Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., speaks during a Democratic presidential primary debate Thursday, Dec. 19, 2019, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson)
Last night, The New York Times made its endorsement for the Democratic party primary.
Things were a little different this time, though, as the Times decided to endorse not one, but two different Democrats in their quest to defeat Donald Trump. This came in an editorial that kicks dirt on the reality of what an endorsement is.
So who are the picks? You won’t be shocked to find out that one is Elizabeth Warren, but the media loves Elizabeth Warren. For their second endorsement, which again belabors the definition of what an endorsement is, they went with Bulwarkian favorite Amy Klobuchar, who really gets the heart pumping of figures like David Brooks and Bill Kristol.
Here’s an excerpt from the write-up via Hot Air.
American voters must choose between three sharply divergent visions of the future.
The incumbent president, Donald Trump, is clear about where he is guiding the Republican Party — white nativism at home and America First unilateralism abroad, brazen corruption, escalating culture wars, a judiciary stacked with ideologues and the veneration of a mythological past where the hierarchy in American society was defined and unchallenged.
On the Democratic side, an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation. Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible. Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced.
Shorter Times: Donald Trump is a bad man, a very very bad man and we are so desperate to beat him that we’ll endorse two diametrically opposed policy paths in the process.
The Times goes on to describe Warren and Klobuchar as possessing “radical and realist” models, lauding both as producing paths to beating Trump. The only problem is that neither has any realistic shot at the nomination at this point. Warren has cratered, now not leading in any early state, and Klobuchar is a two percenter who has never risen out of the bottom tier. Further, what’s the point of endorsing two candidates when someone can only vote for one? Aren’t they essentially encouraging a splitting of the vote, thereby propelling Biden or Sanders to the nomination?
But let’s assume one was the nominee. Neither has polled well against Trump in comparison to some other Democrats (really just Biden). Trump consistently beats Warren in the most important swing states while Klobuchar is so irrelevant that it’s hard to even find polls of her going head-to-head with the President.
In the end, this “endorsement” just makes The Times look weak. They’ll literally back anybody, pushing any direction, as long as it’s not the orange man. That’s no way to project strength in one’s ideals and it makes this endorsement largely pointless. There’s also the woke factor in all this, which clearly played a role in them picking a woman who’s barely polling above canned meat as one of their endorsements. Why not go with Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg if they wanted to present an option of milquetoast liberal Democrat for their readers? No doubt they would have if they didn’t fear the woke backlash so much. Part of the gimmick they are pushing here is that Warren and Klobuchar are both women.
I doubt Warren takes sharing this endorsement well though.
Gonna be hilarious when Warren leaks to CNN tomorrow that Amy Klobuchar told her a woman couldn’t beat Trump.
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) January 20, 2020
But be sure to set your DVR because, despite the problems, The Times is going to run a reality show on FX showing how supposedly awesome the process behind their endorsements are. So yeah, be sure to watch that…or not.