Home US New York Times joint endorsement of Warren, Klobuchar was double-barrel misfire

New York Times joint endorsement of Warren, Klobuchar was double-barrel misfire

The New York Times’ bizarre double endorsement of 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren turned into a double-barrel kiss of death as both candidates dropped out of the race approximately 72 hours apart.

The Times announced in January that its editorial board was breaking “from convention” by endorsing two candidates. The editorial board wrote that in choosing Warren and Klobuchar it recognized that both the “radical” and “realist” Democratic candidates, respectively, should be considered.

SUPER TUESDAY RESULTS: WHERE THE 2020 DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES STAND

Klobuchar suspended her campaign on Monday and quickly endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden, while Warren dropped out on Thursday following a disappointing showing on Super Tuesday.

The Times’ endorsement has traditionally been one of the most coveted for a Democratic politician. However, the paper that endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016 failed to help elect its preferred candidates in 2020, as well.

Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar both suspended their campaigns despite being endorsed by The New York Times.

Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar both suspended their campaigns despite being endorsed by The New York Times.

Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor told Fox News that Warren and Klobuchar’s unsuccessful presidential bids offered further proof that newspaper endorsements don’t really matter.

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD ENDORSES WARREN, KLOBUCHAR FOR PRESIDENT

- Advertisement -

“Newspaper endorsements mattered a lot when newspapers were influential in their local communities. They aren’t any longer,” Gainor said.  “Journalism is dominated by major national players like The New York Times and Washington Post. Neither one of those is really a local newspaper, they both focus on national issues and their influence is little [and] in doubt.”

The Times said it spent more than 12 hours with the candidates before selecting Klobuchar and Warren.

“Newspaper endorsements mattered a lot when newspapers were influential in their local communities. They aren’t any longer.”

— Dan Gainor

“The history of the editorial board would suggest that we would side squarely with the candidate with a more traditional approach to pushing the nation forward, within the realities of a constitutional framework and a multiparty country,” the editorial board wrote. “But the events of the past few years have shaken the confidence of even the most committed institutionalists. We are not veering away from the values we espouse, but we are rattled by the weakness of the institutions that we trusted to undergird those values.”

The paper called Warren a “gifted storyteller” who has “emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic left.” Klobuchar was also described as a “standard-bearer,” but for the party’s center. The paper also gushed that she is the very definition of “Midwestern charisma.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Political scientist Ian Bremmer criticized the paper’s decision to endorse two candidates with “completely different worldviews” in an “apparent effort to render the endorsement meaningless.”

Gainor predicted the Times and Washington Post will eventually “endorse whoever is the most liberal candidate” in the general election because “the outlets hate Trump, his supporters and everything they believe in.”

Fox News’ Edmund DeMarche contributed to this report.

- Advertisement -

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

- Advertisment -
%d bloggers like this: