I think the NYT staffers and their bosses have lost sight of a key element in the "endorsement process." It is supposed to be narrowed down to ONE candidate. I know two is close, but close only counts in the game horseshoes, not in the game of politics. It's not that I don't like your picks [I don't], its the failure of the NYT to get behind someone 100% and by doing so assure the voters this one person has been carefully scrutinized above and beyond ALL others. That didn't happen here. This is a serious disappointment.
1
Imagine being this out of touch.
2
I'm definitely happy with these endorsements, although I might be a little biased because Warren and Klobuchar were my two favorite candidates. I do agree somewhat with the argument that NYT should've made a choice between them, but this is kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. I mean, if you look at the comments for any of the other candidates, you'll quickly see that, according to them, the NYT is simultaneously too liberal AND too conservative. So, at least in my opinion, I like that they're willing to admit that they don't have an answer for picking between the moderate and progressive candidates, but are offering their picks for both sides.
Congratulations on an excellent choice of two among those who offered themselves and their time to the Times.
But from my position in Canada, I see clearly that not the U.S.A. nor Canada nor the rest of the world can afford four more years of president Trump. Thus it's not important to endorse one or two excellent candidates who _can_ beat Trump. Rather, it is necessary that you endorse an excellent candidate who _will_ beat Trump.
That would be Michael Bloomberg.
1
Amy is the best placed candidate to win Michigan Wisconsin and Pennsylvania come November. She's got my vote.
This is a shot at anyone, including Bernie Sanders, who think that a woman can not be elected president.
@Hah!
Fortunately, it hasn't been proven that anyone among the Democratic candidates has said that.
1
I like Warren's policies, but can we trust her? She punted on Medicare for All with just the tiniest of pressure. She was dishonest about her ethnic background. She was dishonest about where her children attended school - claiming they all went to public schools when they did not. She is dishonest about her policy in Israel. While mouthing support for Palestinian rights, she has been a hardcore pro-Israel lawmaker.
4
I've been back & forth reading the "Debateable" email re: the endorsement process & I still cannot figure out how anything was decided here. Amy Klobuchar's name only comes up one time in the entire article, but then you endorse her. Warren is mentioned more, but this result is not what the "process" looks like, according to your own words. And everyone else is right: you've highlighted the problem. If you can't decide, perhaps you should have sit this one out.
3
And this will have no effect on the presidential race.
2
"she has sponsored and voted on dozens of national defense measures, including military action in Libya and Syria. "
Those are endorsements?
The Senate Republicans aren't the only ones taking part in an alternative universe.
" 'Well, you have here a madman (Moammar Gadhafi) who’s basically been starving his country and bombing his own people. And so that is why we stood with the rest of the world,' said the Minnesota Democrat."
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/03/20/klobuchar-supports-u-s-military-action-in-libya/
And a fine job you did. Putin and Turkey are trying to clean up your mess.
2
Do you guys serve Coke or Pepsi? Either is fine with me, said no one, ever.
4
Someone should tell the Editors that Klobuchar has almost zero chance to win. This all feels a little bit pregnant; they wanted to support one of the left wing candidates, but needed the cover of supporting one of the traditional corporate dems. Nice try though!
10
As usual, Alexandra Petri gets the last word:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/20/break-tradition-i-am-endorsing-all-12-democratic-candidates/
2
I'm sure many others have had the same thought and expressed it, but the Times not only can't pick a candidate, it picks two that don't even share the same views on most major issues. What's the point of the endorsement? We need to stop this sort of silly pandering and lead our way out of the mess we're in.
10
How wonderful that the Times as finally endorsed a woman of color, Elizabeth Warren. She will not only appeal to other Native Americans, but also to blacks (to whom she is offering reparations) and to Hispanics (thanks to her support of health care for illegal aliens and for neutering ICE).
I'm sure that most middle-class Americans will eventually come to support her wealth-confiscation scheme once they get over the fact that it will affect everyone with a 401K. Go Liz!
5
@Etaoin Shrdlu ^^^^^^^ for the win!
2
While not intending to favor anyone at this time, the EdBrds endorsements are way premature.
1
What a cop-out !!! I am disappointed.
What is the point of having access to candidates if you can't make up your mind. This shows a divide in the Editorial Board. Pick a spot and fight for it, for God's sake!!
2
Amy is the one word answer to the question, "Who is better than the last democratic candidate, Hilary Clinton, in putting people to sleep?".
5
Interesting that the NYT Editorial Board made this announcement on January 19, 2020 and just now published their interview with Tom Steyer on January 21st.
2
A commenter below listed NYT endorsements since 2000 to make a point that more often than not these endorsements have not yielded election results, at least (I would add) not with electoral college results.
That observation invites the following retrospective "ahem!" to the NYT:
What seems key to the effectiveness of endorsements is whether the endorser is doing right-hand-left-hand and failing elsewhere to debunk lies and distortions about the very candidate they've endorsed. The following observations with one exception apply to the entire MSM but since the NYT is the grey eminence, you bear supreme responsibility for failures to inform and refute that now pervade and undermine democracy:
In 2000, you did nothing to nip in the bud the ridiculous lie that Gore had ever said he "invented the internet" - that alone and ensuing mockery cost him enough votes to turn Florida to Bush. And you never adequately challenged the GOP redefinition of "recount" that long November.
In 2004, you never nipped the swiftboating of Kerry in the bud with headlined facts. And you withheld your knowledge of Bush wiretapping in deference to "national security" claims.
In 2016, you indulged the scandalizing of Hillary's emails while getting caught up in Trump as entertainment, waiting until after he was elected to start counting his lies and calling them out.
You shoot more than yourself in the foot when you can't even do fair and full reporting above-the-fold in defense of your endorsee.
5
I thought I was reading The Onion! NY times picked the two candidates who have worst odds against beating Trump in most of the polling. I guess, NY times would poll worse than Warren when it comes to credibility and would poll worse than Amy when it comes to being interesting!
4
This strikes me as more of a marketing ploy by the NYT so as not to offend either its progressive readers and those more moderate. That is what is wrong with the Democrats, take a stand and defend it.
2
I'm struck by the opaque nature of the Nytimes editorial board. The Nytimes should disclose not just a set of resumes but an analysis of the people providing this editorial. As the Nytimes is highly focused on diversity and equity, please provide the following board composition against the general population
1) Gender identification/Sexual orientation
2) Religious affiliation
3) Voting history/party affiliation
4) Economic strata they represent
5) Ethnic/racial make up
6) Rural vs urban
7) Level of education attainment
8) Age
9) Economic belief structure e.g. socialist, capitalist, etc
10) Work experience/Academic qualifications to opine on things like unions, technology companies, work rules, government programs, etc
3
The problem with Warren are her big and bold lies, which NY times is reluctant to write about. I am not talking about minor omissions and misunderstandings. BIG, BOLD lies: (1) Lying to be a native American and the stupidity of showing a DNA test that puts her chance of being a native American at less than 1% (2) Lying that she sent her kids to public school (3) Lying that she was fired because she had been pregnant (4) Lying that her native American claim did not help her in her career.
3
Hillary in a landslide!
2
@Elizabeth Carlisle Is Hillary the write-in candidate, then?
The board very clearly predetermined their results. My first pick for president is Pete Buttigieg so I will compare his interview with Amy's so people understand how biased this process was. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Pete (first half):
Kingsbury: You didn't just want to make money at McKinsey? You're "no longer gross" like mayo (since you came out).
Appelbaum: (At 23 years of age) you were responsible for layoffs, corporate downsizing and price fixing.
Gay: coming out makes you "less mayo". Why is your black voter support low? (but we won't ask Amy).
Staples: You're not very emotive. Do you have "emotional residue" from not coming out fast enough? "Basil mayo".
Harris: You're not progressive (really??) "Mayo is gross".
Broder: "Mayo is white"
Amy (first half):
Kingsbury: Make the case for us of Amy vs Joe Biden?
Cottle: With a nod to your dramatic debate moments, what is the difference between them?
Fox: Why can't the richest country provide free higher public education?
Broder: Talk to us about carbon pricing?
Wegman: Talk about your Supreme Court picks/gun policy/ criminal justice.
Kingsbury: Why don't talented people want to continue working for you?
So in other words, Amy was interviewed with open ended questions and only one "negative" half way in; and Pete was openly mocked, and blamed for all of the evils in society. I'm outraged all over again.
4
This is a clear abdication of responsibility by the NYT... this is choosing the females because they are females.... we can clearly see what you are journalisming....
3
Really surprised that NYTimes did not publish my comments. All I wrote was that Bernie has more than 5 million contributions and about 2 million contributors. Although I am a subscriber to NYTimes but they got this wrong. There was an article that was published in NYTimes about the support of Bernie with data from Act Blue. Bernie is the only candidate that had contributors nationwide. I am looking for an update of this to confirm Bernie's nationwide support but I am sure that NYTimes and the corporate media are too biased to do this. I am still feeling the Bern!!!
1
If this is who the NYT is really endorsing... this life long Dem voter will be pulling the lever for Trump and will never again give my vote to a party that openly panders to gender politics.... You pick the woman who throws things at her staffers and the one who lied for decades about her ancestry in order to get perks..... Im checking out of the DNC.
3
You make compromises after the elections - not before them. Sanders understands that. It looks like Warren doesn't. That raises the question whether Warren really believes and understands the issues she copied from Sanders. This puts her in an awkward position: it is hard to defend compromises as visionary plans and if she win the elections those compromises will be be further watered down in negotiations.
Presidential elections are also a place to put ideas on the map and convince the American public. Look how successful Sanders was with the minimum wage. And such ideas also reach and convince Republicans. By making compromises now Warren is troubling her message. This makes it less likely that she will manage to achieve anything if she wins.
Most Latin American refugees come from Honduras. They are fleeing the regime that Clinton helped install with a coup in 2009. I find it unbelievable that the Times advocates a continuation of such policies by Klobuchar.
2
@Wim Roffel
"Most Latin American refugees come from Honduras. They are fleeing the regime that Clinton helped install with a coup in 2009."
They are fleeing the Banana Wars from the early 1900s and the US interventions in the 80's under Reagan, and sure the mess after the coup. History counts.
You are laying out a cogent case for both candidates, but my gut feeling tells me that neither will have a chance and either one will do worse than Hillary did in the popular vote. Not to mention the electoral college.
Amy Klobuchar is sufficiently moderate to pull the vast, but silent majority of Democrates and Independents. How she would be able to stand up to Trump is another matter.
Elisabeth Warren has already disqualified herself in the minds of too many voters as being too extreme. It will be next to impossible for her to come back IMO.
I am afraid, the NYT Editorial Board is caught in its own liberal bubble. That bubble will not float in the middle of the country.
The only thing that can help us get rid of Trump is a stock market crash, I fear.
The NYT recognized the appeal and agendas of two highly qualified persons with different agendas but both agendas benefited the majority of Americans. That is something that republicans do not consider - agendas which benefit the majority of Americans.
The vitriol coming from Sanders supporters in the comment section is pretty disappointing. The Editorial Board expressed its opinion. Its opinion is different than yours. That does not make this a targeted attack on your candidate, and treating it as such erodes public discourse.
6
Neither of them can beat Trump. Perhaps Bloomberg can or Biden with Klobuchar as the V.P. Warren is a horror and will never get the nomination. Sanders is another horror.
4
Far too many are accusing the Editorial Board of "punting" their endorsement. However, they are simply acknowledging that voters are split between moderates who want a return to normalcy, or progressives who want wholesale change. There are arguments to made on both sides for the best direction of the country, and the Editorial Board simply does not want to take a side in that debate.
The endorsement was likely never going to lead to people changing their mind after they had already zeroed in on a candidate. However, many voters are not only undecided on a candidate, but also undecided on which vision they agree with more. So the decision is not a punt, but instead offering who they feel are the best candidates to push their vision and beat Trump. Voters can and should ask themselves where they stand with the two camps.
What I find more striking - albeit not surprising - is the real choice for voters in 2020 is not between Democrats and Republicans, but between moderates and progressives in the Democratic Party. Endorsing two candidates during a primary is nothing new, except the two candidates are not from the same party. However, the Republican Party under Trump have repeatedly shown they are not fit for office, and whatever views they now hold are not fit for discourse. The Editorial Board should not waste ink advocating for reality and truth in the face of alternative facts, but rather encourage the debate in the Democratic Party.
1
NYT found a way to yet again go woke while simultaneously telling us nothing.
4
Vindictive Hillary now attacking Bernie Sanders in a documentary interview. Perhaps there IS more to this "woman thing" than gender bias or misogyny? Not a good look. I mean really, she wouldn't even directly answer as to if she'd support him against Trump. Meeee-OW!
11
If you saw your future son-in-law throw binders and a telephone at other people, what would you tell your daughter?
But it's okay to recommend such a person as future President of the United States?
6
Arguably the most important decision Democratic voters have to make in decades and the Times can't even make a decision itself. Says a lot about the problems ahead.
5
Oh, where have all the endorsements gone?!
As Dan Rather said: “I endorse the Chiefs and the 49ers to win the Super Bowl.”
3
See?
Even the progressive NYT says women should share, not get recognition for actually being in charge. Why two endorsements? There is only one POTUS. Buy some courage somewhere.
7
Sometimes I have to wonder about the Times. 2020 is about winning. Instead, the Times gives us confusion and two candidates who have little chance of winning the Democratic nomination much less the Presidency. Keep it up Times and we will have Trump in office till 2024.
15
If you had selected one candidate, one of the 2 women, I would have thought of this as a genuine endorsement..whether I agreed or not. Choosing 2 women makes me think that gender played a role. I am irritated as I was looking forward to some hard choice from esteemed NYTimes. I guess 2 candidates is your choice. Maybe I will follow you and vote for both of them in the primaries :/
8
Dear Editorial Board,
Thank you for helping me to decide. Thank you for endorsing Amy, although any of the current contenders would be preferable to the guy with the orange hair.
2
I watched the movie Idiocracy the other day. It is closer to reality than the typical propaganda about smart, hard working Americans. It matters not who the president is. We will have endless wars, strive for endless economic and population growth and do nothing about climate change. The outcome is almost assured and unavoidable given the mental capabilities of that ruling majority. By ruling majority I mean republicans and corporate democrats. They like power and money, and most know what is to come, so now they will grab what they can as we send the human species to it's death.
It's possible that after humans are gone a real intelligent life form will arise some hundreds of millions of years in the future. The test of true intelligence will be whether the new species uses it's technology to destroy itself or not. I suspect that species who are driven to reproduce endlessly are totally incapable of doing anything but destroying themselves.
4
I couldn't disagree with these picks more. While both Senators have compelling plans, I don't believe either could beat Trump in a one on one debate. Senator Warren comes of as a very nice educated teacher, but Trump is a dirty street fighter. Senator Warren already lost when she took Trump's bait and did a DNA test to prove her Native American lineage which fell flat on it's face. She would be demolished in a debate. Senator Klobuchar is uninspiring and I believe would also fair poorly in a Trump debate.
Biden is still the best choice to beat Trump even when he fumbles. He can debate Trump face to face and has the black voters that are extremely necessary to win the election. Trump is damaged property, but it will still take a strong candidate to beat him and unfortunately Senators Warren and Klobucher are not the ones.
6
Both of these ladies are just fine persons. But they are no match in front of incumbent. Trump will be delighted if any one of them ultimately become his challenger in November 2020 election. Because he will win easily. No Russian help needed.
10
As a supporter of Joe Biden, I find your dismissal of his candidacy to be unconvincing for three reasons:
1. His lead in the national polls does reflect the intention of respondents to vote for him.
2. His promise to restore our government to the propriety of the pre-Trump years does not mean we will continue to be the America of 2016. It means we will make the progress that the Trump administration was unwilling or unable to accomplish.
3. Your suggestion that the 77 year old Mr. Biden should "pass the torch to a new generation" is rank ageism.
6
January 21, 2020
I am inspired by this endorsement for the Democratic party and its good fortune to have a double advantage for the presidential campaign. Thus having this Editorial speaks a very positive benefits to our national woman's power in the political arena.
2
Talk about "what the heck?" Why not endorse all the candiadates while youre at it?
17
@RB
Yes, that's what this is. The cabinet, AG and the full executive staff is what the essential vote is for one president. Now ask yourself who, what, where?
ie. Kamala AG, Sec. of State ?, Sec of all else?
We are voting for an org chart. So think hard and map that out with at least 3 scenarios. I think the NYT board is suggesting that both Warren and Kloubacher should collaborate to flush out the full team.
There is a position for all the candidates. I don't think Biden and maybe Bernie will take cabinet positions, but I hope Bernie will take on HHS.
We are voting for a team captain. It's the team, silly.
1
I am still in great disappointment that Bloomberg was dismissed only because he didn't sit for an interview. He was Mayor of New York for 3-terms … what else did you need to know about him before you could make a decision that included him??
4
@Rev Bates
Giuliani was also Mayor of NYC. Enough said.
2
"The Democrats' Best Choices for President" --
if these are the best choices Democrats can offer, I will gladly vote again for the incumbent President of the United States.
4
@JOHN
Sorry, but no human being alive is worse then the illegitimate, impeached incumbent (AKA i cubed)
But you being from NJ and I being from NY our vote doesn't matter one bit.
The only votes that matter are those in the 4 or 5 battleground states.
This is why we need to elect a president using the national popular vote. If we had done that Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would have become presidents and America and the world would have become a much, much better place because of it.
Elimination of the anti-democratic Electoral College is necessary to move America toward real democracy.
4
@JOHN
Perth Amboy...that explains it.
1
@JOHN I'll have to vote for Trump too. Warren is a horror as well as Sanders. Bloomberg along with Klobuchar as VP might have a chance.
1
Lets hope that the NYT editorial board has it wrong, and that Bernie Sanders wins and shakes up the rotten system to the core.
If America survived 3 years of Trump, it will survive Bernie.
If he fails - as the President - that won't be the end of the world.
But as we say in Australia - you will never never know if you never never go.
13
George Washington passed a wealth tax (carriage tax) on the rich so why can't a President Warren, if she wins, do the same?
Should the Roberts Court rule her wealth tax to be a "direct tax", it can be apportioned. I think she's smart enough to have thought it through and through.
https://verdict.justia.com/2019/02/07/can-we-tax-wealth-yes-and-even-if-not-still-yes
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/taxation/publications/abataxtimes_home/19aug/19aug-pp-johnson-a-wealth-tax-is-constitutional/
This election is about one thing. Who can beat Trump. These choices show how the New York Times does not understand that basic fact. With endorsements like this we will surely lose in 2020. Then what will the New York Times say ?
11
In so many ways the Times has rendered itself irrelevant in this matter, whether it be its choice of one or another (really?) unelectable candidates or its failure to take into account a crucial block of voters in so many states (Pennsylvania, Florida, just to name two): minorities.
10
Gosh, this is just like that time my erstwhile paper, The Plain Dealer admitted Bush the Younger was a hellish mistake but refused to endorse The Democrat.
Never read another issue.
You guys have been on quite a run lately, when it comes to forgetting who you have been or explaining why you are not. This fits perfectly.
10
Here's the problem. The Democratic candidates know their party lost the last presidential election. Trump knows they lost the final presidential election. There is no way Mafia Don is going to jail, which means that losing the 2020 election and the protection of the Oval Office is not an option.
Just as Republican Senators will not allow a fair impeachment trial (you ain't seen nothin' yet), they will back Benjamin Donald when he either suspends the 2020 election outright or claims "voter fraud" after the fact and sues every state that didn't go his way. AG Barr will order the election results to be put on hold while he mounts a "thorough" investigation that will take years to complete. All Trump and Barr (have there ever been 2 more evil people in American politics?) need is the support of his quisling of a Secretary of Defense (how many divisions does Charles Schumer command?) to quell the riots.
Don't say you didn't see it coming.
3
As a lifelong registered Democrat, I need to decide which of a dozen candidates I will support. You gave yourselves the right to select two. You therefore only did half your job.
6
At some point, we the voters should stop pointing fingers and look in the mirror. We ask them for perfection in every tweet or utterance, then lambast them when they seem to pander to our infantile demands. We insist that only our candidate can win, then lament the lack of a clear leader. We viciously smear the other candidates, then wail about party divisiveness. We thoroughly trash the eventual nominee, then wonder why some of our neighbors didn't bother to vote.
What was foolish in 2016 has risen to the point of stupidity. The use of creative adjectives like shrill, senile, sell-out and socialist might be fun, but there might be a more constructive way to express one's preferences. An exercise that might help us get our feet back on the ground is to rank the candidates along with Trump, who of course is the very big elephant in the room.
For example, here are my picks to date, which will be further refined during the next several months:
Warren 9.x, Trump 0.0
Klobuchar 9.x, Trump 0.0
Sanders 9.x, Trump 0.0
Biden 9.x, Trump 0.0
Buttigieg 8.x, Trump 0.0
Yang 8.x, Trump 0.0
Steyer 8.x, Trump 0.0
Bloomberg 8.x, Trump 0
2
Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar are two pro-war, corporate Democrats. Paul Street, who frequently contributes to Counterpunch (www.counterpunch.org) refers to Elizabeth Warren as the ‘Senator from Raytheon’ which is headquartered in Waltham, MA.
9
@Paul
You may be right about Sen. K -- I will never vote for her anyway.
But Sen. Warren seems as anti-corporation as you can get (other than Bernie perhaps.) You think she would sell out her principles just because part of the Military Industrial Complex is in her state? I think more highly of her than that. I hope you're wrong. Do you have any evidence or an article I could read? I'll research it now.
BTW, she is not my personal favorite, but I will vote for her if she's chosen by the party. My personal favorite is Buttigieg, but I'll vote for Biden if he's chosen. Because I believe Biden has the best chance of beating Trump. And I think Buttigieg is honest and decent (like Biden) and super smart, articulate and with the right pick for VP (somebody like Stacey Abrams) they would attract a lot of support from Black voters. Problem solved for Mayor Pete.
1
This is such a Progressive choice. Tears to my eyes. Thank you! So Woke!
1
Yesterday, this country allowed 22,000 men in full military gear to go out into the streets, to threaten an elected legislature in Virginia. If you do the math, their guns and ammo could have slaughter (under ideal conditions) 300,000 inside of 15 minutes.
And here we are, chitty-chatting a non-choice, all to be non-binary and gender-progressive, and non-decisive in that old patriarchal way.
Trump is a time bomb aimed at the country. There will be no recognizable America after 2020.
3
Watch the editorial board's "exciting, transparent" 30-min video documentary about their endorsement process at the URL below. It shows that after Pete Buttigieg's frankly riveting interview, they dismissed him as not "emotive" and "exciting" enough.
Unbelievable. These 16 people write some of the most stuffy, turgid, preachy editorials in the business. And they're criticizing the candidate whose events – from Iowa rallies to Hollywood fundraisers – have whipped up this cycle's biggest crowds and greatest enthusiasm.
https://fxnow.fxnetworks.com/shows/the-weekly/episode-guide/season-01/episode-25-the-endorsement/vdka15629326
13
@GetReal I agree! I posted a comment yesterday showing a side by side comparison of the interview between Pete vs Amy ...it has yet to be approved even though several of my other comments have been. I guess the board does not want to view or admit to their bias. Really scary and disappointing journalism.
@GetReal The Times is going back to it's old "Gray Lady" days. Careful, not too colorful and certainly no endorsement for a Gay President! Never that!
What a complete cop out! You can do better NYT -- not only by picking one person but not having to back pedal and trying to slice water for an explanation. I am not amused at all.
13
Amy Klobuchar has no charisma and is a nonstarter in the polls. Elizabeth Warren, though a better overall candidate, did herself no favors with her flip-flopping on Medicare-For-All, is too far to the left for mainstream America, and would face endless "Pocahontas" chants by Trump and his hordes.
Congratulations NYTimes!
By choosing to endorse these two candidates, you've shown the poor political acumen of your editorial board-- but then, that's nothing new as you all predicted Hillary in the WH in a landslide-- and you are playing identity politics again in propping up the only two women left in the race.... which won't be a problem this time against Trump as neither Ms. Klobuchar nor Ms. Warren will be the democratic nominee.
13
So you couldn't choose one candidate? The voters must choose one, why can't you? Serious question.
7
I was flabbergasted when Eliz. Warren said that she was against the Death Penalty because she thought Life in Prison was a worse "punishment". She is totally out of touch with what goes on in the world of prisoners, and how punitive and unforgiving our culture is. She speaks like a white woman who has never personally known anyone who has been caught in the traps of "the law". I now think of her as a professor with no real experience of how life works for many Americans, and can no longer support her.
8
@BQ
I am not sure I follow your argument. You are berating Warren - who I do not support, but agree with on this issue - for being against the death penalty, because life in prison is a worse punishment, and then you go on and make exactly that point yourself.
I am puzzled.
2
american politics are corrupt. the corruption must be investigated. as a victim of corruption, (and totally sane, totally absolutely not paranoid) i know that there is a lot to investigate - complex, systematic corruption that really hurts people. as a victim that needs justice, i know how important it is to investigate, expose, and prosecute corruption. the free press must do its necessary critical function and finally end the horrific corruption.
Unbelievable that the NYT is this blind to the obvious.
The country is looking for change. Real change.
Not the "Hope and Change" slogan followed by milquetoast stuff from Obama. The Dems are still paying for that.
Not the MAGA covered xenophobia from Trump - the GOP will pay for that over the next generation.
Real change where power imbalances are addressed. Where corporate dominance is challenged. Where Oliogopolies and greed driven capitalism are contained. Where the rich few cannot buy power from politicians by cheating the multitudes.
There is only one candidate that can deliver that - someone who has striven for such change for an entire lifetime. And it's not Biden, not Klobuchar. And Warren, as good as she is, still is a late convert to that cause.
The only choice, who can beat Trump at the ballot, and deliver change to the country is Bernie Sanders.
His policies make the most sense for such change. He has raised >$100M from small donors ALONE. His base is young, active and empowered.
But because his policies have a "social democrat" tag, and NYT and it's big-donor owners cannot get past that, and feel threatened. The NYT ends up wasting it's voice in wilderness, when it could have endorsed Sanders and have FOR ONCE, advocated for real change in this country.
NYT has proven to be fighting the battles of the last century, and representing it's owner/ donor class.
5
As a long-time journalist, it seems to me that endorsing two people is shirking your journalistic responsibility. If two are good, why not endorse three? Make the tough decision and explain your reasons. No one can fault you for that. But sitting in the middle of the road only gets you run over.
7
Perhaps NYT you don't see the 2020 Election just the way
the voters do: Bernie Sanders may be too old in your eyes;
but Bernie has all the qualities of a leader which Trump is
devoid of.
There are others who are also running who have the same
good character assets ; Michael Bloomberg; William Weld:
We need a proven leader who has had the experience of
good governance; who has already been tested as one who
has governed well.
3
"This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism." Sorry. There's only one true progressive in this race.
3
A tacit admission that it would take two of the other candidates to equal one Bernie Sanders, but entirely in keeping with four years of this journal's campaign to make Bernie disappear.
2
What a disappointing recommendation. How does this guide anyone? How does "pick one of two" qualify as an "endorsement"? In 2015 the Toronto Globe and Mail endorsed Stephen Harper for re-election as Canadian prime minister, but only with a minority parliament, to keep a limit on his penchant for abusing power. This current endorsement by the NYT is just as unhelpful and nonsensical. If the NYT couldn't be decisive why make any recommendation at all?
3
Unbelievable safe choice to pick two . Why even attempt.
And please Klobuchar, really. Let's not forget the times picked Hillary over Obama. Very disappointing.
6
Elizabeth is desperate and out of control. Amy is arrogant and mean.
Nobody is addressing (to oppose, endorse or to soothe) those shaggy fellows dragging their arms around Virginia yesterday except to make inept and offensive fun.
NYT can't muster the guts to do anything meaningful, consistent journalistically or editorially, except try so hard to play all sides it literally hurts to read.
This is not an endorsement. Its fine, whatever it is, but it is not an endorsement. More NYT slight of hand for no apparent reason.
4
Neither female possessing Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Obama inspiring charisma.
4
You want to break with the past, pick a Republican.
3
l read this three times. I'll read it again. It's perceptive and, I think, brilliant. You captured the three predominant visions well, rejected Trump's, and endorsed your candidate for the other two visions.
I was alarmed and ultimately disgusted when you endorsed Hilary over Bernie the last time around. Your coverage largely ignored the dysfunction in our government and the real hurt so many Americans felt as they could not meet the needs of themselves or their families. You did well to ask Amy to deal with that dysfunction, and you didn't shut down those of us who feel it acutely.
Some commenters accuse you of choosing two visions when there are some different ones out there. Others are annoyed because you did a dual endorsement and described two major visions. Thanks for distilling it down to the two I see and providing your endorsements for the best candidate for each one of them.
I had already boiled my choice down to Amy and Eliizabeth. I choose not to drive myself crazy trying to decide which one can beat Trump. I think either one can. So then, who will govern the best over the next 4 years? We must get corruption out of government. Elizabeth is my candidate for that. We must govern effectively. That requires reaching across the aisle and building a culture of bipartisanship. I think Amy is most likely to do that.
Yes - may the best woman win!
1
"may the best woman win." A trifle optimistic. The NYT takes itself a little too seriously. One must have serious doubts about the chances of either of the editorial boards picks.
5
Past Times endorsements include Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, Thomas Dewy, Wendell Wilkie, Alfred Smith, John W. Davis, James M. Cox and Alfred Parker.
11
As a Warren endorser, I have largely ignored Klobuchar and most of the other candidates. This editorial has now convinced me to make Amy my second choice.
1
The view from London. Radical policies need a radical context if they are to win the backing of the electorate.
At the last election in Britain, the Labour Party presented the most radical manifesto since the Attlee government of 1945 and lost badly. Why? Because the situation in Britain in 2019 was nothing like as bad as it was in 1945. Between 1914 and 1945 Europe suffered its greatest catastrophe since the Black Death: its manpower was decimated, many cities were ruined, and basic infrastructure destroyed. Desperate times required desperate measures. 2019 in the UK was not, thank goodness, such a moment, and nor will 2020 be in the USA.
To advocate really radical policies now is to misread our situation. Obama came to power at a moment of acute economic crisis and he used his control of Congress to push hard on healthcare. Those days are gone. The American economy is doing well and there's no majority for big change, however passionate its advocates are.
Should the Democrats elect a candidate who is at the centre, who is experienced and who has real human warmth, then they might win the White House, but if they go left, play identity politics, talk to the base, they'll lose in 2020 as badly as the Labour Party did in 2019, and deservedly. It may feel good to advocate unelectable policies but they only serve the advocate's ego.
9
In other news the NYT has picked the SF 49ers AND the Kansas City Chiefs to win the Super Bowl
10
@DesertCard
Sweet comment. However, if you've followed their coverage, they're going with the Chiefs. Trust us on this one.
I was sick at heart when I watched the show and saw them looking down their noses at Pete Buttigieg. The cold-faced editor who said, "You were on the front lines of price fixing," an out and out lie, was particularly condescending.
Pete's decency, brilliance, compassion and composure reflect what he'd bring to the White House, and patting him on the head as an uppity youngun who's "not quite ready" is such a mistake. We need him, now, for a host of reasons.
Buttigieg has the vision and courage that can help this country begin healing, but you treated him as though you'd rather give him a wedgie. I'm so disappointed in the Times. All the posturing in this editorial didn't convey wisdom.
10
@Petuunia
The Times has repeatedly made an issue about lack of black voter support for Buttigieg, publishing over half-a-dozen articles on this topic and addressing it in their Board interview with him.
Yet in choosing Amy Klobuchar, The Board choose the only candidate who is polling LESS among black voters than Pete Buttigieg. (And not even asking her about this issue, merely asking about reparations.)
When The Board wants to attack a candidate they have one set of criteria. When they want to endorse a candidate they invent another set of criteria.
Transparency and a consistent set of values is what we look for in leaders, and those who seek to endorse them.
5
@Petuunia I agree! the questioners need to retake journalism 101. shockingly rude and dismissive. I have never read anything like it.
2
@JohnBarleycorn
Amy is not the only candidate polling less among black voters than Pete. The only ones consistently ahead of Pete are Biden (by a lot; but he's ahead of everyone); Sanders (second best); and Warren. Pete was neck and neck and in some polls ahead of Booker with black voters. He's always been ahead of Amy.
2
The NYT Editorial Board has endorsed two people who don't have even a snowball's chance in hell of winning in November. In so doing, the NYT Editorial Board, has increased the chances of our country being plagued by 4 more years of the societal cancer known as Donald J. Trump. In your zeal to choose one or more women, you've made it even more difficult to get beyond this dark chapter in U.S. history. Congratulations!
11
We Trump supporters LOVE the New York Times!
Their limousine liberal condescension and wacky policy positions keep giving and giving.
While the choice may be complex, one thing is certain: unless the chosen candidate gets elected, it doesn’t matter! One (of the many) reasons HC lost a number of swing states, is that purists took their bats and balls and went home when their candidate didn’t get nominated. It’s not about how a voter feels about themself, it’s about getting the best result for he nation in an imperfect world.
4
Dear Editorial Board,
Endorsing two candidates is not a break with convention. You could endorse all of the announced Democratic candidates and it still would not be a big deal.
A huge break from the norm would be the board endorsing the notion of federalism as envisioned by the founders. That means endorsing the candidate who knows what is in the Constitution and would actually uphold the oath to defend it. It means abandoning political parties and toxic ideologies. It would be a breath of fresh air for you to explain how it is not the job of the president to be "promiser-in-chief" with a myriad of government programs.
Any presidential candidate and the board should read the 223 words in Section 2, Article II of the Constitution. They describe the responsibilities of the President. It is amazingly simple. Now compare that with what any presidential candidate promises voters on a daily basis.
