After lengthy interviews with each Democratic presidential candidate, The New York Times editorial board recently revealed that it is endorsing Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for president in 2020. During a recent episode of The Hill’s Rising, progressive commentator and host of the Working People podcast Maximillian Alvarez — who supports Bernie Sanders — revealed his thoughts on the publication’s choice.
“Against all odds, The New York Times’s endorsement managed to be even dumber than we were all expecting,” he said. “It’s really mind blowing and really I commend them for it.”
Alvarez went on to suggest that the publication is not aware of the realities of the current primary.
“ The New York Times just really doesn’t get it — they really don’t get the stakes of our political moment.”
Alvarez blasted the “paneled boardroom of elitist dweebs” and suggested that their opinion isn’t of value to working-class Americans. He noted the endorsements that his choice for president — Sanders — has received from various unions and said they were of more importance in the 2020 presidential primary, in which centrist Joe Biden and the progressive Vermont senator continue to battle for the top spot.
“These are the unions that have endorsed Bernie Sanders and I take way more stock in those endorsements than I do in this dog and pony show.”
Here’s the opening of the @nytimes Editorial Board opinion articulating what a vote for Donald #Trump would signify. The paper has made the unconventional decision to endorse 2 separate candidates – Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren – as the Democratic nominees for president. pic.twitter.com/QfzBeSq4cv
— Douglas Herbert (@dougf24) January 20, 2020
The New York Times ‘ endorsements were met with pushback as well as confusion. Writing for CNN , Chris Cillizza noted that the Democratic primary is about allowing candidates to distinguish themselves to voters until one is selected to take on Donald Trump in November. As Cillizza noted, voters do not have the option of choosing two candidates, which he believes makes The Times’ decision baffling.
Cillizza claimed to understand that the board believes Klobuchar represents “pragmatic centrism” and Warren “liberal idealism.” He also said he understands that both of these approaches represent two competing factions at the center of the argument of how to best defeat Trump.
Regardless, the 43-year-old political commentator said the board should have selected one “argument” as well as the candidate that embodies it best and explained to its readers why this the position that can defeat the president at the ballot box in 2020.
“But the decision not to endorse a single candidate is what will be remembered here,” Cillizza concluded, noting that The Times will be remembered not for selecting the candidate they believed had the best chances of defeating Trump, but for refusing to choose.
