The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.
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
Devcat is spending time with extended family right now. After some intermittent hiccups, our web host moved us to a new server. With any luck, performance will improve.
on From The Washington Post: On Political EndorsementI'm just suggesting that your assertion of what is absurd versus probable sounds very much like your…
on From The Washington Post: On Political EndorsementThe media is obeying in advance: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/bezos-kills-washington-post-endorsemen…
on From The Washington Post: On Political EndorsementI would say that it does not matter one whit from a short term electoral standpoint. I think it will… on Open Mic for the week of 10/21/2024https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/us/politics/wisconsin-senate-race-tammy-baldwin-sexuality.html Re…
on From The Washington Post: On Political EndorsementI'm deliberately laying out my thought processes and using words like "probable" and "likely". I fin… on From The Washington Post: On Political EndorsementIs it possible that your opinions of what will happen are colored by your political preferences? on From The Washington Post: On Political EndorsementHe is doing obeying in advance/pascal's wager: 1. If Harris wins, his AWS contracts will not be canc…
on Megalopolis Is Terrible And Everyone Should See ItReported. on From The Washington Post: On Political EndorsementWell, I suppose there are three possible outcomes: 1. Doesn't change anything. It doesn't matter. Tr… on From The Washington Post: On Political EndorsementWhat effect do headlines like : "2 More LA Times Editorial Writers Quit Over ‘Chickens–t’ Owner’s Bl…
October 25, 2024
October 24, 2024
October 23, 2024
The Missing Words — Can You Fill Them In?
October 21, 2024
on From The Washington Post: On Political Endorsement on From The Washington Post: On Political Endorsement on From The Washington Post: On Political Endorsement on From The Washington Post: On Political Endorsement
on From The Washington Post: On Political Endorsement
on From The Atlantic: Trump: ‘I Need the Kind of Generals That Hitler Had’ on From Semafor: Los Angeles Times won’t endorse for president
on From The Washington Post: On Political Endorsement
on From The Washington Post: On Political Endorsement
on From The Washington Post: On Political Endorsement on From The Washington Post: On Political Endorsement on From The Washington Post: On Political Endorsement on Open Mic for the week of 10/21/2024
on Open Mic for the week of 10/21/2024 on Open Mic for the week of 10/21/2024
This one does *NOT* strike me as “other”.Report
Much like the LA Times, the Post is owned by a Tech Bro who isn’t exactly wild about Democrats doing Democratic things – like enforcing anti-trust laws or requiring the paying of taxes. The Editorial Board is smart enough to know that means they can’t endorse because it would kill their subscriber base.Report
The LA Times had at least one resignation following their editorial board’s cowardly decision to cave to the Tech Bro.
Do you think that the WaPo’s editorial board will have people as brave as the LA Times had?Report
Given how cowardly the legacy media seems to be these days I don’t.Report
This one is currently going around (it’s a screenshot of Rubin asking why more LA Times employees haven’t resigned).
I’m interested in seeing if Rubin resigns today or not.
Or if she even acknowledges it.Report
Apparently I was wrong.Report
Facts revealed downthread aside, I’m not following the logic here. You’re saying that the editorial board knows that publishing an endorsement of a candidate who’s running on a platform against the owner’s interests would kill their subscriber base? Why would subscribers care?Report
Looks like editorial staff was ready to endorse Harris, and Bezos vetoed them:
“An endorsement of Harris had been drafted by Post editorial page staffers but had yet to be published, according to two sources briefed on the sequence of events who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owner — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos — according to the same sources.”Report
Apparently WaPo editor-at-large Robert Kagan has resigned from the newspaper over this.Report
Victoria Nuland’s husband?Report
I don’t know about that.Report
He is doing obeying in advance/pascal’s wager:
1. If Harris wins, his AWS contracts will not be canceled probably because Democrats don’t roll like that;
2. If Trump wins, there is a chance he keeps his AWS contracts with the government too.Report
Bezos made the decision not to endorse according to the Washington Post: https://www.opb.org/article/2024/10/23/harris-needs-young-voters-of-color-to-win-a-new-poll-finds-cracks-in-her-support/
“An endorsement of Harris had been drafted by Post editorial page staffers but had yet to be published, according to two sources briefed on the sequence of events who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owner — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos — according to the same sources.”Report
Obviously newspaper endorsements for President are completely meaningless in terms of electoral impact, but the nonfeasance of the LA Times and, much more importantly, the Post, are doing a lot to validate Team Blue’s suspicion that the self-styled non-partisan media are tacitly Trumpist.Report
I heard that it’s an internal power struggle bubbling to the surface. The billionaires who are aligned with the Newsome wing of the party know that it’s best for their position if there’s an open primary in 2028.
Make a minor sacrifice of an unskilled player, wait four years out, come roaring back and take the reigns for a full eight years with a loaded house and senate and see if you can tip Texas over finally.Report
As a California resident, I much prefer Harris to Newsom (no e on the end). Newsom is ok as far as his basic political alignment is, but he just bugs me personally, and he has for a long time. He is a political talent, for sure.
But that’s an interesting take. Some people think 4 more years of Trump would be ok, and want to pave the way for Newsom. Do we put the LA Times in that camp? I’m not sure about that guy.Report
Well, the #1 reason to not believe it is that it requires that you believe that there are people who are aware of 2nd Order Effects and who also are capable of deferring gratification AND who are capable of getting elected.
But it’s nice to daydream about, sometimes.Report
My guess for Bezos is that it’s more that he’s hedging his bets. He is concerned about what sort of retribution Trump might take if he wins. Which is going on with a lot of these media outlets.