Want to really break with convention? Start by reading the Constitution. Then write editorials about our government through the lens as to how it should work as opposed to how it does (or doesn't) work.
3
I've changed my mind with this report. Thank you.
"That system, through existing public-private programs like Medicare Advantage, has shown it is not nearly as flawed as she insists, and it is even lauded by health economists who now advocate a single-payer system."
You had to link to a story that's almost a decade old to find a health economist "lauding" the program. Nice try.
5
As different these two women are in temperament, their view of our problems, the credibility and of their proposed solutions and their attitudes toward those who honestly disagree with them,there is no reason you should not have made a choice -- unless your view is that the next president should be a woman, whatever she believes, whatever her ability to lead and whatever her behavior and her policies will do to this country.
4
Electabiliy is so important and hard to define that a third of likely Iowa voters, a plurality, have not yet decided who to vote for and neither, for the first time, has this editorial page. It may be that it’s hard for folks who prefer much or all of the field to Trump to confidently predict the whims of the voters who think differently.
What if a simple, empirical formula had correctly predicted the winner of the last 11 general presidential elections? Would the formula be relevant to deciding who is most “electable”?
Turns out there is such a formula. It’s this. Each election, of the 2 major candidates, the one who became a politician earlier than the other has lost the election. 11-in-a-row, starting, unsurprisingly, after Watergate when Carter defeated Ford, and continuing to accurately guess the winner every time since, up to & including when Trump defeated someone Obama called the most “qualified” candidate in history, It’s as if undecided voters are saying over & over they don’t want a career politician to be president. This poses a unique problem in picking someone to run against Trump, who became a politician in 2015.
Under the formula, the only remaining candidates “electable” enough to beat Trump are Andrew Yang, mentioned in the article only as an afterthought, & Tom Steyer, not mentioned at all. If you want badly to see Trump defeated, you should seriously consider those two candidates’ empirical cases for electability, or ignore them at your peril.
1
@Nicholas Sanchez - Huh. Interesting. It poses not just a unique problem in picking someone to run against Trump, but a unique (and kind of horrifying) problem for our country in general. If we have fallen under the collective delusion that knowing what one is doing no longer has any value (and in fact actually counts against you), then it won't be long at all before anyone who has spent even a single day as a leader of anything - a Boy Scout troop, a McDonalds - is disqualified by the voters as being too "establishment."
This is a particularly dangerous race to the bottom, I would say ...
1
@Kristin thanks for the comment. Though I don't support, in a normative sense, this voting trend, and am deeply troubled by it, I also don't know that it's fair to characterize the trending away from establiahment candidates as coming from a preference for people who don't know what they are doing. I think it comes from a darker, more cynical instinct I've heard both Trump voters and voting nihilists articulate: that politicians are ALL corrupt. It is really sad if so many people harbor that view and suggests Washington needs fundamental reform far beyond the quadrennial check-in of a presidential contest. Incidentally, Steyer supports term limits too and, being a rich philanthropist, would be beholden to no special interests. If this is the democratic republic we are stuck in, we can at least work within the system to get results we can live with, even if they aren't the ones we would prefer if it was our call to make alone.
Just yesterday, and before seeing this endorsement, my wife and I were discussing the candidates. After a back and fort making points to include that Joe Biden will be more of the same (a la Hillary), and that we should move on to new candidates, the future of the party, etc, I stated that the Democrats should walk the walk, and talk the talk by electing two women for the next Presidential ticket. Let's do it!
Well, both women are a far better choice than Biden.
Biden is the only candidate running that threw Anita Hill under the bus and gave America and the world the non-returnable gift of Clarence Thomas on SCOTUS. On that alone Biden is not qualified. And he appears too needy.
Cannot wait to see either woman debate Trump on a stage. If it is Warren and Trump in a debate, the networks could almost make it a pay per view event.
2
It's not fair, but neither of them can over come the likability factor that plagues female candidates. Sen Clinton lost the white female vote to a misogynistic Trump and the same fate likely awaits them both and contributes to the notion that they are not electable over their male counterparts. Obama won the white female vote and the democratic nominee needs to do this for us to win.
2
NYT you write that Dems are concerned first and foremost about who can beat Mr. Trump. Who can beat him? A ticket with Sanders and Warren on it can. Both of them together. No other combo will beat Trump. Together they can solidify the votes of their party and capture the nomination. A great enthusiastic base of Dems and independents will work tirelessly to elect them.
4
@KFY Sanders can do it without Warren, he's the one who will bring the independents and the party's true base of working people.
I don't see the word "China" once in this piece. Trump used trade with China to win the last election. China matters a lot and will matter more as time goes on - more than health care, more than income inequality, more even than transgender bathroom access which is always a top Democratic agenda item.
How are you going to beat Trump without talking about China?
What a dream team, and yet what a quixotic endorsement- and I say this with a grimace. Both of these women are qualified, except for the stark bitter truth, they are women and two women will not defeat Trump. Trump's minions and even those on the fence- would swing to Trump if this were their options. Bigotry, ignorance and frank terror inspired by the thought of women leading our country reigns supreme still. Biden is the only realistic endorsement- period. Even though significantly less qualified than Warren - As Obama's toady, he carries more weight for voters for the simple fact that he is male and was in close proximity to Obama. At the very least, and I say this begrudgingly Biden may ensure Trump is removed- finally.
5
Now we are to have a Co Presidency? I guess it was too tough to pick one person to evict Trump. Trump must be loving this and if one of these two are not the candidate Trump is going to use this as red meat.
7
For me, New York Times editorial board has no credibility as it always endorses democratic party candidate for every post. For a Newspaper to have a credible voice, it must be dispassionate about issues and be willing to change its stance on issues as circumstances evolve. The candidates manifestos and agendas are not worth a hoot because none of it is within the possibility of implementation. If any of the voters expect universal coverage or universal basic income, they are probably living on mars and not in America. There are a lot of things a President can do, and much of it is procedural or through rule making. If Trump lacks character for the job, so do Klobucher and Warren, one through treatment of staff, the other through fakery on credentials.
2
I admit to being shocked by these endorsements having fully expected Biden or even Bloomberg to be the editorial board's selection. Voting for either Warren or Klobuchar would leave me comfortable and allow me to leave the polls without choking back bile.
A few comments leave me scratching my head with the claim that Clinton's loss was due to rampant misogyny. No, it wasn't and either of the candidates endorsed can shred that faulty premise in the coming elections. Strong candidates running effective campaigns win despite the odds. We saw this in 2018 and we will see it again if the Democrats don't blow it by nominating the safest centrist they can conger up and push him across the finish line with the assistance of their superdelegates.
3
Why are we repeating the same old things and thinking that we will have different results. As NYT mentioned, Andrew Yang proposes new and innovative solutions to solve 21 century problems. Experience in politics should means little since we are in grid lock and bitter partisanship . Yang will shock the establishment in 2020.
2
I think Warren disqualified herself when she broad-sided Sander a few days before their final debate. Nothing appears more ridiculous to me than to make a sexist issue out of some personal comment (and out of any context) in these circumstances. Warren in other words was playing some contentless gender advantage, knowing than any allegation she made would cause a problem for Bernie -- previously her friend.
While she is not a millionth of a percent as cunning and below-the-belt as Trump, she has shown us that desperation will jiggle her integrity.
She will have a serious time trying to enthuse Sanders supporters.
If we are really serious about ticket balance and "it's time for a woman", Klobuchar might make a very good VP choice for anyone. She is absolutely no one's choice for president.
7
I'm a 56 year old woman who enthusiastically supports Bernie Sanders, not because of his gender but because of his policy positions. He has steadfastly been fighting for policy that I align with, from the core of my being. Policies that are fair and just for all people, regardless of class, creed or color. I'm not a bro and I am very supportive of women. It just happens that my preferred candidate for 2020 is Bernie. Oh, and NYT - cheap shot about his age and health, given the ages of the current occupier and other candidates.
6
Great, innovative choice!
1
I would relish watching either of these women debate Trump. That is if he's man enough to participate.
1
I understand you want them to run as a team, and that might be good, but I can't imagine how a woman is going to beat Trump, a real bully. I hope you made a wise decision as we all know you are very influential, but we can not afford to lose with boutique flower power against the military man.
I don't really agree with either one of your endorsements individually, and that is quite OK. But dual-endorsement is just a cop-out. How on earth can you endorse a moderate and a more far-left candidate at the same time? Why didn't you just endorse all the democratic candidates at the same time? Very disappointing. I am endorsing all newspapers other than the NYT for best political endorsements. And my next stock-market prediction is going to be that the market will go either up, or down, or sideways. Amongst others.
5
Could not agree more.
2
Too bad that we can't watch Hulu or FX in Europe...
I'm shocked by the naivete of this article. By electing Trump America's voting public on the whole effectively outed itself as misogynistic. While Hilary Clinton made some mistakes during the election the level of hatred directed at her was mostly due to her being a woman. No male candidate with the same track record would have received that treatment. All the nuanced discussion of the differences between these candidates is irrelevant. The elections going forward are going to be won by whoever can best bum rush the public with the most obnoxious personality and avalanche of disinformation. Wake up people.
1
Unless Bernie and Liz become completely unified, we'll end up either with 4 more years of Trump or a pseudo-Democrat who is willing to sell out to the military-industrial complex, the whims of US Oligarchs, big pharma, oil, and the GMO industry...
Liz is either what she says she is, in which case she'll make amends with Bernie loud and clear or the delegates will NEVER put a Progressive into the nomination. We'll end up with another billionaire or "Democrat" about as conservative as Ronald Reagan.
You can say what you will, but in my view, the NYT choices is trying to build on the false rift caused by the hugely and wastefully amplified nothingness of the idea Bernie ever said, or for that matter would ever say "a woman can not win the White House."
If you were an anti-progressive strategist and power broker, I don't think you could have come up with a more potent means of breaking up the progressive block than trying to use the Gender Card on the two progressives in the front running positions.
Neither alone is strong enough to win. I don't care if its Liz as President and Bernie as Vice President or vis. versa; what I care about is that there are people in the White House fighting for average Americans and to once and for all kick the influence of the plutocrats out of our government.
The NYT editor's picks to me, simply facilitate the gender card play as it comes right on the tail of the last debates and the number one topic dividing the progressives. Shameful
5
Kind of interesting. What if they ran as a team. Co-Presidents. ? COPOTUS. The post trump era would begin with a series of sweeping changes. Liz and Amy would tackle healthcare, and then, immigration in the first 12 months. Reestablish a good will relationship with our allies and then look at the Middle East...The NRA can be neutered and registration of all guns commenced.
They raise money by taxing those with a net worth over one million dollars...
It doesn't make sense here to parse through what I feel are all of the poor reasoning points to this non-endorsement. So I'll just express my dismay at the continued nervous and muddled incrementalism that we see out of the NYT. There was a time when incrementalism arguably made sense - but to a huge portion of the electorate - that time is long, long gone.
The board rightly points to an "American Dream" that is no longer attainable to many of the poor and middle class in this country, but fails to acknowledging that an argument even EXISTS to the effect that market capitalism, during a very particular time in our post WWII history, uniquely enabled that explosive growth. And irrespective of what you blame for our current trend - that "dream" will not be reproduced. Ever. So I beg the Times to please consider where we really are with respect to the incompatibility between growth-based capitalism on one side, and not just social justice, but the health of our planet on the other.
I like Warren. And Klobuchar would of course be a huge improvement over the criminal currently office. But the NYT is really phoning-in any part it might play in prompting some of the critical conversations we need to have.
1
Klobuchar yes, Warren no. The critical objective is not to select a candidate based on her or his platform but to select a candidate most likely to defeat Trump. A centrist such as Klobuchar will find it far more feasible to work with congressional Republicans than Warren, whose confrontational style would exacerbate the already gridlocked state of the House and Senate. I admire Warren's passion and knowledge but we need to mend the chasm caused by Trump, and Klobuchar stands a far better chance than Warren of accomplishing this.
4
As the house burns down, so many would like to quibble over whether we should elect a public relations spokesperson or a real fire department.
Statistics tell us that wealth now begets greater wealth and that an effective lobbyist never costs a dime, so much so that the republican form of government envisioned by the Founders has devolved into legal bribery. The President's Ukraine extortion must appear as business as usual to those whose every legislative breath requires corporate sponsorship.
Meanwhile, those who financially underwrite policy provide propaganda aimed at the least aware among us, convincing those worthies that the economy has suffered because poor people have had access to health care and (shudder) free school lunches.
The propaganda (support the troops!) goes on to convince the public that we must spend upward of half a trillion dollars annually to maintain military outposts in a majority of the world's countries.
I truly think that President Warren can stand up against both the financial wheel-greasers and the jingoists whose primary virtue is to prop up the value of Boeing and KBR. Raise your hand if you think that the entire political landscape was rocked by Reagan and his apostles and that our nation's progress will be squelched as long as truth is just another factor to consider alongside lies and religious myths.
Like Nero, Trump will fiddle with his Twitter feed while the world burns.
Any Democrat will do, but Elizabeth Warren will do better.
6
Why is the NYTimes categorizing Klobuchar as "realistic" and Warren as "radical" (ie unrealistic)?
We need climate action now. We have 10 years to address this climate crisis with any agency. Because we have dawdled so long, we must act swiftly and boldly. We must enact the Green New Deal and everything else in Warren's climate plan. That is being realistic. Klobuchar's climate action plan isn't nearly as bold. Her's is the one that is unrealistic because it doesn't accept and take seriously the science and physics involved. There can be no moderate half measures if we are to save our planet for future generations. If we are to save ourselves.
As Greta Thunberg calls out to us "Our House is on Fire." We need to act like it is and do everything within our power to put out the fire.
4
OK, Boomer. Apparently there is a sizable (and presumably younger, and non-white) contingent on your Editorial Board that recognizes that fiddling around the edges of our creaky democracy while the planet burns is not a viable strategy.
It's a pity that they couldn't overwhelm the older, whiter, and wealthier members of the board and come up with a real recommendation, rather than just another bland pastiche of middle of the road pablum.
The truth of the mater is that older, richer, whiter, moderate Democrats talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. They decry racism, but won't send their kids to public schools. They wring their hands about homelessness, but don't want rental apartments in their neighborhoods. They support democracy, but would never have a labor union at their company. And of course, they protest Republican tax cuts, but not too loudly. They don't want to risk actually having to pay more taxes, when the point is to protest them nobly, but ineffectually.
4
One can always count on the NYT to bolster the status quo. The Board sees no gain in "replacing one divisive figure [Trump] for another [Sanders]." A false equivalency, no?
Private health care "is not nearly as flawed" as Warren says. Sorry, from where I sit she is spot on.
Capitalism "has some flaws," but the "business community" (note the softening switch) should not be held accountable for what we all are guilty of. All too familiar apologetics.
4
I appreciate what the NYT is trying to do here, but I think the approach, sadly, is misguided. At times like these, when the nation faces an existential threat to its founding principles, people often turn to the stalwart institutions they feel they can trust. This double endorsement is the equivalent of a waffle, an "I don't know," a "It's up to you" non-answer that people least need when they're looking for guidance. We all know we have centrist and left options, but we are frightened by the prospects that each offers. Bold change of course or merely steadying the wheel.
Personally, I'm for bold change and will support either Warren or Sanders. The sort of future offered by Klobuchar, Biden, etc., has already been demonstrated to be ineffective, corrupt, and bereft of creativity. Don't let the same fate befall your publication.
2
Amy K & Mayor Pete, may be the best choice, to even try, and make it a contest.
The extreme left candidates are pretty much; non-starters.
3
In developing this editorial endorsement, the NYT and most of the candidates except for Andrew Yang ignore the elephant in the room, concentration of wealth not from tax policies, (a contributing cause), but due to automation, the core cause of the end of a living wage and and desperate class struggle between the 1% and the rest.
Intelligent policy regarding driverless cars and trucks, (6 million jobs), the gig economy, zoning policies in urban areas that make housing impossible to own, and a host of other direct and indirect non-policy issues need to be addressed in a clear and honest way.
The times needs to go back and look at the process underway since the beginning of the 19th century, with farming mechanized first, followed by machinery used in mining (800,000 jobs in coal mining alone in 1933, barely 60,000 today) robots added to auto factories, and now AI sweeping away jobs for millions more.
There will soon be no good jobs left, only service workers and the owners of the technology. And I do not have a solution - only a clear-eyed perspective on the problem.
3
@UTBG
Spot on. The canaries are dead and the mine is filling with deadly gas. The trifecta of AI, Machine Learning, and Robotics have already had devastating effects on low-level service jobs and will continue up the ladder wiping away mid-level workers not able to compete with machines and logarithms that are tireless, more accurate, and vastly less expensive than their human counterparts.
In our system of predatory capitalism, the costs of displacement will be ignored and blamed on the victims. In more enlightened nations practicing benevolent capitalism, workers will continue to be valued as engines of growth and profit.
Excellent decision, Board....Though I'm not sure about sharing this honor with Elizabeth!
As last week's debate showed in abundance, Amy Klobuchar has what it takes to take Trump on.
She's accomplished a lot in the Senate, more than almost all senators. She's represented folks in her state very well, and has a great sense of humor and ability to cut to the chase on all issues.
She gets along well with others including folks from the other side of the aisle, and is balanced and reasonable. Amy's responses on foreign policy issues last week were out of the park.
And Amy hasn't changed positions on key issues like health care, and does not propose out of this world projects that have zero chance of being passed by Congress (note to Board - 'how's that one working for you, Elizabeth?').
Most of all, she's been an honest broker on her positions from the get go, and would be the best of all candidates in putting Trump on the defensive, all while she's got that midwestern grin and wit.
The majority of our nation's voters, and Iowans for that matter, know straightforward, honest to goodness leaders when they see one.
Bottom line: Amy has the best chance of grabbing undecideds and knocking Trump off. And that, above all, is what we need right now.
6
@Ed "Amy Klobuchar has what it takes to take Trump on."
Except voters to support her consistently miniscule poll numbers.
6
"Democrats must decide which of their two models would be most compelling for the American people and best suited for repairing the Republic." Most compelling is Amy the centrist. However, considering the severe nature and degree of the stresses and stressors requiring attention, and the consequences of failing to promote the bold solutions that they demand, then Elizabeth is the choice. It's status quo versus the extreme pickle we are in as a nation and planet.
I think the editorial board missed the boat on endorsing two Democratic candidates for president. If you were going to break with convention you could have made it a much more dramatic and informative break. You should have endorsed all of the Democratic candidates, even those who have dropped out.
In one sentence you could have based your endorsement on the fact that everyone of them is an adult, sane, intelligent, informed, decent, loyal to America and devoted to serving the people.
Then you could have devoted the remainder of your endorsement column to laying out all the reasons why Trump should be convicted -- oops! -- I mean evicted from office.
If your intention was to help readers narrow down the field of Democrats, you should have presented a column devoting a paragraph or two to each candidate giving us their most salient pros and cons as to why they could win the election and also why they could be an effective president and healer of our nation.
At the end, the editorial board could have then noted which Democratic candidate had the most pros. (And awarded the most cons to Donald Trump.)
5
When the Times started the process several days ago, I said to myself, they are going to endorse Elizabeth Warren, but they should endorse Klobuchar. I say this as a conservative Republican who voted third party last time, because I considered both Trump and Clinton as disqualified. I bring my own bias to this, but I also bring a certain objectivity. I have to hand it to the Times Editorial Board, they surprised me, and they accomplished two imperatives at the same time. They catered to the liberal chattering classes who in my estimation coalesced around Warren months ago, and they gave a boost to the candidate who probably has the best chance of beating Trump--Klobuchar. I don't vote for candidates based on their gender, race, or ethnicity, but in Democratic circles it does not hurt that both Warren and Klobuchar are women.
Take my advice though, Warren has serious electability problems, especially after trying to ambush Bernie Sanders. Warren is not likable, and there is nothing sexist about that. Klobuchar is likable. Warren retains a grating pedantic attitude from her days as a teacher. That may play in hard-line "feminist" circles, but not with most of the country. Warren carries all the baggage of Sanders' wacky left-wing ideas, but lacks his charm and his authenticity.
9
@Charles So I guess I know what class I am a part of now: "the chattering liberals". I suppose I can now throw out "the aging working class electorate tired of working my fingers to the bone, only to see the rich getting richer on the backs of the middle class". Warren at least speaks to those of us who may not be college educated, yet do something that the rest of the "uneducated" country should be doing, and that's listen and read.
Many people are threatened by the "lower" class "chattering", because this is what can lead to real change--it's much easier to keep people quiet, inert and hoping that one day they too can get a piece of the pie. We are not your garden variety "far left" anymore, it is most of us, and unfortunately, most of us have too much fear of ourselves and what we can accomplish, or we are too busy protecting the little bits we have.
Klobuchar is more of the status quo; pat Democratic ideals that just spin and spin. we can go on like this forever, because if trump was elected, then someone worse can be elected, and the Dems will just create a a future of preventing, rather than inventing. Our elections will become just defensive wartime theater.
If Klobuchar can use the swing states as ammunition, maybe that's what we need. Both Warren and Klobuchar may have the persona of "the teacher that was hard on us", but Warren is more the teacher that went the extra mile and took a chance on us also. She gets my vote.
4
@duvcu If you admire Warren, you have every right to vote for her. I will grant you that she is whip smart, and many people see her as a champion for the "working class." But she is not very nice, and people see that. What she did to Bernie was underhanded, unkind, and backstabbing. Bernie would never have done that to her. She is not very honest. Granted she is not a liar on the scale of Donald Trump or a Clinton, but her entire claim to be Native American her entire adult life has been a fraud. She has actually claimed that her family recently faced discrimination because of their Native American status.
If Warren is your hero so be it, but Klobuchar is the more electable candidate for three reasons. In addition to being more likable, Klobuchar does not advocate radical solutions that scare most Americans. Most importantly, as you allude to, Klobuchar takes Minnesota off the table and puts Wisconsin in play. Most Democrats have told themselves so many myths about the 2016 election, they don't realize the overwhelming majority of the third-party vote was conservatives who could not stomach Trump and voted for Gary Johnson or Evan McMullin, who combined for almost 6% of the vote in Minnesota, while Trump lost by only 1.5%. If a large portion of last election's Johnson/McMullin vote comes home to the Republican Party, the Democrats are desperately going to need a candidate who can compete in the upper Midwest.
2
There seems to be no acknowledgement of Warren's serious lack of apparent sincerity in comparison to Bernie Sanders. Sanders may be brash and channeling the populist spirit of the country, but he is authentic. The man has been a staunch defender of the same opinions for his entire career.
Not only has Warren starkly changed her views over the years (which in my opinion, is completely legitimate) , her credibility is further damaged by her frivolous attacks on Sanders and her ridiculous attempts to garner attention, like her infamous 'Native American' stunt and her numerous faux pas on social media.
Who, except for her supporters, listens to her and finds her anything close to genuine?
9
Interestingly, the Times Editorial Board chose not to endorse the moderate over the progressive. But when I read between the lines in this article, Klobuchar comes across as most suitable for moving the country forward after four years of Donald Trump.
Despite her wonkiness, Elizabeth Warren is surprisingly engaging. Under normal circumstances, I would love to see how she performs in the role of President.
But these aren't normal circumstances, and Warren is polarizing. Like with Hillary, there will be voters who will vote for Trump as an anti-Warren gesture. I, for one, am not willing to take the risk.
If we are forced to make a choice between the two, I say, "Amy K, for 2020!"
5
The Time, as usual, shows its centrist tendencies. The only candidate who can truly push us towards the change that we need—the change we *must* have to preserve civilization as we know it—is Bernie Sanders. He's the only candidate who addresses climate change for the threat it is without trying to be incremental in his approach to it.
When will we wake up to acknowledge this threat for what it is? When the ice caps melt and our coastlines and lowlands are flooded, displacing a quarter of the world's population? When our agricultural lands become blighted deserts?
It takes true leadership to take things on before it's too late. While I would love to see a woman president more than anything, neither of your endorsed candidates are saying the right things when it comes to addressing this existential crisis.
10
@Chris How exactly is focusing on doubling the national budget for a non-climate-related idea (Medicare for All) "saying the right things".
Of all the candidates up there, the one I see as representing the least amount of change is Sanders. I think it's likely he'd take a staunchly non-interventionist approach to military commitments abroad, which would represent a major policy change (though, by definition, no change to the horrific human rights violations occurring in places like Myanmar, Syria, Xianjing, etc.). With domestic policy, however, where most of his powers would be limited to legislation, there would be no change because there is no way any of his policies get through Congress.
This would be true for Warren as well, but where his approach to regulation (where the Executive branch does have some non-legislative authority) would probably be based in a "good vs. evil" ideology, hers would be rooted in real (and effective) regulatory experience - she is the architect of the CFPB, after all.
Klobuchar, Biden, and Buttigieg all represent a more legislatively focused path, with some competence there for all of them. Biden, however, appears incapable of stringing together a cogent thought onstage, and it's all too easy to imagine Republican legislators walking all over Buttigieg by convincing him that he has convinced them. Klobuchar strikes a good balance between deal-making and line-holding.
All in all, two very solid picks by the Times.
2
@Chris
"He's the only candidate who addresses climate change for the threat it is without trying to be incremental in his approach to it."
That claim is beyond silly. Warren has adopted Inslee's climate plan. The vast majority of climate experts have endorsed Inslee's plan. Sanders has come up with his own climate plan. Most experts believe it won't do the job.
Here is one practical issue no one is discussing. If either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is elected president, he or she would be replaced with a Republican Senator. (The governors of Vermont and Massachusetts are both Republicans.)
That would make it extremely difficult to take the Senate majority back.
11
@MidtownATL
you have to get rid of that system.
Senators should be replaced with new ones from the same party. or independent.
1
Buttiegieg/Yang. One that has military, religious, middle of the country credentials, and the other who ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDS the economic problems we are currently facing. He is literally the only one who gets what is going on. It isn't immigration, it's automation.
9
@BibleBeltOfSantaCruz I love this combo!
1
@BibleBeltOfSantaCruz : I feel like I've been deemed Quixotic for liking Yang, but I do!
The NYT can pick whoever they see fit and endorse them. That comes with the privilege of being asked to do so by your employer. And in a Warren/Sanders dichotomy...Warren is in fact a better choice. As a side note, Bernie seems to have gained energy since his heart event and medical treatment. His mind and body do not seem to be failing to me, although I am not a supporter.
My opinion is that our domestic challenges in our country are far more pressing than our foreign policy ones. Having read the various candidates interviews, only Andrew Yang truly makes sense as far as speaking to the future. All other candidates seem to mostly be in a tug-of-war that only has two directions. All societies have had winners and losers, and raising the floor too high or the ceiling too low can devastate a country like the US that values the motivation of thinkers, individuality, and entrepreneurship.
Foreign policy issues require listening to advisors and perspectives for a President to listen to. Warren is more likely to not listen in my opinion, than the other candidates except for Bernie Sanders. The US relationship with NATO must change as we are past WW2. We can't afford to be Europe's defense budget anymore. Combat troops are on them and our 120,000 in Europe need to come home and downsize. Our outsized contributions to the UN are out of date. We can still "pay the most" and cut our overall UN dollars by billions annually.
A Klobuchar/Yang ticket might win.
4
It was the fall of seventh grade when I first learned the phrase: "government shutdown." NPR voices on the drive to school discussed the matter extensively. Ten days, thirteen days, sixteen days. I asked my dad what it all meant. Are you serious, the government can just... stop working? Then again January 2018, and then again, the longest in U.S. history from December 2018-January 2019. As I matured into an era of division, these moments left a lasting impression. It seemed the demoralizing exemplar of our nation's dysfunction.
As I wrestle with the decisions ahead, and my small first act of checking a box on a ballot, the temptation for cynicism looms large. For I, along with America's Generation Z, have known little but polarization and partisanship. Among the leaders at the table, who has the vision to knit together our nation once again?
An election season marked by identity politics misses the inconvenient truth that no candidate today has the perfect profile to heal a nation. The country has competing visions for the future of "their" America. My hope is this: in November, we are not electing an individual, we are electing a team. And The Times is right in considering Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren for the presidency not just by a measure of the voter base their identities can attract, but by the strategies they can leverage and the teammates they can call on to negotiate the challenges of our day. And of our government.
Voters, we have so much work to do.
3
The times have selected two very qualfied candidates to be the next POTUS. I have been impressed by the steadfast common sense of Senator Klobuchar and Senator Warren's thoughtful and earnest policies.I do not agree i 100 % with all her plans but it is refreshing to see a thoughtful politican think and reason instead of constantly tweeting. The next president will have more than enough to considering the wreckage of the current administration. Tonight as I watch MSNBC, McConnell's plan for how the Senate trial is to proceed is perhaps one of the best indicators that partisan politics has more than a stranglehold on our government. The stench from Trump's swamp is overwhelming. Whether it is Klobuchar or Warren, no matter which Democrat is the nominee at least they will bring to thier adminsitration the best qualified people to help run the various cabinet agencies. One year from today we will know whether we have a republic or a quasi fascist state dependent and subserviant to one person. It is not only important that the Democrats win the WH but keep the House and win the Senate. The grim reaper has to go for he is one of main enablers of Trump.
So disappointed in the editiorial. I could understand the logic of a dual endorsement, with one candidate from each of the polar philosophies being cited. And I also get the logic ascribed to the pick of Warren over Sanders from the progressive side of the ledger.
However, how can this editorial board be swayed by Klobuchar? She has twice played the gender card when cornered.
The first was an attempt to dismiss her unacceptable behavior toward staff members (the comb/salad incident) by claiming this would not have been an issue if a male boss was the perpetrator. Bullying tactics are wrong, no matter what gender the bully, and the fact that she can't own up to her acts indicates a severe character flaw, undesirable in a potential leader.
The second instance was her assertion that a woman with comparable credentials to Buttigieg would not be taken as seriously on the national stage. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether his qualifications merit one's vote.
The one paragraph dismissal of Buttigieg ("we look forward to him working his way up") was patronizing.
19
I am shocked, I say, shocked! to find the Times give a lukewarm endorsement to a somewhat progressive candidate, Warren. The election of Trump has had some beneficial effect among the Editorial Board.
Now, if they would only give Sanders equal time in the coverage...maybe that's a bridge too far. I would like one of the progressive candidates to become President, the Democrats to win control of the Senate and retire all the DINO's from the party leadership.
11
It's not just the fact that you threw your support to two candidates, which inherently undermines the point of an endorsement, that is disappointing people. If you're going to acknowledge the immense rift that has opened up in the democratic party between progressives and moderates and that their respective positions layout completely different futures for the US you absolutely cannot endorse candidates on both sides of that ideological divide. It's a nonsensical non-position to take and will do little if anything to help either candidate.
8
This may go down in NYT history as almost as crude, and almost as foolish, as the Anonymous Report from Inside the White House.
What people must do NOW is devise a strategy to unite whatever remains of the idealistic republic; and call it a United Slate for America. And I include moderate ex-Republicans.
8
You might have at least waited until the primaries were underway, or even the eve of the convention.
You endorsed Hillary Clinton before the Iowa primaries too, denigrated Bernie Sanders relentlessly the rest of the year, and cluelessly insisted right up to the night of the election that Clinton would win. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now, and an insult to Democratic voters.
The unctuous arrogance of the liberal professional class is unbounded, and you are it's smug, oblivious Bible.
22
Is this the first time that the NYT endorsed 2 candidates for the Democratic nomination for President?
Certainly it is the first time that they have endorsed 2 female candidates for President but could not make their mind which one.
This endorsement looks like that worst of decisions: a focus group approved, democratic, and carefully culture sensitive vote among the most woke and least woke.
Is their no one who can freely speak their mind in this benighted age?
Good grief!
14
Thank you NYT. Stand your ground. Good work. Agree on Amy!!
7
I need The New York Times to cover the news, not to try to be the news. Readers can make up their own minds as long as information is reported in a fair manner. How may I now trust the paper to do that when the bosses have decided to try to influence the upcoming primary election? Please keep your private opinions private.
13
@Jytte Klausen spot on!
Please! This is the Dems problem. Choosing ONE candidate. I only want the one, anyone really, who can win the election. I also like Amy, yet I am 10000% behind Warren as I see her as more possible of winning, yet, sadly, I don't see the USA ready for a woman. I made calls for her today, and I thought, NYT should help her with her "script" for the calls. NYT writers, if you support her, please get on board with that.
4
This is very amusing. Thank you NYTs!
3
I am soooo disappointed---if you can't agree, how can we??? I am also particularly disturbed by your brief and not serious dismissal of Buttegieg. He is the closest thing to Obama that we can have
Debby Delmer
Brevard NC
12
You say that like it's a good thing.
typical. so half-hearted. these women deserve better than 50% of your support.
1
My first comment -- a mildly expressed consternation that The Times was again mucking up its election coverage as it did previously by creating an echo chamber of Hillary smears that prompted an unprecedented mea culpa signed by the Executive Editor and Publisher -- didn't get posted I assume for lacking "civility", which I take is anything that says The Times is acting in bad faith such as this bizarre double endorsement.
Of course, most savvy readers will see through The Times' gambit of endorsing Warren and then throwing in a "safer" candidate -- Klobuchar -- as protective coloration because the Editorial Board lacks sufficient courage of conviction to endorse Warren without qualification.
The net result is a loss of reader confidence and diminution of The Times' credibility. A reasonable guess why might point at the 5 million new Times subscribers added since Trump's election that makes a lie of his mocking The Grey Lady as "failing".
Economically or from a business perspective it's logical for The Times to endorse Trump, who has single handedly reversed the steady decline of Times' readership.
Is it uncivil to suggest that?
If so, then "uncivil" has a new meaning: pointing out the Emperor's (or the Grey Lady's) fancy new clothes.
