Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren Are Democrats’ Top Choices for President

In 2020, both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration.

Comments: 233

  1. I agree . These are the most capable candidates who can re-unite our nation. And they can beat Trump.

  2. I disagree on principle with the decision to break with tradition in endorsing multiple candidates, although I acknowledge that the responsibility the board carries far surmounts my own as a private citizen. With that in mind, though, I'm happily surprised by a well-reasoned argument for these two extremely qualified women, and I'd be ready to vote for either (or indeed, any) candidate over Donald Trump come November.

  3. Not sure I agree with all of this, but the Times has written a compelling and thoughtful recommendation. thank you.

  4. I like this. This reflects my friends - some who would never vote for Warren, but would vote for Klobuchar and some who will vote for Warren. We are on the cusp. We used to be predominately "centrist". But now we are moving left, have moved left. I don't think we are there yet for this election, but we will be in 4-8 years.

  5. @emilyL A friend of mine who is a life-long Republican (female living in Iowa) likes Klobuchar ... so that tells you something.

  6. What a welcome announcement on a snowy Saturday evening. I have supported Amy Klobuchar from the beginning, but I also admire Warren. Electing one of these outstanding women will go a long way to restoring our position on the world stage. Thank you for such a well-considered endorsement.

  7. @Ellen It was Sunday last night... Sure hope you didn't oversleep for work.

  8. It is quite possible that senators Warren and Klobuchar would be the best presidents of the lot. But the United States and the world so desperately need to be rid of the corruption, chaos and cruelty of Trump that Michael Bloomberg's unprecedented resources and overall good record of public service can't be ignored. Priority No. 1: beating Trump. Warren and Kobuchar still need to prove they can get it done. Bloomberg is already spending at levels never seen before.

  9. @Pedro G. Can we not assume that Bloomberg -- who has funded various candidates and initiatives in the past -- would spend some of his considerable fortune to help the eventual Democratic nominee beat Trump?

  10. @D Price Bloomberg has promised to spend a Billion dollars to defeat Trump. He says he will spend it even if the Democratic nominee is Sanders or Warren.

  11. @Pedro G. There are a whole lot of people that think priority #1 is either re-elect President Trump, or keep the Dem's out of the oval office...a LOT of voters.

  12. Ok so are people supposed to vote for both of them? What am I to do with this information? They aren't even ideologically similar.

  13. @John We all have to make up our own minds. There's a plethora of info, here at the Times & elsewhere. There's no one right answer, either, since we can't know who'll beat Trump. Not really.

  14. @John Yes, they are not ideologically similar. That's the point. They represent the two approaches that have bedeviled the Democratic coalition for decades - Big change vs incrementalism. I think this dual endorsement is a recognition of the fact that if we couldn't build consensus around one of those approaches in the last 40 years, the NYT isn't going to sort it all out for us now in a single day. If you're in favor of the "go big or go home" approach, the NYT thinks Warren is your candidate. If you favor the "slow and steady wins the race" approach, the NYT thinks Klobuchar is your best bet. I agree it's odd, but I understand the logic.

  15. @John They caught so much heck for making an endorsement at all, that I think they chickened out.

  16. As a woman, I don't get either one of these. Warren has not demonstrated any willingness to work across the aisle and has showed bad judgement in making her feud w Sander's public...not to mention her unrealistic medical plan. Amy I can get and be happy w, but she doesn't have a chance at beating Trump. Question for this Editorial Board: Isn't the #1 Goal to Beat Trump? BC neither one of these candidates can do that!

  17. @Dolly Patterson See David Leonhardt's recent column on the electability of Klobuchar. A very strong case can be made that she would be the strongest candidate against Trump, especially given the realities of the electoral college. Political pros believe she would be a big plus for purple state Senate candidates and candidates in swing House districts.

  18. @Dolly Patterson If either of them win the primary, then what? Whoever wins the primary can beat Trump. HRC almost did.

  19. @Dolly Patterson - Senator Klobuchar says she can compromise with the Republicans. How can you compromise if the other guy won't? Obama started with a Heritage Foundation health plan that had been implemented by a Republican governor. He then allowed a conservative Senator on the payroll of the medical industrial complex to get it thru Congress. Over 200 Republican amendments were added. And how many Republican votes did he get? And the health care programs of every other wealthy developed country says a universal government run system is not only a reality, but much more efficient (better care at much lower costs) than any public option can ever be.

  20. It may be that only a woman can beat Trump in 2020 since Trump's inevitable ridiculing of his opponent likely will backfire if his opponent is a woman. Having said that, I would vote only for Amy Klobuchar, because she is a moderate. I also believe she has a chance of beating Trump because moderate Republicans could vote for her. Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, is way too far out there for a majority of the voters.

  21. @Jay Orchard Sure backfired when used it against Hillary Clinton didn't it? Perhaps if she hadn't focused her campaign on Trump's treatment of women she would have won.

  22. @Jay Orchard Odd. Trump won his first election ever against a woman.

  23. @Active Germ-line Replicator Not really. It was against Hillary Clinton.

  24. So, the NYR endorses one candidate who polls so badly, she's irrelevant and one who's a watered down rip-off of Bernie Sanders, the candidate behind the massive shift in public sentiments towards central causes like Medicare for all and equal education opportunities.

  25. @Non-US Describing a woman who has worked for years for the causes she promotes (she helped start the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2010) as a "watered down rip-off of Bernie Sanders," a man who has been less effective than her in getting stuff done? Disappointing to see that the ingrained misogyny exists just as much on the center-left as it does among the Trump-supporting crowd.

  26. @No Name Bernie has almost single-handily made Medicare for All a viable and popular policy in American politics. But I'll admit: Elizabeth Warren sure is good at not telling the truth and stabbing her progressive allies in the back. She is finished with much of the left after this past week.

  27. @No Name Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 53% of Americans support Medicare-For-All vs 43% opposed. 63% view Medicare-for-all favorably. Other polls reflect this reality, even with the misinformation that has been spread on the topic.

  28. if the interviews were ALL handled in a respectful and thoughtful manner to clearly show the depths of everyone's policy positions I would give this opinion more weight. But they weren't. I will vote blue no matter who but board dropped the ball so shame on you for the missed opportunity for clarity and fairness.

  29. "...but we are rattled by the weakness of the institutions that we trusted to undergird those values." Yes, and I am sorry to say I am rattled, as I know many others are, by the weakness of the institution of the Fourth Estate, and in particular, The New York Times, which I have been reading daily for more than 35 years. This bizarre non-endorsement of any bright path to our future is more than disappointing. I'll now turn to the Styles pages for more conviction.

  30. @Andrew There's no doubt that the media has suffered with the whole fast paced life we live in. It seems we are being entertained to death. Journalism is really part entertainment now. But that applies to politics and our institutions too. Everything has become a joke. But this endorsement isn't. They were doing this very early so I think it's fine to punt on the difficult question. But I think this would make a great ticket. Would women come out and vote for such a ticket? Black women? White women? Just as black people showed some loyalty to Obama, we need women to do the same: buying into the argument that it should just be about the candidate and not the gender is giving up your power - men obviously have no such problems since we (they) are saying that they'll vote for the guy. I'm not asking for the ENTIRE decision to be based on gender but just about 5-10% of it.

  31. @Andrew Agree. This virtual non-endorsement is click bait to generate publicity for the NYT which it seems to be prioritizing over Leadership, risk taking, and great journalism. It provides a lot of reasons to re-read Katharine Graham's autobiography to see how she navigated her paper (the WaPo) through its Watergate reporting.

  32. @Andrew -- Given that the decision was made by the Publisher the choice was predictable. But The Times prints many good articles on topics that he doesn't meddle with.

  33. This is indeed a surprise. I think you have punted on the actual question but choosing someone from each wing of the party but at this early stage, better to do this than to put your thumb on the scale (or at least be accused of it). You will be accused of opportunism and PC behaviour by selecting two women but I think the time for women has never been clearer. Trump's administration has shown what happens when you do away with diversity (in thought - I'm even talking about the difference between when he started to now). Sanders supporters will be unhappy. I like him a lot and I would be fine with him as a candidate but I'm most impressed by Warren. I think politics by its very nature is not an honourable profession and so it's a matter of picking the least evil person to represent us for me and the public persona of these two are close to the top but yet they have shown some savvy political behaviour (I would indeed put Sanders' public persona at the top but he is seemingly not that political).

  34. My first reaction was one of slight annoyance that the Board endorsed two candidates, as it seems like a dodge to not go through the difficult work of picking between the moderate and progressive wings of the Party. Upon further reflection, the reasoning behind that decision makes sense, and I applaud the Board for recognizing that our times require both stability and progressive zeal. We need a calm leader to restore American leadership and credibility abroad, as well as visionary thinking to tackle climate change and wealth inequality. Bravo. Klobuchar and Warren are both hard-nosed fighters who will act in the best interest of the American people. This NYT endorsement singlehandedly convinced me to reconsider Klobuchar as a viable candidate, and to think of Warren as less of a long shot. I would vote for either over the Orange Menace in a heartbeat.

  35. @Batt Terrible choices . Just Terrible. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate that can beat Trump , the ONLY one ! Warren has lied repeatedly on several occasions and is unhinged as the cheery selfie taker in interviews that make me cringe. She is not in the least bit qualified to win the presidency , and her repeated votes for war align her with her Republican background. People need to wake up , the established corporations would love Warren to win.

  36. I watched your program on FX. I thought Andrew Yang was the most impressive interview, at least of the parts you put in the broadcast. I was surprised by that, as I haven't really given him any consideration yet.

  37. @James Crawford to me it seemed like they gave him softball questions compared to the other candidates. As one of the board members said, in charge of national security.. hm. He's a nice guy for sure, but president?

  38. @James Crawford ... I knew nothing about Yang but then started listening. The more I listened, the more I liked. I suspect he might be Biden's choice for VP if Biden is the nominee. I'd certainly like that ticket or Biden - Klobuchar.

  39. @James Crawford Yang is very smart, quick and has great, future-oriented ideas. He also has a big heart I believe! He's a great guy. FWIW, I also like his wife who went on TV talking about her sexual assault by her Ob/Gyn doctor. She was brave to do so and very articulate in describing what happened and how she felt through a, long, difficult ordeal. I think the choice of a spouse reveals a lot about a candidate. But I want somebody who's likely to beat Trump. Do you think he's electable against Trump?

  40. The decision to endorse not one, but two candidates, each reflecting an opposite side of the struggle consuming the Democratic party, gives me pause because it emphasizes party division over party unity. I'm also not sure the endorsement language offers has properly assessed all the dangers the incombent poses. I was taken aback by setting up the view of Trump as a mere "aberration" versus someone who's shown the need for a massive overhauls of our government structures. There's a third, and very important, view that isn't mentioned at all, except in passing: that Donald Trump is such a danger to our democracy that this could be our last free election. I question whether the Times is really aware of how existential a year 2020 is. Without a sense of urgency, all this analysis reminds me of paralysis or even just an intellectual exercise. I'm disappointed.

