PDA

View Full Version : Donald Trump Makes History With Zero Major Newspaper Endorsements



Cigar
10-07-2016, 12:12 PM
With just a little over a month until election day, Donald Trump has racked up zero major newspaper endorsements, a first for any major party nominee in American history.

While newspaper endorsements don’t necessarily change voters’ minds, this year’s barrage of anti-Trump endorsements could actually move the needle come November, experts say.

“It’s significant,” Jack Pitney, professor of government at California’s Claremont McKenna College, told TheWrap. “The cumulative effect of all these defections could have an impact on moderate Republicans.”

Some conservative papers, which have endorsed Republicans for decades, are now breaking with tradition to endorse Hillary Clinton or, at the very least, urge their readers not to vote for Trump.

Several have taken a stand even at the expense of losing subscribers at a time when newspapers are barely staying afloat. Some papers have received death threats.

But for a growing number of newspaper editorial boards, staying on the sidelines is no longer an option.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-makes-history-zero-major-newspaper-endorsements-000943174.html

INB4 - Who Needs Endorsements anyway :laugh:

The Xl
10-07-2016, 12:15 PM
No one really trusts the mainstream media, so that's an endorsement itself.

IMPress Polly
10-07-2016, 12:16 PM
Why again are you such a fan of Trump? I need reminding.

Mark III
10-07-2016, 01:00 PM
Most of the papers haven't given an endorsement yet. If he is still at zero in a couple weeks, I think it is a devastating indictment of his candidacy. People may not pay attention to endorsements that much, but if a candidate has zero endorsements and his opponent has 40 or 50, that will mean something to undecideds.

The Xl
10-07-2016, 01:09 PM
Why again are you such a fan of Trump? I need reminding.

I'm not pro Trump, I'm anti Clinton, and against the special interest power structure that has more or less ruled the country with proxy politicians for the last 50 or so years. I supported Johnson, Stein, and Sanders, in that order, over Trump.

Cigar
10-07-2016, 01:13 PM
I'm not pro Trump, I'm anti Clinton, and against the special interest power structure that has more or less ruled the country with proxy politicians for the last 50 or so years. I supported Johnson, Stein, and Sanders, in that order, over Trump.


... and that make you Pro-Trump? :laugh:

DGUtley
10-07-2016, 01:24 PM
Why again are you such a fan of Trump? I need reminding.

...it's about the Court primarily...

IMPress Polly
10-07-2016, 01:57 PM
XL wrote:
I'm not pro Trump, I'm anti Clinton, and against the special interest power structure that has more or less ruled the country with proxy politicians for the last 50 or so years. I supported Johnson, Stein, and Sanders, in that order, over Trump.

Aaah, I see! For me, the order of preference is like this:

1) Jill Stein <-- The lone progressive.
2) Hillary Clinton <-- Distant second though. Neoliberalism is what got us to the place where someone like Trump could get somewhere politically.
3) Gary Johnson <-- Nope, no free market fundamentalism for me. :tongue: Still, his social and foreign policies are not great, but okay. I could live with him being president if I really had to.
4) Evan McMullin <-- Well...at least this wannabe Ted Cruz isn't a fascist.
5) Donald Trump <-- America can either have him or me, but not both! If he wins, I'm leaving the country. I'm not even kidding.

Cigar
10-07-2016, 01:59 PM
Aaah, I see! For me, the order of preference is like this:

1) Jill Stein <-- The lone progressive.
2) Hillary Clinton <-- Distant second though. Neoliberalism is what got us to the place where someone like Trump could get somewhere politically.
3) Gary Johnson <-- Nope, no free market fundamentalism for me. :tongue: Still, his social and foreign policies are not great, but okay. I could live with him being president if I really had to.
4) Evan McMullin <-- Well...at least this wannabe Ted Cruz isn't a fascist.
5) Donald Trump <-- America can either have him or me, but not both! If he wins, I'm leaving the country.


Maybe Hillary can get Jill a cabinet position.

MisterVeritis
10-07-2016, 02:18 PM
Trump has the blue collar workers. I believe he has people who don't usually vote.

The establishment tyrants are scared.

IMPress Polly
10-07-2016, 02:36 PM
MisterVeritis wrote:
Trump has the blue collar workers. I believe he has people who don't usually vote.

The establishment tyrants are scared.

