Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post’s endorsements were solid.

Yes, the endorsements made by just one 60 year man interviewing women and asking them how they would balance elected office and childcare were particularly solid.

I don't see why it matters who the Post endorsed. It was the editorial board making the endorsment not the newspaper. You should still subscribe and read the Post. The editorial board has no input on the factual aspect of the articles.

Well then, you should go back and read the thoughts of a political science professor quoted above on the Kojo show who finds that for local elections, newspaper endorsements do matter. Because, there's such limited coverage of local politics, that people don't have enough info. to really analyze the candidates unless they go to lots of candidate events, which few people do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post’s endorsements were solid.

Yes, the endorsements made by just one 60 year man interviewing women and asking them how they would balance elected office and childcare were particularly solid.

I don't see why it matters who the Post endorsed. It was the editorial board making the endorsment not the newspaper. You should still subscribe and read the Post. The editorial board has no input on the factual aspect of the articles.

Well then, you should go back and read the thoughts of a political science professor quoted above on the Kojo show who finds that for local elections, newspaper endorsements do matter. Because, there's such limited coverage of local politics, that people don't have enough info. to really analyze the candidates unless they go to lots of candidate events, which few people do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post’s endorsements were solid.

Yes, the endorsements made by just one 60 year man interviewing women and asking them how they would balance elected office and childcare were particularly solid.

I don't see why it matters who the Post endorsed. It was the editorial board making the endorsment not the newspaper. You should still subscribe and read the Post. The editorial board has no input on the factual aspect of the articles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you not understand the difference between news articles and the editorial board of a paper?

There is supposed to be a difference, but the WaPo news section is one big editorial...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post’s endorsements were solid.

Yes, the endorsements made by just one 60 year man interviewing women and asking them how they would balance elected office and childcare were particularly solid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post’s endorsements were solid.

Yes, the endorsements made by just one 60 year man interviewing women and asking them how they would balance elected office and childcare were particularly solid.

Pretty solid to recognize that years of experience working with and on the Board of Supervisors counted for more than being a one-term elementary school PTA president.

That's your opinion. I don't follow the argument that being part of the establishment necessarily makes you the best candidate to continue with that establishment (and don't knock being PTA president--it's a tough job.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post’s endorsements were solid.

Yes, the endorsements made by just one 60 year man interviewing women and asking them how they would balance elected office and childcare were particularly solid.

Pretty solid to recognize that years of experience working with and on the Board of Supervisors counted for more than being a one-term elementary school PTA president.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post’s endorsements were solid.

Yes, the endorsements made by just one 60 year man interviewing women and asking them how they would balance elected office and childcare were particularly solid.

Anonymous wrote:The Post’s endorsements were solid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The turnout in these races is so low. Too bad the flawed Washington post process contributed to the election results. Hope they have a more diverse editorial panelists next time (rather than the mansplainer who thinks that women with young kids can’t run for office.)

Turnouts are low for primaries like this. The Post’s process probably helped the female candidates asked inappropriate questions, but they were still weaker candidates who did not prevail.

What a bizarre post ^^ by the PP. There's no evidence that lack of endorsement helped any non-endorsed candidate.

You can't simply conclude from the fact that a candidate won that the Post's endorsement made a difference, either, but that doesn't seem to be stopping you.

FWIW, the post also endorsed Morrough. He lost.

https://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2019-06-05/how-local-news-organizations-make-political-endorsements
NNAMDI
What do we know and what do we not know about how much political endorsements from the press actually matter in an election?

12:37:34
USHER
So there is -- most of the research is on presidential endorsements. We know relatively less about municipal endorsements. It seems that with presidential endorsements the research suggests that if the endorsement coincides with your view, you might have a slight budge. But again, a lot of this research is from the nineties and a less crowded media environment. So it actually needs a bunch of updating. That said, since the nineties, 70 percent of news organizations have decided to stop making presidential endorsements.

12:38:11
USHER
And so for as far as local municipal elections, what matters is that often editorial boards and local news are the only people invested enough to actually bother to go out and ask candidates. And so often for local elections, this is an essential source of information for people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The turnout in these races is so low. Too bad the flawed Washington post process contributed to the election results. Hope they have a more diverse editorial panelists next time (rather than the mansplainer who thinks that women with young kids can’t run for office.)

Turnouts are low for primaries like this. The Post’s process probably helped the female candidates asked inappropriate questions, but they were still weaker candidates who did not prevail.

What a bizarre post ^^ by the PP. There's no evidence that lack of endorsement helped any non-endorsed candidate.

You can't simply conclude from the fact that a candidate won that the Post's endorsement made a difference, either, but that doesn't seem to be stopping you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The turnout in these races is so low. Too bad the flawed Washington post process contributed to the election results. Hope they have a more diverse editorial panelists next time (rather than the mansplainer who thinks that women with young kids can’t run for office.)

Turnouts are low for primaries like this. The Post’s process probably helped the female candidates asked inappropriate questions, but they were still weaker candidates who did not prevail.

What a bizarre post ^^ by the PP. There's no evidence that lack of endorsement helped any non-endorsed candidate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The turnout in these races is so low. Too bad the flawed Washington post process contributed to the election results. Hope they have a more diverse editorial panelists next time (rather than the mansplainer who thinks that women with young kids can’t run for office.)

Turnouts are low for primaries like this. The Post’s process probably helped the female candidates asked inappropriate questions, but they were still weaker candidates who did not prevail.

Anonymous wrote:The turnout in these races is so low. Too bad the flawed Washington post process contributed to the election results. Hope they have a more diverse editorial panelists next time (rather than the mansplainer who thinks that women with young kids can’t run for office.)