The Times' endorsement isn't an endorsement but a marketing move -- to attract younger, progressive subscribers (Warren) while appeasing liberals (Klobuchar).
I think The Times prefers 4 more years of the Trump bump in circulation.
13
I thought the point of an endorsement was to help voters decide? What did any of this accomplish other than page clicks for the NYT?
12
"Anybody but Bernie" = the New York Times in a nutshell.
17
I'm a loyal NYT reader, but don't depend on it, or any other news outlet to tell me who to vote for. I'm a "Vote Blue, no matter who" guy so will vote for Klobuchar in the primary, and whoever is the nominee in the general election.
5
What a cop out by The New York Times.
14
Having watched the Weekly I am even more confused as to how the Ed Board came up with the two Senators . There was a top 4 pick, one of whom Senator Booker dropped out. That left Warren Klobachar and Buttigieg.
Of the three in my view Pete Buttigieg was not only asked the toughest questions but he also had to endure the Mayo meme nonsense , the implication was made that his personality was bland, and he was too white .
I am wondering why none of the other candidates were put through what was akin to the Roasting Pete Buttigieg had to endure . More pointedly would there have been consequences to pay if one of the Women Senators was called bland to their face or Senator Booker was told he was too black.
15
The NY Times is afraid of change, truly solving problems, and moving in the right direction. So they embrace mediocrity in making their endorsement. Warren and Klobuchar, together running as a team (that's the real NYT endorsement), are not going to win a presidential election. Hillary won the popular vote. Warren and Klobuchar will not win the popular vote. Lets just assume they did win, they are too middle of the road to fix anything. We'll have more of what we've had for the last 40 years... can kicking. There is no more time for can kicking, or being afraid. We need someone who has the backbone to fix problems. Bernie Sanders is the only one who the moral compass to do that.
10
@Devo I spent some time researching what Warren and Sanders have actually accomplished. IMO, Warren gets things done. Sanders does not.https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2018 I discounted 2019 as both were campaigning.
I totally agree with the content of this piece.
I've been saying Sanders is a revolutionary who wants to overturn things and doesn't compromise. Warren's a fixer; she sees problems as the result of specific laws, regulations and remedies. And she will compromise if it gets her to the ultimate goal. In fact, she reminds me of FDR and his legislation that was so beneficial for the depression era America.
Her economic advisers, Emanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, in "The Triump of Injustice," make several cogent arguments on the necessity and feasibility of a wealth tax. In SF, we just passed a 2% increase on our property taxes to be used for the homeless here. And what is a property tax other than a wealth tax? Furthermore, if not the wealth tax, do we just keep squeezing the middle class?
I also think Warren's revised health care plan warrants a closer look. I'm a primary care physician and her plans for cutting waste, controlling drug costs with legislative carrots or sticks if need be and even government contracted drug manufacturing connects with many of my everyday frustrations and the gaps in health care that I see.
So yes, I absolutely agree Warren deserves the Times' endorsements. I just think she's a bit under rated here.
2
@citizen vox
Property tax is by no means a 'wealth tax'. Everyone pays, whether homeowner or renter. The only difference being either paying directly as a homeowner, or indirectly through rent, which includes an 'assessment' for property taxes. The only exceptions are some 'nonprofits', religious institutions (a big reason they are so wealthy), and people who live in non-taxable (usually rural and poor) areas of the country.
3
@irene
So you're saying property taxes are not wealth taxes because the tenant pays it. And if there are no tenants, then can the property tax be a wealth tax?
Wealth is something of monetary value that you own, making money from something you own means it isn't wealth?
Trump's Golden Towers are rented out; so his properties are not wealth? If so, then you could have a job as Trump's lawyer.
I can't figure out your logic.
The reason you have "broken with convention" and chosen two candidates is that you are trying to do anything but endorse Bernie Sanders -- even though you know, from many sources, including any number of polls, that Bernie is clearly "the democrats choice."
Why are you so determined that you will not endorse Bernie and support his nomination? What are you afraid of? You resisted Bernie in 2016 and now even more so. Would you rather see Trump re-elected than see Bernie elected? I think your answer is silently "yes" -- but why?
10
@bba
Answer, deep state says no Bernie for the same reasons they say no to Trump. No wild cards who can't be relied on to toe the line.
4
@bba I'm a Democrat. Bernie is not my choice.
2
@bba They give Sanders credit for making his ideas part of the mainstream conversation. That's not a small accomplishment. He's not my choice for president either, but I tip my hat where it's due.
While I agree that the choice to endorse two candidates is questionable I think that endorsing two very different women could have a positive effect on those who find it hard to envision a female president. I personally have a bias towards Elizabeth Warren and I think because of that I'm viewing this dual endorsement with the scales slightly tilted in Warren's favor. The points meant to be in Klobuchar's favor - bringing up her high approval rating in Minnesota and referencing John Kerry's surprising nomination success - for me these served as endorsements for Team Warren. The rest of America does not think the way a Minnesotan does and our current political climate in no way mirrors the year 2004. As someone who was deterred from supporting Amy Klobuchar as anything more than a senator due to the reports about how she treated her staff, I was slightly bothered by this article dismissing those stories first by not providing details and then again by trying to use feminism to erase the significance of those events. Finally, I believe the article could have served more as an endorsement piece in spending less time on the remaining Democratic field that they are not endorsing and focusing more on the candidates who voters have cast away such as Julian Castro, Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, and others. If the article devoted more time to these campaigns they would be able to analyze what appealed to voters. They could highlight the features that make these women the right pick.
1
So, "it's one for the money, two for the show." Seems The Times is hedging its bets, except for wanting a women. We, Democrats, still have to decide which one we want to put our money [aka donations and votes] on. Elizabeth Warren has been consistently 10-15 points higher in the polls than Amy Klobuchar who seemed so ill-at-ease and a bit obnoxious by butting in and always running over her allotted time at the last debate that I found her not very likable (as you noted in her treatment of her staff). Warren is bright, articulate, and passionate, but has the political albatross of a $22 trillion Medicare for All plan dragging her down. At this point, it's really hard to see either of them winning the nomination and uniting the party.
4
I follow the advice of the elevator operator on the endorsement episode of The Weekly. Like her, I believe beating Trump is a top priority.
4
I am sorry, but Klobuchar is not going to be elected the President of the United States and, for that matter, neither is Warren. Thank you.
23
Why not have them both at the ballot? Whoever wins the nomination picks the other as running mate. I'd say that would put your country to the test, and the Crystal ball says it might just work!
Early reports of Klobuchar being abusive to staff rules her out for me. She comes across as bitter, even on her best behavior. I don't like her.
I say Biden will be fine.
If you've got the taste for progressive (and you think the midwesterners do, too), then yes, Warren will be okay, but her nasty episode with Sanders in the last debate has me doubting her now, too.
Go with Biden. Get the criminal (enterprise) out of the White House.
Oh, and get rid of the electoral college. Otherwise, there's no hope for America. It will be just a matter of time before the minority pushes Trump II onto the majority.
7
A lot of commenters are taking the Times to task for not making a choice. Two things are being missed. First is that It's too early to maker a choice; all the Times is doing is saying who should definitely stay in the race. You may not agree with their choices, but that's beside the point. Second, this is a board decision. Obviously, the Board is divided and can't rally around one name. That tells you something about the Democratic vote at this point, and is useful information. Another possible reason for this "endorsement" is that the Times Board decided that, since there is no standout candidate in its opinion, why not simplify by restricting the choice to the remaining women, it being about time for a woman President. If you think there is a standout candidate who you feel confident can win (and you aren't a Trump supporter) that is whom you should support. The Board, however, is not collectively of your opinion.
1
@William Benjamin
If too early, then don't make a decision.
Just can't resist pushing people for what they are and not who they are.
No wonder that 40 plus percentage of the country doesn't even respect the paper or Democrats.
3
"Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another."
How did this sentence survive your pain-staking editorial process in analyzing these candidates?
How can you not see an advantage in having a President who is not racist, not a pathological liar, not a Putin sycophant, not a proponent of committing war crimes and pardoning war criminals, not bent on further dividing the country economically for political and personal gain, not a criminal, will try to address climate change, enforce environmental regulations, not disparage people with disabilities, not separate children from their families while promoting his own into jobs for which they era wholly unqualified, is relatively sane as not being an advantage? The list goes on and on.
As a still undecided voter, I have no problem with your calling out specific concerns with Sanders, but to include this sentence suggests, at a monumental time in our nation's history when we need cogent analysis from the 4th estate, the NYT editorial board dropped the ball, bigly.
The Times should issue an apology.
5
@rb
Cogent analysis?
Here is some cogent analysis.
Sanders cost the Democrats victory in 2016 and he will again in 2020.
5
@mattjr
Even if you are right (and let's not forget the DNC and Clinton putting in the fix) I still don't agree with kneecapping Sanders by comparing him to Trump.
And it is not because I am a supporter. (I recall mansplaining in 2016 to a young Sanders volunteer how she was wrong to support him and that there was no way Hillary could lose...
It's because whoever wins the nomination, I am going all-in--including Bernie. I promise to feel the Bern and look forward to 4 years of Larry David playing his Doppelganger.
5
@mattjr
Sanders didn't cost Democrats victory in 2016. Hillary Clinton did. Period. She was the one running against Trump. She was the one who lost to the most distasteful candidate for president in at least 100 years. When are you folks going to get over this?
And you call Sanders supporters a "cult"?
6
Three problems with NY Times co-endorsement. First, like the rest of national media they have been trying to will Amy Klobuchar campaign into existence. She’s never polled above 5%. They note mournfully other moderates were also not popular but learn no lesson from that.
NTiimes calls Bernie Sanders divisive & compares him to Trump. Then worries about his electability. Let’s note Trump won. Populism works but the elites hate it. More importantly, Bernie’s whole point is to bring people together, saying otherwise is comically counterfactual.
Main mistake of NY Tiimes is their absurd insistence bipartisan change is possible. That’s embarrassingly naive political analysis. GOP is 100% hooked on donor money, any compromise with them means by definition change will be tiny, useless & largely beneficial to donor class.
13
Dear Readers,
much to our chagrin, only a progressive can win in 2020. Your choices are Sanders or Warren. Nominate Biden and the election will be about Obama and Hunter Biden, not about climate change or income inequality. Amy Klobuchar cannot win the nomination but we endorse her to (1) show that we believe a woman is electable, and (2) steer centrist/conservative Democrats towards Warren.
Shrewdly,
The New York Times Editorial Board
4
Both Women are terrific and would make great Presidents; however, they don't stand a chance Nationally. We have to rally around Biden who may not be our first choice, but the one who could take on Trump and Win!!
7
@Philip W
Maybe the Biden of 10 years ago, but not the bumbling embarrassment of today. He's like an over the hill punch-drunk boxer trying to get back into the ring. It would be ugly.
6
@J.C. I am not a Biden supporter but in fairness to him I urge you to take the time to watch the Weekly and his interview. I believe you will agree that the punch drunk boxer failed to appear, instead an engaging politician well prepped with his answers showed up. I was impressed by Bidens performance and agree with Philip W he could handily beat Trump.
Elected together, save a nation. Place all other democratic candidates in positions to serve, we have a way to repair America. Thanks, NYTimes.
My money, though, has gone to Pete. But I'll vote blue, no matter who...
2
Warren is not the standard bearer for the Democratic left. No matter how hard the Times tries to press this falsehood it will not change reality or a single voter opinion. Sanders is the clear choice of the left.
Klobuchar is the choice of no one. Endorsing her s just a throw away. Biden is the choice of "moderate" Democrats.
The Times has accomplished nothing through this exercise beyond confirming lack of integrity and imagination.
Yang would be a bold choice. He has the clearest grasp of where we are today and the problems we will face in the near future. He has the most innovative, fresh, and promising ideas and plans.
Sanders and Biden represent the two entrenched sides of the party.
The rest of the field is irrelevant.
7
I have difficulty understanding why the NYT chose to endorse at this point. If it was going to endorse now, however, it should have endorsed the candidate it felt most qualified to win the democratic nomination. A fundamental question before the electorate is whether the democratic standard bearer in 2020 should be from the far left wing of the party or from the center of the party. It is shocking and deeply disappointing that the NYT's answer to this important question is "Yes, either one." The NYT has failed to make a true endorsement. I suspect that for many, this peculiar endorsement has created even greater confusion.
3
In reading over these comments, although I am pretty disgusted with both of the endorsement choices (and the fact that there were two to begin with), one common theme I disagree with is that neither of these candidates are capable of holding their own against Trump on the debate stage.
Trump is a malignant narcissist, which means he is ragingly insecure. He's also, how shall I say this, not very bright. Not very bright at all.
Although I won't say much else good about them, I do believe that both Warren and Klobuchar have the wherewithal to go out on the debate stage and not just dance circles around Trump, but land more than a few killer blows.
We've got years of documented evidence as to how he fights; either of these ladies is more than capable of putting that to effective use.
1
@Kristin but there likely will be no debates, Trump doesn’t need them
"Mr. Biden maintains a lead in national polls, but that may be a measure of familiarity as much as voter intention."
You actually argue that a substantial percentage of black and Latino voters only chose, and only keep choosing, Biden after all the debates and all of the press coverage of all of the candidates, because they aren't paying any attention to what is going on, and don't know who any other candidates are or what their positions are. It is indefensible. How is this not classism and bigotry?
The Times turned its latest endorsement process into a reality show competition, and then refused to even make a choice.
"We are rattled by the weakness of the institutions that we trusted to undergird those values".
Since Trump has taken office the Times has continually failed to recognize or accept that it is one of these institutions and it keeps hedging its bets as authoritarians destroy America.
I will vote for any of these candidates. Klobuchar and Warren are fine choices, and both should be highly regarded. However, The Editorial Board had a choice in this fraught political environment: Make a single pick, or none at all. This endorsement is akin to the Times cutting the baby in half.
A mere handful of people control the Times Editorial Board. Yet they could not agree, (or worse, did not believe it necessary to agree), on a single candidate to endorse. All this is does is exacerbate already existing divisions among Democrats, meaning it helps no one but Trump.
5
@Robert B
I agree. It's time for the media to stop under-selling Biden. He's earned his support.
The Democratic nomination isn't about policy. It's about character. It's about trying to heal the terrible wounds that Republican corruption, bigotry, stupidity and just plain malice have allowed to run rampant.
Elizabeth Warren is precisely the wrong person for such a task. For her, the campaign is about her ideas, her goals and her rhetoric. You'll get what she wants you to get, whether you want it or not. She simply does not listen and does not solicit input.
Amy is different, and would be both a soothing and healing influence, as well as a voice of reason and intelligence. (There seems to be no intelligence among Republicans.)
The Times fails miserably here in downplaying other possible choices, and so does us all a disservice. Mike Bloomberg combines so many of the attributes needed in national leadership today. Joe Biden, similarly, is a uniter and eschews divisive and inflammatory rhetoric such as Warren practices daily. The other candidates, similarly, are mostly moderate and would find a receptive country. (I omit Sanders intentionally.)
The Democrats would be wise to nominate someone who can appeal to people across the spectrum, and to avoid extreme rhetoric and policy-focused candidates. The presidency is about character, far more than it is about policy.
4
Klobuchar is in double digits in two new polls in Iowa released today. Will the impeachment trial arrest her momentum? She seems to finally getting a real look by Iowa voters. The NYT endorsement will help give her campaign the feel that Klobuchar is a top tier candidate. She got the endorsement of a Quad Cities paper, a Sanders paper in 2016. Too little, too late?
3
With its huge influence, readership, and reputation for journalistic excellence (as a/the leading U.S. "newspaper of record" for many years), it's so disappointing that the NY Times editorial board did not use this opportunity to bring focus and clarity to the most important criteria for our (Democrats') nominee: That we MUST focus on selecting a candidate who - based on the best available high-quality data/evidence - has the greatest chance of defeating Trump. Bloomberg (among remaining candidates) almost certainly best meets this criteria, but regardless, it's truly a missed opportunity not to have hammered this point home.
2
I'm disappointed in the NYT's decision to endorse. I've been a NYT subscriber for decades and no, I won't stop my subscription over this. But I thought about it.
I take reports of Klobuchar's abusive treatment of her staff very seriously. She had this reputation for years and was considered one of the worst bosses in the Senate as late as 2016. After Donald Trump, a fact like this should give every thoughtful voter pause. I've had enough of this behavior in the White House.
Warren's positions are too far left for the centrist states in the Upper Midwest that are critical to the electoral college vote. IMO, Warren actually opens the same path to an electoral college victory that Trump used to beat Hillary Clinton. Enough said.
I will not vote for either of these candidates in the primary, the NYT endorsement notwithstanding. I hope primary voters will assess candidates for themselves and then I believe we will come up with a good candidate for the Democratic nomination.
6
I don't think I've ever laughed out loud quite like I did to this article. Come on y'all, endorse a candidate. This is silly. If the democrats can't rally around a single candidate the election's lost. What this "endorsement" says is "we can't rally around a candidate". NYTimes: don't make this harder than it already is.
7
Welcome to the world of the two-heads-are-better-than-one school of politics. Unfortunately, the framers had another concept in mind for the presidency. You know what can defeat the Democrats in November? Ambivalence... about their field of candidates and the ultimate nominee. If the Editorial Board of the NYT can fall susceptible to this muddled thinking, then our hopes of defeating Trump have gotten that much smaller. What if no single candidate emerges from this scrum of debates and primaries with a clear plurality of delegates? We'll have a brokered convention and shred any notion of a united front against Trump. It will make the "hot mic" moment at the last debate look like a kindergarten episode (which it was, BTW). I don't have a obvious solution, but positing that a mashup of Warren and Klobuchar is anything but a distraction is absurd.
1
Fortunately, this atrocious endorsement will have very little impact.
Sanders still has the best odds: he leads in many polls and has the most dedicated ground game of any campaign in memory, which counts, especially in caucuses.
If he wins, watch the (even longer) knives come out.
We already see the effort to alarm the public over his "socialist dangers" and alleged (unsubstantiated) likelihood to lose to Trump pumping out of the major media outlets, whose shareholders must themselves be quite alarmed at Sanders' viability.
The HRC campaign in 2016 corrupted everything it touched and we are still living with the effects.
Warren seems to have killed her campaign by crying wolf in such a despicable (and obvious to most) manner. I wonder if she was gullible enough to think that Biden would give her the VP spot? This is the cherry on the top of her record for ill-considered purely political moves.
If one hangs around Hillary's coattail dust too long, apparently the psychopathy begins to accrete.
Elizabeth Warren is just another Bait and Switch candidate, aka "Hope and Change" Barack Obama, who followed every order that Wall Street handed down to him. That's just what 'responsible regulator' Elizabeth Warren would do, be it on domestic policy or foreign policy. And that's why the media conglomerates are so desperate to smear Bernie Sanders - they can see where this is going.
Amy Klobuchar?
Now, that's just insulting the intelligence of your readers.
12
I think the NYT editorial board really missed the mark with almost this entire process. Publishing the interviews was great, and the questions were for the most part serious. But this "double endorsement" is wimpy, and the reality-TV vibe ("wait for it... wait for it... watch our upcoming show to see!") is cheap.
I would not mind disagreeing with the editorial board on their pick. In fact, that could have been a fun debate! But this editorial just leaves me with disgust and disrespect for the board. Find some conviction.
I expected better.
5
First of all, It doesn't matter whether or not I disagree with your "best choices"- what matters here is the timing!!!! In the middle of the impeachment proceedings which have accentuated the sharp divide in this country (fyi definition: the everyday people are dealing with families and friends maintaining opposite points of view and trying to be calm) you have to do this NOW??? You couldn't give us a chance to see how this "trial or not-trial" happens which, believe or not, will help crystallize each point of view (no -witnesses mean not a "real trial" which is a very strong talking point for everyday discussions). Your endorsement was so important that it couldn't wait?!? Such total self-interest and self-involvement on the part of the Times does not bode well for its effects on the Democratic Party. You played into Trump's hands. And why does this remind me of your treatment of the Gulf War... Secondly, two candidates with very different approaches? This, too, is a big mistake but others have addressed this aspect far better than I can. Thanks a lot for adding to the confusion and/or the possible mayhem to come. Thanks a lot for nothing.
4
At least the art is good.
3
It appears that NYT's heart is with Warren and their head is with Klobuchar. Perhaps they recognize that the rising costs of elections gives large political donors the keys to our government. However the higher the costs of election, the more profits corporate media like NYT makes.
Warren purposed policy fixes to change the system, while Kloburchar is the big donor candidate who wants to keep the status quo. However for the country the greater good is better than the profitability of those who benefit from a rigged system.
1
I was taught "better" is used when comparing two people/things, not "best," which is used for three or more. So when the Times uses "best" twice (including "May the best woman win.") when "better" would be correct, does that mean the rest of their endorsement is suspect, too? H-m-m.
When standing on the lip of a deep, deep chasm that must be crossed, one can either:
a) Make a running jump, risking everything in hopes of a successful leap, or
b) Jump halfway across.
The NYT has chosen option (b).
6
Since I'm against decriminalizing illegal border crossings, free health care for illegal immigrants and free college for everyone, if it came down to these two, I would have to vote for Klobuchar.
5
Thank you, NY Times Editorial Board ! I fully agree !!
May November, 2020, bring a most needed, and positive change for American Politics.
Our Nation cannot continue going down the course it is currently on. From Trump's dumping of any Environmental Protection; his dumping of the Nuclear Weapons Accord, his 100% illegal actions in Ukraine, his bullying, groping and then bragging about it all - enough.
Trump's voter demographic must enjoy an ignorant school yard bully for their "leader". I'd prefer having real President, and one who is a TRUE Public Servant.
I watched the editorial show last night and it appeared more like an episode of the Bachelor than a thoughtful process from what I envisioned. But beyond that, the arrogance of the editorial staff is why Trump was elected so congratulations as whoever the nominee is, Trump will be sure to use your "show" in any ads. I'm surprised that your paper still doesn't get it or maybe does not want to
4
I see another four years of Trump ahead.
6
Ask Klobuchar about PolyMet, Twin Metals and coppers sulfide mining in Minnesota. I would rather not vote than vote for her. I don't know anyone in Minnesota that supports her and I know people who support almost every other option (including Trump).
Here's a great Minnesotan riposte to the Editorial Board's endorsement:
http://www.citypages.com/news/new-york-times-vote-for-klobuchar-unless-you-dont-want-to/567135041
7
@Me It's too bad she has those in other states fooled that she is a good candidate. I can't understand why she does not switch parties, but maybe she is afraid she will lose as a republican in MN. She certainly does not act like a democrat and we won't ever vote for her again.
5
This is de facto endorsement of Donald Trump.
The NYT -- one of the most influential newspapers in the world -- has just said, in effect, "On the one hand, Republicans solidly support Donald Trump. But the NYT endorses TWO Democrats. Ergo, we are encouraging a split vote and more turmoil among Democrats."
TWO endorsements is no endorsement at all. I have never been more disappointed with the Times editorial staff than I am today. This isn't an endorsement of
a Democrat, or even two Democrats: it's a de facto endorsement of Donald Trump by devious means.
5
Bad! Why must The NYT stay so cautious and careful in these perilous times?
As our democracy gets broken, the US is less free/fair, more partisan, dominated by money?
And with lower economic mobility compared to our own better past generations and today's other advanced nations?
Then, the NYT blames 'society'? What a cop out.
But who sets the standards of what is 'radical' or realistic'? It's obviously the ripple effects from corporate mega donors who make politicians dependent on them to run for office!
The media is so proud of our famous 1st Amendment protections from exlicit govt censorship. But our media is subject to other pressures that keep it within narrow parameters, and block progress.
Centrist and manipulative candidates like Amy K will be lots better than Trump. What a relief! But we sure deserve better.
How many more elections for HC for All, NYT? To paraphrase Dr. King on this holiday--- How long, oh Lord, how long?
Will it be 2024/28 or beyond--- before the US can ever live up to the international standards of other capitalist democracies, who prioritize citizen health/life over private profit?
Who don't prioritize gun maker profits over citizen safety?
Who don't call it 'big govt interfering in Freedom' to have govt be more responsive to the public interest?
When will you stand up for what the colonists demanded when they overthrew King George & his aristos--- true Representation for our Taxation? For modern times.
Too 'radical', NYT?
Well, at least we know now to whom Warren will throw her votes when she withdraws from the race. Thanks for the intel, Times.
1
The Times' is pro-woman! We get it. You receive your gold stars from gender studies graduates everywhere! Sorry that there were no token people of color for you to register your virtue signaling.
Now, I can ignore your editorial, and vote for whom I support. Thank you, Times, for pushing me further to the middle.
6
@sansacro
Exactly! Excellent, sansacro
3
Never thought I be suggesting that the NYT editorial board was a bunch of sexists...
So the women have to share the spotlight because sharing is caring! Yay! And yay their a team!
All that rugged individualism is just for men.
Guess one woman isn't enough to get the job done - gotta have two.
3
It appears you refuse to believe the obvious, likely out of fear; the military psychlops C.I.A. runs television and they control the minds of voters, and they don't want a wimp that will limit their empire. They want Trump, so until you acknowledge that reality, you're losing for lack of educating the public because my obscure comment will only be read by a few who won't care or believe, until after the election when the evidence is obvious.
1
By the logic of this article, the New York Times would never have endorsed any of the figures who positively changed the course of history, including Gandhi and Martin Luther King. There are times when courage is needed, this, or any other time for that matter, seems never the right time for the Times' editors. Still, we can take some solace with their half-hearted endorsement of Ms. Warren.
2
There seems to be some sort of slowdown (or worse, limit) here in terms of new comments.
What's going on, NY Times? I have admittedly commented a lot but each is discreet, focused on a certain issue, and addressing different points of view. And I don't believe, given the gravity of a major newspaper endorsement for President, that TPTB have simply decided that keeping up with submitted comments is not a good use of their time and energy.
2
As most here have already commented, this is a cop-out of the worst kind. Which is NYT - were you reluctant to endorse Klobuchar because her poll numbers are so low, or reluctant to endorse Warren because you just can't go as far as admit the system is broken?
1
It seems that the NYT seems to be more preoccupied with shaping public opinion (and perhaps, by extension, campaign contributor money) rather than simply reporting the news? Please tell me how this makes the NYT materially different than the Fox News echo chamber that is castigated for picking favorites because those individuals advance their message?
3
In a move to underscore how inexperienced and out of touch with America it is, the Times' Board has run frightened into a lack of clarity and a lack of objectivity.
On the other hand, it very much parallels the day-in-day-out pieces it publishes.
2
Oh, the hilarity of the NY Times, who have fully participated in sowing discord by continually dissing and dismissing progressives, now calling Bernie Sanders "divisive". Comedy gold.
3
Tickets, get your tickets: the art of the sell: Biden/Klobuchar. Biden/Harris.
Biden/Booker. Biden/Pete. in that order.
I used to respect this newspaper.
To me it was the greatest example of professional journalism and I compared all other papers to it.
Today it sadly appears totally out of touch with what is happening in the US and is obviously controlled by the 1% who are finally waking up to stare at a revolution in the face.
I would have ended my subscription long ago except for comments -- and the crossword.
Now that the majority of my comments are routinely censored I'm ready to cancel my subscription ASAP.
And I just love being told who I should vote for!
The American people are tired of the same empty promises. We want real change and real truth.
Thanks for reminding me that it's time to give Bernie some more money.
Don't give up, Berners!
Look at all these comments in his support.
Apparently the revolution will not be published--at least not in the NYT!
Feel the Bern!
6
By endorsing two candidates with no chance of securing the nomination, the Times furthers its slide toward irrelevance. Mystifying.
2
We're not supposed to discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, religion, skin color, being differently abled or overweight but it's okay to say Bernie is too old? I guess ageism isn't an ism at the NYT.
5
Readers who have not yet seen Jennifer Rubin's comments on this piece should hop on over to WaPo. She nails it.
1
Well you got one thing right; Elizabeth Warren sure is a good story teller. Like fairy tales they are...
But let's face it, keeping Trump in office is in the NYT's best interest. He is a magnetic personality and superb communicator, as well as a coarse, divisive and immature man. In short, we cannot take our eyes off of him. He provides the media with a 24/7 stream of front-page news and fodder for your specialty of foaming-at-the-mouth opposition liberal editorials. He is your gold mine.
So, we understand your bifurcated endorsement of Klobuchar and Warren as evidence that there is not a single Democrat candidate engaging enough, or electable enough to beat Trump. While this is probably true, it is disappointing that your editor in chief won't even try to pretend better about identifying a single credible Democrat standard bearer. This amounts to no real endorsement at all.
4
Why stop at two? Why not make an argument for each of the others as you did for the disparate Warren and Klobuchar and endorse all who interviewed with your editorial board?
2
A negative Ion like Trump requires a really highly charged electron to cool his jets. It's a Coal thing. Of the two you recommend, only Warren has the guts to counter Trump. She can bark right back at him, and you know he deserves it.
oh boy... can't wait to hear the newly announced and associated podcasts from the NYT editorial board. Starting with Bernie titled "When Bernie Sanders Came to Visit". "tune in to the bonus deliberation episode, below, to hear the board’s reaction to this interview". The title should be "When Bernie Sanders Came to Visit: An Exercise in Marginalization". Ya know... give it a more contemporary type of title.
This makes me want to barf.
Go Bernie!
3
What a wonderful ticket Warren and Klobuchar would make together! Both are dedicated to the little guy. Both are practical, highly experienced, and intelligent. Neither takes any support for granted. I'm truly thrilled with your endorsements.
1
Why? Why now? This is very unfair to these two candidates who are senators and will be jurors in Trump's impeachment trial, which is their first constitutional duty. The Times should have waited to endorse these Democratic candidates, or any other of the Democratic candidates, until after the trial. This shines a political spotlight on them that is completely inappropriate and unnecessary at this time. I'm astonished at the lack of thought that went into this decision.
I prefer Amy Blobucher over Elizabeth Warren. Even though i feel Elizabeth Warren is the sharper of the two, Amy is the one who has a heart, soul, and wants the best for all people. She has a warmth that seems almost to glow. It's not fake. You either have or you don't.
3
Pete Buttigieg is the new guy on the block with the funny name who has just rode into Dodge on a big white stallion to help the townspeople defeat Trumpism.
He’s young, with plenty of appeal to moderate, conservative. forward-thinking voters who are desperately looking around for someone to represent them.
Plus he’s a bright Midwesterner who looks good in a suit and a tie, a consummate speaker and a family and military guy.
The decent, normal human being Trump never was, and never will be.
His lacking greater experience in Washington should not be a deal breaker for anyone.
In fact, it's an asset.
His experience as a Mayor outside the degrading political atmosphere of Washington D.C. is far more relevant to what the country needs now.
He will totally decimate and dismember Trump in the debates, assuming Trump even summons up enough guts to show up for them, which is doubtful.
The country is in urgent need of a straight shooter who will bring a fresh deck of Ace playing cards to our politics.
Someone capable of taking a hard look at our divisions and problems and can give us the thorough makeover and housecleaning we urgently require.
Obama was black for eight years and Mayor Pete will be gay for eight years.
So what?
9
@A. Stanton
Agree. The facile dismissal of Buttigieg is a grave error in judgement. Wisdom does not come from poll-squeezing.
Sometimes it comes from watching people's faces as they listen to him. A leap of faith that is grounded in reason but also values what intuition hears.
The ability to trust is what we're losing, and what Buttigieg can help us begin to reverse. He spent decades voraciously learning about the world and how best to serve it. He earned his place on the path that brought him here.
If we're capable of faith in America, we'll cross the finish line with Pete.
In a time when American media is trusted so little for impartiality, the Times decides to publicly endorse not one but two presidential candidates? This violates every ethic and history of practice journalism is supposed to represent.
Deeply disappointing. Now, when the Fox News attacks the New York Times as liberally biased you have now succeeded in proving them right.
4
Considering the Republican candidate, I can state with some assurance that I'd vote for a deer tick if it ran as a Democrat. But I don't think either of these women is qualified to be president. We need someone who has had command experience in combat, not merely in arguments. That would make a few women eligible to run for President, but not Warren or Klobuchar. I'm not thrilled with any of the current Democratic candidates, although I'd vote for Buttigeig, Gabbard, or McGrath if she were running for the White House. The arrogance of the DNC in 2016 lost the White House when they gave Hillary supporters several hundred votes to one vote each for the Sanders delegates to the state convention (I was one of them). At that point, has the Republican candidate been almost anyone but Trump, I'd have voted Republican. If Trump gets a second term, I predict a class war in this country within a decade.
2
If Joe Biden wins the Democratic nomination, I'd like to propose a campaign slogan for him:
Biden: Our Time
Because that is what his presidency would be, biding our time. I will certainly vote for him if he is the nominee, as that is far better than the alternative.
6
An endorsement of two candidates for the same job is a non-endorsement that serves only as an anti-endorsement against the other candidates.
This seems a gambit to boost the campaigns of two candidates of dubious electability, neither of whom enjoys a ranking in the polls that puts her comfortably above Trump's ranking, particularly in view of the margin of error.
Additionally, this hands a rhetorical cudgel to the Trumpists, who will certainly seize upon this endorsement as evidence of blatant bias by "the Fake News mainstream media."
As Matt Laslo observes, public trust in news organizations has been plummeting, with nine in 10 Republicans telling pollsters of the James L. Knight Foundation that they don't trust the news media. This wrongheaded endorsement will only confirm those Americans in their dependence on Fox News and Russian-infested Facebook pages and Twitter threads. Is that what we want?
I'd rather have a woman president. Alpha males cause most of the needless misery in our world. But I don't want to nominate a woman who can't win.
