And they make some interesting points.
What say ye?
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?
Has the NYT been particularly favorable to Klobuchar before this point? This seems quite odd. Dare I say, contrived.
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?
Why is the OP referring to them as Liz and Amy?
Either of these two will guarantee Trump’s reelection.
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.
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.
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.
Seriously?? Pete has blown away the field. He was unknown when he announced his exploratory committee almost a year ago on January 23.
Wow. If that’s the attitude Warren supporters have, I might end up voting for Trump.
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.
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.
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).
dale isn’t a Warren supporter but you vote Trump anyway. That’ll show them all.
whoops
That was a sarcastic attack on the Times.
Sorry. I got nothing deep there. Just saving ink.
You know, climate change, save the trees, etc.