Dear NY Times: Why bother endorsing Kasich??

I know, a newspaper has a right to endorse any candidate in any election. I’m just asking, why bother???

Hey, I could offer an endorsement in the Democratic race, but I don’t, because all SDMB liberals know my principles are completely contrary to theirs, and my opinion couldn’t possibly mean less to them!

The Times is the voice of the Left. There is no Republican anywhere who cares what the Times editorial board thinks about anything.

So do everyone a favor, Times, and just go all out for Hillary. Then we can just go back to ignoring you.

They *did *endorse Hillary for the Democratic nomination. Kasich is just their least-non-preferred Republican.

Dear astorian: The US consists of more types of people than just “liberals and conservatives”.

Really? But Mitt Romney’s ad man insists that Republicans ~do~ read the New York Times. In public, no less.

This, too.

Has anyone told David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, Thomas Friedman, and Nicholas Kristof about this? Seems rather counterproductive for them to be writing for a paper that no one in their target audience reads.

You could have also mentioned Ross Douthat. But then NO ONE reads Ross Douthat.

It saddens me that the state of political discourse in this country has reached the point where it is assumed that political writers would only be writing for those who already agree with them.

Ross Douthat is about the only decent conservative columnist on NYT compared to the likes of Brooks and Friedman who’ve been wrong about virtually everything for the last generation.

You’re wrong.

This is a particularly solid presentation of the modern conservative mentality. Ultra-liberals like myself and most normal people will listen to a well substantiated argument even if they don’t necessarily draw identical conclusions. Evaluating evidence is part of being a functional American. Modern conservatives present a contrasting approach. They evaluate the conclusion and the observer and skip the argument altogether. In fact they basically think all opinions are equal: the quality of the evidence and logic are not salient considerations according to this view. Modern conservatives presumably choose this sort of stance to protect a fragile disposition, though of course ignorance of the fundamentals of valid inference plays a role as well. I accept this and find it psychologically fascinating.

It doesn’t blow my mind to listen to the arguments and views of a Kissinger, Nixon or Eisenhower. I may not agree with their reasoning, but I am capable of learning from well argued viewpoints.

Well, as the Paper of Record, the NYT is now on the record for having taken the time to research and endorse the only Republican candidate who is not a raving demagogic, hate-spewing lunatic, an utterly ignorant twit, or has been associated with corrupt practices. (He has a bit of a problem trying to drag religion into government, but he is not at the level of Huckabee and has, so far, failed in his mission.)

He is pretty much a tool of the plutocrats, but he is honest about it.

Oh let’s try to make this conversation a bit more fun and throw in some conspiracy theories!

The NYT, tool of the Left that it is, wants to make sure that the GOP circus continues as long as possible and increase the odds that Trump, or at least Cruz, is the GOP nominee, helping set up a complete blow out for whoever is the Dem flag-waver. Trump’s rolling average 15% net unfavorable makes Clinton’s net 9 look like Miss Popularity. Gallup had this to say yesterday, since 1992:

If the field leaves NH with only Trump and Rubio as perceived standing then the Trump jig is pretty much up. The not-Trump majority coalesces around Rubio. The not-Trump vote needs to stay split for as long as possible. Kasich cannot win the nomination but he is leading the not Trump pack in NH right now according to RCP rolling averages (Trump 31; Kasich 13; Cruz 12; Bush 11; Rubio 9 - all rounded, the rest under 7 each). A second or strong third there puts him in it, along with at least Rubio and Cruz, dividing up the not-Trump vote making Trump’s path to enough delegates more likely. Score for the Left! And it is among the establishment GOP that a NYT endorsement might actually marginally matter. The Concord Monitor, the Boston Globe, the Nashua Telegraph, Foster’s Daily Democrat, Keene Sentinel, and the Portsmouth Herald have all endorsed him as well. They are all in on it! (Christie picked up New Hampshire Union Leader and the Boston Herald. Must of been out when the black helicopters made the rounds.)

Fellow Cabal member DSeid notes that the NYT’s endorsement may conveniently cut into Rubio’s vote share in Iowa, thus clearing the field for Our Man Trump or Puppet Cruz if that doesn’t work. But I assure our less illuminated friends that the Cabal is a public spirited organization and entertains a diverse set of viewpoints. For example, the grey lady may be trying to tamp down Kasich’s vote in New Hampshire by making conservatives think that liberals support him, as a favor to Associate Member Christie. He is a little volatile but we like the cut of his jib.

Running the world from behind the scenes isn’t easy, but somebody has to do it.

Fnord.

We Canadians have been saying that for years.

But, I’ve said too much.

Except that Douthat’s a drooling moron, and that he writes columns like my ass chews gum.

Erhm no. Douthat actually gets the reasons behind TRUMP’s rise which is more then you can say for 90% of political commentators of the left, centre, and right in this country and realizes the political potential of blue collar populism in an era of neoliberal moderate heroism.

Douthat’s not on my side of the party, but I definitely think he’s probably the smartest guy worth reading on that side of it.

I read the opinion pages in the NYT and the WSJ.

I’m probably going to explode soon. Sorry about the mess.

Once again, Measure for Measure nails it, with post #10.

I’m going to take a psychological swing at this issue (and see how many people I can piss off, I guess…).

According to developmental psychology we develop through certain stages as our cognitive faculties evolve. One of these stages is called “Mythic” and corresponds to the “concrete operational” faculties that allow us to understand rules, norms and roles. At the Mythic stage we value conformity to norms and have respect for higher authorities, but are not capable of real critical thought. This is the stage where a lot of the conservative vote is at, with the religious fundamentalists being a good example. At this stage WHO it is that says something basically decides whether it is taken to be gospel or bullshit. For example the God of the bible can say both “an eye for an eye” and “turn the other cheek” and you will believe it even though it is inherently inconsistent, because “God said so”. Here we are basically looking for an authority figure to tell us what the rules are and what the truth is, since we are not capable of figuring it out for ourselves.

At the “Modern” stage that follows we have access to cognition known as “formal operational” which allows for critical thought and “thinking about thinking”, and we are able to create our own morals and attempt to evaluate society and others from a 3:d person perspective. Here the content and logical consistency becomes important, perhaps even more so than the source of the information. Most liberals and some conservatives seem to be at this stage.

So the opinion of NYT will be automatically discarded by Conservatives at the Mythic level, but analyzed and (perhaps) integrated by Conservatives at the Modern level.