Sen. Klobuchar was my first choice. But her campaign just hasn't gotten any traction. Her support among minorities is weak. As for Sen. Warren, from the beginning I've seen her as one of the least-likely candidates to win a general election. Trump's campaign is sitting on a wealth of ammo they can't wait to use against her.
This endorsement surely buoys partisans of the two senators; but it helps the Trumpists most of all.
11
A good part of the country mistakes the Democratic focus on policy and process as being indecisive, wishy-washy and weak. And the NYT, in an indecisive and wish-washy way, endorses two candidates. And these two candidates share not much except common DNA. Thanks guys. Great help.
Choose Klobuchar, choose Warren...but for G-d’s Sake make a choice! This just isn’t helpful. Decide on a progressive thoughtful policy wonk, or a centrist get things done pragmatist. But choose!
6
I am not disappointed by today's NYT editorial board endorsements. I appreciate the board's delineation and description of the different paths the two candidates represent. As an American citizen and voter who pays close attention, I believe I am fully capable of making up my own mind about the better candidate.
3
I understand the "electability" argument. But it's a cowardly argument. Mr. Sanders offers a progressive vision of America. I sometimes think he might be the FDR of our time. We tried to have a middle of the road candidate last time--Hillary Clinton. And it did not work out. Trump and Republicans offer a dystopian vision of America. If progressives are going to fight against the dystopian vision, let's have that fight now. If progressives want to legalize abortion, let's have that fight now. If progressives want "medicare for all", then let's have that fight now. If progressives want radical solutions for "climate apocalypse", let's do that now. If progressives want to pass ERA, then let's have that fight now. Let's not wait for another four years when we won't even recognize America any more. If the progressive vision is to survive it will survive now. The time is now to have that fight--not wait for four more years. And if it isn't to survive so be it.
I would rather have that fight now than worry about "electability". I would rather fight now with all we got with Mr. Sanders than choose another middle of the road candidate who will buckle under Trump's attacks.
I would rather go out with a bang than live whimpering for the next four years.
If majority of the country doesn't want to be progressive, then so be it. But let's find out now. And I have a feeling that majority of the country does want to be progressive and does support a progressive vision of America.
13
@John D
"We tried to have a middle of the road candidate last time--Hillary Clinton."
Her policies and ideas were more socially progressive than St. Bernie's were. That's cause his was on economic progressivism. Being wrong from the get-go doesn't auger well for the rest of your comment.
3
@John D the FDR of our time if FDR's track record was merely that of a socialist mayor of a podunk town in a podunk state who will divide and not unite.
1
If you are implying the two should run as a team, it won't be received well. I understand the idea of a team comprised of a champion of the people and a prosecutor serving justice, but what justice? More Garners?
2
I have a hard time even reading the comments here. It seems the electronically adept & vocal Bernie Bros are at it again with their Bernie or Bust negativity overwhelming this section.
31
@rumcow They did the same thing in 2016 whenever there was an article including Hillary and Bernie.
5
@rumcow
If people are too fragile to tolerate other people disagreeing with them then, yes, maybe it's a good idea to stay away.
6
@rumcow Amen!
I've read several comments to this editorial that basically take the position that the New York Times' double endorsement is the problem. It's "disappointing" some say.
And that is my problem with those of progressive and/or centrist persuasions: the constant bickering and fighting over candidates and opinions of, for example, the Times.
Some of those complaining loudly about this editorial didn't even mention Trump.
The division and lack of focus weakens the Democrats and strengthens Trump.
Like who you want. Support who you want. But please focus on the ultimate goal. Is there anyone in the Democratic Party who seriously wouldn't vote for Amy or Elizabeth if either one became the candidate, and would vote for Trump instead?
The only thing that matters is voting Trump out.
6
@Marc ...and the split endorsement solves that problem how? NYT could have just said "The threat to American democracy that this administration represents is too great that we will forgo our traditional primary endorsement this year. We feel it is instead more important to commit to supporting whichever Democratic nominee emerges from the primary process..."
6
@Marc
Yeah, they're lame because Trump and the GOP will crush them like grapes. No one on the left will support a DINO like Biden anymore. Bernie is the only choice and only one who can defeat Trump and counter the GOP.
1
@citybumpkin
This is a pointless argument. It is not the Times' responsibility to choose for us. It is not the times responsibility to "solve that problem".
And once again, Trump wasn't even mentioned.
That is the core of my frustration. The time spent on the Times' opinion, as if they are supposed to tell us what to do when we are in the voting booth, says that we can't think and choose for ourselves.
It's just an endorsement. One among hundreds if not thousands from the media. The fate of America is not dependent upon it.
2
Brilliant! The Times makes its case for the double endorsement so well. Elizabeth is our liberal champion from Massachusetts; Amy is a much-needed, experienced asset from the battleground Midwest.
If Elizabeth wins the nomination, I hope she reaches out for ticket balance to an intelligent, gay, Midwestern, next-generation, military veteran who just happens, at the present time, to be unemployed.
The most important thing that every patriotic American can do is to get behind the eventual Democratic nominee and vote with a vengeance in November. Don't count on profiles in courage from Republicans during the impeachment trial. Do count on Mr. Trump continuing to terrorize us until 2021.
9
@Chevy I also want her to pick Buttigieg if she is nominated, but I think Julian Castro is fighting hard for the post. And he would also be a great choice.
@Chevy
Lol! The Dems will lose everything with a ticket like that. They'll be utterly annihilated. Get out of fantasy land and back to reality.
3
@Chevy I suspect that Mayor Pete crossed Warren off his Christmas card list when she castigated him for his wine cave full of crystals attack in the December debate and he retorted that her claim donor purity is false due to the fact that she has filthy lucre from senatorial campaign. Julian Castro would be Warren's more likely VP pick given his demonstrated fealty to her.
1
45th will swallow them both, together. This impeachment saga is a blessing in disguise. Trump will win, whoever Democrats chose to confront Trump. And he will sworn in for last time exactly one year from today. Viva Trump.
2
@Trevor Diaz Other than the "Viva Trump" part, I reluctantly concede that you are probably right.
3
Very wise endorsement. A woman nominee definitely is needed to entice women of both parties who disliked Hillary, who arguably won anyway. Fear that a woman can't win is misplaced.
Trump has a tough time dealing with women The great example is Nancy Pelosi, who's way ahead of him at every turn. People are upset with the break from traditional one-candidate endorsement. If there's any election justifying breaks with tradition it's this one against an egomaniac who has trampled all norms.
The Times is proposing a progressive vs. centrist. Hopefully their voters will unite after the primaries. Maybe better, put both women on the ticket.
4
@Charles Beggs - Why do you assume that a woman "is needed to entice women"? That is tantamount to saying that most women are sexist when it comes to their choice of nominee.
As a woman, I find that kind of thinking to be extremely questionable.
4
Not sure why the NYT chose to endorse now ... they'll no doubt re-endorse either the Republican or Democratic standard-bearer post primary season.
To the subject of who the NYT endorsed - Elizabeth Warren is a fine, fine senator but does not have the calming leadership qualities that the nation needs. She seems perpetually angry and is constantly lectures..people don't like being lectured any more than they like a President who insults others. I appreciate her fabulous work to protect consumers. Just don't think she is chief executive material.
Sen. Klobuchar is a pragmatic, sensible and more calming voice. Tremendous potential and could be a workable VP. Her demeaning treatment of staff, however, is troubling. Leaders should build up their team.
8
I think what the Times editorial board has done is silly and it demeans the paper and the board. The board should simply have made a list of all those candidates who should drop out if it didn't want to endorse anyone. This is not an endorsement.
It should be noted that , if Trump is the Republican candidate, he will win regardless of whom the Democrats nominate. He will use all the resources available to him, ethical and unethical, to destroy his opponent. He will have been vindicated by the Senate and he will be successful again.
The two most important projects are winning the Senate and encouraging the Republican Senators to vote to convict. Our democracy is at risk and we are not being strategic about how to save it. Clearly we are not likely to be able to convince the Senate to convict, so our most important objectives are winning the Senate and maintaining the majority in the House. The White House is secondary.
7
Once upon a time an endorsement by the Times actually meant something of significance. Then again, once upon a time concepts such as civility, open-mindedness, perspective, humility, the common good, nuance, respect, decency, and American meant something of significance. Sadly, that is no longer the case, and the current occupant of the White House, as much as he might like to think that he is the cause our current sociopolitical dysfunction, is merely an effect of the breakdown of meaningful standards and approaches to maintaining a healthy society.
9
The ball is now in the court of these two courageous women now. How will they work together and who would they bring on board as the larger executive branch team?
Actually, the men and women that sign on to their executive branch team staff is the key. I predict everyone but Biden and Sanders will join enthusiastically.
6
@Anne Amy Klobuchar has a dreadful reputation for managing people, to a point where the NYT Ed Board found that they needed to address this with her. Why do you think she will be able to hold an executive team together for 4 years.
1
Why endorse at this point in the race? If the board could not make a single, compelling, understandable choice why not just state that instead? Giving each of the candidates a brief run-through was interesting, but offering two endorsements with the rationale of diverging images of the future seems to mirror the horror many of us feel: If the Democrats and Independents do not get one, solid, not too far left, right or autocratic candidate in place solidly and quickly, the current cult in charge gets 4 or more years to destroy what is left of decent, sane governing in this country.
7
At the end of the endorsement show, the editors were asked to vote for their first and second choice of candidates. The top vote recipients were Booker, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Warren. Booker has dropped out.
If they were going to go with multiple endorsements they should have selected all remaining top 3:
Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Warren.
4
The fact the Editorial Board can't even endorse a single candidate seems to be emblematic of this primary season. Too many Democratic politicians have caught White House Fever and seem to place their personal ambitions over the needs of the country.
In fact, what is the value of this split endorsement? We can't split our votes. You might as well have not published an endorsement at all, and simply say the editorial board will endorse whichever nominee emerges to run against Trump. After all, this editorial board has published often enough about the kind of threat Mr. Trump represents for American democracy. That might have been of more value.
7
@citybumpkin
Maybe the board thought that it was stronger to have a team. Why choose a one when you can choose a team that is double the benefits. Most VPs are ineffectual. Why is that?
Cheney, the man behind the curtain, was the only exception and that cost the US dearly. Bush 11 was the VP and the ineffectual one. Jeb would have been better.
It's not a split endorsement — it's a team endorsement. Imagine what those two would do to fill out the executive branch larger team? Maybe we can move beyond the anti-social society we have sustained for too long too ill effect.
3
@Anne “Why choose one...?”
Because that’s what voters have to do. Does the ballot of your state allow you to vote for a “team” in the presidential primary? That would be news to me.
1
@Anne - The Times has no interest in endorsing a "team." They chose two diametrically opposed candidates who have nothing in common except their gender, and said "May the best woman win."
That is not only NOT a remark calculated to bring two sides together, but it is the remark of an institution that has decided to endorse sexism as a completely acceptable status quo.
2
Having just watched The Weekly's "The Endorsement," I can only thank the New York Times for this stunning piece of journalism.
It was incredible to watch as your Editorial Board asked each remaining candidate pertinent questions. I was impressed with how each candidate was personable in their own way.
As much as it pains me to say this, your choices for the two female candidates, Senator Klobuchar and Warren are the correct choices for your endorsement. The male candidates don't seem to have as finely tuned a concept of how to move forward to help our country, as the women do.
Much will be said and written about your endorsement, but based on what I viewed and the candidates responses, the only path forward for the Democratic Party is to pick one, or both of these women for their 2020 Presidential ticket.
Kudos to the New York Times and The Editorial Board for one of the most important and interesting pieces of journalism I've seen in years.
8
@Pamela L.
Both. We haven't fared well with top-down dictators that make unilateral decisions based on donor contributions.
Time to break that hold on our leadership?
1
If I could have my way, These two wonderful, educated and strong women would be elected together, share responsibilities and run this country the way it should be, with liberty and justice for all.
6
C'mon, guys. This is like splitting the baby. Other than the fact they are both women, they couldn't be more far apart policy-wise and ideologically.
Klobuchar is Hilary Clinton Lite. And look how that ended up in 2016. My read on the dual endorsement is that Warren probably won, but her progressive policies and plans wouldn't square with the Wall St. readers with whom you curry favor. So you endorsed both, which is the same as endorsing neither, IMO. They cancel each other out.
Warren is the candidate who will energize the base, particularly if she opts to choose either Castro or Harris as her running mate.
We should all vote "blue no matter who", but now is not the time for fence-sitting.
10
@Sabrina … I agree. We should all rally around Bloomberg because he has the know-how and the money to beat trump!
@Sabrina "blue no matter who"
I despise Trump but will not vote for president at all if Democrats nominate Klobuchar. I won't vote for a VP Castro either for similar reasons!
Castro attacked VP Biden viciously during a debate. It was so vicious I found it a major turn off. Never Castro!
Klobuchar seems to be mean spirited as well. I did not like her attack of Mayor Pete, she's reported to have thrown a binder at staff (and she didn't deny it), she berated another staffer for not have a fork for her salad which she then ate with a comb and told the staffer to go clean it, and she is No. 1 in the US Senate for staff turnover rate.
It's not only not presidential, it's not acceptable managerial style for any job at any level. She creates a hostile work place by being abusive to employees.
We've had enough mean and demeaning attitude from the current White House. I don't want anything to do with that again. Never Klobuchar!
2
@NY Times Fan I’m pretty confident Klobuchar will not be the nominee. She’s too far behind. But if by some miracle that happens, we cannot afford to sit out this election. Hold your nose and vote, like I did for Clinton in 2016. Staying home ensures 4 more years of Trump. I’m not her biggest fan by any stretch, but she still runs rings around the current POTUS.
The editorial board is directing us on how to vote. The fact that the board points out how Mr Sanders has been right on numerous issues and has lead the democratic party to embrace many of their current positions isn't that important. Age, health and divisiveness are the reasons we shouldn't vote for Bernie. Once again you can't hear the people, because you are to busy listening to yourselves talk. Help me understand how you can endorse two candidates with such different viewpoints? What is most clear from this choice, is the anti Bernie sentiment most net-libs in this country have toward Mr Sanders. Good luck and be well.
15
My question is "Can they win?"
In the piano or violin contest, musicians who hit the right notes and earned the highest score win but very often they are not the winners in the real music world.
Academic analysis lacks the emotion of the people.
Look Trump. He will never be a winner at a presidential competiton if judged by academic judges.
Democrat candidates are all thoughtful and intelligent.
What they need are "strength and power" and "It factor" to pull through the conflicts and adversaries.
Just being nice won't cut it.
8
@uji10jo true … Bloomberg is the only one who can beat trump!
2
@Rev Bates I agree.
I thought the approach to the endorsement was brilliant. The editors are right. This primary is a referendum on the contest underway in the party. I appreciate the board's respect for this contest as well as its careful delineation of each candidate's strengths and weaknesses. But I'm not sure I want to read the comments because I fear most of them will be from readers unhappy with the Times's conclusions and, more specifically, from Sanders supporters outraged by its argument. (The article is right. Sanders is a divisive figure and has been since 2016.) So I'll give it a try and if it becomes apparent that only the disgruntled have commented I'll read another article to read in the paper of record.
5
@Annie I'd argue that the divisive figure, or more precisely, figures are the DNC showed demonstrated contempt for Sanders during 2016 (see hack of the DNC emails).
Sanders vigorously campaigned on Clinton's behalf after she secured the nomination. He did 52 campaign events in 14 different states.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/bernie-sanderss-hard-fight-for-hillary-clinton
1
The economy, environmental reform and health care reform. That's it. These are the most pressing issues.
2
Ok I confess to say that I am annoyed that you did not endorse Pete Buttigieg is an understatement . Especially as his age and what was seen apparently as his lacking in experience was a factor in your decision making process. The same argument was made against President Obama arguably one of the best Presidents this country has seen in decades.
Se getting to the two Senators that you selected Warren and Kloubchar they are a mile apart politically, though they do seem to like each other at least on the debate stage. However on Senator Warrens two main proposal, Free College, and Medicare for All they disagree on in major ways. I still can not wrap my head around why Senator Kloubchar is so opposed to Senator Warrens Free College for all, paid for by taxing the wealthy. But in Senator Kloubchar's mind the wealthy will not benefit for the program they are 'paying for' and would be expected to pay for their kids to attend College. That seems to me a little unfair. In Europe where these programs abound 'all taxpayers qualify for all benefits , that to me makes sense.
That all been said either woman would be way preferable to the current occupant , so if they end up the nominee I will be supporting them.
Thank you for an interesting series of interviews, I look forward to watching The Weekly, perhaps I will get a better understanding of how you wound up with selecting 'two women both Senators'.
Reply1 Recommend
3
@Alec
Pete is cute as a button and articulates in a mesmerizing gentle voice — but who would work for him on what issues, he hasn't any strong signature issues? It's the team, silly. Who can hire and retain a strong team that each lasts for 4 years minimum?
Bernie is cool but has no coalition either. He has always been an attractive angry loner that has ideas that may be good but they are limited and he is a lone wolf. He isn't a Democrat but he demands the democratic party vote. That should tell you something. His health is compromised. He was most surprised he had a heart attack. My mother was in denial as well when she had age issues.
Liz and Amy can build the team and give the team the strength to accomplish a great deal for the 90%. Which in turn enriches everyone. It's a non-zero-sum solution that we need to achieve. Trickle-down never worked as advertised. Trickle up likely will improve our lives immeasurably. Liz and Amy will build our best team.
3
@Anne I seriously doubt Pete Buttigieg or for that matter most of the Dems running will have any problem in attracting people to work for them if they get elected president.
The current Occupant had that problem 'still does actually' which is why we remain in this living hell.
Part of what Mike Bloomberg is all about is he refuses to play by other people's rules. And that's why I believe he will be our next president. Here in Wisconsin we're seeing very effective Bloomberg TV ads 24x7, leading up to our presidential primary on April 7. But he has declined to engage much if at all in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, as his rivals knock themselves out to contend for the handful of delegates from those tiny states. (Wisconsin, although hardly a big state, has more people than the sum of both.)
And one more other people's rules Mike didn't abide by was that the Times said they wouldn't endorse you unless you came in for an interview. It was OK for them to do that, I guess, but then when Mike for whatever reason declined to come in he couldn't be considered for the endorsement. Except now I'm having trouble getting excited about the Times' endorsement of two others, after Mike was left out.
The Times was at least good enough to still talk about the reasons why they didn't favor Mike, which add up to how he isn't pure enough. Sorry guys, but the fate of not just our once-great country but our very planet is at stake, and he's the only candidate I've sure can end the Trump evil and get us back on the role we need to play. So the Times can endorse who they want, but I'm endorsing Mike Bloomberg.
5
@Jerry Schulz
In the top offices of our land, and every society you have to play by rules. Mike's motivation is to be richer yet and be tabloid relevant. We've been there, done that and it didn't work.
Bloomberg appears motivated by self-interest, not the public good. We get it, he has a lot of money. And he is another bored billionaire with no other way to expand and fulfill the void he expected money would buy.
His social societal commitment is an obscure puzzle. Like Bernie, he is a loner that feels entitled, but still has no strong team alliances.
Ultra-rich white men will not solve our nation's problems.
@Jerry Schulz
Mike will be our next and best president.
I have switched from Pete, whose campaign refused to answer my emails until I offered to give a ton of money. That plus the realization that our number one priority is to defeat Trump and only Mike can unite all of us to do this.
The fact that he is super rich is a plus if he is willing to use his money to help us win.
The left wants to demonize the rich.
As usual, they are wrong.
5
@Simon Sez I couldn't agree more, when did the DNC put on their platform that being wealthy was a disqualification for running for office.
The fact that Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg are willing to self fund their campaigns is a good not a bad thing. It is good for the Party, and it is good for Democracy.
5
The Times explains its decision to endorse two candidates by stating that, "Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration."
Let me suggest a more plausible explanation: the Times's editorial board is as deeply divided as the Democratic Party!
I know that Democrats want to beat Trump, but I do not foresee the party being truly unified behind any candidate this fall. Democrats are counting on Trump to lose the election. He may well lose, and I hope he does. But I would be happier if Democrats seemed better poised to win.
14
"Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller."
She certainly is, and not in a good way.
52
@kwb What do you mean by that, please?
It's disheartening to witness the cat fights in the comment section. I'd vote for any one of the democrats except one. Does anybody think that the progressive platform will be adopted and integrated in the first 6 months of 2021? There's not a chance that will happen yet that will work in favor of dems because it brings into the party some disillusioned Trump voters who, rightly or wrongly, think progressives are too "left" or "socialist".
I'm encouraged by the Times' double endorsement because it foreshadows the most important topic of the year. It isn't Medicare for all, it is party unity and party viability in the general election.
When people say "oh, so you would vote for (insert demeaning adjectives here) Klobuchar, my reply is "yes, if she embraces the whole party, unlike how Hillary behaved herself."
3
@Excellency
The most important topic of the year isn't any issue, but "party unity and party viability in the general election?" I guess that's a way of backing off "electability" since polls are now showing Bernie beating Trump by a wider margin than any other candidate -- Hugh Hewitt's transparent announcement that he will vote for Bernie in the primaries to help him and then for Trump in the general only shows how truly terrified of Bernie the Republicans are.
Both major parties as we have known them are collapsing. As people increasingly rally around issues and platforms (and regretfully, personalities) instead, their meaninglessness will become more apparent. It is precisely because they operate more as clubs and gatekeepers to ballot access rather than actual political parties that they are in decline. Instead of facilitators of democracy, they have become impediments.
4
@Boris Jones
No, what I'm saying is that Sanders might be electable today but none will be electable when the party splits due to how candidates behaved themselves. The model is Hillary. She alienated "progressives" unnecessarily. Why are we going through the same loser drill when we know where it goes?
Personally I am supporting Warren because Bernie will be 80 just months after his inauguration. I don't go around calling him names. I already voted for him 4 years ago.
This is not a real endorsement; but it is a real way to continue to sow divisions among Democrats and pave the way for a brokered convention. What are your motives here? Other than gender, these two have little in common so you are backing a centrist and a progressive at the same time. And Klobuchar has no traction so why give her any serious thought when Warren and Sanders are clearly the leaders.
14
@SG
It's very real. I'll expect that our Liz and Amy will have a larger well thought out cohesive program and plan within a month or two that rocks and is a presidential path forward, such as we have never seen since the framers.
I want to donate to a team that is lead by them but also includes the best and brightest Democrats, Oddballs, Misguideds, Independents,
and the thinking, actually conservative, literate Republicans not subjected to the tabloid farcical TV hyperactive Fox and Breitbart Friends broadcasts...
The opposite of division is cooperation. The NYT proposes a team. Not party divisions among the team
I want to vote for a team. I could wish we had a socially progressive capital seeking, investment-driven, climate, and green energy concerned, neutral, not war and MIC driven socially conscientious, economically fair, community, state and national contract for all.
The Lincoln Project fellows, etc. they still think they are Republicans. As many others do too, much like them.
But Lincoln is represented as a socially conscientious person. Not at all the Republican and Trumpian Party we suffer from now.
Lincoln was a RHINO. Here is the path forward. A contract to create a social society that is progressive for all, is less war economy like at cost, understands health and welfare give rise to a productive society and maybe a new political party.
You may say you are endorsing both candidates, but your comments give you away. I detected a much warmer feeling towards, and a kinder more gentle approach, to Klobuuchar than of Warren in your analysis.
The fact remains that the polls still have her in single digits, and that she has not been able to get any enthusiasm outside of her Mid-West area. That should be a big part of the consideration, and would indicate that she is going nowhere.
So what is the purpose of this endorsement really? It seems like someone other than the folks in MN. will need to get on board and find her exciting for her to be a viable candidate.
8
I'm stunned you would do something as foolish as this when we are already in crisis with our current president. Wish you had done nothing rather than do something so confusing and divisive. This looks fishy and I couldn't be more disappointed in the New York Times for selecting Klobuchar based on her behavior and temperament alone. What were you thinking?
20
It would seem the Times editorial board is as divided as the rest of us. We should look for commonality in their endorsement rather than contrast. What do Warren and Klobuchar have in common?
Gender obviously. Not surprising coming from the editors who stamped-foot over glass ceilings last election. Age. Both candidates run more or less in the middle bandwidth on two term viability. Both are accomplished professionals but not particularly charismatic or interesting. Again, doorbells from 2016. Both are fluid in their ethical compromises. Convenient.
Sounds like the same old New York Times. Calculated, self-interested, and fundamentally detached from street level opinion. You're moderating each side of the division. The division within the party is actually represented by Sanders and Biden. That's how people actually feel. The NYT helped create the divide.
If you can't get those two sides to shake hands, Trump wins a second term. A split endorsement for two middling candidates seems like a poor start.
17
@Andy
"What do Warren and Klobuchar have in common?"
They understand the benefits of a trickle-up economy. And can forge a team together to make your life and mine better.
2
This is rather unfair to Elizabeth Warren. She is an authentic progressive. An endorsement from the NYT suggests she is just another corporate establishment shill. She’s not. Now, Senator “Oh-That’s-Too-Hard-To-Do” Klobuchar...THAT I can see.
9
Dear People* of the NYT:
*People: those who work for and read the NYT.
Stunned, to see that the OWG (old white guys) didn't force the endorsement of their own. AttaBoy. Or, should that be AttaGirl?
The NYT editorial brought out-of-the-box thinking that will help move America forward. From the heart, I thank all of you for showing such courage.
3
@Willit Ever-Stop - There is no conceivable way to paint a refusal to choose a single candidate to endorse as being a sign of "courage."
Face it. They blinked.
15
Shouldn't the headline read: "The Country's Best Choice for President"?
6
Cool then I'll take Sandbiden for president with a Warrbuchar vice.
9
I think this pretty much sums up our dilemma ... even NYT can't make up its mind. Anyone other than #impotus45 would be a major breath of fresh air. So, #votebluenomatterwho
10
You write about Michael Bennet as if he's dropped out, or dead. He's still running and was worthy of your consideration.
12
I Endorse Bernie.
13
Whatever. Blue No Matter Who.
11
@The Poet McTeagle That would have been a more valuable and courageous editorial than this silliness.
1
These aren't the Democrat's choices, they're the Times' choices.
They get confused about this. The opinion of the Times is not the same as the opinion of the people.
20
Way to endorse one candidate with little executive experience and history of bipartisanship, and yet also endorse the candidate whose staffer abuse the NYT exposed for an executive position representing our country. Ooof.
5
Why not just say, 'We endorse any of the Democratic candidates since the present occupant of the White House is a clear and present danger to the country and the world.'
BTW..will the NYT be endorsing Bill Weld on the Republican side?
5
It was very poor timing to affirm your belief in Klobuchar, a former Prosecutor, so near the day we celebrate the great Martin Luther King who gave his life for the betterment of Blacks routinely made scapegoats by authorities.
I will go with Warren as she fights for all Americans.
4
If the NYT would say that Warren and Klobuchar didn't have a chance of winning as they did with Trump, one of them might win----smile.
For God's sake! Pick a lane.
They are not interchangeable.
16
Once again you insist on backing losing candidates and circumventing the real issue. Nearly all the points you mention about Warren were Bernie's ideas four (or fifty) years ago. Warren isn't even popular in her own state of MA (a liberal blue state). This country definitely needs a female in the oval office (no question), but what is the immediate concern: remove Trump. Who is best equipped to do this? Bernie Sanders. Bernie isn't a media suck up. Is that why your newspaper never gives him fair coverage/support? It's hard to believe that's the only reason, so I can just assume someone else is greasing your wheels?
12
I do not care about the editorial board's endorsements. It's a bit of an insult, and very un-democratic, to tell readers how to vote. BUT, Klobuchar is my candidate!
5
Somehow I can't imagine the NYT endorsing two male candidates. Hmmmmm...
10
"According to the Reuters/Ipsos poll released late Thursday, Sanders received support from 20% of registered Democratic primary voters surveyed."
- https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/17/amid-raft-state-level-endorsements-sanders-leads-democrats-new-national-poll
Senator Klobachar received 10%
Way to go, NYTimes! Your establishment, middle of the road, $tatu$ Quo credentials are intact. One wonders why you just didn't go with $tatu$ Quo Joe?
6
I watched the show last night and read all the transcripts.
The 17 members of the editorial board each cast a vote for their top two. Of 34 total votes, Sanders received only ONE vote and Biden only FOUR. Of their top four choices, one had already dropped out (Booker) and the other three each perform badly in head-to-head match up polling with Trump.
I get it that the NYT doesn't want to choose a "side" between the back-to-normal moderation argument and the turn-out and excitement argument. But the fact that you failed to endorse either of the two candidates who are clearly leading those lanes is just bizarre.
Biden is the front-runner, by a healthy margin. He has name recognition and moderates can vote for him. He polls best in match-ups with Trump among college-educated whites and suburban women. He also has basically no platform, excitement, or vision, but he's most likely to beat Trump.
On the other hand, Bernie has far and away the most excitement and passionate support. He polls second-best in match-ups with Trump, closely behind Biden, and best with independents, people under 35, and Hispanics. He utterly destroys all other candidates on fund-raising and grass-root support. Polling shows he's best suited to turn out new voters and flip independents.
But instead of choosing either candidate who is the popular "standard bearer" of the moderation versus change theories of the case, you chose Amy K. and Warren, who would both likely lose to Trump. Very bizarre.
13
@kryptogal
And for all those who believe that Sanders would lose to Trump, you are not paying attention to the recent polling data. It shows fairly clearly that Sanders and Biden could both handily beat Trump...the others, not so much.
This is not to say that people should vote based solely based on "electability" or who they think others will vote for. BUT, if your main goal is to defeat Trump, then yes, they have to pay attention to that.
BTW, through-out 2016, all polling in head-to-head match-ups with Trump always showed Bernie doing better than HRC, and if more attention had been paid to those match-ups, maybe so many people would not have been shocked at her defeat.
All January polls with Trump match-ups show that both Bernie and Biden would beat Trump, which means that both the "back to normal" or the "change and progress" theories of the election have validity and can work. Just not with the two candidates the NYT chose. See: https://morningconsult.com/2020/01/14/why-bernie-sanders-is-electable-too/
1
Klobuchar for me is a total non-starter. Why? She is a return to centrist neoliberalism that voters rejected and brought us Trump in the first place. Why not just stay with Trump, let him blow up the world faster and get it over with? And I don't see the reason why we should replace one bully with another. When challenged on this, she can't even understand how saying that (paraphrasing) "I'm tough on people because I expect the best out of them" is a backhanded way of doubling down and shifting attention from her managerial weakness.
I'm a socialist, but I tell you, I'll take the billionaires in the Dem race over Klobuchar, because they both at least understand the urgency of the climate crisis.
96
@unreceivedogma
Your assessment is completely inaccurate.
Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016 and in 2018 EVERY single Democratic candidate who flipped GOP-held districts was a centrist moderate. NOT ONE of those winning House candidates was endorsed by Bernie Sanders.
Voters have not rejected centrist neoliberalism. Voters have, in fact, embraced centrist Democratic candidates in election after election, at the national, state and local levels.
27
@unreceivedogma ,
Any American that votes for Sanders or Warren does not understand economic history, nor the dangers of the Hugo Chavez policies that bankrupt and are now starving Venezuela. so tragic.
and, yes Bernie was a strong and vocal supporter of Chavez, and yes the Warren policies echo Chavez' polices enough to scare anyone who is awake.
you claim to be a socialist. I encourage you to study economic history.
15
@unreceivedogma How bizarre. What does tackling climate change have to do with socialism? Plenty of countries are tackling climate change that aren't socialist.
6
Democrats should know by now that charisma and an effective, simple message are what wins presidential elections. Trump has no intellect, no governing skills, no knowledge, and is a heinous individual with a nonexistent moral compass. Why did he win? He had a couple of appealing slogans, a disruptive message that suits the times and star power.
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had great messages and charisma in spades. They generated excitement. Hillary, John Kerry and all of the other candidates who have lost over the years had intellect and stellar resumes but those are never enough without the vision thing.
I hope primary voters choose whoever has a powerful message and charisma that makes them want to show up to rallies, and get excited by the candidate. Unfortunately, strong qualifications and intellectualism will not win the day.
4
Great, meanwhile my generation will continue to donate to and phonebank for Bernie. It is disheartening to see the NYT this out of touch with reality, pushing candidates that in other democratic countries would be considered to the right of center.
Are you scared of having to provide better benefits to your employees? Of your employees unionizing? Having to pay an living NYC wage to all of your lower level staff? The NYT itself has been running pieces advocating for doubling the minimum from $15 to $30 - is that what you pay those who clean your offices and bring you coffee? Do you use unpaid interns, which is an abhorrent business practice?
Gee, I wonder why the NYT would support candidates who would be soft on employers like itself.
12
This is strange. Their policy platforms do not align. Wouldn't a Warren/Sanders duo make more sense? Or Klobuchar/Biden, if the Times wanted a more "moderate" duo? Or is this the Times' virtue signaling? Is this a gender-based decision? In which case it looks weak. It's a condescending pat on the head to women... cuz they're all the same, right? Warren, Klobuchar, Harris, Palin, Bachman...
They are not all the same. There are VAST differences between Bachman and Warren. And there are differences between Warren and Klobuchar. Not as vast as with Bachman or Palin. But there are differences nonetheless. The Times lumping the two together doesn't make sense to me. Pick one.
9
I think you chose two candidates because you realize your favorite one, Elizabeth Warren, is totally un-electable and has no chance of winning the nomination. To pretend like you are actually an objective news outlet, and not an unabashed defender of far left progressive ideology, you also selected Klobuchar more for public perception vs. actually agreeing with her
Your best chance at beating Trump is Biden or Bloomberg, the more moderate candidates.
7
You're saying "If you like X, vote for Warren. If you like Y, vote for Amy." How about, "If you want the best candidate with the best ideas, vote for ________." ?
