-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
The New York Times Editorial Board endorses *both* Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren for president
- Thread starter Deleted member 43084
- Start date
I think the response would've been far more measured if they had just endorsed Warren outright. This seems oddly gutless.
(no one was expecting Sanders)
Rolling Stone (avatar quote) excoriated the NYT for their Bernie nonsense last cycle to great effect, btw: https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-189129/
Bro, Warren I understand. Klob? They're hardly even similar in policies!
Well, talk about detached from reality. I understand the Warren pick, but then the next are just bizarre. Why are Booker and Klobuchar so high up there. And the 2 actual front runners are in the bottom 3?
Well, talk about detached from reality. I understand the Warren pick, but then the next are just bizarre. Why are Booker and Klobuchar so high up there. And the 2 actual front runners are in the bottom 3?
Them endorsing two women with wildly different policy ideas doesn't indicate to me that they're serious, more like "let's try to appease progressives, moderates and also appear like we're helping advance women's rights to fix the deteriorating reputation of our publication!"
It's all meaningless, but I think we can agree that Iowa and the NYT editorial board are different demos....
Let's elect both of them, then have them fight in a cage match to decide who gets to be the real president.
Their literal job as pundits is supposed to be in predicting and assessing these things. All this shows is that ththeththeyre making more money than most people to be so out of touch they've lost base withreality. If they cant even function at their primary purpose then what is the intent other than bourgeois cosmopolitans patting themselves on the backs and writing articles telling other bourgeois cosmopolitans that they're just oh so smart Nd above it all.
Its absurd, that these people are considered our intslligencia is nuts
Real ballsy move would have been to endorse both Warren and Bernie to unite the progressive faction.
"We nominate Klobuchar, but hey all you damn progressives that will never vote for her, please, please, pleeeaaase don't vote for Sanders."
The disparity between the no. of votes Liz got compared to Bernie is ridiculous.
Makes you wonder how serious they are taking her progressive rhetoric
Makes you wonder how serious they are taking her progressive rhetoric
Last edited:
more voted for Warren than Klobuchar but hey continue with the Bernie supporter victim complex.
the decision was probably since no outright majority take the top two. Since Klobuchar + Warren amounts to half.
I'm surprised how badly Biden did with them. You would have thought he could have said he had the most experience and could beat Trump and more than three of them would have given him a chance.
My friend, I'd like you to meet the New York Times editorial board
It wouldn't have united anything. For people who pay attention to such endorsements (which isn't a lot) that ship sailed last week with the "women can't win the presidency" slander. If uniting was supposed to mean anything it would have been to attack Biden on his record these past few weeks at the perfect moment and Warren isn't doing it. Bernie supporters wouldn't then go over to Warren or Biden etc at this point so the smart move would be to just endorse/vote Bernie. Especially if your primary goal is to defeat Trump no matter what.
They are not predicting, they are declaring who they think is most fit to lead the nation - regardless of support.
I don't think "Bernie supporters" wouldn't go over to biden or warren. Maybe you're talking about the twitterverse, but that does not reflect reality, as vocal as it can be.
Polling shows that there is a significant portion of both Warren and Bernie supporters that would vote for the other.
I don't know. Maybe it just just Twitter, but I think a lot would stay home. I wouldn't want to be wrong in that scenario, so probably a safer bet that everyone just make sure Bernie is the nominee. Better calculus to do that.
Warren is a progressive, maybe they just don't like Bernie. They're able to do that and still be progressives.
what a disgusting and divisive accusation to levy at sanders supporters, are you really saying sanders supporters would prefer trump to biden? that's unacceptable
I guess the point they were making that over time Warren has softened almost every progressive stance she's had, calling into question the NYT's progressiveness over her support is not unfounded, especially if she's placed next to Amy goddamn Klobuchar.
The nyt is not going to support someone who will change the status quo
He (is the only candidate who) would represent the first of many steps necessary to snap capitalistic hegemony off of society and stem the ongoing death spiral being abetted by the rich
that's about it
My god, even when you expect the NYT to fuck up their pick (honestly I expected Buttigieg), they go and blow you away with their endless incompetence.
Pick one you spineless, Nazi-enabling hacks!
Expect endless "How she gunna pay for [insert program]" articles coupled with disapproving OPeds over deescalated warmongering. And let's not mention whatever "but her emails" bullshit scandal they'll help manufacture and amplify.
Pick one you spineless, Nazi-enabling hacks!
I'm not sure if serious, because this trash reads like when the alt-right attempts to parody the left.
The funny thing is, I fully expect the NYT to spend all of their time and energy undermining a Warren presidency.
Expect endless "How she gunna pay for [insert program]" articles coupled with disapproving OPeds over deescalated warmongering. And let's not mention whatever "but her emails" bullshit scandal they'll help manufacture and amplify.
Sure, I post something you don't agree with - which is fine - and the most obvious reason which comes into your mind is I must be an alt-right troll. Great...
