 20, 2020
The New York Times editorial board describes a "historic flood of migrants" coming to America. Do its editorials and reporting reflect that?
Either this is wildly racist and inaccurate, or the @nytimes owes @realDonaldTrump an apology. pic.twitter.com/BjRS5uODml
— Mikhael Smits (@mikhaelsmits) January 20, 2020
Does anyone even really base their vote on what the NY Times thinks?
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.