On Sunday night, the New York Times published a dual presidential endorsement for Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Elizabeth Warren, D.-Mass. This was the first time the newspaper decided to endorse two candidates.
The Times is treating this election differently than those in previous years. Besides endorsing two candidates, the newspaper published the editorial board’s interview with each presidential candidate for the first time in history. In addition, the Times created weeks of hype prior to releasing its endorsements, culminating in an hour-long episode of candidate interviews conducted during the process.
While we appreciate this newfound transparency and believe the long-form interviews will be a valuable resource for voters, the process came off as shameless marketing.
The Times noted that in the past, it tended to pick a candidate “with a more traditional approach to pushing the nation forward.” This cycle, however, it cited growing concerns that “our democratic system is fundamentally broken” to justify endorsing a more “radical” candidate in Warren. It also connects these new realizations with the 2016 election of President Donald Trump.
It’s nice to see the Times finally catching on, but Americans have long identified low political efficacy, increased partisanship, and the influence of money as important political issues. All of these realities existed prior to and independent of Trump and will certainly extend beyond his time in office.
The Times framed the election as providing three choices: a radical Democrat, a moderate Democrat, or Trump. Even after promoting and filming the endorsement like a TV show and citing political concerns, the Times still failed to decide, and in effect, just reiterated #NeverTrump. The editorial board can cop out by picking two candidates, but Americans cannot, and they are only more confused after the Times’ endorsement fiasco.
