Today’s New York Times broke with precedent, endorsing two candidates for President as the Iowa caucus approaches. Those candidates are Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren. (Read the editorial for why they don’t endorse the others: Biden and Sanders, for instance, are deemed too old, and should make room for younger folk).
It’s curious that the paper would endorse two candidates when the editorial’s purpose in endorsements is to name the candidate the paper most favors. Further, they endorsed both a centrist and a “progressive.”
Why did they do this? My cynical view is that their real favorite, given the paper’s increasing wokeness, is Warren, but they knew that if they endorsed only her, they would a.) lose readers and b.) perhaps actually hurt Warren because the GOP would tar her as a “New-York-Times-endorsed liberal.” So they tempered their endorsement by adding someone more towards the center, but still on the Left.
Klobuchar of course has no chance to get the nomination—FiveThirtyEight puts her polling numbers at 2.9%—so the Times is merely hedging its bets, throwing in an unelectable but centrist candidate to complement whom they really endorse.
But of course I may be wrong. Weigh in below, preferably after reading the endorsement.