The New York Times has made its endorsement

Avatar

Jaybird

Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to AskJaybird-at-gmail.com

Related Post Roulette

43 Responses

  1. Avatar Andrew Donaldson
    Ignored
    says:

    I watched the TV reveal. The interviews, according to them, ar 30K word transcripts of which about 7 minutes per candidate aired so there is a ton of editing here. Still, Amy Klobuchar they pretty openly dismissed in the program, but then split the endorse with her and Elizabeth Warren. It’s so ridiculous, that conference room needed to be cleaned up with a mop and bucket after the gushing over the senator from MA, they clearly wanted to pick her, but for some insipidous reason decided that would be too obvious, but they can’t NOT pick her, so someone else had to join her, but it cannot be a man cause they feared that backlash, so they put the Amy Klobuchar up there, even after hating her interview and deriding her, just for the optics. The “this is the debate in the party” is such a cop-out. Its self-indulgent cowardice. RidiculousReport

  2. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Additional useful info, I guess:

    My take on this is that HOLY CRAP THEY COULDN’T CONVINCE EACH OTHER TO CHANGE. THEY COULDN’T BUDGE THE BLOOMBERG, BOOKER, BUTTIGEIG, OR BIDEN STANS TO CHANGE TEAMS EVEN THOUGH EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM KNEW THAT THAT WOULD RESULT IN A DOUBLE ENDORSEMENT.

    HOLY CRAP.Report

  3. Avatar George Turner
    Ignored
    says:

    Were they swayed by Warren’s recent assertion that she’s the only remaining candidate with “executive experience”? I guess an actual executive branch position doesn’t count, like Buttigieg, Sanders, and Bloomberg, who were all mayors,, or even being the #2 man of the entire executive branch like Biden. I’m not sure why she constantly does things like that, but lying like a six-year old seems to come very easily to her.Report

    • Avatar Doctor Jay in reply to George Turner
      Ignored
      says:

      George, your charge of “lying like a six-year old” would carry more weight if there weren’t a guy in the White House that lies every day with whoppers that are pretty obvious to anyone who cares to check. What you are complaining about has a lot more behind it than stuff he says on a daily basis. He got in the White House doing that. Why should anyone else do anything different?Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Doctor Jay
        Ignored
        says:

        George’s charge would carry more weight if he weren’t a right-wing fanatic troll without an ounce of good faith who gets way too much leeway from the PTB.Report

      • Avatar George Turner in reply to Doctor Jay
        Ignored
        says:

        Trump’s lies are like the spin you get from ad men. “We had the biggest crowds ever seen!” “Let me tell you, my hotel has the best taco bowl in the country!” “I married the most beautiful woman on Earth!” Of course some of these things might be true.

        Warren’s lies are different. She claimed to be an American Indian, on applications and other official documents, to get jobs and privileges she did not merit. She worked desperately to keep the lie going, even taking a DNA test and trying to spin the result as confirming her claims. She recently lied about being forced out of school because she was pregnant. She also falsely claimed her children only attended public schools. She claimed her father was a janitor, which pissed off her brother and her father.

        She claims she’s a socialist, which is almost certainly a lie because she spent most of her life as a right-wing conservative Republican until it was more beneficial to her to be seen as a left-wing Democrat. He claims that Sanders said a woman would never be President are very likely a complete fabrication. There’s a big difference between saying Nancy is an out-of-control wacko crazy lady, or saying some general is a moron, as Trump does, and, if Bernie is to be believed, bearing false witness against him. People who do that are the kind of people who go tell your boss that you were telling horrifying sex stories about their wife just to get you fired.

        Nobody ever respects them, and few people believe a word they say for very long.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Doctor Jay
        Ignored
        says:

        I know that *I* am saying this but try to read what I’m saying instead of who is saying it and then coming to a conclusion based on *THAT*:

        “Warren isn’t a worse liar than Trump!” is not a winning play.Report

  4. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    As a double endorsement, this makes no sense. Warren is a candidate with policy agenda (whatever you think of it) and plans to get there (whatever you think of them). I don’t know what Klobuchar stands for except possibly that it is acceptable to be mean to your employees. In my view, more than any other candidate, she is the one most likely to say no to anything the base wants. No too college-tuition relief or lowering the cost, no to higher pay and worker benefit’s, no to universal healthcare. What is her positive agenda?Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      During the 2016 election, some people argued that young people like Sanders because he was the cool grandparent that told you interesting stories and gave you stuff while Clinton came off as the tough grandparent as the tough grandparent that dispatched hard truths and was stingy in gift giving. Klobuchar is basically the tough aunt.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      It makes sense once you realize that they took a vote and went with the two largest pluralities (who were a vote away from each other) and neither had a majority nor even a third of the votes.Report

  5. Avatar InMD
    Ignored
    says:

    Ridiculous. I wish I could say I was shocked they’d issue such a risible, non-endorsement endorsement but…Report

  6. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Okay. This crap made me laugh out loud.

    Report

  7. Avatar North
    Ignored
    says:

    Mmf, I’m not impressed and not surprised.Report

  8. Avatar Marchmaine
    Ignored
    says:

    What’s odd to me is how Warren and Klobuchar are supposed to be taking the country in different directions.

