The Arizona Republic endorsement is a great read. Obviously they put a lot of effort to support their conclusion. I wonder how quickly their editorial board reached their endorsement, if they had anyone debating on Trump’s behalf. Their write-up suggests no. At the end I felt my eyes tearing up from their enthusiastic endorsement.
Is this another one of those posts where your true meaning is supposed to be clear to us? Cuz the only thing I’m getting is that you’re kinda being a jerk to a number of posters in regard to this ad.
It was, I believe, their first endorsement of a Democrat for president since 1890. 1890!
I haven’t seen it, and to be honest an ad entirely in spanish is going to do more to hurt her than anything else. Unless they only plan on running it in hispanic markets.
So long as its only asking where the train station is, and I don’t have to understand the answer, I’m bi-lingual.
Uh, if you haven’t seen it how did you know it was entirely in Spanish? It does have large English subtitles.
If they run it in the right markets I don’t see how it would hurt them.
I saw it in the link. I meant to say “i live in florida and i haven’t seen it”.
Wondering if the ad is in differently accented Spanish depending on location. Is there a Spanish version of the “Man From Everywhere, and Nowhere in Particular” English accent?
I doubt they would dub over her actual voice with different accented spanish. Her accent is recognizably Venezuelan, but not very pronounced.
He’s trying to be clever about my use of quotation marks: “attack” ad.
How unfair. Actually using Trump’s own words against him. Sad.
(If I was a Trump fan, I’d be pretty grumpy right now, too.)
People in Hispanic markets and beyond are used to hearing commercials in Spanish, thank you very much. 
Hispanic markets. I see a lot of TX, FL, and AZ in the top 20.
(Primary cite for above. PDF. The chart on page 6 is kind of eye-opening.)
Wrong link, sorry. Here is the correct primary cite for Hispanic markets, straight from Nielsen. (Another PDF).
Have you not seen “Stronger Together” banners and signs at every one of her rallies since Philadelphia? A recurring theme in her speeches, too.
Ever, actually. 1890 is actually the year the paper went into existence.
And it’s rather unlikely they endorsed a Presidential candidate in 1890.
You have to think in a close election - and Arizona could be close - this sort of thing could matter. Normally newspaper endorsements don’t matter simply because
- Most newspapers are preaching to the converted, so their endorsement is read by those who already agree,
- Most newspapers are published in states where the small effect they could have will not change the result, and
- People generally don’t notice them anyway.
But the Arizona Republic endorsement fails to qualify any of these conditions; it is a conservative newspaper, in a close state, and the unusual nature of the endorsement has made it a news story people have noticed.
And it is a rather uncompromising endorsement indeed. No “well, she’s the best of two bad choices.” It’s very stark: “Clinton can do this job, and Trump cannot.”
Just a nit: I think 1892 would have been the first presidential election endorsement opportunity.
It would have been irrelevant until 1912.
Is there some reason a mere territorial newspaper cannot have a valid opinion upon Presidential politics, Mr Pedantic Snooty-pants.
If the place where they publish don’t get a star on Old Glory, dadgummit, I don’t care what the hell they say!
I’m pretty sure RickJay said this endorsement could actually matter not that it was meaningless.