Maybe he'll stun me with his next debate performance on Sunday for which he doesn't seem to be preparing (because that plan worked out so well last time), but until that actually happens, my response to this proclamation is that denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Let me exemplify what I mean. Supposedly the Trump campaign is bringing working class people on board in droves. Yet when we survey America's most significant working class cities, we find that that's hardly the case. Let's take Detroit, Michigan as perhaps the ultimate example. Detroit, Michigan is a working class place to a degree that few other American cities are. Here's the current state of the race in Detroit, Michigan according to the latest polling:

Hillary Clinton: 89.7%
Gary Johnson: 2.6%
Donald Trump: 0%

That doesn't look like a blue collar Trump wave to me. What support Trump enjoys in Michigan is concentrated in its wealthier, whiter rural areas, not among its urban working class.

Cigar
10-07-2016, 02:44 PM
I can't for the life of me understand why some leaders think apologizing for obvious wrongs is somehow a show of weakness? Everyone makes mistakes, but having the capability to recognize them is a form of maturity.

Trump would rather double down on stupid for nothing more than adoration and cheers. :huh:

The Xl
10-07-2016, 03:26 PM
Aaah, I see! For me, the order of preference is like this:

1) Jill Stein <-- The lone progressive.
2) Hillary Clinton <-- Distant second though. Neoliberalism is what got us to the place where someone like Trump could get somewhere politically.
3) Gary Johnson <-- Nope, no free market fundamentalism for me. :tongue: Still, his social and foreign policies are not great, but okay. I could live with him being president if I really had to.
4) Evan McMullin <-- Well...at least this wannabe Ted Cruz isn't a fascist.
5) Donald Trump <-- America can either have him or me, but not both! If he wins, I'm leaving the country. I'm not even kidding.

Johnson probably wouldn't get anything you consider extreme or draconian done, but would be a considerable upgrade from Hillary Clinton when it comes to militarism and some other issues, so I can't quite understand that one.

Peter1469
10-07-2016, 03:58 PM
The major newspapers are typists for the DNC. What do you expect?

Bethere
10-07-2016, 04:06 PM
The major newspapers are typists for the DNC. What do you expect?

Sure! Good times!

The Cincinnati enquirer hadn't picked a democrat since woodrow wilson. The Dallas morning news had never picked a Democrat. The AZ paper hadn't picked one since 1880. The Atlantic doesn't make presidential picks, but they did this time.

And here you are, an 'independent,' acting a lot like a Republican again.

IMPress Polly
10-07-2016, 04:44 PM
The XL wrote:
Johnson probably wouldn't get anything you consider extreme or draconian done, but would be a considerable upgrade from Hillary Clinton when it comes to militarism and some other issues, so I can't quite understand that one.

Oh with a Republican Congress to work with, I rather think the exact opposite would be the case: we'd get his economic policies, but probably not any cuts in the rate of military expenditure and so forth. The worst of both worlds (to my way of thinking anyway).


Peter wrote:
The major newspapers are typists for the DNC. What do you expect?

Traditionally that's not been true, but when you have one party choosing someone as manifestly unstable and incompetent as Trump as their standard-bearer, you pretty much force any halfway sane publication to embrace someone else.

Peter1469
10-07-2016, 04:55 PM
Oh with a Republican Congress to work with, I rather think the exact opposite would be the case: we'd get his economic policies, but probably not any cuts in the rate of military expenditure and so forth. The worst of both worlds (to my way of thinking anyway).



Traditionally that's not been true, but when you have one party choosing someone as manifestly unstable and incompetent as Trump as their standard-bearer, you pretty much force any halfway sane publication to embrace someone else.

If they were honest they would either endorse nobody or Johnson.

IMPress Polly
10-07-2016, 05:15 PM
Some of them actually have endorsed Gary Johnson, I understand. I'll let you know when even one endorses Jill Stein. I'm sure that will definitely happen.

Peter1469
10-07-2016, 05:20 PM
Some of them actually have endorsed Gary Johnson, I understand. I'll let you know when even one endorses Jill Stein. I'm sure that will definitely happen.

Yes.

I was only referring the the "republican" leaning news papers. Endorsing Clinton is not very conservative. Johnson would be.

ripmeister
10-07-2016, 05:23 PM
Oh with a Republican Congress to work with, I rather think the exact opposite would be the case: we'd get his economic policies, but probably not any cuts in the rate of military expenditure and so forth. The worst of both worlds (to my way of thinking anyway).



Traditionally that's not been true, but when you have one party choosing someone as manifestly unstable and incompetent as Trump as their standard-bearer, you pretty much force any halfway sane publication to embrace someone else.

The operative word being sane.