    I could see a Warren/Sanders… the time is now for Social Democracy!
    I could see Klobuchar/Other… what we need now is Pragmatic leadership to put us back on track!
    etc. etc.

    Endorsing a “direction” then offering two options based upon a couple of other secondary items/nuance could make sense… but this isn’t an endorsement so much as a food fight made public.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      I was googling the difference between a “prelude” and an “overture” and they have a lot of similarities. The big difference seems to be that an overture has an end to the song while a prelude just seamlessly segues into the start of the opera.Report

      • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m not sure of the technical musical differences, but sure… if the Prelude is just taking all the existing themes and mashing them up into a song that suggests these are all the things you have to look foward to… then ok, NYT gave us a prelude.

        If an Overture is a song that sets the tone for the upcoming work, evokes all the important themes but does so in a way that set’s them up rather than simply echos them… then yes, NYT decided not to do that… there’s no theme that the NYT is emphasizing.Report

    • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      The differences between any two of the Dems is a narcissism of small differences.

      A Klobuchar Administration would have a practical outcome only slightly different than a Warren Administration.

      Its that whole Three Equal Branches thing.

      ETA I shouldn’t overstate the case. They would govern differently, just that the main bulk of their staff and Cabinet nominees wou,d come from the same Dem pool, we would still have McConnell and Pelosi and Roberts to deal with.Report

      • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels
        Ignored
        says:

        Possibly, I personally think there’s probably more differences among the candidates than you allow… sure, they are all going to say certain things that need to be said vis-a-vis the perceived locus of the party faithful that will determine the primary.

        But I think you are overly sanguine on the interchangability of the candidates… Its really not clear that Sanders/Warren/Klobuchar/Biden would prioritize exactly the same way to spend any sort of political capital they will amass should they win. Sussing those directions out would seem to me the only useful thing the NYT might provide.Report

        • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Marchmaine
          Ignored
          says:

          Agreed. I bet Warren gets one big thing done, spending all her capital and time unless/until Congress improves. Klobuchar probably gets a dozen marginal improvements by trading away things that would piss me off (like the actual political deals of the Bartlett admin).

          That said, I agree their goals would be pretty similar.Report

      • Avatar KenB in reply to Chip Daniels
        Ignored
        says:

        A lot would come down to how/why they won — at this moment it seems like a President Klobuchar would’ve won by being the candidate of normalcy and moderation, winning back some of the center while still getting enough lefty votes motivated by getting rid of Trump, so she would be rather less politically motivated to push through any ambitious liberal agenda; whereas a President Warren would’ve won by energizing the base, and would probably be under more pressure to pass at least one major progressive policy. Obviously would also depend on what happened in the house & senate elections.Report

        • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to KenB
          Ignored
          says:

          Right… what I’d expect from any endorsement would be a recommendation on which path to trod because how to win matters on who to win.

          But, if the tweeted votes are true… what it shows is that the NYT is split on both How and Who. Which strikes me a plausible.Report

          • Avatar George Turner in reply to Marchmaine
            Ignored
            says:

            One could perhaps read the board’s vote spread as an indication that none of the candidates particularly stood out in comparison to the others, or that each candidate’s particular flaws prevented them from getting a really strong plurality of support. Where each candidate’s supporters the ones wiling to overlook that candidate’s particular flaws and weaknesses, whereas most of the board weren’t willing to overlook those flaws, and so couldn’t be won over, even tepidly?

            That could be an indication that none of the candidates are particularly good picks, that under serious scrutiny none stand out from the pack as being the ideal candidate who will be able to go the distance and make a very good showing.

            I don’t know if that’s particularly worrisome or telling, since this board might be some particularly cantankerous editors and the earlier candidates might have barely squeaked by with a plurality. But earlier boards did manage to agree that Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry stood out from the pack enough to get the endorsement.

            I guess the field could come together and all quote Obama’s line “We are what we’ve been waiting for,” but that doesn’t really help the situation. I’ve often said that if the field had a really strong candidate like Obama, the rest of this slate would look like third stringers. I still think that’s true.Report

            • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to George Turner
              Ignored
              says:

              “One could perhaps read the board’s vote spread as an indication that none of the candidates particularly stood out in comparison to the others”

              Eh, that doesn’t grab me as the situation here… as a Rorschach test I think it shows that the NYT editorial board is split between Progressive and Establishment directions for the party. But, even the Establishment side has moved away from Biden to a slightly more Progressive update to Klobuchar. Less talked about is whether Warren is seen as a sort of “house Progressive” vs. a real radical (like, say Bernie or [whispers] Yang).

              So in many (all?) ways its a story about the NYT and helps to explain why we see certain leftists call it a sell-out Neo-Lib Establishment rag, and other times its leading the charge in various culture war endeavors.

              Its the story of the Overton Window of the NYT.Report

  9. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    The Nation’s Katrina van den Heuvel (who may have Russian sympathies) gives her take.

    Is there anybody who looks at this endorsement and says “you know what? They made a good call!”

    So far, I’ve only seen “this was a bad move” and “it doesn’t matter if this was a bad move or not because it doesn’t mean anything”.

    Have we seen any “Yes! Finally!” kinda responses?

    (And if we haven’t, is not seeing any of them something that could have been foreseen?)Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *