US New York Times editorial board endorses Warren, Klobuchar for president - Its time to call a truce and urge all Americans, whether they maga chuds, dsa cucks, radical centrist autists and I dare say niggers and kikes to unite against the neoliberalist and neoconservative elite



The New York Times announced late Sunday that its editorial board was breaking "from convention" and will endorse two candidates for president in 2020: Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

The paper’s endorsement has traditionally been one of the most coveted for a Democratic politician. The editorial board wrote that in choosing these two candidates, it recognizes that both "radical" and "realist" models should be considered.

The paper said it spent more than 12 hours with the candidates before coming to its conclusion.

"The history of the editorial board would suggest that we would side squarely with the candidate with a more traditional approach to pushing the nation forward, within the realities of a constitutional framework and a multiparty country," the editorial read. "But the events of the past few years have shaken the confidence of even the most committed institutionalists. We are not veering away from the values we espouse, but we are rattled by the weakness of the institutions that we trusted to undergird those values."

The paper called Warren a "gifted storyteller" who has "emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic left." The editorial board called her path to the White House "challenging, but not hard to envision."

Warren reposted the article on Twitter, joking, "So I guess @AmyKlobuchar and I are now both undefeated in New York Times endorsements!"

Klobuchar was described as the "standard-bearer," but for the party’s center. The paper gushed that she is the very definition of "Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness."

The paper pointed to her goals of slashing childhood poverty, achieve 100 percent net-zero emissions by 2050 and her push for a more robust public option in healthcare. He moderate approach to governing would make for a formidable deal maker in Washington, the editorial wrote.

Reports on how she treats her staff “gave us pause,” but she pledged to do better in the future, the paper wrote.

Perhaps as important as who the paper endorsed is who it did not.

Joe Biden, the former vice president who continues to lead in polls, but his agenda does not go far enough on issues like climate and health care, the board wrote. The editorial board also wrote that Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., appeared to have missed his moment. The paper pointed out that he would be 79 when he's sworn in and has recently suffered a heart attack. "His health is a serious concern," it wrote.

The paper said it is looking forward to watching South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg develop as a politician and said it was impressed with his resume, but it also pointed out that he never won more than 11,000 votes. The paper said it hopes Andrew Yang, the entrepreneur, also continues to work in politics and recommended looking to New York to get started.

Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor who the editorial board endorsed twice, falls short of the editorial board’s aspirations for 2020. The editorial pointed to issues like barring his own media company from investigating him and his refusal to let women who signed nondisclosure settlements speak to the media. The paper said his campaign approach “reveals more about America’s broken system than his likelihood of fixing it.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is what the fine folk at stupidpol think about this:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well now its official, the elite are telling us plebians to fuck off. And I now regret wasting my college loan money on buying the New York Times.
 
2016: The year polling became irrelevant.
2020: The year endorsements became irrelevant.

Endorsements went obsolete in 2016 too, rags like the NYT are just in denial about it.

I mean, didn't Hillary have every single paper that had a circulation greater than a High School Newsletter endorsing her, with the papers telling Trumpites "obviously you can't win, you don't even have ONE of us! Stupid rubes! "


And it was all for naught?
 
Last edited:
2016: The year polling became irrelevant.
2020: The year endorsements became irrelevant.
Trump didn't get a single endorsement until he'd already won several states. Endorsements didn't matter in 2016 either. And that's just on the Republican side, Bernie shouldn't have given Hillary nearly the run he did if you judged the race by endorsements alone.
 
I feel like you should've posted the actual article
Which includes transcripts from the interviews of all candidates

I am not gonna read all their doodoo, they already robbed me of my gubment loan money that I could have better wasted on buying porn clips from clips4sale.
 
Trump didn't get a single endorsement until he'd already won several states. Endorsements didn't matter in 2016 either. And that's just on the Republican side, Bernie shouldn't have given Hillary nearly the run he did if you judged the race by endorsements alone.
i was so sure of myself that it was going to be bernie sanders vs donald trump in the presidential election, but i didn't really factor in the hillary bullshit. also the hatred toward donald trump was so strong that it started to actually win people over to his side, because they were just so sick and tired about hearing him at all. it's one thing if you watch tv and hear that this guy sucks, but it's a whole different level when you log on to your favorite forum or reddit page and just get bombarded with hatred for this one guy. imagine going to a site about sweets and 80% of all posts are about that guy and how he sucks, that was my experience in 2016. i didn't even like donald trump back then, but when i saw that he won the election, i laughed pretty hard. i mainly laughed over the salt storm that was going to happen, but it also felt good that there are tons of places that tried to manipulate an outcome of an election where it shouldn'tve even been discussed, and seeing them get a taste of their own medicine. i mean i eventually came to like our president a lot, but i didn't think he was good before and i was still against these assholes who shoved this shit down our throats
 
I always considered Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar to be garbage picks for the presidency, but still had my doubts at the time due to how ferocious the competition was. "Maybe there's something to them, something that I'm not seeing."

Now I no longer have any doubts; Warren and Klobuchar in fact have all the appeal of radioactive waste. My thanks to you, New York Times. For once, I can say you have done your duty in informing the masses.
 
Between CNN trying to kneecap Bernie for her and now this, it should be plain for even the dimmest of bulbs on the left that her purpose was always to be a faux-populist Bernie-spoiler. By capturing part of the genuine populist's base and using that plus the center-left and low-info (when Biden shuffles away from his handlers to go share folksy anecdotes with a stop-sign) she's got a path to secure the nom and then immediately pull a screeching, hand-braking swerve back into the DNC's lane... who clearly know exactly what she's doing.

Seems they won't even allow Bernie a conciliatory VP spot to pull the party together. They just hate his fucking guts too much and it's just not in their nature to yield to the base, cease the shenanigans, and let them have real choice. So long as there is a DNC... there must always be a "yass slay queen".

It's so funny since the GOP has similar disdain for it's base, but it also lacks the resolve and chutzpah needed to eternally flag them the bird. We'll see who jumps in after Trump, but the populist realignment is all but locked-in at this point IMO.
 
Back