Endorsement Race 2016

Forums: Politics, Us Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Newspaper endorsements are not all that relevant for national races in the day of the 24hr news cycle and the Internet, but I find them interesting to watch. Newspapers often very closely represent their readership in terms of political ideology, but pride themselves on looking at the facts and making rational judgments (although sometimes that is laughable.) Since I haven't found a website tracking this, here is a tread we can post endorsement news.

Where we are today from Wikipedia.

Gary Johnson
Johnson has six endorsements from papers with a combined circulation of 1.27 million people. Of those six papers, two endorsed President Obama four years ago, three endorsed Romney, one did not endorse.

Hillary Clinton
Clinton has 21 endorsements from papers with a combined circulation of 7.62 million people. Of those 21 papers, nine endorsed President Obama four years ago, nine endorsed Romney, three did not endorse.

No endorsement
Six papers with a combined circulation of 0.29 million people have come out with no endorsement. Of those three did not endorse in 2012 and the other three supported Romney.

Not Donald Trump
Two papers with a combined circulation of 3.3 million people have taken the unusual position of "N0t Donald Trump". Of these, one has never endorsed before and one endorsed Obama in 2012 and may still make an affirmative endorsement.

Donald Trump
No papers have yet to endorse Trump.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 12 • Views: 11,988 • Replies: 224

0 Replies

I learnt recently that USA Today endorsed Clinton, despite not having endorsed for about 30 years.

1 Reply

@Thomas33,

USA Today did not endorse Clinton, they endorsed "Not Donald Trump" saying he is unfit for the job. On Clinton, they said:

Quote:

The Editorial Board does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement.

0 Replies

http://www.thewrap.com/gary-johnson-six-more-newspaper-endorsements-donald-trump/

Quote:

On Friday, Johnson scored the endorsement of the Chicago Tribune,

Quote:

Johnson so far clinched the support of The Detroit News, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the Winston-Salem Journal, and The Caledonian-Record from northern Vermont and New Hampshire.

0 Replies

How many people do you think make their decision on the candidates based on the endorsement of a newspaper's editors?

The media has decided that Trump is America's Hitler of 2016, and unlike their German kin back in the 30's, they are going to do something about our fascist danger!

Such heroes!

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I think very few, although in a country where 100 million people will vote, there are bound to be some. That said, when you say "the media", you are painting with a broad brush. There are hundreds of newspapers in the country and there are pretty much as many on the right as the left. In 2012, of the top 100 newspapers in terms of circulation, 41 supported President Obama, 35 supported Mitt Romney, one was split and 23 did not endorse. There are plenty of right leaning editorial boards out there. What is interesting is when they flip. In 2012, most papers who supported the President in 2008 did so again, but a number changed sides.

1 Reply

@engineer,

When I refer to the "media" I appreciate that there are right-leaning news outlets. I'm not sure that there is equality in numbers between conservative and liberal newspapers, but local newspapers are having a decreasing degree of influence.

When I refer to the "media" I am referring to those print and broadcast dinosaurs who have managed to remain relevant:

NBC
ABC
CBS
NY Times
Washington Post

I won't even throw CNN in there with them.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The media has decided that Trump is America's Hitler of 2016, and unlike their German kin back in the 30's, they are going to do something about our fascist danger!

Just to get things a little bit in the correct order: the German press was gagged with the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State 1933.
Before that, more than half of the 4,703 daily and weekly papers in Germany are considered not be pro-Nazi and/or conservative.nationalist (= belonging to Hugenberg).
2,000 left-leaning journalists were already earlier forced to leave the country - those who stayed here were imprisoned in the first concentration camps.

I do think that similar can't happen in the USA.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

I'm not disparaging the German press that faced the rise of Hitler.

I know that to a significant degree it resisted him and was eventually crushed as a result.

I do think though that the US Press believes

The German press failed.

That Trump is a reincarnation of Hitler.

They will not likewise fail!

Although they want to believe it is, there is nothing heroic about "resisting" Trump. He can't punish them, and if he wins his ability to punish them will be very limited.

Anyone who thinks Trump can become a Hitler has an absurd opinion of Trump and a lack of faith in the US system.

This is not to say that it's impossible for a Hitler to rise to power in the US, but the circumstances of the US in 2016 is nothing like it was in post-WWI Germany, and no matter what anyone thinks about Trump, he's not a Hitler.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Correct:
a) the USA today is not Weimar Germany 80 years ago,
b) any comparison with any person to Hitler proves quite a bit of under-education in (and of)history, especially that of post-WWI Germany.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

I do think that similar can't happen in the USA.

