The New York Times was widely ridiculed by liberals and conservatives alike over its unconventional decision to endorse two Democratic candidates for president—Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).
“The history of the editorial board would suggest that we would side squarely with the candidate with a more traditional approach to pushing the nation forward, within the realities of a constitutional framework and a multiparty country,” the editorial board wrote in explaining its decision. “But the events of the past few years have shaken the confidence of even the most committed institutionalists. We are not veering away from the values we espouse, but we are rattled by the weakness of the institutions that we trusted to undergird those values.”
But many were not on board with its endorsement approach this year.
New York Times editorial board unveiling its endorsement. pic.twitter.com/0tbrix3VmB
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) January 20, 2020
Honestly the woman working in the elevator endorsing Biden was probably more meaningful than the New York Times endorsement: pic.twitter.com/89TmM6rbRO
— andrew kaczynski?? (@KFILE) January 20, 2020
....is this how an endorsement works?
— Andrew Clark (@AndrewHClark) January 20, 2020
The Democrat Party is so broken it’s even broken the New York Times. https://t.co/D7U9edT5zd
stunning to see the New York Times presidential endorsement pic.twitter.com/YccBRybSzU
— Naaman Zhou (@naamanzhou) January 20, 2020
Their heart is with Warren, but they want to continue pretending to not be a left-wing rag, so they tossed in Klobuchar knowing she doesn't stand a chance. https://t.co/DmhREBMa2n
— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) January 20, 2020
BREAKING: The New York Times picks both the Chiefs and the 49ers to win the Super Bowl.
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) January 20, 2020
BREAKING: New York Times helps Donald Trump towards re-election by endorsing two people who can’t possibly beat him. https://t.co/xJxSxLyas0
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) January 20, 2020
Congratulations to the New York Times on somehow making the act of endorsing two women feel a little sexist.
— Full Frontal (@FullFrontalSamB) January 20, 2020
If I had to choose just ONE newspaper, it would be The New York Times and The Washington Post.https://t.co/vK6JpeE7cW
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) January 20, 2020
"There will be those dissatisfied that this page is not throwing its weight behind a single candidate, favoring centrists or progressives," the paper acknowledges in its conclusion. "But it’s a fight the party itself has been itching to have since Mrs. Clinton’s defeat in 2016, and one that should be played out in the public arena and in the privacy of the voting booth. That’s the very purpose of primaries, to test-market strategies and ideas that can galvanize and inspire the country."
Join the conversation as a VIP Member