• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NY Times endorses Warren and Klobuchar

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,328
Reaction score
82,713
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
New York Times editorial board endorses Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for Democratic nomination

1579502553_New-York-Times-endorses-Warren-and-Klobuchar-for-Democratic-nomination-350x200.jpg


1/20/20
The New York Times editorial board on Sunday endorsed Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, a potentially meaningful boost for the two female senators left in the race with less than a month before the Iowa caucuses. "Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren right now are the Democrats best equipped to lead that debate," the editorial board wrote. "May the best woman win." The Times said it picked Warren of Massachusetts and Klobuchar of Minnesota over other candidates in the still-crowded primary field because "in this perilous moment, both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. For this reason, we are breaking with convention and putting our support behind, not one, but two candidates." Announcing the endorsement Sunday, the board said, "Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller and a brilliant architect of regulation, where we would push back on some specific policy proposals, we are struck by how effectively her message has matched the moment." As for Klobuchar, the board said, "Senator Klobuchar has a lengthy resume in the Senate, and bipartisan credentials that make her an invaluable dealmaker, she's shown she can unite the party, and perhaps the nation."


The editorial board met with nine of the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination in December. Three other candidates, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Michael Bloomberg and Julián Castro, were invited, the board said, but declined the invitation. California Sen. Kamala Harris dropped out of the presidential race ahead of her endorsement interview. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker was among those nine who met with the board in December, but he has since ended his campaign. Reacting to the endorsement Sunday night, Klobuchar tweeted it was "An honor!" Warren tweeted just before midnight ET, nodding to both of the candidates' electoral record. In an unusual twist this year, the board's pick was revealed on Sunday's episode of "The Weekly," which airs on FX. The episode highlighted the board's process, which is usually done behind closed doors. Viewers were shown small portions of those interviews and the post-interview discussions by the editorial board of that particular candidate.
The paper has been endorsing presidential candidates since 1860.
Click to expand...

I'm still reserving judgement on which Democrat candidate I prefer. Let's see how Iowa fleshes out.

But to be honest, I'll support whomever is victorious at the Democrat convention. Four more years of Trump would be catastrophic for this country, and for the Constitution.
 
Rogue Valley said:
New York Times editorial board endorses Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for Democratic nomination

1579502553_New-York-Times-endorses-Warren-and-Klobuchar-for-Democratic-nomination-350x200.jpg




I'm still reserving judgement on which Democrat candidate I prefer. Let's see how Iowa fleshes out.

But to be honest, I'll support whomever is victorious at the Democrat convention. Four more years of Trump would be catastrophic for this country, and for the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how NYT concluded that Klobuchar not only can unite the party, but has in fact 'shown' it; literally and honestly mystified. No one likes her except centrists and blue dogs, and her charisma and presence is roughly on par with Hillary's.
 
HUH....What's wrong with Joe? Quid pro quo? ;)
 
Surrealistik said:
I have no idea how NYT concluded that Klobuchar not only can unite the party, but has in fact 'shown' it; literally and honestly mystified. No one likes her except centrists and blue dogs, and her charisma and presence is roughly on par with Hillary's.
Click to expand...

I have said all along, even before she announced her candidacy, that a Klobuchar/Booker ticket was my personal dream team. I'm not a "blue dog"; purple, perhaps, but not blue... or red.
 
DiAnna said:
I have said all along, even before she announced her candidacy, that a Klobuchar/Booker ticket was my personal dream team. I'm not a "blue dog"; purple, perhaps, but not blue... or red.
Click to expand...

That would be a very good ticket. I'd say Klobuchar/Mayor Pete but there is too much Midwest in that. Booker is an easterner which is needed.
 
tres borrachos said:
Maybe, but wow, that would be a really, really bad idea IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree; I love Klobuchar, but I'm not as fond of Warren. Not to sound misogynistic, but a two-woman ticket will turn off a large segment of the population; we're not all that enlightened as a citizenry so far. A female on the ticket, sure; two will look like estrogen overload to a whole lot of folks, I'm afraid.
 
tres borrachos said:
That would be a very good ticket. I'd say Klobuchar/Mayor Pete but there is too much Midwest in that. Booker is an easterner which is needed.
Click to expand...