6
Even the isolated hermits of Asian mountain passes probably understood the NYT's problem with Bernie Sanders, if only because of its partnership with and abject fear of Hillary Clinton.
I agree. I wouldn't want her mad at me & knowing where I worked, too.
2
Is anyone surprised that a paper giving Biden so much negative coverage and mostly ignoring his positive aspects/stories is trying to suck up to its liberal subscriber base and allowing its younger biased political correspondents to drive coverage? This is a non-endorsement designed to not alienate core subscriber bases. It may as well not have endorsed anyone as both these candidates are so different for each other. Rather than driving opinion--the point of an endorsement--it's sucking up to its readers. This is not impressive at all, seems driven by fear of angering readers and by $ :-/ And we know, passions aside, Biden is the only sensible choice as far as defeating Trump, while the other are just rolling the dice and hoping for the best form a voting public that has not earned such hope.
9
"Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren Are Democrats’ Top Choices for President"
I copied and pasted this from the front page, under the graphic.
Says who? You?
And I heartily disagree. Buttigieg is my choice.
7
Baruch Hashem, praise G-d, also for this first of a kind article which represents a new paradigm for considering women candidates chiefly for their achievements and policies.
2
Perhaps the upcoming caucus and voting results might pop your bubble. I see a group of talented people that just do not represent the 99%. NYT endorsement is no longer relevant. That is why you had to turn the process into a reality tv show.
9
Politics aside, Klobuchar is well known for being abusive toward her staff. That's disqualifying, in my view.
Politics not aside, this is an inane equivocation. You 'endorse' two candidates who are ideologically far apart from one another, and claim they are both somehow the "best choices" to be the nominee? That makes no sense.
This whole exercise now looks like an empty, self-congratulatory sideshow on the part of the NYT. Dumb, elitist theater.
8
What a politically correct cope out? Why not tell us to flip a coin?
8
A weak non-endorsement. Biased and agenda driven, the interviews of all the candidates were alternately soft and aggressive depending on where the candidates stood in relation to the Board's preconceived notions. In short, exactly the muddle that the Left's obsession with identity politics and cancel culture has become. To conclude that Biden and Sanders are too old, and Buttigieg too young simply demonstrates the bias. You never know when someone will become a leader. Greta Thunberg for instance. Thanks, but no thanks NYT. You are no longer the standard bearer.
14
That The Times’ Editorial Board sat by and without seeming objection allowed a member to accuse a candidate of something as egregiously misinformed and biased as Binyamin Appelbaum’s accusing Pete Buttigieg of being on “. . . the front lines of corporate downsizing . . . [and] corporate price fixing . . . [and] on the front of our misadventures in foreign policy” profoundly undermines any credibility and value the Board’s endorsement might otherwise have had and is deeply disappointing.
The Board does make an arguable case for endorsing Amy Klobuchar but in glossing over the many negatives in Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy fails to make the case for endorsing her, and would anyone with her agenda and demeanor.
The larger problem is that, whatever the backgrounds and experiences of the Board’s members and ascription of independence and objectivity to the members, many of their questions suggested rather that they are, at best, no more possessed of analytical ability and impartiality than The Times’ stable of capable opinion columnists, if, indeed, as much.
7
With these endorsements, NYT continues their dive into philosophical irrelevance.
Picking two candidates with divergent views simply because they are women- with no other honest differentiation between them and the rest of the field.
And then liberals wonder why the country seems out of step to their worldview.
9
On the inhale after the laughably breathless "The Choice," we get this excruciatingly off-key "The Endorsement" -- a lily-livered, milquetoast, gutless, two-handed hedged bet.
9
So Warren is "radical" and Klobuchar is a "realist".Who did you say you were endorsing?
5
Isn't it way too early for this? And what is the logic of picking two candidates? You don't get to pick two when you're in the voting booth. Another instance of the NYTimes seeming to have lost its way.
1
I am a Center - Left, Sherrod Brown Democrat. I was profoundly disappointed by the NYT's endorsements. Two less qualified candidates I cannot imagine, first, to beat Donald Trump and, second, to be a successful president of the United States.
7
In other words, the New York Times endorsed trump for 2020. Brilliant move.
16
"THE LACK OF A SINGLE, powerful moderate voice in this Democratic race is the strongest evidence of a divided party."
There is a single, powerful moderate voice...Joe Biden. But he's been stifled, disrespected, or ignored by the press from the start.
His fitness for office is unmatched; yet he is criticized for his "old school" style; a straight-up, sincere, tell it like it is...human being. (With more experience and leadership creds than any other candidate, Trump included.)
I would like nothing more than for a woman to be elected President; I remain the only female in 185 years ever elected Supervisor of my progressive, upstate New York hometown of 25,000.
However, given the environment is markedly more divisive than in 2016 (Who thought that possible then?)...the clear and present danger is the re-election of Trump.
And, bet on it...he and his scary band of followers will use the gender divide like a crowbar and a cudgel - to divide and conquer - as they have with every issue they could get their hands on the last 3 years.
Combine that with the numbers of women - white, well educated women - who voted for Trump in 2020 and running a woman may be what not only gets Trump re-elected, but sets the cause of women back 30 years.
If I learned anything in my leadership role, it was that sometimes you have to grow up, suck it up...and make the best choice, not your favorite choice.
I love my NY Times, but the fate of the world is riding on this bet.
7
Obama 2008: Yes we can!
Klobuchar 2020: No we can't!
No thanks.
12
Disappointed Times would make this move and risk four more years of Trump. Geez.
12
It’s ironic that after running articles discussing America’s lost faith in its institutions, and lengthy, self-congratulatory descriptions of NYTimes Presidential endorsements as a longstanding and glorious journalistic institution, the Editorial Board failed utterly this year when faced with the challenge of making a decision. Americans entering the voting booth will not have the luxury of hedging their bets with two choices. At a time when our republic faces its greatest challenge and looks for guidance, The Grey Lady blinked. Perhaps that sad performance best describes how trust in institutions is lost.
7
@Jack Malmstrom - Exactly. I made a similar comment that I'm not sure has been posted yet. That editorial about losing faith in our institutions sprung immediately to mind when this dual announcement was endorsed, especially as I'd just sat through an hour of interview excerpts, from which any sane person viewing the same would have come to a vastly different conclusion than the Times.
After this ode to indecision by the NYT, if I see another article about how Iowa voters can't make up their minds between candidates, I will have to reconsider my viewing habits.
4
The NYT Editorial Board has endorsed losing presidential candidates for over 20 years. This non-endorsement endorsement doesn't mean anything to voters in Iowa, NH, etc. What a bunch of self-aggrandizing nonsense.
11
@Michael
Maybe if we listened to the NYT endorsements these last 20 years, we wouldn't have had the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, etc. that cost trillion$, many lives, world trust, and diplomacy.
They, the MIC/Citizens (hardly) United, secret state, methodically distorted our national mentality, most lately adding the ineffectual bumbling Trumpian billion-dollar trade war costs, (in exchange for tax cut scams and fascist judges and votes).
They gave away our former reputation as a purported peaceful trade worthy nation.
I trust the sensible editorial board of the NYT far more than I do the opposition. I think they see the benefits of a socially progressive economy over the anti-social pro-gun extremist right-wing economy that favors the rich and the wealthy talk show hosts.
They use deceitful donors' contributions, the MIC, and lobbyists that seek profits that take from all of US.
We can't even manage an affordable, reasonable health care system. Not to mention...
And we can't see women in positions of leadership despite the fact that they are less prone to corruption, generally. And are cooperative and less likely to be corruptible.
The NYT endorsements were not wrong. I am angry that so many people are so misled these last 40 years.
1
@No Name Your comment SHOULD have been:
"Bravo, NYT. Nicely done. Two stellar, intelligent, qualified, hard-working PEOPLE (*) who would make excellent presidents."
(*) Not "women", as you wrote.
Thanks for indirectly getting to the root of the problem with the NYT: It is hostile to men now.
Don't get me wrong - I am a feminist and would likely vote for either of these __people__ because of the alternative, but the NYT has done its best for the last several years to go above and beyond the call of duty to tip (not balance) the scales to women whenever and wherever it can. The NYT was critical in helping torpedo Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016 and is thus a non-trivial factor why we have a misogynist demagogue as president. Sadly, it didn't learn the lesson and, in 2020, is doing its best to unambiguously reveal the "liberal media" that it has evolved to - from journalism to apparatchik.
6
So, the NYT is saying that is take two women to do the job of one man. Wow. Because if it had been two men at the top you would have simply chosen ONE man. These choices are NOT interchangeable. Women are not interchangeable.
Badly done, NYT.
4
@Embroiderista Precisely!
Following this process, it seemed the editorial board was determined to avoid the "unthinkable"....endorsing a white male.
The irony, of course, is the actual makeup of the board, with 7 white males and 4 white females out of 14 official members.
7
You know, there's no shame if the editorial board chooses to keep its thoughts in the boardroom.
I'll pass on reading this.
5
Who'd the Times endorse for 2016? How'd that go? Yeah, thought so.
7
Why does the Times get two votes, when the rest of us get just one?
5
NYT, by not picking anyone, you have added to the confusion about which candidate is the best.
4
I am not sure that anyone pays particular attention to NYT endorsements anymore. But Donald Trump's campaign must be celebrating your "choice" of two candidates who are unelectable!
10
The NYTimes just added one more absurdity to the 2020 campaign.
11
Thank God the NYT didn't pick Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders and send the democrats into the diversity rabbit hole. Could you imagine the uproar if they had ended the article with "May the best man win." I guess reverse discrimination is ok.
11
@Mind boggling
It's not reverse discrimination when every president to date has been male.
NYT Board, I'm sending this comment from a NYC family: "choose one from column A and one from column B" isn't how the system works. Weak.
6
YES!
1
It's like the Times is desperate to lose the coming elections.
9
Is this a joke? The game show process, the reality show reveal?
...Amy "Cheney" Klobuchar?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/amy-klobuchar-keeps-voting-for-trumps-horrific-judges
5
"We don't care which side of the party wins, we just want it to be a woman" may play well on our side of the red-blue divide, but it feeds a narrative that hurts us in middle America.
It also doesn't help to openly state that the two candidates who are outpolling these choices in their own lanes should go away because they're old. It seems that one area we're not woke to yet is ageism.
12
Trump is so horrible that we should nominate Warren, who has a 0.01% chance of beating him in the swing states? No thanks.
This sort-of endorsement will influence no one, fortunately. This seems like rank virtue signaling.
12
As a lifelong Democrat, I only have one response. Either I hold my nose and vote for Trump, or I do not vote !
3
For good or for ill, the endorsements of major newspapers are more an exercise in branding than they are the application of influence.
This is purely a branding exercise.
Fact is most of us would vote for the raccoon going through our trash, or even the mold in our shower, before we'd vote for Trump.
Thus my endorsement:
Raccoon and Mold
2020
2
To Susie in Ipswich:
Here's a link to the article you referenced in your reader comment here on Mayor Pete. Thank you for this most interesting reference.
"There’s A Persistent Idea That Pete Buttigieg Ignored Black South Bend. It’s Not True."
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/pete-buttigieg-black-support-south-bend
6
For the past year or so the NYT has done generally great work on climate change and the looming ecological collapse. They've extensively covered the fires in Australia, their consequences, and the political decisions that have enabled them. They covered the UN's report describing the state of emergency of the oceans. They covered the UNEP's gap emissions report, rightfully calling it "bleak". They've covered the WMO's assessment that the rate of change is accelerating. It's clear that the NYT as an institution has come to understand the gravity of this problem, which threatens every living thing and through decades of political negligence has grown very nearly insurmountable.
Yet when it has come time to endorse the best choice for the next leader of the free world, NYT has made the nightmarish choice of Amy Klobuchar, the candidate most hostile to making the changes required if we'd like our children to be afforded a quality of life remotely resembling today's. Klobuchar is a proud supporter of expanding natural gas development in America - a policy that in 2020 is effectively climate denial. Concerns of electability, identity politics, and effectiveness in governance aside, Klobuchar is a viable candidate only for those ignorant to our collapsing world. Promoting this worldview as valid is deeply shameful.
6
You endorsed No One! Thanks for punting at his most desperate time in history. Oceans acidifying. Fires Everywhere. You should've chosen Sanders. Hopefully, this weak, weak showing will repulse those with a future at stack-and ignite votes.
4
Unfortunately, the optics here are only going to help get Trump re-elected.
What the Times has done with this process is to create a defining image of a bunch of media elites in a swanky conference room in a fancy skyscraper in New York City playing king/queen maker before a single vote has been cast.
Now the Times’ intention with the conference room footage and images was to help promote its new show under a claim of transparency but the way the image (at this early stage of the election) will be interpreted in critical flyover/ battleground states is that the liberal media is trying to take the election away from the voters.
Trump and his proxies will use this content against the Democrats (no matter who is the nominee) and it will hurt us come November.
7
This is a non-endorsement. The Times should have picked a candidate to endorse and made the case for that individual. Instead, you punted it back to the supposedly opposing factions within the Democratic party, a distinction, I might add, that is overblown by the media for dramatic effect.
4
Thank you.
To use the old saying...the time has come to pass the torch. Sorry Bernie but you are better suited to scream "get off my lawn" and create your party. Hijacking the Democratic party apparatus every four years hasn't worn well. And Joe, if you are interested in being Secretary of State, we could all use your great connections to rebuild international relations when the world has become so deeply connected.
Pete, you have a great future. Continue to build your resume.
And finally, Elizabeth and Amy, please join forces. We need both a dreamer and a partner rooted in reality. As a team, you can do great things. If you can come together, add Kamala to the team as our next Attorney General. We have a large number of crooks in Washington who need to be prosecuted. And there is no one better for that role than Ms Harris.
1
I've been for Klobuchar from day one, also because my Boston Gen X family is wary of too far out Democrats, want a middle of the road candidate. Klobuchar is an especially great contender having gone through four years of Yale misogyny which I can attest to as a downtown New Haven resident attending Yale events for 20 years.
3
I'm a dual citizen living in canada raised in usa. It boggles my mind that USA, perhaps the richest nation in the world, doesnt' have universal health care like my new home and other western nations. Everyone here in Canada is covered. USA spends 2 times what Canada does for worse healthcare outcomes. The NY times has endorsed two candidates who don't support medicare for all. .... Perhaps the issue isn't important to the NYtimes and their employees as they all have company paid health care.
6
Why is everyone complaining that the Editorial Board didn't make a single choice? Are we waiting to be spoon fed their decisions?
I was thrilled they had put so much effort into interviewing, video taping and publishing the entire interview transcripts of each candidate they were able to interview. This is exactly the type of journalism that informs the public. What is NOT journalism, but is a subjective decision is endorsing a candidate. I wish they had not made any recommendation at all and left it up to the public to make their own personal decisions based on this terrific journalism.
Their half-step of recommending a candidate from the progressive wing and a candidate from the more moderate center is the next best thing, as it at least highlights their opening paragraph which states the Democratic party needs to find the compromises that serve the 'big tent' they claim to be.
1
Warren's widely considered unelectable because her plans to upend rules & laws for corporations & the wealthy are not supported by most voters. Many experts believe she would lose in a landslide, destroying any possibility of retaking the Senate.
I also believe her early statements about her Native American heritage will be used by Trump to portray her as a liar who tried to game the system to gain employment by misrepresenting herself. Warren recently pursued a DNA test because she let Trump's taunts take up residence in her head & foolishly tried to prove herself. She couldn't. Her political judgement isn't good.
The recent kefuffle where she publicly blasted Sanders on a hot mic: "I think you just called me a liar on national television" - was Warren trying to manufacture a phony crisis to benefit herself in the final debate. She looked manipulative and dishonest. It appears her campaign - at her direction - created this stupid issue to get attention.
Why was endorsing Elizabeth Warren a good idea?
Amy Klobuchar is a talented politician and would probably be a fine president. But - as the NYT Editorial board noted on FX's "The Weekly," she has 'zero charisma.' She has never polled even 10%. The NYT endorsement may help her but there are 4 candidates who all poll higher - sometimes 4x higher.
The NYT has offered us two candidates - one widely reviled as extreme and unelectable and one who has no traction with primary voters.
What gives?
6
Democrats have a chance with Klobuchar, none with Warren.
U.S. voters will not elect a socialist this extreme, and it's too late for Warren to change her approach and appear more moderate.
That would just make her look like a people pleaser and a waffler.
5
I don't think either of them can beat Trump. AND that is ALL we should care about!
5
Get over it. Editorial endorsements do not change minds especially in our deeply partisan political environment. There is not one thing in this endorsement of two candidates that tells any well informed person anything new about Klobuchar or Warren. Move on. Nothing to get your beads in a knot over.
1
Please don't present the American People with a similar choice as 2016, two very unpalatable choices. It was your undoing last time, one would hope that the Democrats have learned at least something in 4 years.
3
What an amazingly bad look. A woman who polls below 3% constantly and has absolutely no path to winning, and a woman who lied about Bernie Sanders on national TV to try to save her sinking poll numbers.
Unsubscribing and imploring others to do the same.
9
There are a whole lot of people who think priority #1 is either re-elect President Trump, or keep the Dem's out of the oval office...a LOT of voters.
3
And in other news, the NFL has just canceled the Super Bowl and declared both teams have won!
5
It would be nice to see the board's ranked choice votes.
3
For what it's worth, I'm volunteering for Biden and it is a "given" that he will elect a woman VP, preferably a woman of color like Stacy Abrams.
5
United we stood, Ms. Warren, men & women of all races, creeds and colors, until your ill defining moment on the debate stage. Transparently ugly. Only your deep felt apology can be redeeming.
1
Epic fail.
In a crowded field, the NY Times endorsement could've played a critical role in enabling ONE candidate to emerge above the pack and help unite Democrats in this desperately needed effort to oust Trump.
Instead, you wimped out and endorsed TWO candidates, neither of which is a leader in the polls, and prolonged the disunity and indecision of the primary process.
You see, unlike the editorial staff, we voters do not have the luxury of backing TWO candidates and must vote for only ONE. You had a chance to make a difference, and you blew it.
5
Great. The Times completely misses the boat in the Trump era, endorsing one marginal candidate (Klobuchar), and another that is unelectable (Warren). In these hyper-polarized right-wing propaganda times, where Fox news rules and Trump gets away with everything, a moderate candidate is the way to go. Not to mention the gender issue, which is another elephant in the room. One can see Ms. Klobuchar or Ms. Warren as VP candidates (particularly with Ms. Warren's attack skills), and possibly viable candidates in the future, but that's it. Unless a poltical bombshell explodes over the coming weeks with the Impeachment--which is unlikely--Michael Bloomberg is the only Democrat who can beat Trump. That may not be a great state of affairs, but that's where we are. In right-wing dominated, arguably near-fascist times.
2
I watched "The Endorsement" last night and found myself less than impressed by the questions asked of the candidates and the less than unbiased sentiments towards various candidates by your editorial board.
People take this paper and the endorsement of this editorial board seriously. And your board owes its readership a better vetting process than the one I saw on display last night.
The nation is at a moment of crisis and require serious commitment to defeating the autocrat in office. That requires taking both the left wing and the more moderate wing of the party more seriously and with less of the obvious bias I saw on display from your board.
2
Gotta agree with the NY Times on one thing:
"Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller."
Absolutely. Her storytelling ranges from being part Cherokee Indian which she of course happily included in all her job applications from companies mandated to achieve diversity, to having lost her job due to a pregnancy despite a 2007 TV interview in which she specifically stated she left the job on her own volition to obtain more educational credits, but she's perfected the exact elbow/arm pump when she tells the story word for word on the campaign trail. Her debunked claim that she didn't send her children to private schools, and so on.
Yes, Trump lies and stretched the truth. But he knows that you know that he's like the guy at the local pub who tells a good line of blarney but delivers when he has. While Warren presents herself as an impeccable font of rectitude, when she's far from it. Who is the worse liar, then ... uh, I mean storyteller?
8
I watched the endorsement announcement episode of the NYT "The Weekly" last night. After the candidate interviews, each board member was asked to write down their top 2 choices, and when counted, the top 4 were: Warren, Klobuchar, Buttigieg and Booker.
Lots of positives for Pete Buttigieg in the discussion that ensued. Board members had all looked at Pete with skepticism all over their faces when he walked in, then one could see them getting drawn in over the few minutes that he spoke. One made the comment that she found Pete's Midwestern affect and manner of speaking very appealing, and another said that Pete's "soothingness" reminded him of Obama....then, they chose Warren and Klobuchar because of their feistiness, saying that they were "warriors".
I think that the board underestimates how valuable the calming effect of Pete's restraint is to the many voters who are TIRED of all the FIGHTING. They are, after all, the NEW YORK Times, and apparently, they projected their opinion that 'feistiness wins' onto ALL voters, 90% of whom are NOT New Yorkers.
In 2008, the Times endorsed feisty Hillary over soothing Obama. The Times was wrong. We needed calm soothing Obama then because the economy was crashing. I think that many would agree that the last 3 years has been incredibly distressing. That voters appreciate the reassurance of a calm soothing candidate now more than ever will hopefully become apparent as the country starts to vote. #PeteForAmerica #Buttigieg2020
3
A woman will never become president. Men, African American or European American, disapprove of a female being the head of state. Also, our enemies and competitors will see it as a sign of weakness.
@Jonathan: So European Americans won't approve of a female head of state? Angela Merkel wants to have a word.
Oh, and 1896 called, they want their campaign slogan back.
I like these choices, but not the ideology behind them. I'll start with the obvious: The NYT Editorial Board is not in any position to tell me what my top choices are. What century are we living in? I'd like to tell you what you can do with your top choices for me.
Let's call a spade a spade. These are your top choices, NYT Editorial Board. Not Democrat's top choices. Not my top choices.
If you want democracy, you have to believe in it and to act accordingly. If you want political control, that's something else. That's what many of us are sick of. Why don't young Americans vote? Because they don't want to be part of a fraud. And any time you tell someone that their vote is a wasted if they trust in democracy, then you are fundamentally engaging in fraud.
"Some day, some day..." Some day, after things get settled... after another... how many hundreds of years... we may be able to vote our conscience in genuine democracy. Just not yet... you just have to be patient. Trust us... it's not the time yet. There are very smart people who have run the numbers, and if you don't listen you do so at your peril.
The market for this message is getting smaller and smaller, and I'm glad about that.
1
Interesting that the NYT choose two very different ideologies. Klobuchar is a centrist/corporate Democrat and Warren is very progressive but has already backed-off her Medicare for All full backing showing big signs that she will cave to big money.
Seems that as long as the Democrat is willing to ensure the rich get richer, the NYT is good with either.
Warren is my second choice and would bend over backwards to ensure she is nominated.
All the NYT did was endorse the status quo with the wealthy.
As some members of the Editorial Board stated on TV (oh boy NYT reality TV show), the USA needs fundamental change as we have huge issues and problems - all seeming from the fact that the wealthy think and demand that they have it all and all the power.
Sorry, but that is not what the founders of our country wanted. They wanted a nation best described in the Preamble to the Constitution.
Senator Sanders, despite his perceived gruffness and age, is the one to rally the people to fight for people. I Trust Senator Sanders to do what is right for All Americans.
Hmmm, maybe that's why we have this NYT endorsements.
2
Great. The Times promotes a choice between a lesser, light of the DNC Establishment, and a sort-of progressive who embraces capitalism without qualifying which version -- crony, free market, or social.
Repeat of 2016, where Bernie scares the bejesus out of the Establishment Dems, and the Times plays Horatio at the bridge. I'm neither surprised nor disappointed, as -- except for the two-fer -- this endorsement is typical.
Even more reason to vote for him.
3
I am pleasantly surprised. Frankly, I was expecting some unconvincing and uninspiring boilerplate argument for Joe Biden. This dual endorsement also honestly acknowledges the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of determining who is most electable at this stage (although, with respect to the primaries, we know that candidate is not Amy Klobuchar, given how she's polling). A lot of voters and pundits assert with unwarranted confidence that their favorite candidate is the most electable when, in fact, any such claim is highly speculative. A dual endorsement was also a politically shrewd choice for the Times. A Biden endorsement would have alienated a lot of readers and further damaged the Times' credibility. A Sanders endorsement would have been a repudiation of four years of hostile commentary and also would have alienated many readers.
1
I get very frustrated watching a debate ostensibly about politics avoid the real dilemma. The argument is about the Enlightenment and the 18th century. It is about the first principles of the Enlightenment and whether the world should be anthropocentric or theocentric. Theocentric is what Reagan then Bush told America when they said we create reality. Jefferson, Franklin and Washington were humanists for whom facts were all that mattered and facts were by nature scientific truths. This is a debate about scientific truth and to endorse candidates without investigating the understanding of first principles seems senseless.
America was created as the first anthropocentric nation on Earth and we are witnessing the counter revolution. It is easier to understand the real debate but the consequences are what is frightening.
1
Thank you, NYTimes for your extensive research into this project. I have not yet read all of the transcripts of the interviews but hope to find time to do so soon. Meanwhile I'm surprised and not entirely displeased at this double endorsement. I came out for Warren early on but have grown increasingly impressed by Klobuchar through the debates.
I live in a semi-rural area of New Mexico---close enough to Santa Fe to breathe the rarified air of a Blue voting population but close enough to my rural Red voting neighbors to understand their values. Much as I hate to say it I wonder if either of these fine women would beat Trump. People here eat meat, have watch dogs and value strong men. "Macho" is a compliment, not a slam. They see something in Trump that inspires confidence.
i think they might be convinced to vote for Biden, but probably not these women. I hope I'm wrong.
6
Beating Trump in 2020 is more important than choosing between far left and moderate Democratic policies. The question is, who has the best chance of attracting those independents who put Trump over the top.
Klobuchar can win their support; Warren cannot.
4
I totally get this approach. As an Iowa caucus-goer, I am completely stumped on who to caucus for and for many of the reasons this paper has laid out. This reinforces my indecision. I do not even know if I will caucus because I am afraid of tipping the balance in the wrong direction. What if a vote for Klobuchar hurts Biden and helps Sanders? What if a vote for Warren helps Biden and hurts Sanders? I think if I could guarantee Klobuchar at this point I would go for it, but that seems unlikely and a vote for her would likely hurt Warren. Would Sanders really be that bad? Maybe he is just what we need. Would Biden be able to somehow hold it together long enough to beat Trump? Maybe Klobuchar would be his running mate and it would be a slam dunk? Warren seems to be the smartest and strongest among them. If we could look over a few things, she may very well be the best candidate. I still don't know if I will be convinced of anything. It may just depend on what is circulating in the news on February 2nd that will make my decision.
8
@JES This is why we need rank choice voting. So you don't have to worry about these kind of scenarios.
5
I applaud your reasoning- and the emphasis is on "reasoning". We must be open to new ideas or this country will devolve into a class war- or rural vs. city. The loneliness, fright and fears that grip so many Americans plays itself out in fraught ways. There has to be some change for the better that gives us- the citizens- a sense of being cared about, a sense of belonging - the emphasis on change.
4
I like Sen. Klobuchar and think that, of all the candidates running, she presents the best foil to Trump. Who she is, her general image, what she represents, what she talks about and how — highlights Trumps shortcomings and the absurdity of his existence to a degree that the others don't so much. That said, if she or Biden were to win the nomination then the election will only be about one thing — Trump. And that gives him an advantage. Whereas if Warren or Sanders is the nominee then a forward thinking progressive agenda gets put on the table, with popular ideas that the republicans can't match and that address many of the issues that gave rise to Dajjal John Trump in the first place. An inspiring campaign which gives the democrats an advantage.
4
Here's what you claim as your rationale for sidestepping (or dismissing?) Bernie Sanders: "...how Mr. Sanders approaches politics. He boasts that compromise is anathema to him. Only his prescriptions can be the right ones, even though most are overly rigid, untested and divisive... we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another."
And, to support your claim that he boasts compromise is anathema, you link to your interview with him, no specific part, the whole interview. So i just re-read your whole interview with him, and you've got to do better than that.
In fact, you weren't hearing Bernie in your interview or in general when you use the world "divisive" - he repeatedly made clear that he's out there to stand for what you unites us and in dramatic opposition to Trump. Re-read your own interview with him. And he makes no such boast that compromise is anathema. The fact that he won't water down his vision and his undiluted advocacy for strongest possible measures to remedy our most serious issues (the planet, homelessness, health care, job loss despair, monopolies, etc) but does translate into claiming he boasts about any refusal to compromise. How do you think he became "amendment king"?
As he noted, it was insulting to suggest as one of you did, that his way of going out to rally the public would be anything remotely like what Trump does. You're not hearing the actual Bernie but rather a Bernie you've pigeonholed.
24
@William LeGro This critique of the NYT dismissal of Bernie is exactly right. I have closely followed Bernie's career for the past four decades and quite frankly was shocked to see him described as "divisive." That is not reflective of his approach toward legislation, and it is certainly not what his colleagues in the Senate (including Republicans) would describe him as. Very unfair and inaccurate. And he would be more likely to beat Trump than either Warren or Klobuchar.
10
@William LeGro
garbled sentence cleanup:
The fact that he won't water down his vision and his undiluted advocacy for the strongest possible measures to remedy our most serious issues (the planet, homelessness, health care, job loss despair, monopolies, etc) *does not* translate into claiming he boasts about any refusal to compromise. How do you think he became "amendment king" especially during so many years in a House or Senate run by Republicans?
See: https://www.alternet.org/2015/10/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you/
with examples of all the amendments he wrote over the years that added significant progressive inclusions that he got passed into law and often mitigated effects of otherwise non-progressive legislation
3
@William LeGro
Also, in re "exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure...for another": Are you blind?
The only promises Trump has fulfilled were the divisive ones. Bernie doesn't have a divisive promise in his quiver, unless you're a billionaire who considers parting with money you're currently harboring (or offshoring) to be "divisive."
And, on that point, try to understand that Bernie is responding *to* class warfare, not advocating it. He's against exploitation. That's not a class issue but a lack-of-conscience issue, also greed, shortsightedness (and blindness). He's saying Time's up to the conscienceless, greedy, shortsighted billionaires who think it's fine to stiff the country, roadbuilders, and consumers who made them.
Why didn't you interview Bernie about his support for full public funding of campaigns, to take away the "fix" - the perpetual quid pro quo - that enables those "haves" to keep on "having" at others' expense?
Trump promised bigotry, xenophobia, enriching his cronies, and he delivered. Anything he promised for workers was a hoax; he's a fraud.
In total contrast, Bernie's promises are his life's passion to give a fair shake to everyone: and he's as authentic as they come.
2
"Many Democratic voters are concerned first and foremost about who can beat Mr. Trump. But with a crowded field and with traditional polling in tatters, that calculation calls for a hefty dose of humility about anyone’s ability to foretell what voters want."
4 years to reflect and examine and still neither the Times nor the Democratic party has a clue as to what voters want. and that's why there will be another 4 years of Trump.
10
Folks who haven't done so yet should read the transcripts of the interviews with the endorsement committee. I did so and it was very eye opening. The debates simply did not do an adequate job. These transcripts answer important questions. How well have they thought through their policies and plans? (In some case that reduces to, have they thought through things at all?) How likely are they to be able get anything done given the McConnell Senate? What do they have to say for themselves, in light of their known campaign Achilles heels? How much will they be able to fix the divisions and resentments that Trump has foisted on the nation?
5
@Robert - - - It isn't the Prez who has divided this county so much as the declining political leadership at the Times, WaPo, and MSNBC-FN & CNN-FN who have generate most of a million critical lies, etc., about HIM over the past three years; three years of growth and success for millions of workers who the Democratic Party once thought it owned.
We'll all find out how this worked in 280-odd days.
1
@L osservatore
If not too much trouble, could you please give us one or two examples that justify the accuracy and scope of these claims?
"L osservatore" wrote:
"It isn't the Prez who has divided this county so much as the declining political leadership at the Times, WaPo, and MSNBC-FN & CNN-FN who have generate most of a million critical lies, etc., about HIM over the past three years ..."
Very well-written, but:
• No where do you address who the best candidate is to defeat Trump.
• Regarding Warren, you neglect the fact that, if nominated, she would lose. I have to believe that the editorial staff recognizes she has no chance to defeat Trump. Given that, why the endorsement?
• No where do you address the issue that all of the candidates have significant flaws and build into the editorial a side-by-side analysis of whose flaws are least problematic and most correctable.
• There is something terribly mechanical in a logic that pushes Warren to the top through a 1 of 2 competition, and Klobuchar to the top through a 1 of 5 competition.
• Klobuchar (and I’m a fan) is not registering with the electorate. Why do you ignore that? With your editorial, it’s almost as if you’ve signed on to circular firing squad that dogs so many Democratic nominating campaigns.
• Finally, and to close the loop with the first bullet, you neglected to address shear political acumen. Since, as you rightly point out, they are all roughly comparable in terms of ideals (Bernie being somewhat the exception), who has the political skills to beat Trump?
13
@Ira On what grounds do you state that it is a fact that Warren would lose? Reasons, please!
1
The New York Times Editorial Board came up with the same two candidates I had settled on for many of the same reasons.
What life if not politics and history has taught me is purity politically or otherwise rarely brings forth true change in a democratic system.
The future challenges are not on the horizon, they are here and have been with us for years. We have not fully addressed the challenges of a country with a poor patchwork of health care systems that fail to serve large swathes of our population. We have a crumbling infrastructure with airports and transit hubs that are substandard by a third world metric. We also have economic policies rooted in 19th to mid 20th century thinking that in spite of of our vast academic and human resources is being badly squandered and setting up China to be the dominant economic power of the 21st century.