  41. @ChristineMcM Very well (and not over-) stated.

  42. @ChristineMcM I agree wholeheartedly, and very well said.

  43. @ChristineMcM. I couldn't agree more that 2020 is an existential election for our democracy. I, too, worry that free elections could become a thing of our past. But I suspect that the Editorial Board is likely as divided as democrats in general are or NYT commenters are. Twin endorsements are murky, to be sure, but the upcoming primaries are going to narrow the field. To endorse Warren over Sanders and Klobuchar over Biden and Mayor Pete is highly instructive in itself.

  44. The choice to endorse two candidates is a nice appeasement to the divided bases of the Democratic party, but completely misses the point of an endorsement. The Presidential endorsement is meant to add clarity to voters who feel unsure about who to vote for. The Times editorial board is meant to use their position, their knowledge, and their credibility to make a difficult choice and elevate the candidate that they judge to be the best overall choice. As we don't have a ranked choice in electing our nominee, I really don't see what clarity this is meant to add. All this endorsement has done is highlight the divide, not bridge it.

  45. "As we don't have a ranked choice in electing our nominee" Bingo. Until we actually HAVE an RCV system, the people need to unite behind a strong Sane candidate. Those who wanted such generally hoped Sanders and Warren would eventually let one between the two take that helm; the Rift between them says lolno, and has muddied the waters. The Times has made them even muddier with this non-endorsement endorsement of one candidate who wasn't quite getting enough voters to win anything beyond Senator (and bullies her helpers besides) and another who showed herself the (somewhat) worse and more nervous between herself and Bernie. The Clinton endorsement for 2016 was disappointing, but at least (1) expected because, well *because*, and (2) led to her win, the current s'Electoral College-foisted, Biden-waved-through, illegitimate White House occupant notwithstanding. This one, on the other hand, is both disappointing and a total headscratcher, the 🤔 emoji made starkly real. I'm (still) with Bernie.

  46. @Cian Very well said.

  47. @Cian It's pretty clear that they fell in love with that final line of the op-ed, and worked backwards from there.

  48. I plan to vote blue no matter who come November, but I've been narrowing down my favorite candidates over the past months for the MD primary. While I appreciate Senator Warren's intellectual tenacity and particularly her education policy, Amy Klobuchar has captured my interest over the past few debates. She's tough, intelligent, discusses policy aptly, and continues winning fans steadily. Politics aside, on a personal level, she also has a no-nonsense mom quality that endears this millennial voter to her. Thank you for this insightful piece, NYT.

  49. Endorsing two candidates is certainly an interesting choice for the NYTimes editorial board, but in a roundabout way, I think it's somewhat apt. Even if not the case for some specific policy proposals — I think, for example, Warren and Klobuchar have some striking similarities, which is why I also rate them as my top two choices — it has become increasingly clear that the Democratic Party is diverging into two major camps in rhetoric and focus: a leftist camp and a more traditionally liberal camp. But I also think the fact that the board saw it fit to make a dual endorsement is emblematic of a much bigger issue with American politics. If the U.S. electoral system were more similar to any other major Western democracy, the two divergent camps of the Democratic Party would be able to split into their own self-contained parties, at which point both a radical and realist model could be considered in earnest by the American public. But instead, due to the realities of the electoral college, the Democrats are forced to hold a big tent — a tent that is getting bigger and bigger due to the continuous rightward shift of the GOP — making it more and more difficult to find space for compromise. At some point, that tent will collapse under its own weight, and I fear that process might have already begun.

  50. The NYT has put forth a very convincing argument for both candidates. But the reality is neither is likely to get the nomination. Klobuchar is too far behind but would make a good VP pick. If Warren is the nominee she will come under mind-boggling scrutiny that will make Democratic debates look like an Easter Egg hunt. Not just from the GOP & Fox News who will hit her with everything they have 24/7 but the MSM who will continually ask: will her proposals work? Warren is an impressive candidate. But she is unelectable. She is for reparations. In poll after poll, the majority of American voters are against this. Reparations are the only issue that would compel independent swing voters to hold their nose & vote for Trump. Voters are also strongly against any legislation that would increase the flow of illegal immigration. But Warren is for policies that not only decriminalize illegal immigration but encourage it. Her position on immigration guarantees the Democrats will lose the working-class vote. She & her allies are on the wrong side of these issues. That point can't be emphasized enough. Mainstream voters will NEVER cast their ballot for any candidate who supports increased illegal immigration and reparations. It doesn't matter where Warren stands on healthcare & other issues. She has disqualified herself from serious consideration by her stand on these two extremely polarizing problems. If she is the nominee she will lose. A moderate gives us the best chance to win.

  51. @Bill Brown You might be wrong about all those arguments if Warren won the primary, and she has a chance. HRC almost won in 2016. Winning against Trump will involve getting a few hundred thousand votes more, which will depend on turnout. Note democratic victories in 2018 and 2019. Now, humans are great at rationalisation - you can claim anything and rationalise it. But in terms of being right, there is a test which is the primary. Whoever wins the D primary after all this back and forth (see all comments, not just yours or those that agree with you) and differing views means that one way or the other they've solidified support. Based on who wins the primary (and perhaps how they won it in terms of swing states). Personally after seeing views like yours, I think Sanders will do it (a large factory motivating Trump was change) and the moderates on both sides will hate it and it'll lead to another backlash down the road where they'll finally decide to stop being extremist.

  52. @RamS Bernie has no chance. Although I'm sure the GOP prays every day that he's the nominee. He would be easy to beat. Sanders is for reparations. There go the swing voters. He's demonstrated time and time again that he doesn't have the temperament to be President. Last year he called for giving incarcerated felons the right to vote. The Boston Marathon Bomber kills three people, maims & injures 280 more. Bernie’s concern? That he gets his absentee ballot. This plays perfectly into the Fox News narrative that Democrats are soft on crime. Here come the attack ads. Sanders consistently proves his critics right: he's too far to the left, too irrational, & has poor political instincts. His supporters will say he's right on all the other issues: climate change, the economy, health care. Guess what? It doesn't matter. There're other Democratic candidates who don't want to give incarcerated prisoners voting rights. This was a gaffe of epic proportions. On this basis alone he will lose the majority of independent swing voters. The Democrats can't win without independents. Sanders will have to explain himself at every campaign stop. How do you think the people of Charleston will react when Sanders tells them Dylan Roof should be voting? Sanders & his progressive co-dependents think voting is an inalienable right that should be extended to convicts. The fact that this is even a conversation in 2020 is the reason why the left will never gain any political traction in this country.

  53. @Bill Brown I couldn't agree more. I was equally for Sanders and Warren before she began campaigning on Medicare for illegal immigrants and decriminalization of border crashing. As a liberal and a leftist I am baffled that policies which would put downward pressure on working class wages and upward pressure on low-income housing are being characterized as "far left."

  54. Go Amy go! I hope she starts putting out ideas for possible VP's this week.

  55. Great choices. One candidate who can't win the nomination and one candidate who shouldn't win the nomination.

  56. @Susan But which is which? The Board's synopsis of Warren's plusses and minuses pretty much factors Warren as an overall minus, whereas Klochubar's negative features are hardly anything worth worrying about. I, too, tend to agree Klochubar would be the best pick for the nomination but why the add on of Warren? Almost all the comments above reflect disappointment in the Board's decision if not the Board itself. Good old wishy washy Charlie Brown would feel right at home.

  57. @Gluscabi Ah, Klobuchar's negatives are greater than the Times air-brushing has stated. She has zero traction in Iowa -- her neighbor state; her staff doesn't like how their treated by her: and she takes donations from law firms, Big Ag, Disney, Delta Airlines, and others of that ilk. She also voted to gut key provisions funding Obamacare, raising costs on the same lower income people she claims to support. She's in the health industry's pocket -- in case her opposition to getting healthcare affordable for everyone hasn't made that clear already. Corporate Democrat. We see through her.

  58. @Susan - Shocking that nowhere in this piece is there mention by the Editorial Board of the hard fact that the Dem nominee will need to carry Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania - plus all the states Hillary won - to clench the Electoral College. If Sen. Warren or Sen. Klobuchar either can accomplish that feat, well and good - if not, then it won't matter if we Dems carry the coasts by a 10 million vote majority; the Electoral College is the prize, not the coasts. It's the math; the simple math.

  59. I never thought that The Times and President Trump would find common ground. But they have. The two senators undoubtedly rank just as high in Mr. Trump's estimations about whom registered Democrats should pick to oppose him in November. I would like for someone to have a reasonable chance to defeat Mr. Trump, as opposed to a bare possibility, which means I'll be voting for someone else in our March primary.

  60. @Cyclist Trump's first choice is clearly Sanders. Political Pros believe Klobuchar may well be the strongest candidate against Trump, especially when analyzed with the electoral college in mind.

  61. I'm really disappointed. The Times claims that there is a debate between two different philosophies in the Democratic party. Fair enough, it doesn't take a political mastermind to notice that. But rather than pick a winning philosophy--which I thought was the whole point of this exercise--the Times shrugs and says, "Well, both are good." Klobuchar and Warren have completely different ideas and outlooks. Endorsing them both indicates that this is perhaps not as serious a paper as I thought.

  62. @Matthew Sussis I agree with your criticism of the Board's decision. But I would distinguish between the Editorial Board and the newsroom, of which I'm a big fan. The newsroom is what makes the NY Times the finest journal in America and I say that without reservation. I already wrote my reader comment rejecting the Editorial Board's opinion (should they choose to publish it). To me, FWIW, they could not have done worse with the endorsement. After watching "The Weekly" tonight and hearing all the comments from Board members, I fear for the Democratic candidate now more than ever. It just seems like chaos.

  63. @Matthew Sussis It more indicates the Democratic party needs to decide who they are and I think this is going to be 2016 all over again - a lot of whining and foot stomping.

  64. @Matthew Sussis I agree -- this hackneyed approach to an endorsement suggests that the NYT doesn't even understand the political process they purport to be covering. Really a blight on the forthcoming primary process and raises some concerns about the long-term direction of the paper. In their attempt to please everyone, they have done quite the opposite.

  65. I'm almost afraid to hope...either pick would be outstanding. One moderate, one progressive, but two stateswomen, neither promising to be Santa Claus. It's good to have such choices.

  66. Republicans love to show that county-by-county may colored red or blue according to which party's presidential candidate won the most votes. Democrats will remember that Hillary won about 3 million votes more than Trump. But the fact that the map is overwhelmingly red points up two problems for Democrats: Their disadvantage in the electoral college and their disadvantage in winning the Senate. It seems to me, their has been too little thought given to how to brand the party in such a way to not just win the popular vote (which means nothing), but how to win the electoral college and the Senate. This election shapes up as Democrats making gains in the suburbs and Republicans making gains in small town/rural areas. If the Democrats are to start coloring more of that map blue, which will translate into strength in the electoral college and the Senate, they need Amy Klobuchar. She is the only candidate that has made small town/rural issues a central part of her political identity throughout her career. She will stop Republican gains, and is the ideal candidate for the upper midwest battleground states. I for one would welcome a Klobuchar/Warren debate. Good choices NYT.