Booker is experienced, charismatic, can pull in the black vote, with which Klobuchar doesn't have numbers, and I just love to hear Booker talk, frankly. He'd be a killer attention getter on the campaign trail!
 
DiAnna said:
I agree; I love Klobuchar, but I'm not as fond of Warren. Not to sound misogynistic, but a two-woman ticket will turn off a large segment of the population; we're not all that enlightened as a citizenry so far. A female on the ticket, sure; two will look like estrogen overload to a whole lot of folks, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

If you think that's misogynistic, then I'm right there with you! My knee jerked when I thought about it. It wouldn't sail. The country is ready for a female POTUS and even a female VPOTUS. But it isn't ready for each one at the same time. Just isn't.
 
Surrealistik said:
I have no idea how NYT concluded that Klobuchar not only can unite the party, but has in fact 'shown' it; literally and honestly mystified. No one likes her except centrists and blue dogs, and her charisma and presence is roughly on par with Hillary's.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I've had enough of "charisma" in the WH to last until dooms day.

I like Klobuchar because she's normal and she's smart...and her policies aren't extreme or divisive....and she doesn't have baggage.


PS: I don't like the NYT...so their endorsement rings hollow with me.
 
Last edited:
I'd vote for Amy Klobuchar for president. She's not extreme and would be a good palate cleanser after Trump.
 
DiAnna said:
I have said all along, even before she announced her candidacy, that a Klobuchar/Booker ticket was my personal dream team. I'm not a "blue dog"; purple, perhaps, but not blue... or red.
Click to expand...

I think that would be the equivalent of handing the election to Trump, especially with Klobuchar at the top of the ticket. As I've said elsewhere, she's about as close to a full on rehash of Hillary as you can get in this current primary field, except with the possibility of being even less charismatic. It's as close as you can get to doing the exact same failed strategy and hoping that it'll (somehow) work out this time; I mean you must really expect Booker to make the difference vis a vis Tim Kaine.

Honestly, why would anyone in their right mind think she could get the left onside, nevermind galvanized and motivated? Not only are her positions essentially anathema among those within the primary field, but she doesn't have the raw charisma to compensate either.
 
Last edited:
tres borrachos said:
If you think that's misogynistic, then I'm right there with you! My knee jerked when I thought about it. It wouldn't sail. The country is ready for a female POTUS and even a female VPOTUS. But it isn't ready for each one at the same time. Just isn't.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I agree. :(
 
Moot said:
Frankly, I've had enough of "charisma" in the WH to last until dooms day.

I like Klobuchar because she's normal and she's smart...and her policies aren't extreme or divisive....and she doesn't have baggage.


PS: I don't like the NYT...so their endorsement rings hollow with me.
Click to expand...

What is 'divisive' to you exactly? I mean if you identify as a centrist, and you very much seem to, yes, I could understand centrist policy and politicos not appearing as such to you.

Further, whether someone is electable matters. Yes, I agree, I'm tired of Orange Man, but that's precisely one of the main reasons I would shirk Klobuchar as nominee because of the current field I find she has one of the worst chances to actually defeat him. Who does she inspire and galvanize? How does she actually unify her party and get the left onside? How can she appeal to and win over the rust belt when she has neither policy nor charisma that is resonant with them?
 
Surrealistik said:
I think that would be the equivalent of handing the election to Trump, especially with Klobuchar at the top of the ticket. As I've said elsewhere, she's about as close to a full on rehash of Hillary as you can get in this current primary field, except with the possibility of being even less charismatic. It's as close as you can get to doing the exact same failed strategy and hoping that it'll (somehow) work out this time; I mean you must really expect Booker to make the difference vis a vis Tim Kaine.

