Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, the party’s lead, has received a decline of over 60% in newspaper endorsements this year. Onlookers attribute this drop to a wavering public trust in her governance. A startling comparison can be made to the 2016 landscape. At that time, over 240 newspapers favored the then-Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. Only 20 newspapers leaned towards the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. Four years later, Trump saw a reduced count, bagging only 14 endorsements. Biden, on the other hand, had the backing of up to 120 newspapers.
Despite the overall decline in Democratic endorsements this year, Harris managed to gather approximately 80 from various newspapers. In contrast, fewer than 10 newspapers have sided with Trump. This dip in support for Harris is surprising, given the previously unshakeable backing the Democratic hopefuls have enjoyed.
Several Democratic voters in Nevada shared their skepticism about supporting Harris as their presidential candidate. Their deep-seated belief is that Harris won’t be able to bring about any significant improvement in the housing sector. Thus, as far as these voters are concerned, endorsing Harris seems to be a less appealing choice.
Harris’s endorsers fall within a broad spectrum, ranging from Winston-Salem Chronicle and New York Times to the Boston Globe, The New Yorker, Denver Post, The Las Vegas Sun, Los Angeles Sentinel, Seattle Times, The Star-Ledger, Tennessee Tribune, Scientific American, and San Antonio Express. Interestingly, their support doesn’t seem to be influencing public sentiment as much as they might have hoped.
Trump’s newspaper endorsements include the support of New York Post, The Washington Times, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Although his backing doesn’t match the volume of Harris’s, it is intriguing to note that Trump’s lesser support doesn’t reflect the story told by the mainstream media.
The decrease in Democratic endorsements is more stark because of the Los Angeles Times editorial board choosing to abstain. Despite having a history of endorsing Democratic nominees including Barack Obama in 2008, Clinton in 2016, and Biden in 2020, they have chosen to sit out of the endorsement race this year. It’s left people wondering what’s happening behind those editorial meetings.
Queries about the LA Times’ decision to abstain were met with a tight-lipped response from a spokesperson who stated, ‘We do not comment on internal discussions or decisions about editorials or endorsements’. The California-based publication’s shift from a century-long tradition of endorsements is curious, to say the least.
The tradition of endorsements at LA Times started all the way back in the 1880s and continued until 1972. The paper resumed its endorsement practice in 2008, backing Barack Obama. Since then, the paper had been quite predictable in its support for Democratic presidential candidates.
Last week, the LA Times announced its statewide and national endorsements for other races. This included various Democratic candidates for the U.S. House and Senate. However, the glaring absence of a Presidential endorsement has left many perplexed and questioning the implications.
Newspaper endorsements have been ingrained in election traditions since the 19th century. This practice began when newspapers had firm affiliations with political parties. Over the years, though, they have sought to maintain a more independent stance. The ideological lean of editorial boards often hints at the likely endorsement.
There has been a noticeable shift recently. Some newspapers with a history of endorsing Republican nominees either supported Biden or chose to abstain in 2020. The motives behind these shifts remain a matter of speculation but the alteration in traditional behavior is hard to overlook.
The Arizona Republic, famously known for its decades of endorsing Republican candidates, flipped the script in the 2020 cycle. It surprisingly endorsed Biden, further complicating the already interesting binary of press endorsements.
Even publications known for their non-endorsement traditions, such as USA Today, decided to break their long-standing rules, choosing to endorse Biden in the 2020 elections. The breach of tradition by such a major publication signals the complex and changing dynamics of political endorsements.
The plummeting trust in Harris among newspapers and people exemplify the challenging path ahead for her. The anxiety around her abilities to tackle key issues such as housing further compounds the dwindling public confidence.
Whatever the individual standpoints of each publication might be, the reduced endorsement for Harris speaks volumes. This insurgence of skepticism is undeniable, painting a bleak image for the usually favorable Democratic party.
Altogether, the endorsement landscape reveals a challenging road for the Democratic leads, particularly Harris. The widely noted decline in endorsements amidst a dynamic newspaper environment signals a remarkable deviation from past endorsement trends. Will this herald a new era of political endorsements? Only time can tell.