  67. @LewisPG If Klobuchar is the nominee expect the voter turnout to be very depressed on the Democratic side. Cue another four years of Democrats scratching their heads wondering what went wrong after they nominated another corporate, do-nothing centrist.

  68. I would assume progressives are going to be angry at the Times for endorsing a "corporate Democrat," Amy Klobuchar, and moderates are going to be angry at the Times for endorsing a "pie-in-the-sky progressive," Elizabeth Warren. I am not sure whether this is better than no endorsement at all. If nothing else we got some pros and cons for both endorsed candidates and voters can perhaps use that information for arriving at a decision.

  69. @Bob To much is made of this newspaper's endorsement. They don't decide elections and the influence their endorsements have is likely small. History doesn't show that they have an edge.

  70. @Bob which one got the endorsment?

  71. Brilliant, surprising, perfect and THANK YOU Editorial Board. 'May the best woman win'; that's the best line of the year. I'm thrilled. May this endorsement boost Warren's and Klobuchar's support as well as attention from the public and the press.

  72. @F. McB Unfortunately, by not picking one of the two I fear that any power the endorsement might have had will be completely dissipated.

  73. @Carlos My perspective is that two very experienced, highly skilled and determined women with proven commitment to the welfare of the American people could not be a better endorsement. Our populace recognizes women’s contributions in many fields, but men, in particular, have been resistant to supporting the advancement of such accomplished females. Warren and Klobuchar are the best overall candidates. This endorsement spurs a challenge to this prejudice. At this time, two are better than one.

  74. When this moment in history challenged you to take a stand, you caved—just like so many of our supposed leaders and experts in the past few years. Helping to distinguish and decide between the radical wing of the party and the pragmatic wing is EXACTLY what voters needed you to do. By punting and glibly declaring, "We dunno which POV is better, let the voters decide!" you have left Americans no choice but to slink back to their Facebook feeds and try to sift through the disinformation on their own. Yes, voters should ultimately decide. But in order to do that, they need actual information. You have denied them that. And you have denied both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar an actual endorsement. Neither candidate will be able to capitalize on this or garner additional support. You just cancelled yourself out.

  75. @David I'd say the "pragmatic wing" is the progressive wing. The do-nothing moderates seem perfectly content to fiddle while the environment burns and millions of Americans die from lack of health coverage.

  76. @Ben Losing is not pragmatic.

  77. @David They will both benefit from this endorsement.

  78. The Times is right that there is a battle for the soul of the Democratic party, and that that battle needs to be fought out on the substance. I would probably have chosen Buttigieg as standard bearer for the conservatives, but that’s neither here nor there. The important thing is that the country desperately needs a substantive debate over its future, and the only place that that can possibly happen is through the Democratic party. The Republican party & media have over the past 2 decades defined themselves in clear, monolithic terms, represented perfectly by Mr. Trump. They stand for eliminating meaningful debates about the future and turning politics into a battle of manipulative insults & entertainment that keep the public angry & impotent. The biggest mistake the Democrats could make is to make this an election about Trump, and about how to defeat him, rather than a debate about what vision & what policies are best for the country. By doing so, they would only strengthen the Republicans and their nihilistic replacement of meaningful politics with manipulative culture wars.

  79. @Martin Yes, Martin, it will be a grave mistake to make the campaign a focus about Trump: He is a symptom of our grave problems, not the essence, and every use of his name only adds to our challenges. Let's hope that our nation can have a long conversation about "the substance."

  80. I couldn't watch program because of geographic restriction,but I've read interview.I supported Sanders or Warren,(as I cannot vote.also undecided if I can vote)As an Asian,Warren's uncertain for Hong Kong worries me. Ended up "any of woman" sounds like no powerful endorsement.

  81. By splitting your recommendation you may have inadvertently telegraphed why there unfortunately is a decent chance that Trump will be re-elected - the Democratic party at this point is hopelessly split between progressives and moderates.

  82. @Jay Orchard Which is kind of stupid. We know the candidate can't get everything they promise done. I mean this is reality. So why not shoot for the progressive moon? Maybe we don't get medicare for all, but instead are able to reinforce the ACA. Maybe not tuition forgiveness, but lets talk about what we can do. Maybe we don't get comprehensive immigration reform, but at least stop DACA kids from being deported. Lets try progressivism. Lets try a new new deal. The country is bought and paid for by corporations and the ultra rich. lets stop letting people who don't want to pay taxes get to determine everything.

  83. @Jay Orchard. I hope that all democrats can agree that stopping a second Trump term is paramount. We should all support our favorite candidate in the primary, but no matter who prevails, we're all in for the nominee.

  84. "But Ms. Warren often casts the net far too wide, placing the blame for a host of maladies from climate change to gun violence at the feet of the business community" While there is much to glean from these interviews, what really stood out to me was how disconnected from the electorate the Times has become. This is most apparent with the way the paper reacts to any criticism of corporate America. Whether it be on climate change or healthcare, two of the most dire issues facing this country today, the Times never fails to throw a bone to those who actively oppose the solutions we need. I doubt that this is an overt goal of theirs, but it is a serious problem, a problem that I think stems from the way the organization operates. The Times strives to be at least a nationally representative newspaper, but all issues are viewed through an insular lens, an elitist New York lens that the editorial board really embodies. I suppose that is why I'm not surprised that they endorsed one candidate (Klobuchar) who overtly accommodates the needs of foul players and only endorsed the milquetoast half-measures of the other (Warren), while shunning her impactful policies. So a disappointing, but unsurprising endorsement.

  85. First, I think your decision to endorse two candidates is irresponsible. Essentially all you're saying is that either of the two wings of the Democratic party would be preferable to Trump, which is a given. If you focus on the negatives of each candidate, for Warren there's the point that she couldn't get her proposals through Congress and maybe the courts, and might not even be electable. For Klobuchar it's that she might be tough on her staff. Big deal. Klobuchar is by far the better candidate of the two.

  86. @JAA One wing is going to lose. Accept it or accept Trump.

  87. I have voted for Democrats for as long as I've ever voted, but I've often had to hold my nose. I've always preferred Democratic policies, but I've also always known that Democrats were playing a losing game with the Republicans, who ran rhetorical circles around them making them look like unpatriotic spendthrifts, all while the Democrats groveled and swore they would be more like the Republicans if the American people would just give them a chance. Thanks to the rhetoric of Barack Obama, that started to change. He was a sensible thinker who at times would speak truth to the powerful machine of Republican discourse. In the end, I think he wound up capitulating a little bit to the wishes of industry and he did not effectively prosecute the case for the radical change he had initially stood for. But Bernie Sanders has emerged in a sense as his inheritor. Taking Obama's willingness to think and to speak audaciously--to challenge the assumptions of political discourse--and running with it, Sanders has emerged to me as the only reasonable candidate left on the stage. I'll be supporting him for as long as I can.

  88. @Jeremiah Crotser agreed! Sanders seems the only one with a natural swell of momentum boosting him. I was very pro Warren, but have soured on her of late.

  89. @Jeremiah Crotser Maybe you can move to the People's Republic of Vermont and vote for him after his massive loss to either Trump or Bloomberg, our most effective and powerful Dem nominee. Bernie, who as recently as the 80's actively campaigned for the Trotskyite presidential candidate, Pulley, has so much dirt on him that the GOP can hardly wait to unleash it. As Dems, we need to start letting him feel the heat before the Republicans do. Otherwise, it is four more years of the orange haired psychopath. Bernie has not been attacked in the debates. We need to let that change ASAP so we are spared a massive loss. Our priority must be to ditch Trump. Only Bloomberg can do that 100%. Why take a chance on anyone else?

  90. "May the best woman win." Why do I get the feeling this endorsement was as preordained as in 2016? I think any of the remaining Democratic candidates would be a capable president, if elected. But, in this election as in the last, I would have appreciated more concern over the matter of who can most likely defeat Trump.

  91. @seattle The big unknown that is weighing us down.

  92. Never let perfection become the enemy of a wise choice. I would be thrilled to see either of these women elected president and experienced enough to know there will never be a perfect candidate on the ballot. People aren't built that way. Find the best & brightest among us then give them the power and the tools to do some good for _all_ of the country. Either would become a leader on the path back to normalcy. BTW: Congratulations to The Times for the research and reasoned reporting. If Warren becomes the Democratic nominee don't be surprised if Trump carries her home state of Oklahoma in the general... That's what happens here to candidates without an (R) after their name.

  93. This is the most rational thing I've seen the editorial board do in years. I am thrilled that NYT is lending it's considerable influence in favor of the two best candidates I've seen in my short life. I would have prefered a hard break with tradition, and an endorsement of just one of the progressives. But the sense of endorsing both a moderate and a progressive sways me. The war of actual ideas is in the Democratic party. And why not have both somehow. I'd vote for this ticket without reservation, whoever was at the top.

  94. Amy Klobuchar is a surprise. Elizabeth Warren is not. Two endorsements is also a surprise. If I were a Democrat I would veer towards Klobuchar. As I am also not either a Democrat or a Republican, I can say from afar that I am objectively impressed by the process. That too is a surprise. Well done.

  95. @Joshua Schwartz I like Klobuchar and was wondering if she can make a break through...hopefully more attention will be placed on her. I think Warren is smart and I like that she has a plan....I am concerned that she comes across as a little divisive. We need all the votes we can get.

  96. Warren is Solid. She needs to apologize to Sanders. They need to work in tandem. Sanders/Warren or Warren/Sanders--I'll take either

  97. @Copacetic or perhaps Sanders need to apologize to Warren. It is not clear which it is.

  98. @Lilly Really? It seems pretty clear at this point that Warren was, at best, embellishing and, at worst, flatly lying about what happened in that meeting. The fact that she is now trying to avoid the subject (after dredging it up) is pretty telling. Thankfully, it seems to have backfired to the detriment of her campaign.

  99. @Copacetic Both Warren and Sanders should consider a joint press release saying the Trump campaign would like nothing better than to see the two fight each other... Thanks, but no thanks. We're not taking the bait.

  100. Making two recommendations isn't a cop-out. What is a cop-out is that while acknowledging that "many Democratic voters are concerned first and foremost about who can beat Mr. Trump," you duck that question by basically saying no one has any idea who has the best chance of beating Trump. Instead, you declare that Democrats "must decide which of their two models would be most compelling for the American people and best suited for repairing the Republic." No they mustn't. They must wait until they have a better idea who can actually win the 2020 election before deciding who should be their Presidential nominee .

