Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-20-2020, 02:07 PM
harmonicamoon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Posts: 3,250

NYT editorial folks endorse Liz and Amy for POTUS


And they make some interesting points.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...core-ios-share

What say ye?
  #2  
Old 01-20-2020, 02:10 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,872
God what a dumb endorsement. Not all of the arguments are dumb, but for God's sake -- pick a damn candidate! That's the whole point of an endorsement.
  #3  
Old 01-20-2020, 02:40 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 27,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
God what a dumb endorsement. Not all of the arguments are dumb, but for God's sake -- pick a damn candidate! That's the whole point of an endorsement.
Not necessarily. How many of us right here on this Board have endorsed every candidate except the incumbent President?
  #4  
Old 01-20-2020, 02:50 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,621
Has the NYT been particularly favorable to Klobuchar before this point? This seems quite odd. Dare I say, contrived.
  #5  
Old 01-20-2020, 03:01 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Most notable thing to me is how they brush off Biden, dismissing him in a couple paragraphs after discussing Mayor Pete, Yang, and Bloomberg.

Also, I didn't know that Bloomberg has settled multiple lawsuits from women accusing him of fostering a workplace culture of sexual harassment, and is refusing to release said women from their nondisclosure agreements. Can this guy just go the fuck away now?
  #6  
Old 01-20-2020, 03:14 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,340
Why is the OP referring to them as Liz and Amy?
  #7  
Old 01-20-2020, 03:35 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,296
Either of these two will guarantee Trump's reelection.
  #8  
Old 01-20-2020, 03:49 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,177
This is the most asinine thing I've ever seen. Warren has a SHOT, although I think it's a risky gamble. Klobuchar has NO SHOT. She has NO chance. She needs to go the fuck away.
  #9  
Old 01-20-2020, 03:54 PM
Chad Sudan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 107
I see the dual endorsement as the Times's tacit acknowledgment that each and every Democratic candidate for 2020, taken individually, has thus far been underwhelming.... even though we need one of them to rescue the country.
  #10  
Old 01-20-2020, 04:06 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Sudan View Post
I see the dual endorsement as the Times's tacit acknowledgment that each and every Democratic candidate for 2020, taken individually, has thus far been underwhelming.... even though we need one of them to rescue the country.
I think the other tacit acknowledgement is "You shouldn't vote for a man". Here's the left leaning woman, and the moderate woman, but don't vote for a man, cause, uh, fuck Trump?. I mean, come on. We all know they'd really like Warren as president, but it's no coincidence that Klobuchar is the secondary.
  #11  
Old 01-20-2020, 04:12 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,740
It’s utterly gutless. Those of you who are smart enough to live on the coasts, vote for Warren.

You unwashed masses in flyover may vote for Klobuchar. Once you have indoor plumbing, you’ll see the light and vote Warren.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His

Last edited by dalej42; 01-20-2020 at 04:13 PM.
  #12  
Old 01-20-2020, 04:13 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Sudan View Post
I see the dual endorsement as the Times's tacit acknowledgment that each and every Democratic candidate for 2020, taken individually, has thus far been underwhelming.... even though we need one of them to rescue the country.
Seriously?? Pete has blown away the field. He was unknown when he announced his exploratory committee almost a year ago on January 23.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #13  
Old 01-20-2020, 04:41 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 27,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
It’s utterly gutless. Those of you who are smart enough to live on the coasts, vote for Warren.

You unwashed masses in flyover may vote for Klobuchar. Once you have indoor plumbing, you’ll see the light and vote Warren.
Wow. If that's the attitude Warren supporters have, I might end up voting for Trump.
  #14  
Old 01-20-2020, 05:00 PM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,628
Rare instance I find myself in agreement with the gray entity. Since Harris quit, among those remaining my top preference has been Warren and 2nd from the top Klobuchar. They moved up from 2nd and 3rd place, respectively.
  #15  
Old 01-20-2020, 05:07 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 554
Terrible endorsement. Amy Klobuchar is a dime store Selina Meyer who throws stuff at her staff if they bring her the wrong bottled water. Trump would crush her like a bug. Everyone knows what it’s like to work for a truly shitty boss, and absolutely nobody wants one to be their President.

And as for Warren? I’m sorry, I know nobody here likes hearing it, but ever since the DNA test debacle she’s become a laughing stock. Trump will call her Pocahontas and tweet funny memes about her for six months and it’ll work. Just like it did with “low energy” Jeb, and “Lyin’” Ted Cruz and his ugly wife, and “Crooked Hillary” and everyone else he’s steamrolled.