To address these issues we have to remember politics is the art of the possible. Then we have to ask ourselves the question, who can beat Trump? Then we have to be ready to ask the next question, who can thread the political needle and best accomplish most of the goals we need achieved while working within the framework of a representative democratic system?
6
Kudos to the NY Times Editorial Board for this excellent assessment and brave endorsement of the remaining Democratic Presidential candidates. As a moderate left Democrat, I lean toward both your choices, Senator Klobuchar in particular. However, I will put all my energy into supporting whoever emerges at the top of the Democratic ticket. I would like to see the Editorial Board give equal attention to critical Senate and Congressional races.
We voters need to focus on every electable position on our 2020 November ballots, from School Boards and City Councils, to Judges and County Executives, to State Legislators and Governors. This is a time and these are contests we cannot afford to lose.
5
Re your statement: "What’s more, Mr. Biden is 77. It is time for him to pass the torch to a new generation of political leaders." Mr. Biden is in good health and has a body of knowledge the others in the race cannot touch. This is very sad. It seems "ageism" is the only acceptable form of discrimination left in our society.
9
@career scholar
Physically he looks fine, but mentally I doubt he has what it takes to keep up with the demands and pressures of being president. This is evident as towards the primary debates he begins to slur and has a harder time getting points across. I try to image how Biden would put up against Putin or Xi. And to be frank, I don't think he's suited to be a 21st-century president, where as Yang is far more in tuned to the repercussions of AI tech development and is surprisingly knowledgeable about foreign policy.
9
@career scholar
I believe his stuttering, which he has had his whole life, makes him look older than he is. That said, their criticism was not based on that. It was based on his policies. The Times endorsement committee is telling us that they believe a return to the status quo is not possible, given the damage that Trump has done. We like Biden a lot and would certainly vote for him if he is the nominee. If he is not the nominee, there are endless ways in which he would still be able to contribute to the nation either inside or outside of the next administration.
4
@ My point was not about whether he is the candidate to choose (although I believe he is). My purpose was to illustrate the ageism inherent in the NYT decision and comment. It happens everywhere in our society and is offensive, and the NYT should recognize that.
3
Only one candidate can win the nomination. Only when candidate can become President.
4
I feel vindicated. I was hoping Klobuchar would run before she even announced and donated to her twice.
As the Times hinted at, despite the field she is in and coming across as "moderate", if elected she would be one of the most progressive candidates ever. What makes her different is that it is practical and pragmatic progressivism.
I would love Medicare for all. However, I am also old enough to remember the Hillarycare debacle. It has not been reported on at all and I think a lot of younger voters may not even be aware of what transpired, but it was a crushing defeat. It helped give rise to Gingrich and the "Contract with America." The fact we got Obamacare, despite its flaws, is to my mind little short of a miracle.
I'm keen to have someone who recognizes that and builds on it. Amy is not a return to the status quo. She is a doer, and the country will be better and fairer with her at the helm.
9
Lordy...the notion that either one of these women can beat Trump? No, it's terrifying but true: Trump is probably going to get another 4 years. He's got the power of incumbency and a good economy behind him. A lot of Americans like that he is smashing DC and fighting the left on the culture wars. Don't say you were not warned.
10
I am gratified to see that, at least, the Times has endorsed Elizabeth Warren. But, Amy Klobuchar?
Klobuchar’s policy ideas lack boldness and vision. A so-called pragmatic moderate, Klobuchar revealed in a town hall meeting last year that programs like Medicare For All and the Green New Deal were merely “aspirations.” She must have been unaware that numerous polls reveal a majority of Americans (not just Democrats and Independents) support a Green New Deal program of climate investment and regulation.
Klobuchar has also criticized Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All bill as a “bad idea,” and wants to build on the Affordable Care Act. She must be hoping that voters forget that for over a decade, she repeatedly joined forces with Republicans to repeal Obamacare taxes designed to insure the plan’s viability. Along with Republicans, she helped push through amendments to Obamacare that hurt lower and middle-class Americans. Those who unexpectedly earned over the designated income threshold to qualify for subsidies were forced to pay them back. Is it any surprise that some Americans started to sour on Obamacare?
And, despite her constant emphasis on her humble, working-class, Midwestern roots, I cannot get beyond Ms. Klobuchar’s repellent treatment of her employees. This behavior alone tells me everything I need to know about her character.
11
@Cassandra G.
Congress is a graveyard for all presidential ideas with boldness and vision.
3
@Cassandra G. The Green New Deal is aspirational. Even if a majority of the Senate and House supported it (they do not), it's not a bill that can be voted on, it's a proposal. Medicare for All isn't much better, since it has no chance of passing in the current Senate, and Sanders hasn't developed a concrete proposal to pay for it, while Warren's has been lambasted for months. I say this as a fan of both policies although I have some doubts as well.
1
@Cassandra G.
Nancy Pelosi accurately stated that the Green New Deal is a 'Green Dream'. It's simply not workable. Reminds me of the idealistic young people I spoke with recently who thought our entire sprawling University of Alaska Fairbanks campus could 'transition' from its brand new state of the art coal fired power plant (which provides heat, electricity and hot water to the entire campus) with 'ground heat pumps and solar panels'. In the subarctic, 110 miles south of the Arctic Circle. I really don't think they thought that through !
The meme about Amy's 'repellant treatment of her employees' featured 2 people who refused to go on record. A lot of her staff has gone on record refuting those claims. I am much more concerned about Warren's coordinated (with CNN) and disturbing attack on Bernie, which is well documented and part of a pattern, and tells me everything I need to know about her character.
2
How do you say "elect ability". Warren is smart but too far left to pull the moderate republican and independents over the line. Amy also is smart and experienced and makes a good argument for her elect ability, at least concerning the vital Midwestern states. But her poll numbers are low because I think she is without a more fiery approach. How will she ( and others ) fair against Trump in debates (assuming he debates , which he might not)?
Nevertheless, the board looked at many factors, but so did many people writing letters here , who although not professional journalists, have equally valid points to make. In short, I agree that they may be excellent choices to be the next President but can they be elected? Anyway, if nominated, either should have our support.
3
@JHI Americans are really bad at assessing the electability of a candidate. Few thought Obama was electable. No one thought trump was electable. Everyone thought Hillary was electable...
Know who wins? Candidates that can build a coalition.
Candidates people are EXCITED about. Perceived electablilty is a bad way to pick a candidate.
5
This is disappointing to me. I think you should have endorsed one candidate. I don't understand the logic of endorsing two. That isn't an endorsement, as I understand it.
I'm in Iowa and I'm going to caucus for Klobuchar. I decided just a few days ago. She's smart. She can stand up to Trump on the debate stage (unlike Biden). She can appeal to a broad swath of Americans (unlike Warren & Sanders). And she has compelling experience (unlike Buttigieg).
But I, like all democrats (I hope), will throw my weight fully behind whoever gets the nomination.
7
Hooray for the Times! I had already come to my own conclusion that Warren and Klobuchar are the finest of our current list of Democratic candidates. But it is nonetheless great to see my own reflections backed up by so distinguished a newspaper. My big problem now, of course is deciding between the two of them. As a lifelong progressive, I prefer Warren. But when looking at my sadly fractured and suffering country, I suspect that the more pragmatic Klobuchar is better prepared to address this particular historic moment. We need healing and a whole lot of repair work to our damaged national foundations.
11
I really don't care who gets the nomination, as long at that person has the best chance to beat Trump.
This is all about getting people to the polling places, and the candidate who can demonstrate that they would be most likely to accomplish that should be the nominee.
We don't have the luxury of messing around with details for this election, we have to get him out of there.
This is an "anybody but Trump" election, let's not lose sight of that.
I still think Biden is our best chance. Warren is very vulnerable to attack and divisive, while Klobuchar's lack of national name recognition is going to be a big handicap to get out the vote.
We all know Biden is extremely flawed as a candidate, but the game has changed. We are living in an "After Trump" political landscape, where anything goes and just about anybody can be elected. The fact that Biden crashed and burned in his other attempts can effectively be ignored at this point.
8
@JayK Yeah, great idea, it worked so well with Hillary. Rally around the flawed candidate that nobody likes, because somehow, despite the fact that no one likes them, they're the most 'electable.' What?
2
@Jack
That's a very bad comparison.
People do like Joe Biden, they did not like Hillary, and she still won the popular vote and would have won the general if her campaign had not made catastrophically bad decisions vis-a-vis campaigning in the rust belt states.
Joe's "flaws" are not his "likeability", they are his well documented propensity for "gaffes".
These endorsements represent an astute analysis of where the Democratic Party is, offering hope that candidates from either perspective could lead our country effectively. I have come to agree that these two women, either of them, are our best way forward. By endorsing these two thoughtful Senators, you also give me hope for something I've never dared wish for: that there could be two presidential candidates who might actually be able to talk with one another and discuss where their views align and where they differ, with passion, civility, and respect. Imagine if the field narrowed to them, and they could lead us not just in the Oval Office, but in a national dialogue about where we as a nation are headed and how to get there. You've given us reason for optimism. Thank you.
8
I think the editorial board should have stopped when it couldn't reach a decision and take a different approach: What makes Trump vulnerable?
The answer is that Trump bets on the support of two groups that are fundamentally incompatible: the rural people left behind by the economy, and the suburban people right and center who are actually happy with the state of the economy.
Trump is looking increasingly weak in the rural communities. He has been rambling on at rallies about toilets and dishwashers, and he had to concede on free trade with USMCA and China to keep the economy going for the center votes, which will not go over well with the other part, the people whose factories have closed and moved.
Enough support from either group will win the presidency.
That means two possibilities:
- Run a candidate credible enough on the economy to persuade suburban America to not vote for the incumbent who owns the strong economy that is producing benefits to them. In other words, a decent version of Trump who cares about climate change, does not employ gangsters and is not a threat to democracy but is rock solid credible on keeping the economy going. Michael Bloomberg.
- Run a candidate who attacks Trump right in the Midwest on free trade, healthcare, useless wars in the Middle East and corruption.
A candidate who redirects anger to corporations and the rich. Bernie Sanders.
The split endorsement should have been Bloomberg and Sanders, or a brave choice for either one.
7
@Dieudonne
Right! A centrist candidate needs to be extremely credible on the economy to win. Moderates like jobs and stocks that keep hitting new records.
I can't believe the Times editorial board doesn't see that.
Only Bloomberg is believable enough to pull off a win from the center, Klobuchar has no chance at all against Trump unless our economy turns hard before November of which there are no signs.
3
Once upon a time an endorsement by the Times actually meant something. Then again, once upon a time concepts such as civility, open-mindedness, perspective, humility, the common good, nuance, respect, decency, and American meant something. Sadly, that is no longer the case, and the current occupant of the White House, as much as he might like to think to the contrary, is merely an effect of this breakdown, not the cause.
8
A beautiful piece of work by the Editorial Board. Impressive. I take issue with one double negative: "There is no reason patriotic Americans should not be open to every chance to replace him at the ballot box." I would have preferred: 'There is every reason that patriotic Americans should be open to every chance to replace him [President Trump] at the ballot box.' For the election will hinge not on Democratic support. The get-out-the-vote techniques pioneered by President Obama and Senator Sanders will take care of that, and win or loose, it will be a huge vote! But appealing to Trump voters, that will be the art of the deal in this election. And to win, either Ms. Warren or Ms. Klobuchar will have to get enough swing voters, soft Trump voters and Republicans sensitive to the great ethical defects inherent in a second Trump presidency. And win they must, for the United States and the world.
4
Certainly Warren is better than Sanders, and I've written two comments over the past month saying Klobuchar was better than Biden. So, while I strongly disagree that Bloomberg's being very rich should disqualify him, I think these endorsements make sense. The Times should not however overlook the matter of ability to beat Trump. And here, Warren falls away while Klobuchar may soar. Warren's appeal is limited to Americans on the left, and how many is that? A third? Surely not 40%. Klobuchar would forfeit some bitter losers on the left, but would pick up a lot of bitter independents and Republicans. And as for personality, maybe Klobuchar has been overly harsh with staff, but those who find Warren a lot less than likeable are legion.
10
In a break with convention, I have chosen to endorse nine separate Democratic candidates for president. I officially endorse Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Yang, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Deval Patrick, and Joe Biden.
56
@Bran How courageous!!!
6
Sometimes I really wonder if the democratic establishment and mainstream media would truly prefer a second term of Donald Trump to giving Bernie a chance.
While this sounds incendiary, it actually makes a lot of sense. The liberal elite (read: NYT editorial board) is composed of wealthy individuals who stand to greatly benefit from maintaining the status quo (even if that status quo is Trump).
Regarding the disparaging mention of "Bernie's disdain for compromise," I would like to note that when entering a negotiation, NEVER ask for less than what you want. Ask for more and negotiate down. Everyone (including Bernie) knows this. The NYT editorial board knows this. They simply don't actually want big structural change that Bernie could negotiate.
15
@sofi
While I don't agree with your cynicism about the selfish motives of the NYT editorial board, I believe that you are right in taking The Times to task for its disdainful attitude toward Senator Sanders and his candidacy. Most writers for the Times were dismissive of Sanders in 2016, and that pattern continues in the current campaign. The current editorial attacks Sanders for being "divisive." Bernie Sanders is NOT a divisive person or candidate. He is passionate and sincere. Many polls have suggested that a significant number of citizens who often vote Republican respect Bernie for his passion and sincerity and are open to the possibility of voting for him. As Bret Stephens (who does not approve of Sanders) has argued, Bernie Sanders is probably the best chance for the Democrats to win in November. On issue after issue, Sanders has been ahead of the curve. In my judgment, he is now the best and the most electable of the possible Democrats.
8
@sofi Bernie is not a Democrat and his followers did not vote Democratic last time so he helped cause trump.
3
@Mullen
In 2016, I was all in for Bernie. But I voted for Hillary in the general election with enthusiasm. The other Sanders supporters that I know did the same (not all of them enthusiastically, I admit). I don't think it's fair to blame Bernie for the apparent fact that some of his followers sat out the election. In one of the debates before the ultimate nominees were chosen, he said that "on her worst day" Hillary Clinton was a thousand times better than any of the possible Republican candidates. And afterwards he campaigned for Clinton as much as her campaign people wanted him to. Clinton's loss in the Electoral College had more obvious causes than the probably small number of Sanders supporters who declined to vote for her.
4
Thank you to the Editorial Board for this well considered, split endorsement. Now we can finally be rid of these two.
15
Democrats' domestic agenda has served the people little better than that of the Republicans. So the 2020 Democrats need to come clean regarding the party's self-serving policies that have harmed the working class, above all.
Upscale professionals (those between the upper middle class and the 1%) earn 38% of total income and control 47% of wealth. Yet they are taxed on the margin at rates of 30%-35%, substantially lower than comparable Europeans.
The upscale also benefit from other tax policies that unduly favor them, including the mortgage and property tax deductions, favorable treatment of 401(k)'s and 520 accounts, and flat taxes like sales and property taxes. And sin taxes are big-time regressive.
As for health care, Obamacare coverage was well known to be beyond the means of 25-30 million blue collar Americans. Similarly, there is a gap in Medicare drug coverage that, again, harms the working class. Shamefully, in defending these health care inequities, the upscale have sought to divert attention to Republican Medicaid expansion policies. which affect a small fraction of those the ACA ignores.
Further inequities favoring the upscale include public tolerance of their segregated neighborhoods. free banking and credit services they receive, far superior public schools for their kids and, above all, higher life expectancy.
Upscale Democrats, are hardly selfless. Rather, they have created a welfare state that protects their own welfare, first and foremost.
7
@michjas The expats in my office who moved here from Europe aren't saving money, contrary to what they thought when they saw the salary and tax rates and accepted.
Life in and around the big US cities has become very expensive: expensive mortgage or rent, childcare, prices of groceries, healthcare co-pay, schools, ...
Only when wages become disproportionate "thanks" to inequality does it become worth it: director level and up or jobs that overcharge compared to Europe: doctor's, dentists, lawyers, therapists, ...
@Anne The sample I chose are all among the top 10% of income earners. If the 10%
complain of being needy, they are just spoiled whiners.
@michjas WOW!!! Perfectly put......Thank You!!!
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis of the candidates . We are at that place where we all need to decide rationally who will be best ; not because we like them but because we need to vote for who will do the right thing for the good of all and I agree . We as a country cannot continue being at the place we are now ; it is destructive , desensitizing , and dangerous . this country needs badly to heal the polarization ; both these women are the best choice, with hard work , sensible plans and the grit needed to lead .
4
Well done, NYT. Amy is the one. She is tough, rational, measured, articulate, and funny, and with her Midwestern charm she would wipe the floor with Trump in a debate.
8
It' just an opinion, data points to consider. Vote for who you like!
1
This kind of reminded me of a joke on the Vaughn Meader record when Kennedy with president where there's an ad encouraging people to vote. The message was "Vote for the Kennedy of your choice [this was when Ted was running for Senate], but vote."
The editorial board seems to be saying "Vote for the woman of your choice, but vote."
6
"Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller" That line in this opinion piece is very true.Here are just a few of the "stories" that Senator Warren has told about herself. 1) That she is a Native American. She actually used that falsehood to get ahead in both academia and her career. She made this claim numerous times in person and on various forms. 2)She has claimed that her father was a janitor. Members of her immediate family have publicly disputed this and her own brother has said pointedly their father was not a janitor. 3)Claiming she had no interest in politics at all when she was much younger when in fact she was a registered Republican and known at that time to be very Conservative. 4)Claiming to be the first "nursing mother" to take the New Jersey Bar exam. When asked for proof of this claim she could not provide any. There are other "stories" as in false claims that Senator Warren has made and I suggest that all interested parties read the article in Current Affairs "The Credibility Gap" by Nathan J Robinson. As a citizen and a voter I do not think it is a great idea to replace one President (Trump) who has told a massive amount of lies about himself and his background with a new President (Warren) who appears to also have difficulty telling the truth about her own background.To quote the late great Congressman Elijah Cummings "We can do much better".
14
The non-endorsement of Joe Biden ended with, " It's time for him to pass the torch..."
O.K. I get it. The decision was ultimately based on his age.
To the NYT Editorial Board:
I am glad you are not in charge of the Supreme Court or the House of Representatives.
You would have sent Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Nancy Pelosi packing a long time ago.
And what a loss that would have been for our country.
13
@Janet But Janet, one thing is to be speaker or justice, quite another to be president.
Personally, I can get behind Warren, but not Klobuchar.
I doubt Warren can achieve all her promises and plans.. no candidate can if they succeed in entering office.
Klobuchar.... with a record of abusive behavior toward subordinates... would be a disaster as president. This is a person who behind the scenes is literally unhinged... but puts on a proper public performance of normal.
Setting my personal views aside... I honestly do not think it is helpful for newspapers to endorse candidates in these very polarized and partisan times. Why? read the comments here.... people are literally losing their lunch over these endorsements. /eyeroll. All it does is get people even more worked up in this age of internet anonymous foaming at the mouth.
8
Whoever the Democatic nominee might be, the Democrats need to unite and vote for that Candidate.
More and more it shows trump to be an evil demagogue and must be removed by voting him out.
So far trump and family are mostly threatened my Joe Biden, nothing stops them to ridicule or undermine the VP. So much so his D I L, whom I have never paid attention to started ridiculing Biden.
They are cold blooded cruel people, let`s get them out of the White House.
5
The choice(s) aren't bad.
I do, however, believe that the choice would have been Elizabeth Warren alone, had she not been so rigid, with a good deal of hubris, with her specific "plans." And that she could well become the first woman president. Now that's water under the bridge?
Though my favorite candidate still is Mayor Pete, I would enthusiastically support whoever is the Democratic nominee.
5
@A.G.
"I do, however, believe that the choice would have been Elizabeth Warren alone, had she not been so rigid, with a good deal of hubris, with her specific 'plans.' "
Thanks for your comment. Very happy to hear that you will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is. I feel the same way. Your comment is a bit puzzling in one regard. As this endorsement notes, (a) Warren has been willing to negotiate and compromise in order to obtain goals like the Consumer Financial protection Bureau, and (b) her plans indicate not hubris but rather an indication that her proposals are less pie-in-the-sky that those of other candidates.
4
@Robert
Perhaps. But a couple of months or so ago, at the debate, when she belittled John Delaney for not "fighting" for something you believe in, she appeared intoxicated, which is what most voters would remember, unlike the ones who are glued to the candidates.
Delaney was cowed by her remark. He never recovered from it. I was thinking, Delaney was a good choice, for the sole reason because Joe Biden looked & acted old, unlike still older Bernie Sanders. Since then Biden recovered a little. (The fact that Biden continues to poll highest is worrisome in that the voters want to beat Donald Trump, that a too far left candidate like Bernie or Warren can't beat Trump. Hence someone who's impressive as Delaney might be a better choice. He faded since then.)
So I felt Pete Buttigieg could be the best to beat Trump. But he's still not expanding his reach. So, I now feel Biden on top and Pete as his running mate may well be the best choice - VP choice is important especially if Biden is the nominee.
1
I've had an eye on Klobuchar since before 2016. Don't remember what drew my attention, but I really liked her.
Sanders and Warren both mean well, and no doubt have their hearts on the side of regular Americans, but their proposals scare me. They are both overpromising that which is undeliverable, and reminds me of Obama's Hope and Change.
A lot of the voters who put trump in office were Obama voters who felt let down. Yes conservatives fought him every step of the way, and they will again should a democrat win the office.
If we are to remain a nation of laws that apply to every one, it's imperative trump be defeated. Promising the moon and stars at a cost of trillions will backfire and likely ensure a successful republican reprisal in 2024, when someone worse than trump will finish what he started.
With Klobuchar at the top, I believe we could also take the Senate and keep the House. McConnell and the republican senators who've sold out to a lawless, ignorant, mendacious demagogue have proven their allegiance is to him - not the Constitution.
We must vote them all out this year. If not, we may never have another chance to save the republic. I will vote blue, no matter who, and pray that everyone - and I mean everyone - whether your favorite gets the nod or not, get behind him or her. This one is for all the marbles, there will be no do-over, no second chance.
Klobuchar may not be what we want, but she's what we need.
4
"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."
Yes! This is precisely why we need Elizabeth Warren and why I'm glad the Times has endorsed her. She is honest enough to admit that the system is horribly corrupt and she has already proved herself capable of making huge corrections to that system by, for example, standing up to massive and outlandish Wall Street abuses. Not just by saying clever or radical things. But by finding practical ways to make practical changes that were working for the common American.
Plus, her candidacy would be the sharpest contrast to Trump. Her voice is as clear, as honest and as pragmatic as Trump's is muddied, mendacious and impetuous.
Lastly, she gives Democrats a chance to believe in something other than survival, which is all Biden has to offer. I want more than survival. I don't need to return to anything. I want someone who can articulate a vision of the future that I find all too cloudy right now. Her only drawback is the neurotic people who worry about her drawbacks.
5
I am guessing the fact that they are women is the deciding factor? Just like it was 4 years ago, plus the dynastic component back then?
This is just totally disappointing, the identity politics plain and obvious and at its lowest.
I am a Trump supporter so none of this is my business but dismissing Sanders who is head and shoulders above these two and who was duped last time is scandalous.
9
Power corrupts character and Klobuchar is vulnerable, given her history of treating staff badly.
She would not be able to handle a progressive VP under her, and yet a moderate-progressive or vice versa ticket is what is needed to bring out enough votes on the left.
3
Trump won't debate unless he feels like he will win.
If either of these candidates win the nomination, they'll be forced to debate Trump in the realm of new media--not traditional media like debates or Townhalls. Team Warren has shown they can fight with strategy and face-to-face aplomb (Team Sanders lost big in their efforts to sideline her). Team Klobuchar has shown that they can write one liners. She's proven she can be ruthless with people who report to her, but she's yet to prove she can be effective in a battle with someone who shows little to no shame. Klobuchar would be an excellent candidate if the old rules applied. But I seriously doubt we're headed for an old-rules election.
3
Bernie cult members are out in force. The strongest arguments against the Sanders healthcare plan is that it will never pass the Senate and it gives Republicans a lot of ammunition for the elections. Bern's plan goes far beyond what any other country in the world has. It pays for everything from dollar one. Other countries with universal care pay about 80% of all healthcare costs publicly, with the remainder paid by the patient and/or a supplemental insurance policy. Some commenters will write that that isn't true, but one has to only use the Google machine to see that it is. Canada's public system pays more like 70% or all healthcare costs, for instance. The Canadian public system does not pay for all dental care, vision care, limb prostheses, wheelchairs, prescription medication, podiatry and chiropractics and ambulances. Canada’s provincial and federal health insurance covers standard ward accommodation (four beds to a room) through Canada’s Medicare program. A private room or semi-private room will cost you or your insurer $200 to $300 a day. All personal and nursing care provided by long-term care homes in Ontario for instance are funded by the government. You must pay for accommodation charges such as room and board. Accommodation charges vary from $1,900 for basic, to $2,700 for private rooms. Bern's plan covers all of everything above.
3
@jas2200 "The strongest arguments against the Sanders healthcare plan is that it will never pass the Senate and it gives Republicans a lot of ammunition for the elections."
That's what they said about Obamacare. And similar arguments have been made about every major change to US policy: slavery, suffrage, civil rights. Every step forward is taken against a backdrop of those saying it can't be done.
4
@jas2200 I mourn the fact that our country has decided that doing what's wright is less important than doing what is popular. Not attempting to better our system because "Congress won't vote for it" is the lamest excuse to not make an attempt.
2
@Richard: The ACA was extremely difficult to pass into law. Passing Bernie's so-called "Medicare for All" will be impossible anytime soon. No other country has anything like it, and there are reasons for that. If Bernie were the nominee, Trump and his Republican and Russian buddies will have a field day with Bernie's plan, with the likely result another four years of misery.
1
The aspirations of Senators Klobuchar and Warren are commendable. The great problem is their approach. Both seek executive order as the their bludgeon. The expansion of the E.O. is responsible for our current problem - Trump is following other POTUSs.
Sen. Warren continues to demonstrate a zeal that disregards basic economics. It also defies the numerous polls showing that the majority of voters do NOT wish to have government dictate their healthcare plan.
Last and most important is the absolute necessity for the Democratic Party to filed a candidate who can win not only the Presidency, but also carry the House and Senate. The voters remain rather entrenched in selecting men for the Senate. The 'swing states' are also disinclined to accept a woman as POTUS. . .simply examine the local cultures of male domination. These 'swing states' have the electoral votes to again upset the popular vote.
The tragedy of progressive Democrats is their ability to project their own rational understandings to others that are not sharing their basic understanding of the issue. If this continues, it is likely Trump will again win (clearing the way for maybe Ivanka next) OR a President Warren or Klobuchar will be our next President Carter.
2
Once upon a time an endorsement by the Times actually meant something. Then again, once upon a time concepts such as civility, open-mindedness, perspective, humility, the common good, nuance, respect, decency, and American meant something. Sadly, that is no longer the case, and the current occupant of the White House, as much as he might think to the contrary, is merely an effect of this breakdown, not the cause.
3
@Steve Fankuchen
So, you believe in myths as well:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/23/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html
2
I am good with this; in fact, they should just be the ticket. Pragmatic Klobuchar can keep Warren real, though I am not sure Warren is a good listener. A two-women ticket against Trump would have the strength to be as loud a statement of strength as anything Trump could tweet. What's he left with, ethnic slurs against Warren? It's not the far-left progressives who can beat Trump now; it's the women from all backgrounds who live and vote in blue and red districts across the nation. That would be one of the more progressive steps this nation could take, not for the identity issue but because it would be a national statement of equity and merit. These women are qualified.
12
@PS Can Klobuchar play second violin under Warren, especially when not sharing the same ideas?
1
@PS
This IS the ticket.
1
@Anne And the reverse?
What was the point of this exercise if in the end you couldn't settle on one candidate?
Why did you build this up as if it were a cheap reality show?
If, somehow, you didn't feel you had not enough information about the candidates, why make this endorsement now?
This dual endorsement is no endorsement.
41
@Lifelong Reader
Yeah, we lifelong readers are doomed to disappointment. As I wrote elsewhere, once upon a time an endorsement by the Times actually meant something. Then again, once upon a time concepts such as civility, open-mindedness, perspective, humility, the common good, nuance, respect, decency, and American meant something. Sadly, that is no longer the case, and the current occupant of the White House, as much as he might think to the contrary, is merely an effect of this breakdown, not the cause.
4
@Lifelong Reader
It's the most creative, thoughtful endorsement I've ever read. Think about it. This IS the ticket to beat Trump.
@MLerable
I can only assume you are being sarcastic. These days, it's hard to tell.
We need to beat Trump. That means deciding on a candidate and developing a strategy NOW.
3
So playing it safe NYT ?
But I myself have not made a decision whom to vote for in the primaries .
I liked Mayor Pete at the very begining, recently Mike Bloonberg, Amy Klobuchar is very good but far behind in the polls. Warren turned me off by picking up a fight with Bernie Sanders in public so everyone could see.
Basically trump has to be a one time president, so I am not even looking at the issues but who could beat him in the election.
They say Joe Biden, but if he is the nominee how would he debate trump ?
The rest would be great at the debate.
Please all vote for the Candidate running against trump we need to be together in this !
7
@B Sharp
This endorsement is not "Safe." It is the ticket to beat Trump. But it could be the most exciting ticket ever. It's a risk, but then, so is every other candidate. Think about it.
2
@B Sharp What makes you so sure Trump would participate in a debate?
1
@PJ1304
He might not.anything is possible for trump.
1
You have just endorsed the best team to beat Trump. To all of you out there that say "No Way," I say to you, think about what a team of experienced, no-nonsense, capable women would do to an ego as fragile as Trump's. I've always felt that these two women would make him really look like the fool he is, and with a touch that only a woman could do. Don't underestimate the power of this possibility. I think they would make a unbeatable duo that would knock the socks off this divided country. They are exactly what we need - right now. Make it happen, ladies. It's your time. It's our time. Now, if the Democrats could just get out of their own way, realize that Bernie, Biden have had their day - and take a risk, this would be an even more monumental shift than Obama. Well?
16
@MLerable While I appreciate your optimism, and I would vote for either over Trump in a heartbeat, this is the issue with the left. Everyone is in their own bubble. In what reality (outside of NYC) do you honestly think either of these women has the chance to beat Trump? He will most likely not debate either of them, his approval ratings are high, and Warren (who has a better chance at the nomination than Klobuchar, but no chance in reality) embodies what most of Trump's base dislikes about the left, which is a holier-than-thou, identity politics driven, highly educated elitism which frankly does not resonate with his voters, which is who we need for support if we have any hopes of winning this year.
3
The way we treat others is a strong indicator of character. Klobuchar's people management should have not given the Times pause, it should have been a disqualification:
- Bill Clinton couldn't keep his hands off an intern, QED.
- Biden lashing out at a retired farmer, letting his son take a troubling $50k per month job in Ukraine, etc. QED
- And if you have to use Trump to rationalize behavior, you've already lost
So sorry, but I'm not convinced by Klobuchar. Bloomberg or even Buttigieg were the better choice here.
15
@Bender
You know, these one issue reasons for not voting for someone is tiring. Are you not a bigger thinker in this campaign. This is the most qualified group of people EVER running for President. C'mon people, get a grip here. The candidates are not one-issue people and you should not be either.
This is silly. Endorsing 2 candidates is more of a statement about the non-endorsed candidates than a statement encouraging support. Why didn't the editorial board make a list of the candidates who should drop out of the primary?
12
@JMF
This is NOT silly. It's actually an endorsement for the Democratic ticket. This could be the most exciting ticket in the history of this country - especially given who a Warren-Klobuchar ticket would be going up against. Talk about a "Made for TV" campaign!!
What is the point of dismissing Sanders on the ground that he cannot and will not compromise? As if republicans will. The steady shift of the Democratic Party to the right has led to the current situation.
33
@jjb A fan of governmental gridlock, are you?
1
@TRF Better than just rolling over for the Republicans. They only respect strength, and you show strength by loudly proclaiming your principles and then sticking to them.
1
So, the New York Times couldn't find a candidate to endorse.
I endorse Bernie:
- His message is clear, loud and consistent. It will penetrate rural America and is difficult to distort by the talking heads.
Everyone knows the rich shareholder class and corporations have been shaping US policy for too long at the expense of workers. Bernie has voted against Iraq, against NAFTA, against the USMCA. Trump conceded on free trade and is now vulnerable to the part of his base who lost their factories. Big mistake.
- It is better to rally around a progressive candidate during an economic boom, as the suburbs are happy with the state of the economy and the benefits it produces for their class.
This is not Clinton 1992, or Obama 2008. There is no broad demand for change from left to right. Only on the left.
We would lose significant votes in the cities, but pick up votes in the heartland where it matters.
- Congress will keep Bernie in check and conversely, Bernie will inspire Congress to be more ambitious. No more rubber stamping military budget increases, or approving budgets with massive losses that fund the tax cut for the rich. The US will not turn into Denmark in one presidency.
- 2016.
- There is no inspiring moderate candidate like the young Obama who can deliver powerful speeches and unite the party.
23
"To be fair, Bill Clinton and Mr. Trump — not to mention former Vice President Biden — also have reputations for sometimes berating their staffs, and it is rarely mentioned as a political liability."
Throwing telephones and binders at them? Uh, no. If they did it would have been mentioned as an extreme political liability around a million times per day during their campaigns.
This is the ultimate false equivalence, but apparently required by stratospheric levels of wokeness.
18
While you have split your endorsement between two candidates, your full report seems to be more critical than supportive of Elizabeth Warren. There's a whole paragraph devoted to her shortcomings (and on Buttigieg, your basic complaint is that he's young--well, he has more experience than Trump, doesn't he?). It really looks as if, despite what you think of your own opinion, you're endorsing Klobuchar.
10
I have no beef with a decision to break with convention, but this decision by the Editorial Board to endorse two candidates seems grossly irresponsible. Why not break with convention and choose to not make an endorsement at this time or to make no endorsement at all?
After watching The Weekly last night I pondered how you would come to an agreement. My thought was that the decision would be postponed...I'm sorry that you didn't choose that path. It would certainly be less damaging than the dual endorsement path that you chose.
17
If these women had the stature of Angela Merkel, I'd whoop for either of them in a heartbeat. Moreover, I think a sensationally popular woman like Michelle Obama would stand a great chance of knocking off Trump head-to-head so convincingly that nobody could claim the election was rigged.
Alas, this just isn't the case. And yes, a woman does have a higher bar to clear than a man. It may be unfair, but that's just the way it is. Nonetheless, a strong woman who seems to embody what people value in their lives and country can sometimes clear the bar with ease, as Margaret Thatcher did in the U.K.
These two women don't seem to have what it takes to stand in the tornado of hostility and slander Trump's gutter-wauling team will deliver this year, though I think Amy Klobuchar goes farther in that respect than does Elizabeth Warren. Even so, these are bad choices for the Times to make this year. Very, very bad. Your editorial board is blind to what America needs in the storm Trump and the Republicans have inflicted on us.
6
@David A. Lee Merkel's decision to open her borders unilaterally to a bunch fake refugees was a disaster that could yet destroy the EU, and led directly to Brexit.
If Clinton could win the popular vote over Trump with all the baggage and Wall Street connections and Hawkish positions she carried along with her, then Warren, who does very well in debates, has plans, champions the working class, is sharp and has a good track record should do very well.
10
@Clayton Marlow
First. No one is more "hawkish" than what we have in the White House now.
And that said, there's no doubt that Clinton would EVER be holding hands with Vladimir Putin the way that Donald Trump is doing now.
And sorry, but Warren has her own background with moneyed Wall Street types as well.
This is America. You can't get away from big buck in politics.
1
"Now is the time to narrow the race." Amusing that you stuck this phrase in the middle of an impossible"endorsement" that fractured the reality of the situation. You know that you can't have it both ways so you chose to select the middle of the center of the road. Margaret Thatcher famously said: "if you choose to stand in the middle of the road, you can be hit by cars coming from both directions." Or something very much like that...
12
Reminds me of my teenage girlfriend who walked out of the ice cream shop empty handed on a hot day because she couldn't make a choice from among 31 flavors.
15
As crazy as this may seem, your choices, like mine have no meaning. The Fix is in for a Billionaire to win once again, from either side, and the Television industry will slant coverage to the M.I.C.'s choice.
Grateful to the NYT Editorial Board for seeing the strengths of Elizabeth Warren.
From her upbringing to her fight for consumers, Senator Warren is not only the best candidate, she should be our next president.
Her clarity, knowledge, experience, and most important, her emotional strength and stability will ensure her work for all of us.
Bernie Sanders understands the need for healthcare for everyone, Elizabeth Warren will see that it is funded fairly.
Mr. Sanders, please step back and take care of your health.
To Bloomberg and Biden, you have accomplished much, it's time to step back, or step forward and volunteer your time for the most needy. Women, children, the sick and the homeless. Surely Mr. Bloomberg there is a far better use for your money. Look out your window, walk the streets, and meet those needs. It is important work, you could be saving lives today.
Ms Klobuchar, your temperment, jarringly noted in the NYT article here was enough to disqualify you as emotionally equipped for the office of president of the US.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-staff.html
We've all seen what can happen when our country is devastated by choices that have done harm, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and the current occupant of the white house.
We not only can do better, we can make an outstanding choice in Elizabeth Warren!
8
I will vote for any Democrat in the upcoming Presidential Election even one with cold warrior creds who would swing between right of center and center, painful as that would feel to me. That is how critical I feel it is to rid ourselves of this pretender in chief. Most of my friends might not agree or at least not argue too astringently as we are all old lefties. Others of course will. But I have also thought that if a woman is the nominee that there will be a groundswell for her, much as there was for Obama in 2008, but even more so that will overwhelm and cause a landslide in her favor. It will be another historical moment and I think there will be a positive response. Because she will not be Hillary Clinton, a candidate I had supported from the first time she ran, the new candidate will not be her and not have the "baggage" that was associated with her. I can not overstate how important it is that the impeached one be gone from any association with the U.S. government. But for the life of me even after reading your lengthy justification of your choices I can not determine how it would be possible to vote for two candidates. You've got to pick one because there is only one President. Take a stand otherwise it just seems wiggly, squishy and confusing.
5
I'm disappointed with "May the best woman win." I'm going to vote for someone based on their track record and ideas and momentum, not their physical characteristics.
However, this recommendation does not reflect on either Warren or Klobuchar. Recommending two candidates and emphasizing they are women rather than recommending the single best candidate is NYT's failure, not theirs. Any of the Democrats in the race would make a better president than Trump, and it's up to readers to find another editorial to help narrow down the field.
14
@Chris Agreed, NYT is basically saying their (opposing) policies don't matter but they both have an aesthetic we can tolerate. this entire charade would actually be comical if it wasn't putting the left into a downward spiral where they end up eating their own and - big surprise - Trump wins again.
5
When I wake up on November 4th, I will have had:
1) a nightmare if Trump is reelected (and I'll be packing to move to the Netherlands)
2) a fitful sleep if Amy Klobuchar is elected - she will be a welcome change vs Trump, but will not promise to be the agent of the big changes I feel we need
3) a pleasant and restful sleep - if Elizabeth Warren is elected. I will also wake up each morning excited to read the news of the day - about her efforts to bring about those big changes. She certainly won't get them all, but they will be her target. And, she will inspire others, especially women, to also share those goals.
I'm a 73-year old privileged white guy, veteran, with kids, grandkids and even a great-grandkid. I believe Elizabeth Warren will start the turn-around to create the America I want and the one I want my family to experience. Since I only have a limited number of wake-ups left, I don't have time or patience for half-measures.
The Founding Fathers didn't consider appeasing King George III for another 4-years before really declaring their independence.
12
@TMM beautiful comment. Thank you.
1
The endorsements appear to be a calculated effort to defeat Bernie Sanders on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, more than any thing else. Support his closest rival for progressive ideas, and a Republican-lite candidate whose midwestern roots may have some resonance in the state. I was leaning toward Warren until the last debate, when she appeared calculating and dishonest, suggesting that the one candidate who urged her to run in 2016 and whose ideas she has largely copied, is a sexist. It highlighted for me things I had tried to push to the back of my mind, e.g., her presenting "Cherokee" recipes copied out of the NYT as is she inherited them from her family and earning $2 million defending corporations from the very practices she publicly condemns while a professor of Harvard. I will vote for the opposite of the status quo, Bernie Sanders.
40
Sorry. The NYT Editorial Board, by naming both a progressive and a moderate, is like betting $20.00 on KC and another $20.00 on SF in the Super Bowl. In the Board's minds, they can't be wrong.
Well, they can. Warren will lose in a landslide electorally against Trump. Klobuchar has the moderate policies to beat Trump, just not, in my mind, the ability to get enough votes, although her November election would be closer than a Warren-Trump election would be.
With me, it has NOTHING to do with gender. Hillary ran an awful campaign, ignoring whole states entirely. And the progressives who voted for an inept Jill Stein sealed the deal for Trump in those states.
Warren has no chance beating Trump. When she goes around the country telling me and 150,000,000 others she's taking our private health insurance away, the November election will be over before 10 PM eastern.
Klobuchar can keep it close. But her relative obscurity will not convince enough 2016 Trump voters to switch.
And to the NYT Editorial Board: take a stand and stop hedging your bets.
14
@slime2 "With me it has nothing to do with gender"....
proceeds to slam 4 women.
@Chris. I never slammed anyone for being a woman. I stated I don't believe most Americans will vote for Warren and Medicare For All. I stated I don't think enough Americans will do their homework to get to know Klobuchar and her policies. I stated that Jill Stein was inept after listening to her tell us how she would govern. And I stated that the person who should be present right now ran a terrible campaign, taking that all of the Obama voters would vote for her. So she ignored whole states, taking votes for granted.
I never stated that these women couldn't win because they were women. I stated two of the four couldn't win because of their policies. I stated one woman couldn't win because, in my opinion, not enough primary voters, majority of which are progressives, will get to know her policies. And I stated one woman ran a terrible campaign.
Now, if I can't have opinions about people that are negative because those people happen to be women, that I'm not "woke" enough for you (I despise that word, woke), then it's your problem and not mine.
I want Trump out ASAP. It'll take a moderate woman, or man, to beat him. Again, in my opinion.
1
I don't think the Republicans would call the wing of the Democratic Party that Amy Klobuchar belongs to as "moderate," More likely wildly liberal. More accurately that wing which is often referred to as center-left could be called the liberal wing and the progressive wing could be called the democratic socialist wing as Bernie Sanders the leader of that wing has labeled himself. In any case, whomever wins the nomination is going to be attacked by the Republican as being too liberal and even as being a socialist.
4
Like many commenters on this board, I am are disappointed in the endorsement of two candidates. Can we really not make a decision here? If this is any indication of the future, I suspect we could be in for another four years of Trump Nation.
13
This endorsement is of a different type, one that acknowledges the fear of Democrats in this unprecedented moment, and seeks to assuage them. While some may see a dual endorsement as insufficiently helpful at the voting booth, it is in fact very specific. Here is provided a formula for voters to follow - and a welcome rebuttal of the "candidate [blank] can't win" and "Americans will never vote for a [blank]" predictions rampaging through the Democratic blogosphere.
The formula is quite simple: First, if you haven't done so already, decide which approach to governing you favor. Second, vote for the best candidate in that category. The body of the essay can be viewed as a recommendation; however, describing each candidate's strengths and weaknesses in different areas and giving more weight to some areas than others also provides a blank template for voters to follow.
5
@childofsol excellent analysis
I would love a ticket with these two women on it as candidates for POTUS and VP. But I am a 78yr old man who has no fear of rational, intelligent, strong women who have real ideas about how to make life better for all Americans. I am not a jealous woman afraid of other women. I am doing just fine financially with Trump as president, but I don't mind sharing my financial gains from a rising stock market (begun btw by the Obama administration). I think most of Warren's "plans" are right about how to move forward. Those who fear Warren's progressive ideas are afraid of change and, like the dinosaurs, they will soon become extinct. The problem is that there are still a lot of dinosaurs living in America today. Only if the younger generation get out and vote in November to secure their own futures will we turn the tide of selfish nihilism that comes from my generation. Only then will America truly become great again.
9
Half a loaf is better than none. That you have finally recognized Amy is gratifying. Now we have a clear choice between utopia and scientific evidence from evolutionary psychology. I grew out of the former world view many years ago.
2
How uninspired. I initially was quite pro-Warren but became increasingly less so while watching her debate performances. At first I was so impressed at how much of a prepared political professional she was and how cogently she presented her arguments; my impression turned over time to seeing her strengths as weaknesses. The energy she brings appears a little frantic, and the latest kerfuffle with Bernie was a serious turn-off.
In a practical, electability sense, having a written and itemized plan for everything is a definite liability. Yes, it shows you are thoughtful and ready. It also shows your hand and allows your enemies to precisely pick it apart and bludgeon you with their nit-picks. Remember that excruciating exchange between her and Biden about the minor differences between their respective plans? It's all opening for the other side to attack.
And why is Klobuchar even mentioned? An obsession with pleasing the soi-disant moderates is not enough of an answer.
16
@Clotario I'm with you. The post debate mannerisms expressed by both Warren and Sanders blew me off both of them as viable leaders.
Ms. Warren is not strong enough, in my mind, to pull off an after Trump Presidency.
Ms. Kobuchar is probably the most well qualified candidate, but her anonymity will keep her from winning.
Not sure where we go from here.
5
@Sean Berry The post debate mannerisms actually convinced me of Warren's character and conviction. Bernie did call her a liar on national TV and she called him out for it in a way not intended to be caught on tape. My guess is that like most things the truth is nuanced and Bernie did say he did not think a woman could win *against Donald Trump*. I don't think Bernie is sexist but I do think he is a grumpy OLD man who hasn't had a new thought in a long time. Warren has my vote because of her thorough research and thoughtful plans to address problems she clear-sightedly identifies.
3
@Sean Berry Elizabeth Warren strikes me as the most stable, strong, sincere and intelligent person on the stage. So much for a diversity of opinons!
3
If the choice is between Klobuchar and Warren, I hope Democrats will choose Warren. Anyone who mistreats employees sets a bad precedent for other leaders. "Tough" and "demanding" bosses are viewed as "successful" but they are insecure, would buckle under pressure and create toxic work environments. Very often toughness overlaps with abuse of employees. Supporters defend Klobuchar's "toughness" by pointing out that Bill Clinton was also known to be equally "tough." This comparison should not excuse Klobuchar's or Clinton's leadership styles.
In an era when abuse of employees under the guise of "toughness" is rampant, we need leaders like Barack Obama or Elizabeth Warren.
9
@Nav Pradeepan Look at any article, including the one in this publication, about Klobuchar's alleged mistreatment of staff and you will see anonymous sources doing a he-said-she-said. Very likely a hit-job. They even call her out on her careful use of language for written and oral use. It's like when they called out Martha Stewart for demanding a high thread count for her sheets stocked at KMart. That's a GOOD thing. Women get clobbered for literally demanding excellence. Use critical thinking. There is almost certainly no "there" there.
1
@genXfemale Klobuchar herself admitted her behavior could use some change. No one is "clobbering" men or women for "demanding excellence." Anyone can demand excellence and still be respectful toward employees and inspire to bring out the best in them. Just because Klobuchar is female, it does not mean she gets to have a free pass in the way she treats employees.
I would also love to know how the Board would have voted had they not known their votes were going to be public. The top 4 candidates that the Board settled on - Warren, Klobuchar, Booker and Buttigieg, when taken in total, smacked of pandering to political correctness and identity politics. God forbid the list include an older white male, even though Biden and Sanders are almost inarguably the two candidates most likely to beat Trump. Both bring their own form of across the aisle appeal, although to different demographics.
The fact that the final four list was so far removed both from the polls and the fairly foreseeable outcome in a general election, it seems clear that whatever the Board was doing, it was NOT interested in determining the most deserving candidate for the NY Times' endorsement.
21
@Kristin
Not at all inarguable that Biden is one of the best candidates to beat Trump. In fact, I would argue that if Biden is the nominee, Trump will almost undoubtedly win. There will be no momentum from within the Democratic base, particularly the young voters, to turn out at the polls. And the biggest deciding factor is going to be turnout.
4
@Kristin I see your point, but the NYT board members interviewed the candidates in person for 90 minutes in an intimidating setting up close. From the video that the NYT released you can clearly see EW and AK do very, very well. The interviewers then took an individual vote and I don't believe they shared their personal votes.
@Chris
C'mon. These people are on the editorial board of the NY Times. It's not like they didn't already know everything they needed to know about these candidates and needed the interviews to find out who they were.
2
Good grief, what a copout. But I suppose this does inadvertently capture the growing schism within the Democratic Party. My side, the progressives, are quick to call out society's ills and propose solutions. One may argue about the details of the prescription, but we're at least striving to right the an obviously foundering ship.
The moderate/centrist wing, on the other hand, is a financially well off group that prizes stability above all else. They detest Donald Trump and the progressive wing of the Democrats for the essentially the same reason: they fear significant change and seek above all to protect their pocketbooks.
It's tough to see how these two wings can maintain a coalition. My preference would be to nominate a progressive and then dare the centrists to stay home or vote for someone else. Can they tolerate a new president in the vein of FDR, or would they prefer American fascism (which can, it must be said, sometimes keep wealthy people wealthy).
12
@corvid
By mischaracterizing the so-called "moderate/centrist wing" of the Democratic Party your comment is so divisive that it almost ensures the reelection of Donald Trump. Presumably this is the last thing you actually want to happen yet you seem intent on achieving it.
Reminds one of Will Rogers famous quotation: "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
4
@corvid
I was all in for Bernie in 2016, for many reasons. Voted for the Other Woman in the general election -- a perfectly safe vote in a reliably red state. But this time, I've been supporting Amy ever since she announced. Times have changed, and in my opinion the self-identified progressives have become increasingly reactionary. I still do cheer Bernie on and would support him in the general. But Elizabeth revealed her true colors in the post debate exchange, and if she is the candidate I will again vote third party. Hopefully
the Times endorsement will put Amy in the 'top tier' !
Sometimes pragmatic centrism IS progressive.
2
@George
Indeed, calling them "moderate" or "centrist" is a mischaracterization. Promoting Wall Street over ordinary Americans, shipping jobs abroad, undermining unions, indifference to or supporting wars (not to mention an outsized defense budget), supporting fracking and oil development in the Gulf (Obama), are more accurately "right-wing."
3
Elizabeth Warren claims she has a plan for that. All of the economists that have looked at her plans have universally found that her plans are TRILLIONS of dollars off in generating enough income for her profligate spending. Some economists have found she is 11 trillion dollars off, that is is an astonishing number. People who live in Oklahoma as I do, understand that it is quite easy to determine whether you qualify under the blood quantum requirements that the Cherokee Tribe sets out to make you eligible to be a tribal member by looking at the Dawes Rolls. Senator Warren was rebuked by the Cherokee Tribe in the process because she was baited by Trump and was forced to apologize. That humiliating exercise showed she doesn't plan well and doesn't exercise good judgment. Despite the current belief to the contrary the majority of the American public still resides between the 40 yard lines. Amy Klobuchar is firmly ensconced there, much to the chagrin of the progressives who really are now coming out of the closet and unapologetically saying we are socialists. Senator Klobuchar is extremely rational and pragmatic. She also happens to be quite good at math which Warren has proven she is not. Klobuchar has actually passed legislation and not talked about pie in the sky ideas that are neither grounded in fiscal reality or have any chance of passing. Warren has already had a very public fight with Trump and lost.
7
@aristotle First thing, Warren didn't claim to be a tribal member. She said that she had some native American ancestry. That's different than saying that you are an official member of a tribe.
Second, you're worried about the numbers adding up? The numbers don't add up now. They didn't add up 20 years ago. They've never added up. But there's always money for wars and tax cuts for the rich! Let's try it the other way for once.
"Our elections are getting less free and fair, Congress and the courts are increasingly partisan, foreign nations are flooding society with misinformation, a deluge of money flows through our politics. And the economic mobility that made the American dream possible is vanishing."
The editorial board should stop to consider that one reason why we are in the mess we're in as a nation is because of "realists" and "centerists" like Amy Klobuchar. Klobuchar and Biden both seem to think that there's a rational group of Republicans that are interested in governing fairly within the nation's constitutional traditions of shared power, when in fact all evidence points to the opposite. Imagining that compromise is possible with Trump's GOP is like imagining that all the fuss and bother of 1861 could have been avoided if Abraham Lincoln had just been a bit more forthcoming when dealing with Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens.
I'd rather go down swinging with a true realist like Elizabeth Warren rather than deal with fantasists like Biden an Klobuchar.
5
I don't understand why Yang is not even considered by most voters. He has the best plan for American workers of anyone in the field. He has all the advantages of Warren and none of the disadvantages.
13
@Sean Yang's time hasn't come yet. I hope he stays active in the Democratic Party and runs for Congress. Look at how Bernie has brought the progressive agenda from fringe to center. That could be Yang in 4, 8 years.
6
@Sean Agreed! I am a huge Yang supporter and what's great is that 99% of Americans would benefit from his policies.
Also, he doesn't HATE business - he wants corporations to pay their fair share in taxes but still operate in a capitalist / market function. His policies level the playing field for all of us and....$1K a month is a great start.
6
@Sean
His economic plans are, in spite of what he says, fundamentally regressive. He has absolutely no experience in government, and so while he would potentially be a fantastic candidate for some sort of political office, in our current climate electing somebody with literally no government experience would be foolish. Also, he's weak on foreign policy and a lot of his opinions and positions are wishy-washy at best.
Yang is certainly interesting and I've appreciated the conversations he's brought to the table. But he isn't, and shouldn't be, an actual viable consideration for our highest office.
6
Not surprised - with the ongoing tilted coverage in the NYTimes - What - Bernie Sanders not even in the top four! I started out liking Warren but thinking she was not a good choice to face Trump. Now I no longer like her nor think she's a good choice. The only Democrat I absolutely will not vote for in the general election is Mr, Buttigieg - not because of his age or orientation but because of his character or lack thereof. He is a total construct of the moneyed elite and mainstream media which I cannot endorse with my vote.
11
@Peggy I have to wonder if you actually read his interview here, or anywhere else, or even his book. Or heard him speak. Because you are so wrong, I don't know where to begin. I agree with you about Warren, especially after her attack on Bernie, but I'm disappointed in the Times' shortsightedness about Pete, and yours.
4
@Peggy the NYT board members interviewed the candidates in person for 90 minutes in an intimidating setting up close for this endorsement. Then they voted individually. From the video that the NYT released you can clearly see Bernie's age--you have to admit that being inaugurated at 80 is really problematic for him. Also, clearly some of the other candidates did better in that interview.
@Peggy The Times had to resort to ageism to justify its choices, not good.
1
Not surprised - with the ongoing tilted coverage in the NYTimes - What - Bernie Sanders not even in the top four! I started out liking Warren but thinking she was not a good choice to face Trump. Now I no longer like her nor think she's a good choice. The only Democrat I absolutely will not vote for in the general election is Mr, Buttigieg - not because of his age or orientation but because of his character or lack thereof. He is a total construct of the moneyed elite and mainstream media which I cannot endorse with my vote.
7
The Times editorial board may be among the last people on earth who view Bernie Sanders as the Democrats' equivalent of Trump. It's op-ed columnists, especially Paul Krugman, spread this calumny throughout the 2016 campaign.
You can disagree with Sanders' proposals but does anybody in their right mind really believe that Sanders would participate in the corrupt and purposely divisive behavior Trump has. And, let's face it, it is Trump's whole approach to the presidency which has been problematic.
21
@Steve
Actually, I campaigned for Sanders last go-around, but this time the insanity of so much of his base, the cult-like attitude of so many of his supporters, which was present last time but has become more obvious to me now, has completely put me off. I absolutely think the Bernie cult has similarities to Trumpism, and it scares me. It's evident all of the time in comments in this newspaper, and all over the internet, and in the people I meet day to day who are ardent supporters.
It's not an issue of believing Sanders would "participate in the corrupt and purposely divisive behavior Trump has." I don't think that at all. What I do see is a cult of personality. And we already have a cult surrounding the president. We certainly don't need another one on the other side.
No, at this point I would actually be disturbed in Sanders got the nomination. It is not *just* Trump's approach to the presidency which has been problematic, it's the behavior of his ardent followers, his cult, who have made America less tolerant, more polarized, and increasingly frightening for many of us. These people existed before Trump; Trump just emboldened them. And the fact that there is a population of people who cross between these camps, the Trumpism and Bernie camps, is meaningful.
This is an opinion I cam to on my own. I didn't need any op-ed columnist or anybody else to lead me here. So speak for yourself, but there are plenty of other people who DO see the similarities, even if you don't
4
@ES completely agree. I like the man, he was my #2, but his supporters are obnoxious. That's why I'm here voicing my opinion to balance things out. His supporters are persistent and toxic.
2
@ES "It's not an issue of believing Sanders would 'participate in the corrupt and purposely divisive behavior Trump has.'"
It's exactly that for me. What drew me to Sanders in the first place is the fact that he's not bought. Bought politicians enact legislation in favor of the power that bought them. NOT the people. Democrat, Republican, if they're tools of unaccountable concentrated power, they will be useless representatives of the American people. THAT is what got us Trump.
2
Paid family leave, increasing minimum wage, universal health care, minimizing foreign intervention, the “of the moment” proposals you mention here have been stated goals of the Democratic Party since the Clinton administration (Hillary crashed hard on the rocky shoals of health care back then). All of which came to grief at the hands of a recalcitrant congress and Republican Party (Obamacare being the big exception). We can talk all we want about these presidential candidates; what we need is a re-formed legislature that will allow progressive proposals to be enacted into law. We need down ticket support, and we need to focus on the mechanisms by which we can realistically make progressive ideas into broad-based progressive realities. Talk is cheap. Show me how you will bring people along, and finally get it done.
6
@Edna Agreed, but we need Trump gone too.
1
I suppose I applaud the Times' courage in endorsing candidates on principle and capability, rather than ability to win. What bothers me a little bit, however, is that if we jettison the electability factor, there are other candidates who are equally or more capable. At any rate, the editorial board had to pick someone, they couldn't do it, but if either of the two candidates were to win, sanity would be restored, the world would begin to forgive us, and most of us would feel a whole lot better about the future.
5
It's telling that Warren is similar enough to Klobuchar to deserve the board's endorsement. I'll continue to donate to Sanders, the candidate with a career-long, consistent message.
14
@Tommy Hansen You clearly didn't read the article. The difference between them is the point.
1
Couldn't make up your minds? These candidates diverge on a number of key issues. Hedging your bets? Absurd.
22
Goodness forbid I criticize either of these accomplished women in the company of fellow liberals and progressives, but we will Identity-Politics-ourselves into oblivion before the year is out. Its pretty clear to me that the establishment elite want nothing to do with an old white man who yells no matter his positive, uplifting platform and his upstanding record of standing by working and poor people. I'm still voting #Bernie.
13
So indecision and weak compromise stands in for 'bucking convention' these days? It would have been better if the board had picked one, or none.
12
@Cameron Skene
The day after Donald Trump was elected The New York Times print edition was delivered with a special wraparound ad for "The Crown" with a blaring headline: "Let Her Reign Begin!"
They got it wrong then. They've been getting it wrong ever since. (Not since "Dewey Defeats Truman"...)
1
I am endorsing all the democratic candidates. This is equally helpful.
12
If the Times is committed to picking both a moderate and a progressive, it seems to me intuitively obvious that those picks should be Biden and Sanders respectively, both of whom are leading their respective camps in polling, fundraising, and experience.
I can understand the Warren pick, even if I disagree with it. The Klobuchar pick is so pointless and out of touch that I genuinely feel it erases the legitimacy of the entire process. She has no base outside her home state, no signature issues, polls less than Andrew Yang, and has fundraised less than Corey Booker.
The only justification offered for passing over Biden was his age. I admit ageism is a factor in voter attitudes and candidate viability (so is gender, much as the Times would like to deny it) but it is not sufficient justification to swap the front runner for a candidate in last place. Their statement that "it is time for [Biden] to pass the torch to a new generation of political leaders" is especially ridiculous, given that Klobuchar is 59.
In the end, voters simply aren't looking to the Times editorial board to tell them how to feel anymore. It's an outdated institution that tries to speak with a moral authority it simply doesn't possess. The fact that they think they can pick an unviable, unloved candidate and expect voters to fall in line behind that pick just goes to show how wildly out-of-touch they've become.
17
@Matt "In the end, voters simply aren't looking to the Times editorial board to tell them how to feel anymore."
Is this how you decided how you felt about candidates in past election? Tell the truth!
This is really disappointing. Klobuchar doesn't have a chance. She's so middle of the road, that she's polarizing.
I really like Warren, but I am worried that big business will not support her candidacy against Trump.
That being said, I am still supporting Andrew Yang since he's the freshest one of the bunch who sees what's truly happening and is busy providing SOLUTIONS not talking about what he did in the past.
6
You're two choices are a predictable cosmopolitan metropolitan one. But there is the matter of who will appeal to the rest of the country? Like Hillary Clinton, whom I supported vigorously because of her stellar background, lost being timid and apparently not prone to fighting Trump more energetically. To me that means the calm mannered Klobuchar would be defeated under the reckless Trump and his machine. But Warren does have a fighting chance as she appears to be full of vim and vigor when confronting Trump. As a realistic student of biology, I would have wanted a man of aggressive stature to compete with Trump, but given your choice, I wish your choices well, and don't shy from a fight. Get in his territory and tell it like it is without marketing hesitation.
@PATRICK It doesn't seem fair (or accurate) to try and tear these women down by calling them the cosmopolitan metropolitan choice. Especially Klobuchar.
@Ben
I was referring to the Editorial Board, not the public who will not vote for a "City Slicker" after they already did and learned how they were duped. All the nation is not of the Times.
The endorsement fails to mention my major concern about Senator Warren as a candidate: Her propensity to go off on tangents that call into question her temperament to be president and her ability to get elected. First was her huge, unforced, error in saying that she intended "to take away" people's private health insurance. Then came her revealing details of a supposed private conversation with Senator Sanders that most people believe she twisted or exaggerated. The first was political malpractice. The second appears sneaky. Both recall her foolish, albeit true, insistence that she was part Native American.
I had intended to vote for Warren for exactly the reasons the endorsement emphasized, but I am disappointed, and a bit frightened, by these aspects of her campaign, given who her opponent will be. The Democrats have no ideal candidate, but I will be supporting Mr. Sanders.
12
If Barack Obama had been eligible for a third term he would have won an overwhelming victory. And by the same token, if he was running in the current race he would be declared the winner by acclimation. So, it is way too easy to dismiss VP Biden's lead in national polling as merely "a measure of familiarty." Moreover, as you say, Biden's central pitch is that he can beat Donald Trump. For many voters, that is what this election is all about and his claim that he could prevail where others might not is persuasive.
16
I have been watching the NY Times’ coverage of the Democratic candidates and nothing about the editorial board picking Warren was unexpected. Now picking Klobuchar seems to be about projecting an appearance of neutrality, which really went out the window for the NY Times a while ago. Serious and respectable news outlets should not be in the business of endorsing presidential candidates, particularly if they want to sell themselves as unbiased reporters of the news. I am not opposed to editorial board opinions, but in government elections opinions such this carry power that reverberate across, not just people, but other institutions. Elections should be decided by the people after being involved in the democratic process, hearing from candidates, going to town hall meetings, having access to a variety of respectable and reliable news sources. If we want the people to trust the media and the democratic process, just presents us with unbiased information (as much as that is possible), and let us decide.
10
Watching these videos, I'm glad they are smug in their beliefs, which happen to make no sense at all.
Warren is a liberal, although her health care plan is pretty status quo and doesn't address universal coverage in any meaningful way.
Klobuchar is a centrist in the Clinton vein.
If this is about a woman becoming POTUS, why not pick one?
7
I voted for HRC in the 2008 primary and in the 2016 election. I would vote for her again, not because she is female, but because she was the best candidate. Seems people are still ambivalent about electing a woman President. Look at how commentors are responding to Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar yet are allowing men to soil themselves publicly in service to Trump. Please put gender aside and vote for one of these great NYTimes picks if she is nominated.
6
@Cathy Please put gender aside and vote for the best candidate. Period.
8
@Cathy.
If you were all knowing, would you still vote for Hillary to go against Trump in 2016?
1
@Cathy Thank you Cathy, you're so right.
1
Having read through some of these comments, I must point out that much of the change Sanders has brought about was by way of amendments, but that does not render them any less effective.
The man has significantly impacted the lives of countless Americans in ways that were not glamorous enough for the media to cover.
2003: authored and passed a bill (H.R.2622) that provided all Americans with one free credit report per year.
2003: Sanders amendment that helped stop the Bush administration's proposed rule allowing companies to cut the pensions of older workers by as much as 50%.
2010: Sanders amendment to the healthcare bill (H.R. 3590) provided more than 25 million people access to affordable primary & dental care as well as low-cost prescription drugs.
1998: A Sanders amendment to the Higher Education Act, made competitive grants available to universities that cooperated to reduce the cost of tuition.
2014: Landmark legislation was passed to improve conditions in the Department of Veterans Affairs. As the Veterans’ Affairs Committee chairman, Sanders steered the bill through Congress.
2010: a Sanders amendment required the first-ever audit of the Fed, revealing $16 trillion in near zero-interest loans went to banks and businesses in the U.S. and abroad in the aftermath of the ‘08 collapse.
2012: his amendment requiring greater transparency from defense officials exposed corruption among military contractors and the problem of the revolving door in action.
231
@Halboro
I don't care if Sanders never got a single bill through the Congress. What I do know is that on the major issues of his lifetime: civil rights, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq, the need for a national healthcare plan as the only real solution to the problem of providing quality care to every American, he has been on the right side of history.
There isn't another Dem in the race, be it Warren, Klobuchar, Biden or anyone else that all those things can be said about.
73
@Steve I agree, but you frequently hear critics argue that Republicans wouldn't work with Sanders.
Like Republicans would work with any Democrat at this point.
42
@Halboro
It's a sign of his intelligence and principles that Sanders - like Barack Obama and unlike Joe Biden - opposed the Iraq War. That ensures he has my vote.
16
First, I would not be unhappy with Liz Warren as the nominee, since she espouses many of the same proposals as Bernie Sanders. As for Mrs. Klobuchar, I would certainly vote for her over any Republican, but I don't feel she generates the passion and support necessary to beat Trump. Moreover, I believe her pledge to seek compromise with a party that has sworn against the very idea of it is naive and dangerous.
With that said, I have a problem with your decision to name two choices. Simply put, it's cop out. After all, we voters don't get to choose two. Your waffling exposes your fuzzy thinking on the political climate in America, which is very strange for a newspaper that has a national footprint. But that lack of grasp of what voters desire is directly due to institutional bias that shuts out alternative viewpoints by ignoring them until they reach a crescendo.
While you prop up your denial of support to Sanders who has dragged the Democrats back away from Republicanism by pointing to his uncompromising speech, what you are completely missing is that America no longer lives in the Age of Reason, but in the Age of Tribalism. Extended olive branches are lopped off and used for kindling by the other side. Did Trump speak of compromise, or any Republican? And need I point out that Liz is perhaps even less compromising in some people's (billionaires) opinion?
Failing to endorse Sanders is the product of your Establishment bias. Not a great testament to being open and honest.