  101. @Jay Orchard I disagree. Trump and the Republicans win by preventing substantive debate, by manipulating people (both Republicans & Democrats) with fear & anger. Offer people something more substantive and even many Republicans will take it. The only real answer to the question "who can beat Trump" is that real debate & real politics can beat him.

  102. I like Warren. But the fact that she did not have the guts to take up the progressive cause against Wall Street funded Hillary last time tells me all I need to know about how she will cave to the establishment and tinker around the edges with policies that leave structures that cause inequality standing. Trump was the grenade that the working class threw at the Establishment. The grenade will continue to blow things up in slow motion over another four years, not because people do not want a woman, but because they do not want another Harvard elite. We don't need to fix capitalism, Ms. Warren, we need to evolve from it. It's race to the bottom mentality is not a curable problem, it is the main feature. A world on fire, needs more. Both Bernie and Yang know this. So do the vast majority of Americans despite how corporate media spins this fact.

  103. @DC "She did not have the guts"--Do you know what you are speaking of? read Ezra Klein's case for EW. She negotiated very firmly with the Clinton campaign to get defenders of the people in government, were Clinton to win.

  104. I thought The Times would endorse Klobuchar as she fits with the moderate, go it slow view the paper has long endorsed. However, I'm also not too surprised about Warren. Reading the interview with Warren, I couldn't help notice that the board largely gave her a pass on controversies over her past. It didn't ask her how she could believe that labeling herself Native American wasn't of benefit for her career and why throughout it she chose to be prominently identified as such. Nor did it question how she remained a libertarian Republican during the presidencies of Nixon and Reagan and seemed to be ignorant how destructive many of their policies were for the country and especially the disadvantaged whom she now claims to be the focus of her campaign. I'm just a few years younger than Warren and it didn't take my writing a paper on bankruptcy to know that the Republican policies of the 2nd half of the 20th century focused on benefiting the wealthy at the expense of those who weren't. In contrast, it seemed to rake Sanders over the coals regarding some of his past statements in support of left winger leaders in Latin America.

  105. I thank the editorial board for their thorough, and I do mean, thorough analysis of these candidates they have had the opportunity and fortune to interview. However, when I read this piece, I was disappointed by one theme that was vocal through and through: the dismissiveness of non-political experience. Pete Buttigieg gets a couple quick lines on how his votes were never more than 11,000. Even more, Andrew Yang is completely sidelined in one sentence: "Yet he has virtually no experience in government." We should be giving more careful consideration to those with less experience and their chances in the White House, particularly since the man in the White House right now fits that mold. Deeply appreciative of the research, but the decisions are still traditional with little regard to the appeals of the "outsider."

  106. @Andy More than 600,000 people cast their vote for Buttigieg when he ran for State Treasurer in red Indiana at the age of 27. I agree with you about Yang.

  107. I saw a clip last month of Elizabeth Warren where Amy Goodman of Democracy Now asked if Warren thought that the order of the primary states should change seeing as how two very white states had so much influence going first. And Warren answered, "Look, I'm just a player in the game on this one." I was so disappointed to hear this from her. My mind went to what I imagine Bernie would have said. I imagine he would have said that yes it was unfair (and essentially racist) and should be changed. And that's at the heart of why I'm sticking by Bernie. He's not the politician that Warren is.

  108. @A Stor mo Chroi Actually, in 2016, Sanders complained that the more diverse states in the south had too MUCH say in the Democratic primary. And that's because Bernie lost the 2016 primary in large part because of his lack of support in the African-American community then. That his response to losing that primary was to try to weaken the voting power of African Americans shows that Bernie is a politician after all -- and not a very classy one at that.

  109. I never heard that about Bernie. Half of the Super Tuesday states are southern. That does seem outsized influence. But the states that the Dems "need" to win in the general - Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - don't have their primaries until March or April. These are all diverse states too. The obvious solution is to have all the states do thier primaries on the same day. Other (albeit smaller) nations do it this way. Why can't we?

  110. @A Stor mo Chroi Those states aren't actually that diverse. That's why Trump was able to win them by winning the white working class in those states. There may be good reasons for the Democratic party to give Midwestern swing states priority in picking the nominee. But racial diversity isn't one of them. Having small states (e.g. Iowa and New Hampshire) go first does give lesser-known candidates a better chance to compete against party favorites. Bernie wouldn't have gotten any traction in 2016 if it weren't for something like the current system. There are many proposals about how to improve the system and make it more fair (regional primaries, starting with smaller states and progressing to bigger and bigger states, etc.). But given that the current candidates are running for President of the United States and not for DNC chair, I don't see why they need to stake out positions regarding the primary process itself.

  111. I couldn't agree more with the Times Editorial Board. At 72 years old I do not think Joe Biden has the vigor ( a word JFK used) to be president for four years. Sanders I find divisive -- just the opposite of what the Democratic Party needs to win the presidency and the Senate. I also agree that nationalizing health insurance is a loser with the electorate we have. I really wish Warren would temper her position on that because I think she is smart and sharp enough to stand up to Donald Trump's taunts, bullying and lying on a debate stage. The most important thing for the candidate is to unite and instill passion in the Democratic Party.

  112. The Times had endorsed the idea that there should be a woman candidate. But neither of the two endorsed candidates distinguished herself adequately to the editorial board to gain the endorsement herself. This is a pretty weak statement, I'm sorry to say. I'll vote for either one against Trump, of course. Warren's claims about her plans and abilities have always struck me as hollow--there is not really much of real substance there despite her insistence. I was initially more enthused about Klobuchar, but now I would rather see her as Biden's veep who then could run for president after four years of experience in the public eye. The Times' non-endorsement endorsement indicates with unintended irony the challenges faced by the Democratic Party this fall.

  113. That's Senator Sanders and Senator Warren please. I see why NYT selected both Klobuchar and Sanders, but rational thinking doesn't win the Presidential election. Passion does. I The emotions I'm describing aren't only how I feel about them. My emotions are the response to what I feel coming off the candidates in their passion for the country. Bernie has the passion, Warren has the love with a tinge of desperation, Yang has the freshness. I would vote for Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Yang. They have the answers Americans were searching for when they voted for Trump.

  114. Either would be wonderful as the nominee. Thank you Times. Voting in the primary however (using an absentee WI ballot), I'd probably go with Warren. I do like Klobuchar and her record of getting things done as well as her potential appeal in the midwestern states. That said, and in an intellectual way (because my heart is truly torn between a centrist and a progressive), I think the swing from a populism on the right calls for a swing to populism on the left. I think Warren's policies are certainly for the people but the question, in my mind, is if she can "sell" these policies as populist. In my opinion, I believe if she is the nominee she will be able to do so.

  115. I could not agree with you less about Klobuchar. She is solid but uninspiring. Pete Buttigieg, on the other hand, is BOTH solid AND inspiring. The movement that he has built in the space of a year -- which you dismiss with a short paragraph (while spending many more column-inches on Bloomberg) is running neck-and-neck with political machines representing politicians who have spent decades building mailing lists and war chests. Republicans and Independents are flocking to his events. Klobuchar is precisely the kind of staid, "safe" politician that Democrats regularly lose with; Buttigieg is precisely the kind that best mobilizes the Democratic coalition -- especially if he were to partner with a VP candidate like Stacy Abrams of Georgia. Certainly, his meteoric rise qualifies him as an authentic political phenomenon, and deserves more than the also-ran treatment you're giving him here.

  116. @Luke With all due respect for Mr. Buttigieg's accomplishments, it was reported by Forbes Magazine--in its candidate net-worth coverage--that while he was the candidate with the least net worth he also was supported by the most billionaires. So this could account for his "meteoric rise." Money does talk.

  117. @beberg1 Sorry, beberg, but that's not how it works. First of all, by your logic, ACTUAL billionaires in the race (Steyer and Bloomberg) who are self-funding their campaigns to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars should be way ahead of Buttigieg in the polls, but they're not. The cynical unwillingness of some to concede that Buttigieg is actually inspiring and motivating people better than most other candidates is intellectually dishonest. Secondly, wealthy donors are limited to $2800 just like everyone else, and donations to Pete's campaign average just $38. Finally, as Pete pointed out when attacked in the December debate about this, Warren used exactly the same fund-raising mechanisms in her senate campaign that he is using now, and a substantial portion of her cash-on-hand comes from her senate campaign coffers. Therefore, as Buttigieg remarked on that occasion, "This is the problem when you issue purity tests that you yourself cannot pass."

  118. @beberg1 A billionaire cannot give any more bucks than us poor folk -- $2,800 per billionaire during the primary, and another $2,800 per billionaire in the general election. Buttigieg has a few more billionaire donors, but the difference is far less than the Senate-election war chests that each of the Senators brought into their presidential campaigns, some filled before they stopped taking "big donor" money. And I believe that Klobuchar's fund-raising is less transparent than Pete's.

  119. This is the most encouraging and persuasive voice from the Times that I have read, over many years. I have often been critical of what I perceived as status quo positions by the Times, and perhaps I will again. However, this endorsement and it reasoning gives me the hope that I need today, and perhaps for tomorrow, as well.

  120. So when I caucus for Klobuchar in two weeks and am told to pick another candidate because she does not meet the minimum theshold, I'll go to Warren. But what should I do when she's announced to be a non-viable candidate as well?

  121. @Ryan Vote for Biden of course - the only candidate that is sure to beat Trump.

  122. Thanks to the NYTimes for such a thoughtful treatment of the party, the challenges, and the candidates. Honestly, in this highly partisan atmosphere, it is wise that the paper chose to side with information over than a single endorsement. It's the beginning of the primaries, folks. The choice is ours!

  123. However much I appreciate the choices, it waters down the endorsement to have two candidates. But yes, Warren had the best interview (watch it on Hulu). Controlled, capable, charismatic.

  124. In Minnesota, the Democratic Party is known as the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Klobuchar would strengthen the party among traditional constituencies where the party has been losing ground. I trust that if the race for the nomination came down to Warren and Klobuchar, they would conduct themselves is a way that doesn't damage party unity.

  125. I keep reading that the democrats need to be "inspired". If the prospect of four more years of Trump is NOT sufficient to inspire and motivate, than what is? They will deserve another Trump term.

  126. @dba People want something to vote FOR, not just something to vote against. And to many young Americans, such as myself, 4 years of a do-nothing centrist who will do nothing to address the coming climate catastrophe and will continue to cut our social safety net to ribbons is not much better than another 4 years of Trump.

  127. @dba That was Hillary's strategy, to just not be Trump. How'd that work out for her?

  128. The endorsement of these two fundamentally different candidates is perhaps a result of this "let's make a show about it" transparency. One can guess that past —of only one candidate—would have arisen more by fiat than by committee. I was disheartened to actually see/meet the board on television. It left a bad taste.