Honestly, why would anyone in their right mind think she could get the left onside, nevermind galvanized and motivated? Not only are her positions essentially anathema among those within the primary field, but she doesn't have the raw charisma to compensate either.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion. I completely disagree. :shrug:
 
There is no perfect ticket. Not this time around anyway.
 
DiAnna said:
You're entitled to your opinion. I completely disagree. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I'm actually trying to understand why you feel she would be a success; try to set aside your personal biases for a moment: How does she appeal to the rust belt? How does she get the left onside and unify the party (as we've seen it is dangerous to rely exclusively on Orange Man Bad as a motivator)? These are the two key requisites to success, and I earnestly have no idea how she achieves either.
 
Rogue Valley said:
There is no perfect ticket. Not this time around anyway.
Click to expand...

I suppose there is never a "perfect ticket" except in hindsight, but I still like Amy/Cory, lol. Frankly, I'd settle for "good enough to win" at this point, 'cause that's all that really matters to me.
 
Surrealistik said:
I'm actually trying to understand why you feel she would be a success; try to set aside your personal biases for a moment: How does she appeal to the rust belt? How does she get the left onside and unify the party (as we've seen it is dangerous to rely exclusively on Orange Man Bad as a motivator)? These are the two key requisites to success, and I earnestly have no idea how she achieves either.
Click to expand...

Really? You want me to set aside my personal biases, when you've already stated Klobuchar is "a rehash of Hillary", meaning, I suppose, that they both have a vagina because that's about the only thing they actually have in common. Klobuchar is very well liked by her Senate colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, has a history of getting things accomplished through compromise and leadership.

But I'm actually not going to waste any more time defending my position, when you are clearly coming from a biased point of view that you apparently feel entitled to maintain.

We disagree. Let's leave it at that.
 
Surrealistik said:
What is 'divisive' to you exactly? I mean if you identify as a centrist, and you very much seem to, yes, I could understand centrist policy and politicos not appearing as such to you.

Further, whether someone is electable matters. Yes, I agree, I'm tired of Orange Man, but that's precisely one of the main reasons I would shirk Klobuchar as nominee because of the current field I find she has one of the worst chances to actually defeat him. Who does she inspire and galvanize? How does she actually unify her party and get the left onside? How can she appeal to and win over the rust belt when she has neither policy nor charisma that is resonant with them?
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm a registered Independent Liberal. Warren and Bernie's policies are too extreme even for moderate democrats...which btw far outnumber progressives in the party. The sooner the extreme left realize that, the sooner we can all coalesce around a normal candidate that CAN get elected and beat Trump..and Russia.

A Klobuchar/Booker ticket sounds great to me. They're young, smart, moderate and can get the women and black votes that helped put Obama in office.
 
DiAnna said:
Really? You want me to set aside my personal biases, when you've already stated Klobuchar is "a rehash of Hillary", meaning, I suppose, that they both have a vagina because that's about the only thing they actually have in common. Klobuchar is very well liked by her Senate colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, has a history of getting things accomplished through compromise and leadership.

But I'm actually not going to waste any more time defending my position, when you are clearly coming from a biased point of view that you apparently feel entitled to maintain.

We disagree. Let's leave it at that.
Click to expand...

No, not at all.

After all, I would never equate Klobuchar with Warren; both are women, but both exceedingly different outside of gender and race; you should know better than to make or try to reduce this to being some kind of sexism thing. Klobuchar is an analogue for Hillary in my view because her overall politics and stances are fairly similar, as is her appeal and charisma. Further, those questions are perfectly legitimate; even if you were to point to her history of compromise as proof of her ability to unify (which I feel is a dubious claim at best), she has only ever really done it with people to the ideological right of her. Moreover, if you were to argue that she could go after the right vote instead, it just ain't the 80s and 90s anymore where you can just make nice with 'reasonable' Republicans as Obama discovered to his chagrin.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom