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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I like both Warren and Klobuchar (they’re both in my top 3!), but endorsing two candidates is really, really dumb.
your 010101010101 privilege is showing
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.
The NY Times comes out in favor of ranked-choice voting. Cool, cool, cool.
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 
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.
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.
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.
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.
Approval voting is hardly “not being able to make up your mind.”
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.
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.