  129. @Michael C Agreed, Michael. The Board has been much less professional and incisive throughout this process than I'd anticipated. Their vetting of the candidates sometimes felt contrived, polemical. And I have less faith in the end product than I would have had if these processes had been left blessedly mysterious. Indeed, the present endorsement feels too much like grandstanding. I am disheartened by what this newspaper is becoming.

  130. @Michael C I agree about the "television," and I didn't watch it and will not have any subscription that will avail me of it. It is unfortunate that the Times chose to put their television as the leading voice in this endorsement. Trump has given us enough of TV: We will not achieve discourse and consideration without reading and the opportunity it gives us to consider ideas and to recognize how our emotions might interact with various ideas. TV is just a deluge down upon us, leaving no opportunity to pause, think, or feel about what is rolling over us.

  131. @Peter That moment when Ms Kingsbury said something to the effect of "I don't know what the answer is...I have to call the candidates.. and then I'll make my final decision" was particularly odd. It revealed that it was HER decision alone. It reminded me of a certain reality show on NBC that has since ended.

  132. How exactly is Klobuchar a "best choice"? Where is she in the polls? At 5%? As for Warren, she may have been a choice before the recent Sanders episode. She lost all her credibility after that. Endorsing two women just because they are women is not a recipe for victory in November.

  133. @Bob The Builder hmmm the board members took a vote. Watch the documentary on hulu. They clearly had the best interviews. Who does the best wins the endorsement.

  134. @Chris: I don't care whom you think had the best Hulu interview. How is that quantified anyway? Is this endorsement a projection of who can win the election in November, or is is just a meaningless beauty contest? It certainly doesn't look like it's the former.

  135. @Chris So you're saying the Times made its decision based on what made for a good reality TV episode? Wow. Good thing it wasn't an episode of Survivor. In that game, Elizabeth and Amy would have been the first voted off the island. Contestants there tend to quickly eliminate players who act like obnoxious bullies or overplay their "I think you just called me a liar on national TV" hands.

  136. Nice. No heavy lifting here. Dodge the hard, difficult thinking required in order to drill down to the one candidate (I could see two if they were ideologically similar) we need and why. This is especially important today with the climate crisis clock ticking. One of these candidates does not understand that at all and I will not vote for her under any circumstances. Even if it means 4 more years.

  137. @unreceivedogma I usually agree with your comments, but not on this one. Nothing is worth four more years.

  138. “Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another." Christopher Hitchens once remarked about American politics that there is a huge, undeserved privilege given to the politician who is perceived as a "unifier". He goes on to say that politics is division by definition. Therefore "unity", the Holy Grail of politics, apparently, is unattainable, and the illusion of unity is not worth having. So I'm disappointed to see the NYT use the word "divisive" so lazily in making this direct comparison between Trump and Sanders. Sure, Trump and Sanders can both be described as "divisive" but does the editorial board really not see a difference in how each divides? Bernie Sanders is divisive because he is principled. And because he is a compassionate and empathetic person, he seeks to apply those principles to improve the lives of Americans. Trump is divisive precisely for the opposite reason--he doesn't care at all. This is a man seemingly without principles or a moral fiber. Who would you rather have running the country? The NYT and other media outlets will continue to describe Sanders as "divisive", undoubtedly pleased with themselves to be dispensing what they believe is a hard-hitting insult. But I would urge readers to think about what that word means more carefully than today's op-ed columnists do (pathetic, really, since words are their profession). It's okay to be a divider.

  139. @Vince That unfair and untrue description of Bernie Sanders really rankles me.

  140. @Vince I think Hitchens, despite having lived in the US for many years, was still thinking like a Brit, with its much more traditionally adversarial parliamentary system. I'm an American now in New Zealand, and it really is a different way of doing politics. There is little compromise with opposition. There are no conference committees. You either win, or you don't.

  141. @Bill Agreed, Hitchens was undoubtedly influenced by his Oxford debating days. I definitely think the adversarial nature of parliamentary politics should be emulated here. Politicians should love arguing and faction fighting. Otherwise, what's the point in becoming a politician?

  142. I was for either Warren or Sanders and had been donating to them equally on alternate months. Maybe no longer because of that stunt that Warren participated in during the CNN debate. It was clearly orchestrated with CNN and their political "analyst" Jess McIntosh - who no one bothered to identify as Hilary Clinton's communications director in 2016 and must have had an axe to grind. Weaponizing feminism in this way is what peak white middle class feminists do. They lack a wide political base, they even lack a feminist base in the working class, confirming the talking points of Bernie's staffers. Both my wife and I were taken aback at the shallowness that she revealed about herself at that point, and in the hot MIC after. If she is the nominee, I will vote for her, but we are now likely throwing all of our financial support to Bernie.

  143. @unreceivedogma Sanders's response put Warren in the position of appearing to have lied. That was why she had to challenge him. To have let that slide would have been avoiding and slippery and leaving that conflict in the land of the vague...Trump's land of...whatever... Otherwise, Sanders could have suggested that he didn't remember their conversation the same way. He had a choice and he new that his choice would be coming.

  144. @unreceivedogma -- the other big issue of the Warren-Sanders fight is IF Sanders did make the statement in Dec 2018 Why Didn't She Call Him Out Then? Why did she wait two years and then do it publicly? Given Warren's crazy presentation of socialized medicine and how it wd be paid, plus that she has never spoken about healing the nation and working across the aisle, Warren is the LAST person I wd vote for.

  145. @unreceivedogma Warren shouldn't have outed him on a private conversation. And, even if had stated it, the statement could be read two ways- first, that a woman shouldn't win the presidency or , second, that a woman can't win the presidency because of prejudice against women. The first of these is indefensible- the second is a legitimate challenge to anti-female bias. Warren left it ambiguous what Sanders meant. If he said it, I choose to believe it was the second meaning. Bringing this up and insinuating that Sanders was against women running for president was dirty politics and contrary to everything Sanders has stood for- and Warren has to know this or she would never have campaigned for him earlier in her career.

  146. "American capitalism is responsible for its share of sins. But Ms. Warren often casts the net far too wide, placing the blame for a host of maladies from climate change to gun violence at the feet of the business community when the onus is on society as a whole. " I'll go with Warren's analysis, thank you. Our political system is enslaved to large corporations and legions of stockholders, and in no issues more so than climate change and gun violence. Public demand wants guns for everyone and cheap gas as long as we can get it, but that's because of corporate marketing, lobbying and disinformation campaigns, while government has done nothing to educate the public about the price we are paying and that our children will pay; worse, the government panders to the weapons and oil and gas industries. The lacking ingredient is leadership; the poison in the system is corporate dollars. This is a very fine piece of analysis; I have no trouble with it except in this one sentence where the NYT is showing its pedigree.

  147. I'm still a Sanders supporter, with Ms. Warren as his running-mate. His age has shown how long he has consistently fought for what he believes, and what he fights for is so very filled with kindness. Someone can be for the common good but also relentlessly. I would hope that Sanders would surely outlive his term(s) as president, while then there's also Ms. Warren along with him, in place as a V.P. is meant to be.

  148. @Richard Hahn -- Bernie has gotten legal advice that Warren could be both VP and Treasury Sec at the same time. That would much increase both offices, and her impact. It would set her up for 2024 too, and set up the two of them to define the next generation of the Democratic Party.

  149. @Mark Thomason They would have no chance to win. The right wing media blasts have not even begun. Wish it was otherwise but it is not.

  150. @Edish -- If so, then we may as well bite the bullet and re-elect Trump. Let him tank the place until we can get a good President. There is absolutely no reason to have Trump policies under a fake Democrat doing just Republican Lite. We've had that. Better not to block the path for reform. Keep the traitor Democrats from occupying the offices and blocking the path to reform. They would be worse than Trump, because they'd govern doing the same wars and economic policies and non-response on climate as Trump, plus they'd ensure we never got any chance at anything better. Sure, sure, the Supreme Court. So what? It can't save us. Just abortion is not reason enough to suicide the rest of the government. That is an excuse used by the Republican Lite traitors. It isn't enough.

  151. Just because the board chose two women does not mean they chose them BECAUSE they are women. They clearly chose them because they were the strongest choices. Sanders' is too divisive, hard to work with, and too old. Yang and Buttigieg are too young and inexperienced. Biden really won't move this country forward and is too old. Most voters yawn over him, or find him creepy, even if he feels like a safe vote. Look at their records (especially Amy's unbeatable efficiency in improving lives) and listen to the complexity of thought, game plans, and reasonableness of these women, and it's clear to see that these picks have nothing to do with gender. They were simply the two obvious choices, by a comfortable margin. (Go Amy!)

  152. @genXfemale While they would make better presidents than Trump, I fear neither Warren or Klobuchar can win the election. Senator Warren would never win because of her position on reparations and covering illegal immigrants with medicare, and her borderline lies on her native heritage. Senator Klobuchar is very much part of the political system that everyone despises and thus would never motivate the base to vote and increase turnout. No candidate is perfect, but these two seem too flawded to win against Trump and the formidable hate machine he will muster for november.

  153. @thomasbw I disagree. We need to votes of people who regret their Trump vote. They are plenty and ripe for the picking, but only for a more moderate candidate. Bonus: Klobuchar's goals ultimately mesh with any and all progressive goals, and she has the grit, cool head and brilliance to cream him at the debates.

  154. @genXfemale , I completely agree.

  155. When you asked readers who they would like to become president, I responded that my choice was Elizabeth Warren. My first reason was her passion for remaking this country and restoring the middle class. Every time she speaks, you just sense that passion. She is not in this for herself. I believe she wants to make a positive difference for everyone This includes in climate change, the environment, education, labor and unions, health care, energy, child care, gun control, and restoring our international relationships. When my interest in the campaign wains a bit, I hear her give a speech and my enthusiasm returns, and I'm motivated to make another contribution. I would be proud to have her as our president. And if we can somehow turn the senate from Republican to Democrat, we might actually see big structural change happen in this country. So color me Elizabeth blue.

  156. @John Woods , Very well said, John. I've been a Liz supporter for some time, and all the vitriol from the Bernie Bros in these comments is becoming tiresome. I think it's nothing but sexism on the left. Liz is a decade younger than Bernie, and hasn't had a heart attack in the past few months. If the Times questions her ability to get her progressive agenda through and acknowledges that compromise will be required, then one may be assured that Bernie would have no chance whatsoever with his approach of never compromising. Thank you for speaking out.

  157. @John Woods Thank you for not being negative toward other candidates.

  158. With the exception of Barack Obama, women have been the class of the Democratic Party for decades, and truly exceptional women like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, both by their words and actions have done more to improve the prospects of the most vulnerable among us than any president since FDR. But so much is left to be done, it can be difficult to appreciate all that has already been accomplished in this humanitarian effort, and accomplished largely by women. If inherited wealth wasn't so vested in the X&Y chromosome types among us like George W Bush and Donald J Trump, the irrational decision making born of built in masculine blind spots costing untold lives and retarding human potential would by now have long been a thing of the past.

