Two newspapers declined to endorse a candidate, and are being criticized. Let it be.
We vote. Newspapers endorse or not. If we need an endorsement, we are not thinking for ourselves. Yes, Crabgrass is in agreement with what Guardian wrote, per a below post. But the charm of it was Guardian said what was thought here, better than I might have said it, and reinventing the wheel is no great thing. Quote them. Move on.
Not liking Trump there is understanding how others might like and support things he says. To me, the man is selfish and cannot deliver, but is good at pushing the buttons that move some people who feel resentment toward how their lives are working out.
They may be correct in feeling they would be better with Trump elected rather than Harris, or they may be racially biased or feeling some Angst on gender grounds.
To say, I disagree, is to say I choose to support Harris and have already voted for her.
Should Trump win, the belief here is things would worsen, while clearly being quite different from perfect now. Harris impresses me less than Trump, but his impression is a negative one, and Harris is the better choice. Some believe, or convince themselves that Harris is not simply a better alternative, but a positive choice.
That is not needed here, better alternative is enough. I would choose another candidate if it were my choice, but the two party stranglehold exists, and pushing against it is Sisipuhus which is for younger more fit persons who think they can make a difference.
Thinking he can make a difference has pushed Stephen Miller to try, and it is not too great a thing he has gotten for his time. Ditto, Kevin Roberts at Heritage.
Harris will be okay. That is enough. Not a dumb boat anchor, but someone who will choose skilled people to steer the nation for a term or two. That's enough.
If okay and well enough do not seem ringing endorsements, take it as an honest view and form your own view. The Bush presidents were pretty awful, and Trump fits into that camp with having a four year record with nothing good to show. One of the Bush guys got two terms, so my opinion can be a minority one, but this time I hope I am right as I think my own life would be better, as well as most peoples' lives.
In effect, this may serve as a last Presidential politics post here unless something before election day strikes me as interesting. The choosing for me is done, I have voted, and soon enough I see results. All I can really do, and it's done.
Circling back to the start, two newspapers not endorsing, so what? Does any reader actually know anyone who makes voting decisions based on endorsements? I do not. Harris surely came to her candicacy in an abnormal back door way, but that alone is not a cause to move my vote one way or another. She is the Democratic Party candidate. Donald Trump is the choice of the Republican Party. To me it is very clear that Trump is an impaired highly faulty human being without any good grip on himself, one in whom I place no trust, so vote Harris and hope she gets the most electors, end of story.
____________UPDATE____________
Mid item, an NPR post about progressives being unimpressed, this excerpt reflects upon the above text - campaign with Liz Cheney and you are using the devil's child -and one with whom any sane progressive would say, "Christsakes, can't you do better?" Harris could but makes her choice not to. What's to love there?
Vice President Harris campaigns with former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney on Oct. 21, 2024 in Royal Oak, Mich.
Sarah Rice/Getty Images
They’re still voting for her, but they’re not feeling great about it
In the homestretch of the campaign, Harris has leaned hard into describing the former president as a threat to democracy, echoing Trump’s former chief of staff who described him as fascist.
Trump is a fascist, calling him one is simply stating a truth, and for that I am supposed to embrace Harris as a second coming, opposite gender, or what?
Lesser evil is enough, but for Inner Party types, they get enthused beyond reason.
FURTHER: Perhaps aiding understanding, I regard Clyburn as a counterproductive racist for what he did back in 2020 in "charging" Biden the VP selection as the cost of giving his endorsement to Biden back then, and having a hand in the "Joe's lost it we have to move to Kamala" ploy this time, when we get what Clyburn feels best for him and his race. Race should be but one characteristic at play, not a driving issue, but to Clyburn it was a manipulative driving need, or seemed so. Admitted, I may have misjudged the man but I can only weight what is reported, and have no way to look into his mind other than indirectly.
One need not believe all one reads, but having that item online, its using an image, is saying the Democrats are who they are, Schumer is who he is, and Crabgrass has no great love of Schumer. The elevation of JD Vance from nobody to someone is to be studied in many ways after the election, however it turns out. At this point we can assume JD has no great love of Schumer either, but that is a data point, not a canvas of American diversity and public preferences vs what donors of each of the two parties feel best for the nation, and moreover, for themselves.
It has some relevance that Harris is married to a big-buck Hollywood lawyer and Hunter has a big-buck Hollywood lawyer as benefactor, and Joe has Hunter has his only remaining son, but exactly what to make of it would mean somebody has to know who runs Hollywood, how and why, and Mel Gibson has one view which has waned in popularity. Whatever the nuances, Hollywood has money, and hence is not like us, be it us voting Harris, or us voting Trump, either way, us are estranged from Inner Party types, either of the two. We need to know a lot more of where the nation may go than - Trump's an ass and Harris isn't.
Has AOC developed an incurable case of Potomac fever - caught from Nancy Pelosi, or would she again campaign with Bernie if believing there's a snowball in Hell chance it would go anywhere? Congress incumbency pays better than tending bar, she's not Angela Davis, and she's not running to take the Schumer seat as hers. Situations evolve, people reassess what works and does not, and globalization is with us, Trump wanting tariffs.
Corey Bush has been run by money onto the reefs, and whose money did it and why? Some have more answers than there are real questions, others always having a surplus of questions, Crabgrass only knowing what is read on the Internet and asking for a context allowing it all to hang together as "making sense." I.e., more questions than answers, and not all happenings are widely published.
AOC we know she is still alive. Is Angela Davis? Yes, most would need to look that up. And, back to the start, how does the Angela question relate to decisions by major news outlets owned by major people of wealth? They face problems one at at time and Angela Davis is no longer a newsworthy problem? Whose success or failure would that be? Questions, questions, questions.
JD and Angela Davis don't fit into the same box, but JD seems the one now to take us as a nation somewhere or not. Wherever we are headed, somebody, several actually, want the driver's seat. And can afford newspapers. And run Hollywood.
