WaPo no longer endorsing Presidential candidates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WAPO can read the polls. They know Harris is a loser.

I don’t blame them at all.

Funny how the polls don't say that, MAGA.

WAPO endorsement (actually lack of endorsement) says otherwise.

Fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huge news, just after LA Times not endorsing anyone. Both decisions were made by the paper's owners.

I think this speaks more to the fact that the owners are scared of Trump's retribution if he wins. Better to keep your head down and be quiet.

Biden said they need to jail Trump; maybe they are scared if they don’t jail Trump he might jail them? Seems like everyone wants to jail each other? Biden probably shouldn’t have said that. They definitely wish they could put Trump in jail, they have tried repeatedly. Dangerous times in our Banana Republic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL. Jeff Bezos knows Donald is winning and he has real businesses to protect.

I think it’s more that the leadership at WaPo doesn’t want to be associated with Kamala’s nonsense anymore. They can’t cover for her and they don’t want to look as foolish as she does.

I can’t help but think that her advisors set her up to fail. That’s why she’s so dependent on them.

[Anonymous]

This is not about Trump or democracy or any such thing.

Harris is a terrible candidate and Bezos would not hire her even as a junior lawyer for Amazon. Hence he is staying away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WAPO can read the polls. They know Harris is a loser.

I don’t blame them at all.

Funny how the polls don't say that, MAGA.

Like these polls are at all reality; they are never true. All manipulated and controlled and distorted. Who knows what is real anymore?

[Anonymous]

If it was truly an arms' length decision about getting out of the business of providing endorsements, then the LA Times and WaPo would've announced it earlier this year.

But to do it at the last minute in a neck-and-neck race for POTUS?

The owners of these papers are scared of their own shadow. This wasn't an independent decision.

[Anonymous]

What this tells me is that Harris’ numbers must be very bad. This is extremely concerning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it was truly an arms' length decision about getting out of the business of providing endorsements, then the LA Times and WaPo would've announced it earlier this year.

But to do it at the last minute in a neck-and-neck race for POTUS?

The owners of these papers are scared of their own shadow. This wasn't an independent decision.

Good point.

And the reporting says the meeting was contentious. That implies that some were advocating for the endorsement (but failed).

[Anonymous]

The fact that the Post is not endorsing Harris is very concerning.

[Anonymous]

Who cares what a newspaper's political position is? Many readers just want facts and not opinions so they can draw their own conclusions instead of being told what to think. Why would some newspaper's endorsement carry more weight than a reader's own judgment? Endorsements by anyone imply that other people are incapable of making decisions without being told what to do, and that the endorser's opinion somehow has greater value and merit.

[Anonymous]

Why couldn’t the D’s just pick Shapiro????

[Anonymous]

He makes a great point. Which way is it, is Trump the next Hitler and a real fascist, or is it all just leftist hysteria?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares what a newspaper's political position is? Many readers just want facts and not opinions so they can draw their own conclusions instead of being told what to think. Why would some newspaper's endorsement carry more weight than a reader's own judgment? Endorsements by anyone imply that other people are incapable of making decisions without being told what to do, and that the endorser's opinion somehow has greater value and merit.

I agree 100%. What is significant to me, and troubling, is the break with precedent at such a crucial moment in the election.

[Anonymous]

Really great that the leader of the free speech party is intimidating newspapers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares what a newspaper's political position is? Many readers just want facts and not opinions so they can draw their own conclusions instead of being told what to think. Why would some newspaper's endorsement carry more weight than a reader's own judgment? Endorsements by anyone imply that other people are incapable of making decisions without being told what to do, and that the endorser's opinion somehow has greater value and merit.

I personally find paper endorsements very helpful for local elections. There isn't always a ton of info about various amendments and candidates out there.