  159. My first reaction to this endorsement was disappointment. It's difficult for me to envision Warren or Klobuchar as president. Definitely not Klobuchar. I don't trust Warren to have the ability to reason out the best options in a crisis. With Klobuchar, while she talks a good game, she just seems to have an underlying cluelessness. I totally disagree with the Times editorial board even intimating which gender is best suited to be the next president. Championing one gender over another undercut the endorsements' objectivity.

  160. @Verlaine But if the Times had endorsed two male candidates—say, Sanders and Buttigieg—that wouldn't have been championing one gender over another, right? Because men are normal humans, and women are … women.

  161. @C Wolfe No, the Times should have stopped hedging their bets and picked one candidate.

  162. Right after Nelson Mandela died in 2013, I began to read first-person reflections from people who knew him well. One theme kept coming up over and over: that Mandela treated every person— every chauffeur, bag handler, maid, waiter, cashier and assistant— with the same dignity, grace, and respect he offered to kings, presidents and prime ministers. The true test of leadership is how we treat those who have less power than we do. My point is this: it’s very difficult to picture Mandela throwing binders or office supplies at anyone.

  163. @David L. Highest staff turnover in the US Senate says a lot, too. That means she's No. 1 out of 100! I will NEVER vote for Klobuchar and nobody in my household will. We've had enough nastiness in the White House to last a lifetime.

  164. @David L. There is so little real evidence that that happened. Read any article about it. It's classic hit-job stuff.

  165. @genXfemale Reports I've read say she doesn't deny it! I can't vote for her.

  166. Courageous dual endorsement. The U.S. needs radical change, economically, politically, culturally. "More of the same" will merely bring more of the same increase in the obscene Wealth Gap, more social divisions and racism, more wars and just about more of everything else hat is wrong with the nation (drugs, guns, crime, incarceration). The U.S.A. of the sixties was a sight to behold, with high taxes driving both infrastructure and growth, and creating a sense of national and personal invincibility. I hope you can rediscover your roots. As Trump cynically asked Afro-Americans and minorities: "What have you got to lose?" The answer was "Everything." With either of these two ladies the U.S. has absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain from a reversion to the spirit of the sixties. Good luck in November. I mean this from the bottom of my heart. The world needs the old U.S.A..

  167. It is amazingly delightful to see Elizabeth Warren endorsed by the NYT at this early stage in the primary and election campaigns. Amy Klobuchar, clearly a second choice to placate the more conservative editorial board members, would make an excellent vice presidential candidate to give the Democratic ticket a moderate balance for perceptual reasons. It is appropriate that she is mentioned as equally endorseable at this stage, though clearly it is Warren who has the ideas, the passion and the vision to lead the country out of the murk we have been plunged into by dark forces of Republican Trumpism.

  168. "Gee, last time we picked Hillary over Bernie, and he came back stronger and more popular than ever this time around. This time we better pick two candidates over him!"

  169. @Bill, He neither seems stronger nor more popular. He's maintaining a decent level of support, but he hasn't expanded his base. To me that's problematic, especially given this is his second time round. His major contribution, no small feat and definitely desirable, is he has moved the conversation to where it needs to be (regarding economic issues, but he would fail this test on gun control). That doesn't mean he is the best candidate. He isn't.

  170. @Mike "He's maintaining a decent level of support, but he hasn't expanded his base." This is factually inaccurate as both polling and donations (from first-time donors!) strongly indicate.

  171. What an excellent surprise. And watching your program I was fascinated by the whole process. But people at your table are wrong that Klobuchar does not have charisma. She's got it big time. She crackles. She just doesn't have much traction in Wisconsin but has convinced NYers that she does. BTW: Corey Booker's response to what broke his heart broke everyone's watching.

  172. Paul Krugman, in his recent column on healthcare, noted that political reality is that it probably doesn't matter which Democrat wins the White House: We're going to get Obamacare reforms. I would observe that what will matter is the makeup of the Senate. Klobuchar would craft a Party platform that Senate candidates in purple states can run on. Warren's platform would be anathema for these candidates. Ditto for swing districts in the House.

  173. @LewisPG -- There are reforms big and small, with a future of just letting it die on the vine. It matters.

  174. Your intended pragmatism comes off as cowardice. I strongly disagree that you need to endorse two different approaches to government to cover all bases. While I am not surprised to see the EB endorse Sen Warren, Sen Klobuchar has so far failed to generate any amount of excitement. Her policies around child tax credits are a re-hash of the same GOP-friendly approach to reducing poverty, and there is absolutely no way America will achieve 2050 carbon neutrality without a radical new vision for the future and a leader who can mobilize people behind that. So far, I have a lot of trouble to believe she can do that.

  175. @Carlos -- The NYT wants a "moderate" Republican Lite again, but can't find one. They really wanted Biden, but see the problems there.

  176. I can live with this. Either of those Senators would be a terrific President. Both are smart, tough, experienced, patriotic and care about the people, our world, our environment. Thank you NYT for recognizing their excellence.

  177. Before any Democratic candidate can be endorsed, he or she must acknowledge and make amends for the self-serving policies of upscale professional Democrats There is no honor without disowning the self-promotion of upscale professionals -- lawyers, doctors, etc. 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. Other tax policies that unduly favor the upscale include the mortgage and property tax deductions, favorable treatment of 401(k)'s and 520 accounts, and flat taxes -- most notably sales and property taxes. Then there are the sin taxes that are big-time regressive. As for health care, Obamacare has always allowed for a gap of 25-30 million uncovered blue collar Americans. Similarly in extending Medicare to drug coverage, the upscale allowed for a coverage gap that, again, harmed the working class. At the same time, the upscale provided for full coverage under Medicaid, to poor Democrats. Finally, in defending these health care inequities, the upscale diverted attention from the huge coverage gaps by aggressively attacking Republican Medicaid expansion policies. which affect two million. The upscale also promote de facto segregation, financial discrimination against those without credit cards, public school inequality and, worst of all, higher life expectancy for the upscale.

  178. I agree with the Board that Warren and Klobuchar are the best candidates, but only on the merits. I want a candidate who can beat Trump, and towards that end I don't see the point of this double-endorsement at this time. If the justification is that no one really knows who can win the general, then maybe it would have made more sense to let primary process work it out a little longer, then endorse one candidate. I'd also note that the only real disqualifier by the NYTE Board for Biden seems to be his age, which is unfortunate, because he's got a good shot at winning.

  179. Two good choices. Klobuchar is definitely the best of the moderates and I trust Warren's commitment to the "big change" I want. Not so sure about her political IQ, however. Hope she can learn fast and avoid any more mistakes.

  180. I agree with the choices. However, I'd urge a change in wording overall. Neither of the two Senators are "Progressive". In fact, no one in the Democratic side can be considered progressive when the world is taken into account. Universal/Single payer healthcare, for example, is no longer progressive; we are way behind other first world countries (45 of them at last count). At most, they should really stopped being labeled progessive, but just "civilized" and "aligned with civilized first world countries". I think the bar has dropped too far. It's time to let Americans understand how far behind we are in humanistic values and the associated policies.

  181. And neither one will beat Trump. The candidate who will defeat Trump must run on values that counter the president's racism, divisiveness and corruption. But bother Warren and Klobuchar are polarizing, setting up more fighting and us-versus-them, instead of bringing the nation together. Warren has literally said she would eliminate the jobs of half a million Americans working in the health insurance industry. Not one of those people will vote for her. And her class war against successful people rankles not just the wealthy, but those who aspire to improve their lives. Klobuchar is negative, not inspirational. The reports of her berating her staff came early in the election cycle, and she personally attacks her fellow Democrats on the national stage. I don't remember Barak Obama having negative baggage like these two. The national needs healing. Not more fighting.

  182. @limn Where do you get the absurd idea that half a million health care jobs would be lost under a Medicare for Al system? There aren't nearly that many people working in the health insurance industry and the hospital workers, nurses, doctors, technicians, etc, will still be needed. Please, can we be a little bit rational here? A fair and equitable and affordable and SANE health care system will create wealth. Right now we're held hostage by the insurance industry and the health care system is NOT working for most Americans. Many of us are going without care altogether because it's just flat unaffordable. And our life expectancy is falling accordingly.

  183. @Sophia Look it up. 2.69 million Americans work in the insurance industry, with at least 500,000 of those specializing in healthcare related insurance.

  184. @limn "The national needs healing. Not more fighting." What the nation needs is a more intelligent, better informed electorate.

  185. By choosing two candidates all you’re doing is help strengthen the divide. And by choosing the two women candidates that represent the two sides of that divide you’re not doing either of them any favors because you’re setting them and their supporters against one another. You’re actually doing Biden a favor, and ultimately this cowardly “endorsement” helps Trump most of all. Yes it’s a hard choice, no doubt about it, and it’s easy to see that coming down on one side or the other would put the Times at odds with many of its readers. Doing the right thing always takes courage and invites conflict, but that’s your job. This kind of non-endorsement is worse than no endorsement at all. And it seems particularly insulting to Warren and her supporters to put someone who is clearly one of the front runners in the same category as someone who consistently polls in the low single digits. Still, had you endorsed Klobuchar, I would have had more respect for the Times even though I would have disagreed with that endorsement. That would have shown an actual point of view and a commitment to a particular strategy for beating Trump. But splitting the endorsement seems more about the Times trying to maximize its revenue than performing its civic duty.

  186. Bernie Sanders is going to win Iowa, NH, and Nevada. So you might as well ramp up a wall of neoliberal nonsense about the popularity of Joe Biden in preparation for SC. Because that is all your endorsement is, an expression of a tactic that denies that Bernie Sanders huge nationwide support is going to redesign how US Presidents are elected - from the working people rather than via the DNC machine. I must admit I am somewhat surprised the Republicans beat Democrats to the punch on rejecting status quo candidates, but here we are.

  187. @CK What makes you think working class people aren't supporting Warren and Klobuchar? Bernie doesn't own the workers. We can make up our own minds. Warren's plans are just as bold and progressive as Bernie's and she's got a lot more detail; also it's pretty insane to refer to Liz Warren as a "status quo" candidate.

  188. @CK Elizabeth Biden is certainly not a "status quo candidate" but she is just as certainly more intelligent, competent, and accomplished than Bernie Sanders will ever be. Sanders is a cheap sloganeer, who like some of the worst Republicans seems to think that shouting makes his ideas more compelling. That aside, Americans are woefully uninformed and when faced with a Sanders presidential candidacy that the Right Wing Disinformation Machine will relentlessly portray as a socialist (think communist) nightmare, the average American voter will vote against their own best interests and reelect the worst president in our history. The other problem with both Sanders and Biden is that Democrats will effectively be relinquishing the advantage of incumbency in 2024. Sanders' health and Biden's muddled brain will not fare well four years from now. Since the real problem is not Donald Trump, but the Republican Party, returning to a Republican president in 2024 would be a disaster.

