When endorsing women, the New York Times can’t make up its mind.
Way to perpetrate a female stereotype, guys!
Way to perpetrate a female stereotype, guys!
Quick, without looking it up, do you know which Republican received the New York Times endorsement in the 2016 primary?
It was late January 2016 just days before the Iowa Caucus, and the NYT gave its endorsement to this guy:
Ah, yes. The mailman’s son.
And, boy, was he delighted to receive the not-so-coveted New York Times endorsement.
A bunch of people who wouldn’t vote Republican with a gun pointed to their head like him! They really, really like him!
Getting the New York Times endorsement sure made a difference for the Kasich 2016 campaign, didn’t it?
Well, here we are four years later. And all day yesterday, the New York Times was hyping their upcoming endorsement for the 2020 Democrat primary – so much so you’d think they were teasing something people actually gave a damn about.
And after all the hype, the wimps at the New York Times couldn’t even make up their minds.
Yup.
They endorsed two candidates.
How hilarious is it that, when endorsing women for President, the New York Times can’t make up its mind.
“You can vote for her …. or her. I really don’t care what you do.”
Way to drive home a female stereotype, guys.
Or is this the New York Times’ way of saying that it takes two women to tackle a job one man can do by himself?
The funniest line in the dual endorsement was this:
“Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller.”
Hahahahahahahaha!!! Boy, is that the understatement of the year.
Even Twitter’s “trending” topics can’t hide the truth: nobody cares about this “highly anticipated” endorsement.
I mean, something called Ghibli is trending harder than the New York Times two-for-one endorsement. And who the hell even knows what Ghibli is?
At the end of the day, the odds that this New York Times endorsement moves the needle in Iowa are slim to none. But, really, the Times isn’t doing this for the candidates. This is self-promotion, nothing else.
Newspaper endorsements don’t matter anymore. Hell, they certainly didn’t matter back in 2016. And after spending the last four years attacking, demeaning and slandering voters, I’d say outside of Manhattan and cable newsrooms, a New York Times endorsement doesn’t hold much sway with anybody.
In fact, it could just end up being the kiss of death for both Warren and Klobuchar.
Ask John Kasich.
By endorsing two candidates, the Times is admitting that there is a serious schism within the Democrat Party. They aren’t endorsing two Democrats. Instead, they’re making one endorsement for the “radical” wing and one for the “realist” wing.
And if a New York Times endorsement had any effect on how people vote, this two-for-one move would only serve to further divide an already-divided Democrat Party.
Plus, the Bernie fans will be seething … again.