20
Neither would stand up to Trump's character-assassination technique of "campaigning." Perhaps if they were to run in a more civil time against a more civil opponent their arguments might carry some weight. Against Trump, they will wither. Does the editorial board think Trump will be fair? Is there any evidence that he has ever been fair?
6
I look forward to the Board's endorsement of US policy regarding the continued stationing of troops in Iraq. My guess is that the Board will endorse the immediate withdrawal of US troops while also endorsing having them remain there indefinitely.
17
Amy Klobuchar is a comedy option candidate with single-digit support in polls, and Elizabeth Warren will get absolutely demolished by Trump. I don't understand why the Times is trying so hard to present an alternate reality of the Democratic primaries in which every recent debate and poll haven't been dominated by Biden or Bernie. Is it really worth endorsing a candidate with no chance at all or one who has proven she'll get eaten alive by the incumbent?
Warren may well prove to be a great president many years down the line, but going head-to-head with Trump and inevitably losing the general will ruin her career. I can't help but think that this is some bizarre attempt to be "woke" about a woman candidate regardless of her chances for success.
26
@Ben L. Exactly. Woke. Woke is a good thing, I suppose, except when it comes to beating someone who is an existential threat to our democracy, world peace, and Mother Earth.
4
Trump will eat either of these two candidates alive. Bernie is the only one with the true passion and conviction to stand up to him.
18
@theresa
Don't kid yourself. Trump and the Republican-attack-machine would decimate Sanders.
7
@theresa I absolutely disagree. Trump is the least popular first term president in over a century. He has not grown his base. The tax cuts for the wealthiest and for corporations is all that's been "accomplished." No infrastructure. Health care threatened. Environmental protections rolled back. Exploding deficit. Lies every day. Obstruction, bribery, and multiple close associates in jail or indicted. Sen. Warren is all substance and will take trump apart in debates and on the trail.
1
@N. Smith As a Republican, you should know.
1
In the book "A Warning," Anonymous wrote: Last time around, ideology tipped the balance over temperament. A semi-Republican Trump was better than a hardcore-Democrat Clinton, the thinking went. This time Republican voters should reconsider their math.
Like to add that this time Democratic voters should reconsider their math.
4
Even more interesting, upon reflection…
Before Liz tripped over her two left tongues, seemed a strategy of holding on to Hil’s hill of electoral votes – and swinging just 1-2 swing states – would be a swing and a hit…
Now, Mike’s scoffed that up and – (big) gulp – supersized it on steroids…
Building a big beautiful wall around that base…
Sooo – who…
Who on earth could do for MRB what LBJ did for JFK…
See, folks – AJK can’t lead the formation…
GOP has scoffed up your strategy for flaming a centrist…
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/us/politics/12daniels.html
And supersizing it on steroids…
Too many skeletons in her closet…
None really of consequence, but – as our favorite Socialist once said – quantity has a quality of its own…
Mike, of course, is unflamable…
Rumor has it he’s buying and re-outfitting a B2 bomber for his campaign jet…
Tail letters will be MB2…
But since it doesn’t have a tail, his opponents won’t even see him coming…
I assume there is going to be a follow-up piece to this where the Editorial Board actually endorses a candidate?
10
Although I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter, I applaud the support for both candidates and I have decided to vote for the Blue candidate, regardless of who it is.
Dividing the Democrats between progressives and centrists is a goal with such obvious benefits to Republicans, that we must assume outside forces are already working at it and manipulating us.
So keeping the party united is the biggest challenge we have going into the 2020 election.
If Elizabeth Warren makes it, we need to remind people that a Trump vote instead of one for her is not a vote for a strong economy, but a vote against it. A country can't afford to stray too far from democracy before its growth is stunted.
I urge everyone to read articles about Turkey's economy, which was first growing fast under Erdogan and then got into trouble. Spot the frightening parallels with Trump:
- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/08/business/turkey-economy-crisis.html
- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/business/turkey-erdogan-istanbul-election-economy-inflation.html
Dr. Krugman should write about it.
If Klobuchar makes it, we need to remind ourselves that our Justice system is being corrupted, our institutions dismantled including the EPA (we won't even know we're being exposed to carcinogens) and our democracy taken apart. The progressive movement will keep growing, just as it did when Bernie didn't make it in 2016.
10
@Liz Thank you for the first (that I've seen) sensible comment from a Bernie supporter here on this article. Vote blue!
I have been supporting Klobuchar with contributions ever since she stood in the blizzard and declared her candidacy and have had an "Amy for America" sign hanging on my house for several months now. I attribute her low polling so far to her lack of name recognition and rather stilted debate performances. I am hoping the Times endorsement will be a turning point in her campaign. She can beat Trump.
5
@Kathy No offense, but she will be battered by the brute in the WH.
@Briano
I disagree. Amy can see past The Donald's bluster in a way that most candidates (and
specifically Ms. Warren) cannot. There is
a disarming quality to Amy that would confuse
and deflate Trump's reflexive defenses.
Warren, on the other hand, would both trigger those defenses and fail to respond to them appropriately. She thinks of herself as a 'fighter' but we all know The Donald loves a fight.
Ecstatic! Let this be the foreshadowing of a Warren-Klobuchar ticket!!!!
3
Well, alrighty then. Who else would you expect? We know Warren can't win and we'll pick someone as a dual choice who we know hasn't got a chance in well, there you have it.
11
I wish Ms. Warren give the US public an explanation of why she chose to attack Mr. Sanders at this time, just a few weeks before the first two crucial primaries. Mr. Sanders views are well-known and those close to him tell us that the alleged statement would be entirely out of character.
I have no doubt if Mr. Sanders has ever made a statement that would come even close to what Ms. Warren has suggested, he has an explanation for that. To start, we don't know the context in which the statement was made.
But Ms. Warren has strategically chosen the time, to ensure that there will be little room for Mr. Sanders to counter her allegation. And that should be a source of concern for those wishing a clean competition among the candidates, void of cheap political ploys and back-stubbing.
7
@Eddie B. Cheap ploys and backstabbing indeed. Anyone who feels the need to attack a fellow candidate, especially one who has been a friend for years, loses me instantly. Did you see the shock on Bernie's face when she marched up to him right after the debate? Show us why you deserve our vote, not why we should vote against someone else. As has been said many times recently, character counts. She lost me before this anyway, at the wine cave.
1
@Eddie B.
Her attempt at an "I was that little girl too" moment, presented as the political variant of #metoo, was
very ill advised and carried out and the video of her
confronting Bernie post debate will end up sinking her.
Look at Liz' face when Abby Phillips finished grilling Bernie into the record as stating he "didn't say that" and then turned to Elizabeth and asked "so how did you feel when he said that ?" A person of integrity
would have responded differently to such an appalling lead-in. But Elizabeth clearly expected the question, as shown by her expression, and went right into spieling off her canned answer. Ugh.
5
@irene Exactly, I had been leaning toward her before that calculated scenario. It reminded me of other niggling questions I had about her sincerity and character that I had pushed to the back of my mind. As someone else said above, character counts.
2
While I'm no Bernie Sanders fan. Ya got to admit that a debate between him and Trump would be one heck of a show!
9
@George Fox News would have a hard time with Bernie. His communication is simple and clear. To show him on TV is to expose him to their base. It's difficult to twist his words. Lies about the US going to communism would fall on deaf ears to those who have nothing to lose anyway.
1
@George The only debate that would be interesting would be Bloomberg and Donald. That $60.2 billion scares the heck out of Donald. Bloomberg would not stand for the Trump garbage.
@George
Donald Trump is not going to debate anyone.
His campaign will be one long series of attack tweets - likely smearing the Democratic candidate with wild conspiracies and ridiculous lies - and he will hold hundreds of his hideous rallies where he will not bother with policies or the future of this country but try to portray the Democratic nominee as a criminal who should be in jail - and also as stupid - again with offensive charges and wild conspiracy theories.
It worked for him last time to blow up all convention and just run a mean, ridiculous and frequently irrelevant campaign that focused on belittling and smearing opponents while projecting "star power" - which is basically Trump shouting at his base.
It worked for him last time.
I see that the Times issued a fine-print correction at the end of this piece regarding Pete Buttigieg, specifically that it under-reported the number of votes he received by about 620,000. The 633,000 votes that Buttigieg received losing the Indiana treasurer's election at the age of 27 on a shoe-string budget against a republican incumbent in a bright red state are more votes than Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden ever received in any Senate election they won.
8
@DM Not to mention that he won his first mayoral election by 70% and the second, right after he came out, by 80%. In a bright red, Mike Pence state. Then, without the benefit of Steyer/Bloomberg money to buy the election, he came out of nowhere and got to where he is in a matter of months, despite being young, white and gay. Seems to me there has to be a reason for that, especially since he's not flashy and bouncy like Warren, or loud and arm-waving like Sanders. What attracts people, and what has taken him so far so fast, is that he's calm, tolerant, diplomatic, ethical, brilliant and educated, and although he may have been born only 38 years ago, he has the wisdom of someone twice his age. He would wipe the debate stage with Trump and go on to be a leader on the world stage. Listen to him speak, read his interview with the Times. He is exactly what the US desperately needs.
2
@DM
Lol...Love the qualifier of "any Senate election".
Now if you included Sanders Pres. Primary run, he won 13,206,428 votes.
1
@DM Let's not overstate the Democrat-in-a-Red-State argument. Without the liberal Notre Dame University community living in South Bend, IN, Buttigieg would have never been elected.
3
I agree when you say the country needs a more unifying path, but I think Warren is too intransigent in her thinking to lead us down that path.
She should never have adopted the disastrous Medicare for all position because it was far too unworkable and entirely dismissive of Obama's hard-won, venerable ACA legacy,
And she hung on to it way long - yes, she persisted.
5
I'm from a red state. I've had an Amy for America sticker on my bumper for 6 months. She'd be the parent walking into the messy roomful of hungry, angry, screaming siblings. America needs a tough love Mom that knows you can't and shouldn't please everyone, all the time.
10
I was hoping you guys would have endorsed Bernie, but then, maybe you did, for sometimes an endorsement can be the "kiss of death." My guess is that NYT readers don't need to be guided by an editorial endorsement and that those who do are either your fans of the ones who mimic Trump and do the opposite, if they read, that is. What matters is to end Trumpocracy in a way that reduces its chances of reinfecting our society.
5
Why not Warren/Klobuchar?
Or Klobuchar/Warren.
Either would work for me.
3
@Know/Comment
Well, it tells nothing that either works for me as well in normal times. What we need is does either win over the independents and undecided. We do not need to chance another 2016.
@James Wong
If you've been paying attention, Klobuchar has the skills and proven experience to win over the independents and undecided. And I believe Warren will move center in the general. So I've actually put some thought into why W/K or K/W works for me.
2
@Know/Comment
So, you are sure either be beat Trump this coming November?
1
Will "moderation " win? Not according to the actions of the leader of the Republican Party. Perhaps we need a candidate who can best imitate the hard line approach reflected in Senator McConnell's image in 2020.
Michael Bloomberg is the moderate, non partisan upon which our country can place it's hope of recovering from this Trump nightmare. With a running mate of Pete Buttigieg, another moderate, a reasonable change can be anticipated. A diverse ticket with proven track records of success.
10
@Paul I'm not sure you Democrats should be reaching out to a Republican to save your party from yourselves.
You have a Democrat version of Bloomberg.
His name is Howard Schultz.
Unlike Bloomberg, he's got some serious personality and authenticity...as well as a big pocketbook.
1
@Erica Smythe I've always been drawn to the candidate with the brains, not the affiliation. Partisan choices simply highlight the problems our country has suffered through for decades now. Mayor Mike has demonstrated throughout his 12 years as mayor what non-partisanship can accomplish. Live here and you would have seen first hand and he never had to lie about his achievements, wealth, generosity nor morale standings.
3
@Paul But you can see how the endorsement of a New York City billionaire would be a kick in the teeth to the rising progressive movement in the Democratic party I hope?
A near-Republican ticket would divide the party and guarantee a Trump win.
3
The election is going to be a referendum on Donald Trump. The Dems need a candidate who can speak to the heart of Americans (if we still have one) and not a policy wonk. Hillary lost not because of her ideas but because she was distrusted. Why did Trump win? Number one reason was his celebrity; sad to say but there you have it. And because Trump appealed to racist animosity over having had a black president. Over the next few months I'll be looking for whichever Democrat seems to inspire the best in people. I don't know who that is yet. I hope somebody will.
5
@Sara Actually it's going to be a referendum on Patriotic Populism vs. Progressive Populism.
If Sander's supporters get knee-capped a 2nd time..I can assure you they are not going to do anything but help Trump disrupt the rest of the DC And Democrat Establishment over the next 4 years.
That, coupled with Trump' s now near 40% approval by POC in our urban cities...is a game changer especially when you contrast that to the 8% support he got in 2016.
Turns out that African American, Hispanic American and Asian Americans aren't nearly afraid of Trump as much as the Democrat Party Establishment.
These folks consider themselves to be just as American as anyone else, which is empowering for them to finally look over the fence to see why folks over here in Populist land seem to be having so much fun..and success..and freedom..and liberty..and jobs..
4
The way I interpret the dual endorsements is that the Editorial Board actually prefers Senator Warren, but recognizes that her brand of radical liberalism combined with her missteps on the campaign trail make it unlikely that she would win a general election, so they hedge their bets with Senator Klobuchar. If that's the case, then why not just endorse only the Senator from Minnesota?
11
I am bedeviled by history here. Whether it was Humphrey in '68, McGovern in '72, Mondale in '84 or Dukakis in '88, every single time that the Democrats have nominated a bonafide progressive in the last 50 years, that progressive has gotten creamed in the general. The moderates don't always win either, but at least they win some of the time. How about we learn from recent history instead of repeating it?
26
@John Santella
History has apparently bedeviled you. In '68, Humphrey lost because he refused to break with LBJ on Vietnam until late in the campaign. To call him the progressive Dem in that campaign is ludicrous. McGovern was a true progressive but I doubt any Dem in 1972 could have survived all of Nixon's dirty tricks that we subsequently learned about. Mondale was never considered much more of a moderate than a progressive. Dukakis, like Hillary Clinton in 2016 ran a lousy campaign.
And if you want history, remember that the Republicans lost big time with Barry Goldwater. The message that they took from it wasn't that they needed to go more moderate but rather needed to go even further to the right. In fact, they've gone so far it's doubtful Goldwater could even be a Republican Party member today.
8
@John Santella
That's an odd characterization. What is more clearly true is that whenever Democrats nominate a boring, "safe" candidate they lose (which has been most of the time), and the only time they win is with someone exciting who is perceived as inspiring, with a "cool" factor, and major voter excitement. In 40 years, that has only been two people, Bill Clinton and Obama. And Obama campaigned as extremely progressive, even though he did not actually govern that way.
4
@John Santella "All the candidates who are trying to stop us from driving over the edge of a cliff have lost in the past 40 years... so we might as well vote for someone who WANTS to drive us over the edge!"
1
As one who lives only a few blocks from where Ms. Klobuchar grew up, I appreciate the recognition of her attributes, particularly as they apply to "flyover country". While I would vote for either one in a heartbeat, I feel that many of those on the fence around here would not vote for Ms. Warren. They view her as too extreme and one of those "coastal elites". The reference you make to her "toughness" as a boss sounds misogynistic, since you also admit that others (men) can be tough bosses. Both of these women want to get to the same place. It is just a matter of how they propose to do so and Ms. Klobuchar would be more palatable to those who swapped their votes from Obama to Trump.
10
Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar could not be more different on a criteria that is more subtle than policy goals or even career attributes. What I am referring to is humanity, that deeply felt expression of who they are as human beings.
Klobuchar exposed this in the Kavanaugh hearing, where his very existence, his life was to either be an esteemed member of the Supreme Court or a dirty old man, a lecher who assaults innocent young women. Only Amy questioned him cogently, but with an understanding of the nature of the dire accusation, so that the nominee for a moment felt that humanity, actually apologized for being rude, as he sensed her compassion. She was the single Democrat on that panel who manifested this.
Elizabeth Warren is on the other extreme, the example being her publicly accusing the Officer Wilson who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson of "Murder." No other Democratic candidate made that claim. She ignored the extensive federal investigation, confirming the Grand Jury finding that there was irrefutable evidence that the officer acted lawfully.
It is a certainty that if she were to be in the Ticket, Republicans will focus on this, something that will only exacerbate the racial divide in this country.
Senator Michael Bennett from Colorado has qualities of intelligence, guts and humanity that would complete an effective winning ticket.
19
Do either of these two outstanding public servants represent the best possible chance of ousting the incumbent?
If not, why don't we just change the subject?
Biden in 2020
12
The Times Editorial Board's recogniton of Bloomberg's candidacy demonstrating how broken the system is provides an opportunity to raise the most significant question as it relates to money in American politics. Citizens United has opened the door for America's class of oligarchs to buy into and influence policy to a degree that exceeds that of the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age. There is a solution for this that this Editorial Board continues to "overlook." The City of Seattle's public campaign finance program is the most progressive system in the nation that levels the playing field without providing incumbents a significant advantage (as New York City's does). Requiring that the Bloombergs of America be limited to contributing the same amount of money in campaign finance issued vouchers that a resident of any public housing unit can give, will ensure that politicians take the problems at the bottom of America's political and economic strata as seriously as those existing at the top. And just as significant, endorsements made by editorial boards like the one made by the Times will have a greater impact on a larger universe of readers. The Times Editorial Board should seriously consider this especially during a time when less and less people take editorials seriously. Interestingly, much of this attitude towards the media is attributed to the success of the current oligarch in the White House. Time to endorse real change by limiting big money. Let's fix the broken system.
6
@John Q. Public
Perhaps you missed the guiding values listed by the Editorial Board where they support a World Order "advanced through...Capitalism."
Where the rest of the world generally rejects an economic system based on the principle of unbridled greed, and instead needs to be tempered by social principles.
2
A viable Democratic candidate must win States with sizable Electoral College clout. The South and West will not support a candidate"with "radical" potential. The correct decision would be a Biden/Klobuchar ticket. Let the debate continue in four years, but we need a ticket that can appeal to Republicans disgusted with Trump. It is not popular with Seniors to expand Medicare to all. The "hands up" for decriminalizing border crossings was a major disqualifying display in the 1st debate. Gender seems to be Ms Kingsbury's primary concern in this "choice".
11
@Timit
Great perspective. Some things to think about.
I share the New York Time's endorsement opinion. It would be an honor to have either one of these women, or both, as my president and vice-president.
Think of it: At this most disturbing time in our nation's history, if we, as a people and a nation, decide to elect a woman as president, we just might save ourselves from a disastrous future, and make history at the same time.
This endorsement is the right one and an indication of thought and understanding. I applaud the New York Times Editorial Board for their insight and courage in the face of current media attacks and disenfranchisement.
We are only as good as the choices we make.
8
I am so jazzed by this endorsement (and stunned by all the negative comments). Both Warren and Klobuchar are qualified, smart, tough, and good. They have strong track records. And of all the candidates, I think they are the best able to unify the party.
In fact, I think Klobuchar can do better--she can unify the party and also the country. She is progressive but centrist, has won red districts multiple times, and has passed over 100 bi-partisan bills. That is exactly what we need. Klobuchar gets stuff done. And there is a lot to do. So what if her poll numbers are low. This endorsement will raise them.
13
@Chuck "Progressive, but centrist." I'm sorry and I don't mean to be rude, but that makes no sense. No one with any actual principles should support both Warren and Klobuchar -- they have nothing in common other than their gender.
11
@BReed
In all due respect, I do think Chuck has a good point. Klobuchar is in many ways a "progressive centrist" much like Obama was. That is, while supportive of progressive issues, neither is dismissive of those with opposing viewpoints.
That is a mark of leadership. The ability to build consensus. You know, the "dialectic" approach a'la Hegel....
6
@BReed here's my post to Chuck & you - good post Chuck - and apparently reader BReed is a "labels only" person with disdain of "progressive-centrist", where erudite essayists & organizations can cogently expound in a substantive way on the term; in fact, the NYTimes endorsement infers such a philosophy.
As a longtime NYT reader and as someone who is still waiting for the Times to own up to its colossal failure in 2016, this decision comes as a terrible shock and a disappointment. Perhaps your Board feels that it is important to make a statement to the nation in this endorsement. What is important for our country is that Mr. Trump be defeated. Ms. Warren cannot win and does not have the confidence of a majority of our nation. Vice President Biden is our only chance to overcome the degenerate currently in office. Shame on you. Ideology -- in case you did not know it -- is much less important than love of country.
16
@Eleutherius
Mr. Biden may not be our only chance but a better chance that no one can deny during this entire nomination process. Also, we need a decisive win, not another Hillary win in popular votes but ... you know what? Don't y'all?
1
Thanks for this insightful analysis and delightfully surprising endorsement. Yesterday, the comments section on this article seems to predict that the Times would endorse Biden (and the headline arrogantly offered to help the undecided make a choice).
For my two cents, either of these candidates with a VP Buttigieg would make for a great ticket.
5
Trump has to go and I don't think either of these women can extinguish his flame.
I believe Biden can take him out.
9
Klobuchar can win. Warren can't.
24
Senator Warren is a disingenuous opportunist and trump's campaign would quickly find the fault lines to expose her- fair or not. Klobuchar is a better choice but has absolutely no chance of beating trump and his surely energized base. As far as I can tell the only common denominator they have is they are both women- so that I suppose is "telling" about how the Times made its choice(s).
20
I get that many commenters whose first choice wasn't among the endorsements would be disappointed. Let us please keep in mind that any of the candidates aligns with most Democratic voters' major priorities in almost all areas, and there is no real question of whether to vote for that candidate in November.
The two other frequent criticisms, based on the final five words of the essay, are misplaced.
First,the idea that the editorial board played a gender card. They did not. They stated that they chose what they perceive as the best choices in each political camp, and went on to explain their reasoning in the following paragraphs. Their choices were women: So, may the best woman win.
Second, that selecting two candidates was a cop-out, or did not provide enough clarity for voters. That is also incorrect. As stated, primary voters will determine which governing approach will win the day. The editors provided their analysis of the individuals best suited to carry out each approach. Hence, may the best woman win.
5
NYT's editorial board has done a serious dis-service to both Warren & Klobuchar by failing to endorse one of them 100%. This is no time for ambivalence.
Hedging on endorsements, as NYT's has done, inspires neither commitment nor clarity.
Tempting tho' it is to hedge & endorse both Warren & Klobuchar, we voters don't have that luxury. We have an emergency going on. We must rid ourselves of Trump & Co.
Our commitment as voters, and that of the NYT, as the newspaper of record, must be clear & certain.
11
I am very disappointed of the dismissive tone the editorial board took regarding Senator Sanders' campaign in your endorsement announcement. The following passage is telling:
"He (Sanders) promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda. Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another."
If the Times' editors actually see little difference between a potential Sanders administration and the current Trump administration, I am left to wonder if you have other axes to grind with Bernie.
14
@Tony O'Donnell
It's nothing personal against Sanders as you and all his supporters like to suggest -- it's about facts.
And the facts are that is his numbers are nowhere near the range that it would take for him to win.
Face it.
Not everyone is on board with his left progressive agenda that leaves too many Americans trying to figure how and who will pay for it all -- and he's nowhere near garnering the Black vote like he thinks.
We need someone who can not only unite Democrats, but beat Trump. And Bernie is not it.
2
@N. Smith
Yet you think Amy or Liz will?
No, we all know you don't .
Yet you only Eeyore on Sanders comments.
Tony discussed "facts".
You dismissed them. Example.
The New York Times was criticized for retroactively making significant changes to a March 15, '16 article about Bernie Sanders' legislative accomplishments over the past 25 years. In addition to the revised title, several negative paragraphs were added. In '19, Margaret Sullivan, public editor at the NY Times, wrote that the changes were clear examples of "stealth editing" and that "the changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Sanders' legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later.
In June '19, Katie Halper, writing for FAIR, reported that Sydney Ember, a New York Times reporter assigned to cover Sanders, was regularly citing criticism of the candidate by his ideological opponents. "Moreover," wrote Halper, "many of these 'experts' are corp. lobbyists, whose work in a particular area is not guided by academic, journalistic or other professional standards, but by the economic and political interests of their clients." Ember was citing these sources as neutral authorities, without disclosing their potential conflicts of interest.
In a Dec. '19 OP column for the NYT, David Leonhardt argued the NYT bias hurt Sanders.
Facts sir.
NYT certainly seems to have an axe to grind; as do you.
4
Hello! Are you trying to get trump reelected? I know of nobody in MN who is supporting Klobuchar, except the corporate leaning publications and her political friends. Your timing of this article is suspicious, since Bernie Sanders is ahead in many polls. The people want real representation, and that is why Bernie Sanders is so popular. What are you so afraid of and why do you feel compelled to bash Bernie again? The last election went to a "populist". Why not support the "populist" who will get this country back onto a level playing field for all?
16
@Sue M.
Your Bernie partisanship clouds your judgement.
All those "nobody[ies]" you know of have elected Amy to the Senate 3 times.
it would improve the discussion if you could explain why, since your "corporatism" argument seems specious.
You should know that she has gotten the support of this New Yorker and that of many of my friends.
4
@Sue M. maybe you should read more about Minnesota news & election statistics; Klobuchar is a 3-term Senator from Minnesota who has won elections by a wide margin; also, you "know of nobody who is supporting Klobuchar" - you need a wider circle of family & friends.
5
@minimum Klobuchar has received my vote for Senator several times, but when I realized what she is not doing for the environment in MN, i.e. promoting copper sulfide mining near the BWCA, and not supporting the ESA, she has lost the support of many environmentalists. Many of us, (her voters), have tried to ask for her to listen to our concerns, but she stubbornly shuts us out, and will not even consider the other side of an issue. She refuses to give any of us the time to listen. I have experienced this personally as have many others I know. We know what she is really like here. During the last election, she did not have any viable competition, so there was no one else to vote for in MN. We only voted for her because of trump. That was the last vote we will ever cast for her, as she is only representing big interests, mining, big AG, but not the environment or what the majority of her citizens want for their state. Kind of like the person in the WH.
4
Neither candidate has the knowledge or awareness of Global issues to be President; not to mention neither candidate has the financial resources to beat trump and the GOP Political Machine. This endorsement should have gone to Michael Bloomberg!
This attempt to give Klobuchar (who is a good candidate) a boost is probably an exercise in futility. I look forward to the NYT Editorial Board's recommendation of ex Mass governor William Weld for nomination from the Republican party. And it will mean just as much.
6
@Drona34 actually an endorsement of Weld for the GOP would be a great principled stance for a principled candidate - even if it's a futile exercise to defeat the GOP nomination of the equally futile character & governance of Trump
2
"Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller."
I'll say. Unfortunately it didn't bear up under the scrutiny of DNA testing.
13
@Philboyd
But she was gifted. She rode that story all the way to a professorship at Harvard Law School. It's very few of us that get that far in life on stories we make up about ourselves.
7
I'm really beginning to question the wisdom of the NYT Editorial Board. Completely missed the mark on Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now endorses two candidates with differing perspectives and policies? Perhaps the endorsement should have just read: we really just don't know.
24
Endorsing both Senators Warren and Klobuchar and then attempting to justify that action demonstrates the editorial staff lacks the integrity and fortitude to help Democrats make what is likely the most important electoral decision in the past generation. For the board to say that, “The weakness of the institutions (of our federal government) that we trusted to undergird (the values of a strong representative two-party government)”, is the source of our current problem, misses the root of the disastrous situation in which the country now finds itself mired. The problem is not the institutions that exist. The problem is the lack of integrity and plain old guts on the part of Republican legislators to stand up to Trump and his misguided policies for fear of a backlash from the citizens whom they represent. Yes, the emperor has no clothes, but every Republican legislator dares not make that pronouncement in public fearing he, or she, would pay the price of Trump’s wrath and subsequently not be reelected.
The Times staff needs to develop a collective backbone and endorse a single Democratic candidate. The issue is not whether that candidate is male or female, progressive or moderate, experienced or novice. The sole criterion which should guide that endorsement is to support someone who can defeat a president who admittedly relies on “gut instinct”, whim, nativism, and undeniable hatred of anything that has the name “Obama” attached to it, to drive foreign and domestic “policy”.
2
A thoughtful, balanced assessment of the Democratic primary campaign taking place against the backdrop of a dysfunctional government under a corrupt president. However, you go too far in your assertion that a wealth tax is “constitutionally suspect.” In my view, a more progressive tax system is essential to reining in the role of money in American politics, especially given the difficulty of overturning Citizens United. Whether we accept Elizabeth Warren’s specific wealth tax idea, surely many people understand a need for a fairer tax system than the one put in place by Donald Trump.
My other area of contention with the editorial is your unwillingness to see how our current economic system is at the heart of many problems we face, certainly including climate change and environmental degradation generally. You speak of a need for a debate about the future of our nation. Such a debate cannot ignore the central role of capitalism in our ability to meet the needs of all Americans and their future on a habitable planet.
4
Fortunately, "ranked choice" is not an option yet for the presidential election. The Times' decision to not make a clear choice for a single candidate is an indisputable sign of indecision and uncertainty. Either you want a candidate who is going to engage in a wholesale transformation of the federal government and its policies, or you're going to choose someone more middle of the road. You can't have it both ways. Klobuchar, despite my concerns about her, appears to be the more realistic choice. I think Warren's ideas and plans are exactly right, but my fellow citizens simply don't want to pay taxes - except for defense - so raising their taxes to pay for what we really need as a country is not a realistic option. The Times should have made a clear choice between the two.
5
Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it:
- 1972 George McGovern
- 2020 Elizabeth Warren
Choosing ideological purity over electoral strategy will not only fail to attract wavering independents and Republicans -- it will likely lead many centrist Democrats to sit this election out.
You win by building coalitions with a consensus candidate; not by alienating at least half of the electorate.
11
I would like to know if Cory Booker would have had your nomination if he hadn't dropped out. His interview was by far the most honest, thoughtful, interesting, and in the end, incredibly moving with his answer about being heartbroken by America. I hope that his voice continues to be heard far and wide.
7
@Elaine
Booker's interview with the Board was by far the most honest, humane and moving. He was head and shoulders above what we saw and heard from the other candidates. And Booker has not been my candidate. These last two months he has grown more impressive and I would love to vote for him.
The Board would have made a superb, groundbreaking choice if they had chosen him and urged him to get back in the race.
1
I am disappointed. I watched about the last half hour of the documentary about the endorsement process, and then read the editorial when it was posted. Cop-out. Endorsing two candidates achieves nothing, really. Including Booker in the documentary wasted precious minutes, since he is no longer in the field. The Times has blown it here. I don't say that just because I have been donating to Mayor Pete. I say that because Democrats have to make up their minds whom to select, and this editorial, with its facile dismissals of the other candidates and its failure to make a real endorsement, provides no help towards that end.
9
First reaction was more a reflection on the current field ("ugh!") than on the NYT editorial choice, which is well reasoned and eloquently explained. Well done.
I think the D's, including me, have a fantasy candidate in mind who will be tough, charismatic, funny, utterly competent, and somehow fresh and without blemish - while still being vastly experienced, wise, and Jedi-level in political maneuvering. We keep setting the table with a place for Elisha.
The realities of 2020 are addressed well in the recommendation. These are able and electable candidates and worth backing. The road back will be a slog and the work will be hard with many compromises. Thanks for the reality check.
4
Although generally the NYT is too reactionary for my taste, too eager to attack far-left candidates like Sanders and (when he was running for mayor) De Blasio (whom I would not now support, but that's another story), in this one case I agree with their choices. -- In spite of the differences in policy between Klobuchar and and Warren, they are the two I like best, for their intelligence, their sanity, and their experience. -- If only Stacey Abrams can be successful in her fight against voter suppression, one of those two wonderful women might become president. -- But we must all help Abrams in every state, or the presidential election will once more be seriously compromised.
5
In reading some of these comments, I am struck by the two very different skill sets candidates must have for success in 2020. They must be able to "beat Trump" and they must have a plan for the future that is coherent to voters and which stands a realistic chance of implementation in the face of what will be a Republican party out for blood.
I feel that the governance ability and the coherent plan are more important for grownups, but it won't matter if the candidate cannot beat Trump.
Sleazy way to promote Elizabeth Warren, who can't beat Trump. You know Amy Klobuchar can't win -- she doesn't have the organization, the donations, the polling number. "the right stuff."
11
If Elizabeth is the nominee, we'll have four more years of Trump. If Amy is the nominee, she'll beat him.
4
@Roger Paine - You may be right. Although I don't like either of the NY Times picks, I would still vote for Klobuchar. Warren is the only Dem candidate at this point that I will not vote for. I'll write in Biden, or possibly Buttigieg, instead.
Warren will be an absolute catastrophe for this country for many of the same reasons Trump is, and I will have no part in driving us even further down that particular road. If the 2020 Presidential race boils down to Warren v. Trump, all of us will have already lost, regardless of the outcome. We have to do better, folks, and choose someone that can, and will, speak to all of us.
4
@Kristin
Fellow Portland here.
Seriously? You will NOT vote for Warren if she is the nominee?
I so hope you are an outlier. I will vote for ANY of the candidates over Trump. You should too!
3
@Marie S - Hi Marie. I AM going to vote for "ANY of the (Dem) candidates over Trump." But if Warren is the nominee, I will be voting for a Dem candidate via write in.
Warren is far too fond of the same kind of bullying and disenfranchising that Trump and his supporters embrace. Even when we disagree, we need to be focused on finding the common ground, not using brute force to silence the "others." I know that is all the rage with crowd that describes themselves as "woke," but trust me when I say that that attitude is a sign of being deeply, deeply asleep.
1