  189. @Ellis6 Bernie tried to get Warren to run in 2016 to challenge Hillary Clinton, the definition of neo-liberalism, a system that will destroy this planet. When Warren declined to run, Berrnie picked up the torch himself in an attempt to offer Americans a more humane vision of the future. If Warren isn't status quo, why did she back Hillary. I assume to keep her favors within the DNC machinery for her career. Bernie would never do such a thing. He knows what's on the line.

  190. I don't know if she has the best chance to beat Trump, but Senator Warren would make the best president of any of the democratic candidates. My problem with Senator Klobuchar is simple -- any Democrat who claims he or she will get things done by working "across the aisle" is either wildly dishonest/naive or hasn't been paying any attention to the era of Mitch McConnell. That is especially troubling for someone who has been in the Senate during that undemocratic and radically regressive period. I have been concerned about Warren's slowness to acknowledge the limitations of a democratic president in the next four years. She should be running as an aspirational candidate; someone looking to the future and comparing the tried-and-failed policies of the Right with her own progressive views. Change in this country is likely to be painfully (and unnecessarily) slow due to the significant failings of our electorate, but there needs to be someone to show the way to a more meaningful, sustainable, humane future. In my opinion, that person is Senator Warren, not Senator Klobuchar. Biden and Sanders are too old and would be terrible mistakes. Neither is really presidential material. Biden is a blowhard who, if he is to be believed, seems to have been responsible for everything good that happened under Obama. For the bad stuff, he was many parsecs away. Sanders is a shallow sloganeer. Many of his prescriptions are worthwhile, but he is not up to the task of leading this country.

  191. Thank you for NOT mentioning the "sex-card". But, among the plus points you list for her, I think you may have over-looked another one for Senator Klobuchar vis -à-vis the current occupant of the oval office: Her mid-west roots and character. That could be crucial in attracting enough disaffected Trump-voters in several "swingable" states. I suspect that there are many of them who are nervous about, even distrustful of, an East Coast Liberal who may have started in the mid-west (Oklahoma), but "defected" and was infected by the "elites" whom she represents, and who could well-relate to Senator Klobuchar's mid-west authenticity.

  192. Perhaps we could have both Warren and Klobuchar. If Warren does not become the presidential nominee, she could be the nominee for vice-president. That would attract both centrists and leftists. Remember that every vote will be needed to defeat Trump, especially in swing states.

  193. I'm disappointed that an article that references Steve Bullock, Michael Bennet, and Deval Patrick doesn't even mention Tulsi Gabbard. The Times spent nearly a year hammering home the importance of electability, yet when a candidate emerged who received favorable treatment and interest on the right, NYT dropped any pretense of finding a candidate who could turn some Trump voters blue. Conservatives don't like Tulsi because of some elaborate Russian conspiracy. They like her because a) there is a growing anti-war coalition on the right (which the Times has at least begun to acknowledge in recent articles) and b) she speaks to them like they're human beings, and not like gnats to be swatted away. There's a reason why Clinton's "deplorables" remark cut so deep, and became a rallying cry among the GOP electorate. Many conservatives truly believe that liberals look down on them and believe they have no value. If there's one thing that Biden has going for him in the general election, it's that he does give the impression of being genuinely down-to-Earth. I hope that's enough to beat Trump in November.

  194. Tulsi Gabbard is clearly more qualified and appealing than the two candidates selected by the NYTimes. In reality the Biden has the most appeal and experience. Overall the field of Dem candidates are weak, there is no clear Alpha amongst the group. My favourite candidate was Corey Booker, but his agenda was out of step with mainstream voters. He was a great Mayor in Newark, Harvard educated, youthful and energetic. I was a strong supporter but then I lost interest and became disappointed. Its a shame that politics are so focused on identity, instead of the content of persons characters. Today is Martin Luther Kings birthday, I recommend we reflect on his words. Elizabeth Warren claiming to be of Native American ancestry, and misrepresenting herself throughout her career to gain an advantage, speaks to a weak character. For that reason I cannot forgive her or forget. Her lie took away an opportunity from someone else who was more qualified or at the very least, someone more honest.

  195. Unless lighting strikes in Iowa Klobuchar is a long shot to win. I think she is the only one who can stand on a debate stage and spar with Trump. They way Warren handled her dust up with Saunders makes me think Trump could easily get under her skin. I think the Times took the easy politically correct way out with this one.I think a pick of Warren to go against Trump would be red meat for The Right.I guess the Times is not really too concerned with who can beat Trump. They choose Warren the idealistic candidate over a pragmatic one. My hope in the time of Trump would be the pragmatic one. I fear Trump would do to most candidates what he did to Jeb Bush in 2016.The way he beat up Bush made me cringe.You really have to have thick skin to best Trump.

  196. What happened?! Us voters can only vote for one candidate but the editorial board can chose two candidates? There couldn’t be a more different situation. I’m still wondering which candidate the editorial board would chose if it was bound by the same rules as us primary voters. If they could only pick one candidate, would it be either Warren or Klobuchar? Would the forced choice compel them to chose a different candidate like Biden or Buttigieg? I have no idea who the editorial board would chose if they had just one choice to make. Of that decision I am completely in the dark. I invite them to make a final decision and publish a one person endorsement. (I’m not joking.)

  197. Let's look at polling for each Democratic candidate against Mr. Trump in the swing states: FL, MI, WI, PA, OH, AZ, NC, NV, VA, and IA. Bernie Sanders does as well or better than Joe BIden in most of these states against Trump. Elizabeth Warren does worse than Sanders or Biden in most of these states (including FL, PA, MI, OH, NC, and NV), and potentially loses to Trump in FL, WI, and NC where Sanders or Biden could potentially win. (Amy Klobuchar is not included in most of these statewide polls against Trump.) I will vote my conscience in the Democratic primary, and then vote blue, no matter who, on November 3. I like and respect Elizabeth Warren. She was gaining momentum toward mid-October. But her stumble over her healthcare plan, and resulting fall to third or fourth among Democrats in many states, gives me pause as to whether she can run an effective general election campaign.

  198. Well, you can't say the decision to recommend two women isn't politically correct. But not really helpful. I'd be fine with Klobuchar if she had any chance of winning, but she doesn't. She's barely polling in the single digits. Warren is also on the way down, and her recent handshake drama and your recommendation isn't likely to change that. I would say this editorial is the equivalent of voting for a candidate who can't win just to make virtue points. That of course is the recipe for losing the election.

  199. @Bob G. Please listen to a few minutes of this week's On the Media for statistics and studies on how badly women candidates are punished for perceived flaws that would go unmentioned in men. "Not trustworthy" is one of the most unfair.

  200. I'm definitely in the Warren camp, but I have to wonder, at a time when she's being subjected to massive brick-a-brats, (evident everywhere, but especially from the Sanders camp), which mostly say that she's a liar, who decided, and why, that the opening line of her endorsement should be "Warren is a gifted storyteller." Maybe I'm imagining phantoms in the sidelines, but I think describing her as a truthteller would have been more accurate.

  201. My guess is this complete cop-out of an endorsement will turn out to be quite prescient. The Democrats have a completely incoherent vision for most Americans. We'll fight about all of the immaterial issues while Trump solidifies his electoral map. This has helped draw Bernie's criticism of the NYT and the Democratic establishment into focus and solidified my support for him.

  202. Nightmare! I watched the Board's interviews and analysis on "The Weekly" and it left me with the impression that the Board felt it was unable to find a single Democratic candidate who could both beat Trump and be capable of being a good president. They obviously couldn't! So they chose 2. And in my opinion, FWIW, they did not choose the right 2. One of the Board members herself said that male voters would not accept being lectured to by Elizabeth Warren. I learned this weak form a reader comment here that Warren's plan for addressing climate change is woefully inadequate. I already didn't like her Medicare for All (eliminating private health insurance completely) and thought that Mayor Pete's Medicare for All Who Want It would make him more electable. Klobuchar is one of only 2 Democrats that nobody in my household will EVER vote for. The first one was Julian Castro who attacked VP Biden in a very nasty way during a debate. Klobuchar is of the same ilk, IMO, though not as bad a Castro. She attacked Mayor Pete in a manner consistent with multiple reports of her mean spiritedness and with her having the highest staff turn-over of the entire US Senate. I hope the Democratic primary voters and the Party ignore the endorsements from the NY Times.

  203. This makes sense on every level. None of the men feel to me like they are presidential material. Either of these two women would be great. Here, here for 2020 vision.

  204. I was expecting a very clear endorsement with solid reasoning going into the 2020 Democratic primaries. The editorial seemed like a graduate paper that could not make a clear case for their thesis so they decided to select two candidates--very disappointing. At this point, I would say ignore endorsements from newspapers and do your own research and vote the the candidate that you believe is the best to lead the democratic party.

  205. The New York Times should approach the 2020 election as a marketing problem. Who is the candidate who can attract the most votes and take the most votes away from Trump? Clearly, The Times has the personnel and the resources to perform an analysis of this type. When the candidate the Times believes has the best prospect of defeating Trump is identified, that is the person the Times should endorse. Winning is of paramount importance. Coming in a close second doesn't count. All other considerations are secondary. There will no second chances. This is hardball not beanbag. An all consuming, ruthless pragmatism will optimize the chances of success.

  206. I believe that the New York Times have just made a categorical error by endorsing Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar in this primary. In claiming that Sanders is a figure equally divisive as Trump, a false equivalence has been made much worse than the idea that Clinton and Trump were one and the same. Associating the left-wing ideas of Sanders with Warren is a mistake, because while significantly to the left of Joe Biden, her stances on important issues are different in an important manner. Let me lay out why, as a Massachusetts Democrat, Warren has lost my vote in the primary (and no, scaremongers, not the general): her handling of Medicare for All. What Ted Kennedy called the "cause of [his] life", Warren has treated as a political unicorn. She claims she will be able to pass legislation for a Public Option, and in her third year, Medicare for All, after which it is entirely likely that she will have neither the Senate or the House in her control. This dismissive attitude (ignoring the ludicrously fantastically low spending numbers or ignorance in the Wealth Tax's capital flight problem) applies to many of her other policies at well. If you want to talk about electability and consistency, Sanders and Biden are the only choice. Only they beat Trump in head-to-head polls and have maintained a consistent ideology throughout the years. And if Klobuchar, who is polling at 4%, is the nominee? Consider my vote for her out, for one simple reason: I'm not a Republican.

  207. The lukewarm praise of lowered expectations.

  208. I'm not interested in someone who lies about and attacks fellow candidates. I'll take a closer look at Klobuchar, though.

