US 'Washingon Post' won't endorse in White House race for first time since 1980s - The Washington Post editorial page has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
1729873337709.png

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris remains neck and neck, The Washington Post editorial page has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the editorial page editor told colleagues at a tense meeting Friday morning.

The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.

The editorial page editor, David Shipley, told colleagues that the Post's publisher, Will Lewis, would publish a note to readers online early Friday afternoon.

Shipley told colleagues the editorial board was told yesterday by management that there would not be an endorsement. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.

Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.

A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members.

The Post's investigative team has routinely reported on wrongdoing and allegations of illegality by former President Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, and his associates. The editorial board, which is operated apart from the newsroom, has repeatedly declared that Trump's actions in office and his rhetoric as a candidate have rendered him unfit for office.

It has especially focused on what he did in January 2021 to encourage his supporters to deny the formal certification of President Biden's election.

The possibility that the Post might withhold an endorsement was first reported by Oliver Darcy's newsletter Status. Even the potential lack of an editorial has drawn shock from journalists within the Post, who see it as a major American publication that needs to weigh in on the most pressing issue of the day.

Post owner Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder and one of the world's richest people, has major contracts before the federal government in his other business operations.

Publisher Will Lewis arrived at the Post in January with significant conservative bonafides. Lewis held the same role at Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal; served as the editor of the London-based Telegraph, which is closely allied with the Tory party; and was a consultant to Conservative Boris Johnson when Johnson was prime minister. Colleagues have told NPR that Bezos selected Lewis in part for his ability to get along with powerful conservative political figures, including Murdoch.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/25/nx-s1-5165353/washingon-post-presidential-endorsement-trump-harris (Archive)
 
This is getting to be really embarrassing for the DNC. Why are their female presidential candidates so terrible? Both Hillary and Kamala have been absolute disasters and failures. Are there even any true believers left?
 
When the owner of the newspaper who's only job is to pat your ass for everything you do won't endorse you, you're probably losing harder than what the polls are projecting. The only way Kamala can win is by cheating, and the amount of cheating that will have to take place would be so fucking obvious that even the most partisan judge would have to take it up.

Do you think Democrat party members are willing to go to prison for Kamala Harris?
 
Were there ever any to begin with? She got 0 primary votes.
I'll just say that I have encountered some people in my life that were coping about Walz and saying he was a strong pick, but I didn't press them on it. Why bother? At this point though I can only imagine people being cynical and just not wanting Blormph in the White House again. Which is whatever, its all theater anyway.
 
This is getting to be really embarrassing for the DNC. Why are their female presidential candidates so terrible? Both Hillary and Kamala have been absolute disasters and failures. Are there even any true believers left?
No fucking balls and trying play with emotions.

I can stand political ideologues convinced their ideas will work what I hate are disingenuous flip floppers.
 
Why are their female presidential candidates so terrible? Both Hillary and Kamala have been absolute disasters and failures
When your definition of 'strong, empowered woman' translates to 'condescending megalomaniacal cunt' in practice, people eventually connect the two.
 
I don't know why its happening but this is part of a recent trend of newspapers giving up on endorsements. A few months ago the New York Times announced that it was no longer endorsing in city races despite it being hugely influential in them (seriously, who actually knows who their Assemblyman or ward leader is?) and would only be doing national races.

Maybe its to stop alienating people but for WP, you know, its not like they won't do all they can to be Trump's number one news enemy like they were last term.
 
This is getting to be really embarrassing for the DNC. Why are their female presidential candidates so terrible? Both Hillary and Kamala have been absolute disasters and failures. Are there even any true believers left?
Hillary was far from a terrible candidate. She lost due to hubris, running a lackadaisical campaign, and her husband's 90s policies making them extremely unpopular in the Rust Belt from manufacturing losses. Her accomplishments and intelligence are undeniable, though she is scum. If she and her advisors would have taken Trump seriously as a threat to the Blue Wall with the enthusiasm gap she almost certainly would have won. Trump put in a superhuman effort courting Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Kamala is, however, the worst presidential candidate in modern history. She has no accomplishments whatsoever, is tied to a failed administration, has a voice so awful it puts banshees to shame, is a political extremist, was thrown in as a last second Hail Mary candidate, isn't particularly intelligent or inspiring, is extremely unlikable and condescending, and was only ever selected as VP because of her race and gender. She has been a sacrificial lamb from the beginning once it was beyond clear Biden was going to get trounced. Aside from the brief glimmer of hope, I don't think the smartest Democrats had high hopes for the trajectory of her campaign.
 
Hillary was far from a terrible candidate.
Bullshit.

Hillary has never won a real election in her lifetime, She was going to lose a Senate seat in NEW YORK till she dropped the Adultery Bomb on Rudy Guliani and he had to drop out and she still performed woefully compared to her predecessor against a literal who republican.
 
I don't know why its happening but this is part of a recent trend of newspapers giving up on endorsements. A few months ago the New York Times announced that it was no longer endorsing in city races despite it being hugely influential in them (seriously, who actually knows who their Assemblyman or ward leader is?) and would only be doing national races.

Maybe its to stop alienating people but for WP, you know, its not like they won't do all they can to be Trump's number one news enemy like they were last term.
I'm guessing "dread" is "joy" for the Kamela campaign. People are becoming wise with media manipulation.
 
Bullshit.

Hillary has never won a real election in her lifetime, She was going to lose a Senate seat in NEW YORK till she dropped the Adultery Bomb on Rudy Guliani and he had to drop out and she still performed woefully compared to her predecessor against a literal who republican.
Her predecessor was Pat Moynihan, who won 55.25 to 41.51 in 1994.

She won 55.27 to 43.01 in 2000 (also a presidential election year so it isn't apples to apples), then 67 to 31.01 in 2006. You have an interesting definition of "performed woefully".

You're possibly right on Guiliani, but that was an extremely good candidate in 2000 who mitigated a lot of Republican shortcomings in New York as a candidate. She was also essentially an outsider candidate running in New York.
 
This is getting to be really embarrassing for the DNC. Why are their female presidential candidates so terrible? Both Hillary and Kamala have been absolute disasters and failures. Are there even any true believers left?
As much as I want to dunk on the DNC I think this is less "this candidate is exceptionally terrible" and more "the rich are bailing because economic gibs are now being platformed alongside all the gay race communism we enabled to stop everyone from killing the bankers"
 
Back
Top Bottom