Personally, I see this as the Times trying to have their cake and eat it, too. Pick two candidates with very little chance of being nominated so they can say “told ya so” if the eventual nominee loses.
  #16  
Old 01-20-2020, 06:06 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Has the NYT been particularly favorable to Klobuchar before this point? This seems quite odd. Dare I say, contrived.
Theoretically the news coverage would have been completely unbiased, among the Democrats and even toward Trump. And they haven't had a bunch of editorials discussing it. But by now almost everyone admits that's no longer how it works on NYT news pages if it ever did.

Yeah I guess it's gutless to endorse two people. There's an implicit somewhat consistent message ('it should be a woman', ignoring Gabbard, which presumably they do). OTOH it isn't only hedging between two female candidates but one sinking from strength and one rising a bit from obscurity. Klobuchar is still close to asterisk territory in national polls and RCP avg of betting odds (behind Hillary Clinton, besides the 6 declared candidates ahead of her in national poll avg) but has moved up proportionally a lot in support in IA and NH lately. It's not the most far fetched or self important attitude ever for a newspaper editorial board to think K could break through with their support. But still unlikely, and I don't think W has nearly as much more of a chance now than K as the betting odds say (13.1% v 2.4%). Anyway the dual track doesn't really accomplish much for either of two candidates in real need of a big boost focused specifically on them (in the singular).

Last edited by Corry El; 01-20-2020 at 06:07 PM.
  #17  
Old 01-20-2020, 07:37 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
Wow. If that's the attitude Warren supporters have, I might end up voting for Trump.
dale isn't a Warren supporter but you vote Trump anyway. That'll show them all.
  #18  
Old 01-20-2020, 07:46 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,506
whoops

Last edited by Ibn Warraq; 01-20-2020 at 07:46 PM.
  #19  
Old 01-20-2020, 07:47 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
Wow. If that's the attitude Warren supporters have, I might end up voting for Trump.
That was a sarcastic attack on the Times.
  #20  
Old 01-20-2020, 08:11 PM
harmonicamoon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Posts: 3,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Why is the OP referring to them as Liz and Amy?
Sorry. I got nothing deep there. Just saving ink.

You know, climate change, save the trees, etc.
  #21  
Old 01-20-2020, 08:17 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
And as for Warren? I’m sorry, I know nobody here likes hearing it, but ever since the DNA test debacle she’s become a laughing stock. Trump will call her Pocahontas and tweet funny memes about her for six months and it’ll work. Just like it did with “low energy” Jeb, and “Lyin’” Ted Cruz and his ugly wife, and “Crooked Hillary” and everyone else he’s steamrolled.
Oh shit, Trump's gonna call her names? Well, we better work doubletime to find a candidate he won't make fun of! Quick, who you got?
  #22  
Old 01-20-2020, 09:05 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,554
Have all of you read the editorial (which occupies the entire editorial and op-ed pages)? They give compelling reasons for their choices. Maybe Klobuchar has been unpleasant to her staff. Many people are, you know, but did you ever hear a man criticized for it? I don't think "Pocohantus" will make the slightest difference since everyone not already in the Trump camp will ignore it.
  #23  
Old 01-20-2020, 09:40 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
I think the other tacit acknowledgement is "You shouldn't vote for a man". Here's the left leaning woman, and the moderate woman, but don't vote for a man, cause, uh, fuck Trump?...
The editorial itself is more about Sanders and Biden being too old than too male as their main reason to dismiss them.

And they explicitly are not considering who can beat Trump best.
__________________
Oy.
  #24  
Old 01-20-2020, 09:50 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post

And they explicitly are not considering who can beat Trump best.
Obviously not. When you haven't endorsed a republican in 60 years, your endorsements aren't going to win a good amount of the time.
  #25  
Old 01-20-2020, 10:29 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Well, it’s not that they’re not considering it, they’re just saying that nobody can really know for sure. Which I don’t completely agree with, but it’s refreshing to see pundits erring on the side of humility for a change.

Warren and Klobuchar are both highly qualified candidates. They’re not my choice, but it’s a bit offensive that people are assuming anti-male bias is the only possible explanation for why anyone would pick them.
  #26  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:12 PM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 13,176
I subscribe to the Failing New York Times. It comes every day about lunchtime and I give it a fair bit of attention. This endorsement (if that is the right word) was not in either the 19 nor the 20 January Kindle issue. I have seen this before. Sometime articles arrive days later. I wonder if it has to do with file size. In any case, this annoys me.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #27  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:32 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Have all of you read the editorial (which occupies the entire editorial and op-ed pages)? They give compelling reasons for their choices. Maybe Klobuchar has been unpleasant to her staff. Many people are, you know, but did you ever hear a man criticized for it? I don't think "Pocohantus" will make the slightest difference since everyone not already in the Trump camp will ignore it.
I haven’t ignored it. Warren has ran an awful campaign and the DNA test was just the beginning. The M4A flip flop and the wine cave crap shows that every mistake Warren makes is a Dukakis in the tank fuck up, not a minor hiccup. She’s a horrible candidate.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #28  
Old 01-21-2020, 05:43 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,872
I like both Warren and Klobuchar (they're both in my top 3!), but endorsing two candidates is really, really dumb.
  #29  
Old 01-21-2020, 07:19 AM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by harmonicamoon View Post
Sorry. I got nothing deep there. Just saving ink.

