The NYT didn't help Warren or Klobuchar, might've hurt the top male Dem candidates, & helped Trump

[highplainsdem]

It's hard to imagine how they could have bungled the endorsement more, IF their goal was to help the Democratic Party resolve its primary race, rather than to just draw more attention to the Times (which is what it looked like, especially with last night's silly reality show announcement).

Warren and Klobuchar are both good candidates. But by endorsing both, the Times completely muddled its own message. And they included enough reservations about both to further weaken their endorsement.

But much more troubling was the NYT's dismissal of the four male candidates who are outpolling Klobuchar in the primary polls (with two or three of them outpolling Warren), and also doing better than either woman in the GE polls of match-ups against Trump. (Note --neither Buttigieg nor Bloomberg outdoes Warrem all the time in the GE polls, but they do better than she does at least some of the time.)

It was an attention-grabbing endorsement. It may sell a lot of papers as souvenirs.

But it's a mess.

The Times suggested both Sanders and Biden are too old, but endorsed a 70-year-old woman, thus managing to be both ageist and biased against men at the same time.

It's very unlikely this endorsement could move Klobuchar, who usually polls in single digits and often low single digits, into the top tier of candidates. To the extent this endorsement moves any support from Biden and/or Buttigieg to Klobuchar, it will help the more leftwing candidates. I'm guessing Biden and Buttigieg supporters aren't likely to be swayed.

Endorsing Warren rather than Sanders probably won't cut into Sanders' support very much because the Times went after Sanders not just because of his age but because of the minor heart attack he suffered and has apparently recovered completely from. The bounce in the polls Sanders got after that heart attack indicates sympathy for him that's more likely to be intensified than lessened by the Times' attack.

The single most positive thing the Times endorsement of Warren could do for the Democratic Party is that if it moves any Sanders supporters over to Warren, it might help offset Republicans meddling in our primary by voting for Sanders as a way to stop Biden.

Other than that, I think the Times helped Trump most of all, by dismissing and trivializing the current Democratic front-runners.

[UniteFightBack]

1. It's changed NOTHING. nt

[getagrip_already]

2. The nut just isn't that influential with voters...

They are with the media though. So these messages will get picked up and amplified.

But the most lasting impact will be this:

https://mobile.twitter.com/TrinityMustache/status/1219112106747785216

That is going to stick.

[lark]

3. NYT often prints articles helpful to drumpf, that is why I no longer subscribe.

They have Clinton Derangement Syndrome and are partially responsible for her defeat with their stupid trumpeting of rw lies about her emails and totally ignoring drumpf doing the exact thing same. I am so sick of that paper. The only thing I miss is Paul Krugman, he is a treasure. The rest of that paper is too often no better than birdcage liner. I am glad I switched my subscription to WaPo, they too are big media but don't seem so in thrall to the right as NYT.

[LAS14]

16. Where do you get your news? (Honest curiosity.) nt

[lark]

18. Here, WaPo & MSNBC daily, everywhere else I can find occasionally.

I get Daily Beast daily as well but only open it sometimes since I tend to shun email for the most part since i was so wedded to it for the previous 30 years. Used to read BuzzFlash daily as well, but that's now just one of my occasional places to browse. I'm probably way too consumed by it and want to step back some after the impeachment - well at least a step or 2.

[Squinch]

4. Endorsements are bad now? Kay.

[highplainsdem]

5. Muddled endorsements are bad.

If any politician who endorsed any of the candidates made as much of a mess of the endorsement as the Times did, they'd be ridiculed for it, for good reason.

[Squinch]

6. Okie dokey.

[highplainsdem]

7. Well, if you're really certain that you think endorsements are really important, see this link:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-endorsements/democratic-primary/

[Squinch]

8. Why are you drawing weird conclusions about my certainties?

And if you don't think endorsements are important - as your comment suggests - why are you bothered by the NYT endorsement?

[highplainsdem]

10. Again: muddled endorsements are bad.

The Times provided more arguments against our candidates, all of them, than in favor of them.

Way too much stuff in there that can be used for GOP ads. "Even the New York Times says..."

But it was obvious -- as many pointed out on Twitter -- that the Times' endorsement spectacle was really about endorsing and glorifying the Times, and not any of our candidates.

[tonedevil]

13. Haven't you noticed...

Biden supporters always know everything? Just ask em.

[redqueen]

9. This chart reportedly shows NYT income over the dates indicated.

[highplainsdem]

11. Well, Trump does like to brag that he's been good for the NYT's business.

[redqueen]

12. Looks like hes not wrong. nt

[LAS14]

15. To me this is very good news. We're sunk without an aggressive, independent press.

I even donated to The Guardian in response to a popup on one of their news stories. The demise of local newspapars is a really scary phenomenon.

Sure, the Times bungles it sometimes (especially with Hillary). But consider the alternative of no Times or WAPO.

[LAS14]

14. I think they captured the historical moment exactly. We just don't know yet....

... whether there's a revolutionary wave building, which Warren may ride in, or whether the wave is not coming (yet) and Klobuchar's political experience will be the thing. I thought they articulated well why each of them is better than their competitors in their own corners.

I'm a Warren supporter and have said several times on DU that Klobuchar is my backup candidate.

[BlueMTexpat]

17. You have expressed my own

sentiments about this endorsement.

I haven't really thought about a "backup" candidate because I am "all in" for EW in the primaries and I believe that she will stay the course, at least until I get to vote in the primaries.

But one could certainly do much worse than Amy Klobuchar. She is a steady and competent sort, to be sure.

[Bummfuzzle]

19. I am with you.

[squirecam]

21. I had no problem

With the co-endorsement.

If they had picked Biden and Sanders instead, don’t you think they be touting it?

[Blue_true]

20. I disagree with you.

The Times made it clear that Trump is the worst choice and causes nothing but chaos and division, all of which it thinks Warren and Klobuchar are best qualified to heal.