  209. It’s funny how the NY Times primarily disqualifies Sanders’ as a candidate because of his age and health. Ironic how in his frail state he continues to demonstrate a unique ability to get people excited about something those who regularly read the times lost all enthusiasm for long ago: politics. I guess it doesn’t matter that people are building a movement behind a candidate—better to hide your campaign signs to make sure Republicans don’t think they need to go out and vote for Trump, that clearly worked for Hilary. Compare the movement behind Sanders to Klobuchar’s staff, who feel like they are 79 and just had a heart attack after being berated by their leader. And then there is Sanders' supposed inability to compromise. How does it figure that the most “divisive” candidate has the slogan “not me, us” and uniquely recognizes that the majority of Americans have something worthwhile to contribute to this country besides exploited labor? This claim also makes it ironic that Klobuchar kept bringing up things she successfully worked on with him throughout last week’s debate. Also, what about foreign policy? You know, the “maybe we shouldn’t go to more wars to protect the interest of a small number of rich people” kind of thing. And the climate... Well, maybe that’s better left for later (just like its been treated the last 40 years). Weird how it’s gotten so much worse when we keep dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into fossil fuel subsidies.

  210. Is there a gesture more meaningless, more mealy-mouthed, more obviously futile than endorsing two candidates? I'm disappointed in the Editorial Board and in its members - why are these intelligent, reasonable, articulate professionals so hesitant to commit to the same choice every voter will have to make on Election Day? Fence-sitting like this (especially after all the pomp and self-important ceremony that preceded it) makes one wonder why they even bothered to endorse anyone in the first place.

  211. Wow based on many of the comments glad I don't watch TV except sports of course. Bernie/Buttigieg makes the most sense to me. Bernie/Trump and Buttigieg/Pence are debates I would like to see.

  212. Correction: Pete Buttigieg never won more than 11,000 votes in either of his successful campaigns for mayor of South Bend. But he won 633,243 votes in his 2010 race for Indiana Treasurer. It's just that he lost that election to Richard Mourdock, by a lot.

  213. So, Klobuchar reminds you of John Kerry in 2004? The person who lost the election that year? Not a good sign. I will not vote for her. I've said it many times, and I'll say it again: The problems we face with regard to the climate, with regard to income and wealth inequality, with regard to healthcare, and with regard to the corruption of our government are at crisis levels. We are OUT OF TIME when it comes to solving these issues. We have 12 years to turn around our carbon emissions, not the 30 years Klobuchar wants to slow-walk us toward. "Moderates" or "Centrists" are fundamentally incapable of grasping the severity of these problems, as they are terminally fixated upon bipartisanship at any cost. I'm 40 years old, and I'm terrified and furious about what the future of our nation and our planet holds. We can't survive any more of Trump, nor can we survive more Centrism. I'm voting for a progressive candidate, period.

  214. Is someone forgetting that Amy called Warren's plans "pipe dreams" and betting on numbers that "aren't on the wheel"? Is someone forgetting that Amy's polling average is 3 points? Leave the selecting of a democratic nominee to the people. To think that a bunch of well-payed opinion writers in a NYT office building should be making endorsements for anyone is hubris on a monumental scale. They made their decision in their own bubble. Who did they talk to outside of themselves? People are supposed to listen to this over endorsements by politicians that live in the trenches of their constituencies?

  215. Um, thanks for narrowing the field, but, in typical liberal fashion, it feels pretty darned wishy-washy to recommend not one but two choices for President. This is how we will lose to Trump in 2020.

  216. I think it was a cop out and a little pandering. Voters will not have an option of voting for two people.If the Times could not make the choice it should have not made a choice at all.I am suspect if there was no Bernie Warren dust up we would not have ended up these choices.

  217. Warren happens to be MY first choice - though if fellow Democratic-affiliated voters choose to go with him, I could would vote for either. I believe the timeline shows Joe Biden did nothing wrong with dealing with his son Hunter's selection of employment. Beaten down by a life of family tragedy, I understand why he didn't do anything extraordinary, like, at the time denounce his son's work for a corrupt Ukraine company. While Biden fares better TODAY in a Democrat-Trump race, I fear his campaign could be a race from one smear after another - the Democratic candidate's hands must *appear* cleaner than clean. Klobuchar's one plus is that she is younger - and, cursing an attitude I reject - men "mature", women "get old/ugly". More importantly, though, the Times choice is excellent for other reasons. Biden is, quite simply, bland. Warren and Klobuchar offer a combination of Washington experience and know-how, local office-holders like Buttigieg lack. We need an experienced, educated legislator who understands both the government and its position in the world, and the role of Congress in our government. Sanders offers experience, but his policies haven't changed in 50 years - he has failed to evolve and grow. The Times is put in the same position as we all are, with an insane system with a couple of very low-pop. 97% white Anglo states given far too much emotional power in selecting the nominee. Iowa's largest "city" is as populous as a NY village.

  218. You might want to rethink that opening disclaimer - "Unable to adhere to convention, the editorial board has opted for something completely different: To endorse not one, no, but two separate Democratic candidates for president." - Really, two SEPARATE, they're two different people and, they have nothing in common because it's two, not one? If you're going to proselytize about how Trump is a threat to democracy, then please have the courage of your convictions and endorse one of these two women, not both. The last thing I want this misogynistic president to think is that it's going to take two women to take him down versus one.

  219. “Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller.” There may be no truer sentence in this editorial.

  220. Can Amy K. hold her own against Trump in a debate? I know Warren could destroy him with the truth and facts. Now, will Middle America support a Warren candidate? Only the next few months will explain that dilemma. Bloomberg could be the mercenary candidate that could destroy Trump in a debate and clean up our mess with the help of a Warren or Amy on the ticket. We are in a very different circumstance in this election. The cult of Trump is strong and vicious. We need strength to break his hold on our Republic or it will slip away from our institutions as we need them to protect the constitution.

  221. Will we be allowed to vote for two separate candidates on the primary ballot in Florida? In the general election, too? I would be grateful for clarification. Thanks.

  222. Thank goodness for Bernie Sanders. I'm going for boldness and decency in 2020, not conniving tale-weavers or staff-abusers.

  223. The Times continues its streak of endorsing losing candidates. If they make it to the General, which they won't, Trump is going to eat them alive. The new rules of politics in the USA is that you fight fire with fire. The Republicans will play to win, and the democrats play to compromise. We rural Americans, especially young voters, are tired of this. We refuse to live our lives taking the moral high ground only to face absolute ruthlessness and no compromise from the Republicans. We must be ruthless ourselves. We must fight back!

  224. The fact that this endorsement describes Warren as "the standard-bearer of the Democratic left" is utterly laughable after this past week. Her classless antics surrounding the last debate and her timidness in attacking Biden's disastrous record on Social Security has killed whatever progressive credentials she had left. Many on the progressive wing (including myself) can never trust her ever again.

  225. 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 pitch and appear more moderate.

  226. I agree they're both definitely the best choices, but Bernie is right - America isn't ready for a female president. Maybe as vice president, but not the top job. Shame, because they'd both be great at it.

  227. It seems odd that here we are with the two most competent candidates being women (I like the Times' endorsement) and we question, quite rightly, their temperament. For gosh sakes, don't make the mistake Hillary made. Please listen. We can't afford a tone deaf candidate no matter how well intentioned.

  228. I wonder how much of this endorsement is based on "clickbait". Warren is not a surprise. However, Klobuchar is a shock; the math to her win isn't there. While they may be "effective advocates", both are unlikely to beat Trump. I'd be less annoyed with either choice had you picked just one.

  229. If the idea is to beat Trump, as stated in the endorsement, the NYTs has sadly chosen 2 candidates that the current president will use as a stepping stone to a second term. By the NYTs own poll, Klobuchar has 4% of the vote. And for good reason, she is not a strong candidate and she cannot beat Trump. That endorsement is simply a waste. Trump will bully her in to a joke before a vote is cast. Trump has already walked over Warren with his "Pocahontas" insult and she fell right in to his trap. She created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and was removed by Republicans from her own bureau. Her attempt to take down Bernie with an insult that could not be collaborated made everyone look bad including herself and the Democratic party. In times of basic confrontation she looses. How can she confront and deal with a strong Republican party with her progressive ideas if she can't handle simple attacks? Trump will walk over her laughing his way to the next inauguration. It's simply down to Bernie and Biden. Again, more to the point, who can beat Trump. There has never been a poll where Trump has beaten Bernie Sanders - never. The NYTs = statues quo, 1%, Wall Street and appeasing its corporate advertisers so endorsing Bernie will never happen. The good news is the voters are ready. This endorsement comes to us from the newspaper that gave us Hillary by 85% on election day 2016.

  230. This gimmick doesn't sit well with me. After all, we voters will be able to choose only one candidate--a "split decision" isn't so helpful, except that it begs the question. However, it's just wonderful that Amy Klobuchar's True Grit Campaign is going to see a lift from this. Go Amy!!

  231. @NYT This is a cop out. In picking two candidates whose views differ on so many levels points to appeasement and is merely patronizing the reader not informing them. What is required is fundamental change not someone (new) who will kick the can down the road (old). Klobuchar is essentially a young female Biden. Nice person but seems to represent more of the same. In this sense it is possible we could see a Biden/Klobuchar ticket. As for Bernie the NYT describes him as too divisive but also states, "Many of his ideas that were once labeled radical — like paid family leave, a higher minimum wage, universal health care and limits on military intervention — are now mainstream, and may attract voters who helped elect Mr. Trump in 2016." Sounds to me like the NYT is in denial. They just don't like his tone or something I guess. Get over it! As for Warren she is easily as divisive as Bernie, if that is the adjective of choice, but sometimes that is what it takes. How the NYT can come out against a single payer system or, Medicare for all, is beyond belief. They just as well have endorsed Trump. Not doing something so important because you think it will get tied up in the courts is no reason not to do it. I question that logic. Every developed western nation has a national health care system. I doubt they are mistaken in providing health care to their citizens.

  232. As a subscriber, I am thankful for the transparency in this process - but am horrified, utterly horrified - at what it reveals. With the notable exceptions of Aisha Harris, Jeneen Interlandi, and (occasionally) Binyamin Appelbaum, the rest of the board is exposed as superficial, unimaginative, and largely incapable of analytical thinking. Kathleen Kingsbury and Michelle Cottle in particular come across as stunningly ill-equipped to the task at hand. Cottle repeatedly is shown opining with empty statements. The written piece says "an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation" - and yet this board is silent upon which vision it endorses. I've always had a nagging concern about the Times' opinion section, but found comfort in the solid news reporting. But this peek behind the curtain is so stunning in the revealed incompetence, my confidence in the entire institution of the Times is shaken. Please begin the process of restoring faith in this board, a good start would be with the immediate removal of Kingsbury, who treated this privileged process with detachment, casual indifference, and emphasized the superficial over the substantial.

  233. If you were going to break from tradition, why not endorse all the Democratic candidates? It would have been a very unifying message at a time when it is very much needed. Instead, in this endorsement you insult Sanders by comparing him to Trump, and further divide an already divided party. It's shameful, but what I have come to expect from this newspaper.