You know, climate change, save the trees, etc.
your 010101010101 privilege is showing
  #30  
Old 01-22-2020, 10:47 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,121
Some approval votings advocates, of which I am one, have written that the NYT's double endorsement is another small step in making US voters comfortable with the concept of being able to approve of multiple candidates. It might be another one of those issues where change starts with the first few germinations of an idea.

Last edited by Red Wiggler; 01-22-2020 at 10:47 AM.
  #31  
Old 01-22-2020, 11:01 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,276
The NY Times comes out in favor of ranked-choice voting. Cool, cool, cool.
  #32  
Old 01-22-2020, 11:20 AM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Some approval votings advocates, of which I am one, have written that the NYT's double endorsement is another small step in making US voters comfortable with the concept of being able to approve of multiple candidates. It might be another one of those issues where change starts with the first few germinations of an idea.
Or the older idea of not being able to make up your mind.

NYT can obviously do as they like and more serious criticisms of their recent journalistic and editorial standards could be raised IMO, though that would go onto a tangent with lots of much different opinions and it's not directly relevant.

It's just natural I think to view from W or K's POV. Campaign struggling after earlier poll success (W) and/or running out of runway to take off into the top tier (K) and...the NYT just endorsed me! ...and somebody else
  #33  
Old 01-22-2020, 01:30 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Seriously?? Pete has blown away the field.
Per 538, right now he's tied for 4th with Bloomberg at 7.4% nationally.

You have a funny definition of having "blown away the field."

Look, I know you're a fanboy, and that's fine, but could you at least keep it tethered to reality? I'm a Warren supporter, and while she's polling more than twice as well nationally as your hero is, I certainly don't think she's "blown away the field," and have to acknowledge that her chances of winning the nomination really aren't that great right now, even with the dubious help of the NYT.
  #34  
Old 01-22-2020, 02:15 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,820
I didn't read all the interviews, which were very long, but I did read all of the endorsement arguments. I think the NYT is on point in its assessments of the candidates by and large. There is no really great choice, a lot of good choices with big imperfections. I barely registered that Klobuchar was running, frankly, and I think she is the NYT's sop to the imaginary moderates, since Biden is so deeply flawed.

I have thought Warren was the best choice for a long time now.
  #35  
Old 01-22-2020, 03:00 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,621
If it comes down to three "sharply divided visions", I have a very hard time believing it's so hard to pick one. If it's not about who can beat Trump, or gender, or whatever, you really can't firmly decide between moderate and progressive? Come on. It really seems to me that they're trying to split the baby to please their core readership, while really not pleasing anyone.

I hope they look at their squishiness in embarrassment next time around.
  #36  
Old 01-22-2020, 03:25 PM
ISiddiqui is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Per 538, right now he's tied for 4th with Bloomberg at 7.4% nationally.

You have a funny definition of having "blown away the field."

Look, I know you're a fanboy, and that's fine, but could you at least keep it tethered to reality? I'm a Warren supporter, and while she's polling more than twice as well nationally as your hero is, I certainly don't think she's "blown away the field," and have to acknowledge that her chances of winning the nomination really aren't that great right now, even with the dubious help of the NYT.
Imagine if Buttigieg got to 11%! As of right now, I'm not entirely certain why he's in the national discussion. It's a Top 3 race, which may change after Iowa. But right now, Buttigieg is in the also ran tier nationally.
  #37  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:49 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
Or the older idea of not being able to make up your mind.

NYT can obviously do as they like and more serious criticisms of their recent journalistic and editorial standards could be raised IMO, though that would go onto a tangent with lots of much different opinions and it's not directly relevant.

It's just natural I think to view from W or K's POV. Campaign struggling after earlier poll success (W) and/or running out of runway to take off into the top tier (K) and...the NYT just endorsed me! ...and somebody else
Approval voting is hardly "not being able to make up your mind."
  #38  
Old 01-24-2020, 10:02 PM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,628
OK, thinking this over, I realize that to make an endorsement of two candidates at once is rather strange, and all it'll accomplish is making people go "huh?" My initial reaction was positive just because EW and AK are the two I like best out of the remaining candidates.
  #39  
Old 01-24-2020, 10:07 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,598
Ah yes, ye olde "the people have turned against us for putting political correctness over reason, ushering in the rise of the world's greatest moron to troll us as leader of the free world and destroy the Constitution, and so I shall learn from this by putting political correctness over reason" gambit.

I'm sold.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017