But yeah, I do think that the endorsements of newspapers don’t mean much these days.Report
Every day, there is a new version of “Who Goes Na.zi?”
This time, its the media’s turn.Report
Well, if I owned a newspaper, and I can’t imagine that I would even want to, a “No endorsement” position would be my default rule. That would be for ANY campaign: local, state, national.
Newspapers should report the news. The paper can have an editorial board, but the newspaper should not be seen as endorsing candidates. Report the facts only. Let the readers make conclusions.Report
That’s one vote.Report
Okay. Thinking about whether this will have ripples.
Remember the 3 groups of voters? If not, let’s rattle them off again:
1. People who, if they vote, will vote for your guy no matter what.
2. People who, if they vote, will vote for the other guy no matter what.
3. People who, if they vote, can be persuaded to vote for either guy.
And the rules are that you can’t do anything with #1s and #2s except make them excited or make them depressed. Excited #1s and #2s are more likely to vote, depressed #1s and #2s are less likely to vote.
You will *NEVER* change their minds away from their candidates. You can just get them to say stuff like “HELL YES I’M VOTING!!! I’M VOTING EARLY!!!” *OR* stuff like “Eh, I live in a safe state.”
The #3s are the ones that you can get to change their minds. Oooh, look at that billboard. Maybe I’ll vote for Harris. Man, look at these Cheez-It prices! I’ll vote for Trump! Hey, that lady on Facebook talked about abortion… maybe I’ll vote for Harris… Huh, my buddy just talked about how the crime numbers got adjusted up. Maybe I’ll vote for Trump…
And so on.
And it’s through *THAT* lens that I look at the WaPo non-endorsement.
SO! DOES THIS CHANGE ANYTHING?!?
My initial take is “not really, certainly not a gamechanger, but it does change some stuff at the margins”. This is something that is minorly depressing for Team Good, minorly exciting for Team Evil, and of little-to-no impact for #3 except that something that could have been used as a point in Harris’s favor is no longer a point in Harris’s favor. (“It’s not a point in Trump’s favor!’, someone may be tempted to point out but I’ll just say that I didn’t say it was.) But, let’s be honest… #3s aren’t reading the Washington Post anyway.
Where it has the most impact, I think, is that it (along with the LA Times non-endorsement) gives a small amount of permission for Democrats who are less than enthusiastic about Harris to not treat this as the most important election of our lifetimes.
I mean, it’s obviously not the most important election of our lifetimes. Team Blue all the way and Orange Man Bad and all that but… well, it’s raining. My carpool has a couple of Trump voters in it and their vote cancelled out my and the other guy’s vote and we all just agreed to not vote and save ourselves the half hour.
Oh, the mail-in ballot? I forgot to mail it. Eh. I live in a safe state anyway.
It’s not going to change tons and tons and tons of votes, mind. I’m not arguing that it will change tons of votes.
But it will loosen the most marginal of the #1s from their obligations. Hey. It’s not like it’s the most important election of our lifetimes, right?Report
“A couple of billionaires overruled their editorial staff, forcing them to withold and endorsement of Harris.”
“Well, that gives me permission to not vote for Harris.”Report
Would you say that the fact that the Washington Post didn’t endorse Harris is something that doesn’t matter at all, not one whit?Report
What effect do headlines like :
“2 More LA Times Editorial Writers Quit Over ‘Chickens–t’ Owner’s Block of Kamala Harris Endorsement” or
“Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris, paper reports” have on the three groups of voters?
Do you think the Streisand Effect comes into play?Report
Well, I suppose there are three possible outcomes:
1. Doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t matter. Trump voters won’t change their minds. Harris voters don’t change their minds. Undecideds don’t pay attention. Nothing changes.
2. This might help Trump, a little, at the margins. It’s demoralizing and the fact that it’s demoralizing requires that we push back and punish the people who are getting wobbly, the weaklings. They’re effectively helping Trump.
3. You know, I think that this actually helps Harris! It opens the eyes to people everywhere about how much billionaires are ruining this country! They’re going to be *INSPIRED* to vote for Harris even more so that those billionaire bastards will finally pay their fair share!!!
I think that #3 is absurd.
I think that #2 is somewhat likely.
I think that #1 is possible… but #2 is more likely than #1.Report
Is it possible that your opinions of what will happen are colored by your political preferences?Report
I’m deliberately laying out my thought processes and using words like “probable” and “likely”.
I find that doing that sort of thing helps keep my political preferences in line, as well as laying them out for others to critique.
Do you have a counter-argument for why I’m wrong?
Do you look at my thoughts and conclude that going after some unstated, hidden motives might be the best play?Report
I’m just suggesting that your assertion of what is absurd versus probable sounds very much like your priors, and should be viewed in that context.
There’s no data, no evidence, no way of knowing what other people are thinking or how they will receive this information, so any confident assertions are most likely just wishcasting.
I mean, one could just as easily assert that if the papers had endorsed Harris, it would have been so predictable as to be virtually an invisible story.
But instead, everyone including Ordinary Times is talking about how billionaires are muzzling their editorial staff.
Does that help Harris? I would like to think so, but then I would, wouldn’t I?
But without anything hard to go on, its pointless to speculate.Report
I would say that it does not matter one whit from a short term electoral standpoint.
I think it will have significant long term consequences for the media, and by degrading the overall credibility of the Washington Post among the people who actually did believe it was credible.
As skeptical as I am of the basic notion of non-partisan media, I think that’s a net negative.Report
The Washington Post Guild has released their statement:
Report
The media is obeying in advance: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/bezos-kills-washington-post-endorsement-guardrails-falling/commentsReport