I wish I could share that feeling. From conversations with some persons, I believe it could easily happen. While many of the liberal minded people like to think themselves above grouping of people of a particular economic class, sexual identity, religious, racial or other group title, and they won't show it in public when conversing with more than 1 or 2 people, boy howdy, you get them when they're alone or talking on the phone and all that proclaimed liberalism and belief of all being equal rushes out the window.

One friend in particular goes on lengthy rants about the evils of "all" Muslims. I try reasoning with him and explaining but it does no good. He won't even go to one establishment because the proprietors have been known to stop a few times daily, put up the closed sign and then pray. They do this in view of passersby since it's a small shop with a large window and they pray in the space in front of the counter. To this guy who I'm referring, they are clearly all terrorists. Sadly, he is not joking and is not alone with his belief. So, the possibility of a situation similar to what happened in Germany and other parts oif Europe, is not too far fetched. However the apparent target will be Muslims instead of Jews....at last primarily.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Things seem less far fetched here in the US by the day. I'm a liberal as you likely know, Sturgis; have long liked talking with you, reading what you say. I don't change my spots the way those friends of yours do, however. Icky behavior.

It might have to do with the matter of lying. In my mid twenties I essentially stopped lying. It's plain easier. I can be quiet, sure, but I don't even like to fib at all, so the picture you detail about those friends is damned sad.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Yeah, agreed that we are not Germany circa 1930's, but still, its unsettling..If Trump is elected, this could be one more step toward that in some future time that wouldn't have happened otherwise..

Could be..of course, no one knows. Not keen on Hilary*, but I have to think that she represents the better choice, though the nose is held for both..

*of course Hilary could also put us on that path. Its just unknown, but ya gotta play the odds and I think Trump is far more dangerous than Hillary. He's going about 200 mph on the freeway to Hillary's 120..

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

It's not, but according to USA Today, Trump is a "serial liar" who "traffics in prejudice" and has "coarsened the national dialogue", and is a dangerous demagogue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37522310

1 Reply

Comparisons to Hitler are odious--it's Godwin's law made manifest. When Hitler ran against Hindenburg in 1932, he polled just over 35%. In the 1932 Federal Elections, the NSDAP polled just over 35%. After the Reichstag Fire, when Hitler was able to ban the more far left parties, the NSDAP still only polled somewhat over 40%. Hitler was able to take advantage of their constitution to form an alliance with the DNVP (German National Peoples"Party) and the Zentrum (the Centre Party, a Catholic Party) to get the two thirds majority necessary to rule without reference to the Reichstag. He immediately banned all political parties other than the NSDAP. At the time that our constitution was written and ratified, there was at best only a nascent concept of political parties. No president will ever have the power to do something like that, no president will ever exercise the power which Hitler was able to exploit. It is amazing to me that people here know so little aboutthe actual powers of the president.

That being said, it is silly to argue a point just because Finn says it's so. I'd be interested to see reliable references to the allegedly left wing news organizations--NBC, CBS, ABC, the NYT or the WP--making such an allegation about Mr. Trump. Anyone who does not yet know that Finn is a right-wing extremist deserves to waste their time arguing his silly claims with him.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I might add that Hitler was at first Reichskanzler (Chancellor of Germany), on 30 January 1933, ... and changed the nature of the Chancellorship with the Enabling Act to merge the office of the Reichs Chancellor with that of the Reichs President.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Clinton has picked up two more endorsements bringing her total to 23. Both previously endorsed the President.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Yes, that me RIGHT WING EXTREMIST!!!

Very Happy

0 Replies

@engineer,

One of the newest endorsements from Spokane. Not a ringing endorsement for Clinton, a total rejection of Trump. The Spokesman supported Romney in 2012.

Quote:

The histrionics of the presidential campaign has masked a simple question: Who is qualified? At this point, there is only one candidate who meets this essential requirement: Hillary Clinton.

She is flawed, for sure, dogged by personal and political baggage. Her penchant for secrecy and spin has done her more harm than good. As secretary of state, she made a terribly irresponsible decision to use her own email server, and she wasn’t honest about it when it was revealed.

But she is clearly qualified to be president. The breadth of experience – from White House, to U.S. Senate, to secretary of state – is unrivaled. Her grasp of the issues is impressive. She is not a charismatic leader, but she is tough, focused and cool under pressure. She has a moderate record to run on and her positions are well-known.

That is not the case for Donald Trump, who requires deeper examination.

Conservative Wall Street Journal editorial writer Dorothy Rabinowitz, a frequent Clinton critic, summed it up in a recent column: “Her election alone is what stands between the American nation and the reign of the most unstable, proudly uninformed, psychologically unfit president ever to enter the White House.”

Remember the question about who would be most suited to take a momentous 3 a.m. phone call? Trump would already be up, revenge-tweeting against anyone who got under his skin that day. For obvious reasons, the commander in chief must have greater impulse control.

1 Reply

Endorsement Race 2016

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know