Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this


By Miriam Raftery

October 4, 2016 (San Diego) — Republican presidential contender Donald Trump may be the first major party candidate in U.S. history to not be endorsed by a single newspaper for the general election. His rival, Democrat Hillary Clinton, has been endorsed by dozens—including prominent newspapers that have never endorsed a Democrat before.

Far from making America great again, the editors across America agree that a Trump presidency would be disastrous for our nation.

ECM searched Google last night.  We found zero newspaper endorsements for Trump.  Today, an article in Business Insider confirms that while Trump got four newspaper endorsements in the primary (two alternative  New York  papers,  the National Enquirer tabloid and a small paper in Santa Barbara), not a single editorial board has backed him in November against Clinton.

In an unprecedented move, six newspapers endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, though those endorsements were made before Johnson’s widely-publicized gaffe on NPR , in which Johnson was unable to name a single world leader he admired.  Just days earlier, Johnson asked an MSNBC reporter, “What is Aleppo?” when asked about the refugee crisis in the embattled Syrian city.

The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board wrote, “This paper has not endorsed a Democrat for president in its 148-year history. But we endorse Clinton. She’s the safe choice for the U.S. and for the world, for Democrats and Republicans alike.” The newspaper described Trump as “vengeful, dishonest and impulsive”, warning that he could be too friendly with Russia, violate treaties, order war crimes, ruin the reputation of America in international financial circles and maintain an enemies list.

The Dallas Morning News in the conservative bastion of Texas denounced Trump because he called “plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best.”  The last time the newspaper endorsed a Democrat was over 75 years ago, before World War II.

The Arizona Republic, which has never endorsed a Democrat since it began publishing in 1890, cites Trump’s childish reactions vs. Clinton’s maturity.  “Clinton retains her composure under pressure. She’s tough. She doesn’t back down. Trump responds to criticism with the petulance of verbal spit wads.” Moreover, the newspaper noted, “The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.”

The Cincinnati Enquirer called Trump a “clear and present danger to our country.”

USA Today has never taken sides in a presidential race in its 34-year history.  But now then national publication concludes that Trump is “unfit” for the presidency, warning voters to “resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.”

The Chicago Tribune, the most prominent publication to endorse Johnson’s Libertarian candidacy, wrote, “We wish the two major parties had not run away from today's centrist Americans. Just as we wish either of their candidates evoked the principles that a Chicago Tribune now in its 170th year espouses, among them high integrity, free markets, personal responsibility and a limited role for government in the lives of the governed. We hope Johnson does well enough that Republicans and Democrats get the message — and that his ideas make progress over time.”

The New York Daily News, which has covered both Clinton and Trump extensively in their home state, concluded that Clinton is “the best choice for President, while Donald Trump represents a clear and present danger to the republic.”

New York’s largest newspaper, the New York Times, observed, “The 2016 campaign has brought to the surface the despair and rage of poor and middle-class Americans who say their government has done little to ease the burdens that recession, technological change, foreign competition and war have heaped on their families. Over 40 years in public life, Hillary Clinton has studied these forces and weighed responses to these problems. Our endorsement is rooted in respect for her intellect, experience, toughness and courage over a career of almost continuous public service, often as the first or only woman in the arena.”  The Times called Trump the “worst nominee put forth by a major party in modern history,” adding that Trump “discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway.”

The Sacramento Bee editorial focused on Clinton’s accomplishments, noting that “… her policies promise to help improve life for the vast majority of Americans. Unlike her opponent, she actually has specific proposals on a broad range of issues, and she can deliver them.”  The paper also praised Clinton as “one of the most prepared candidates ever for the presidency. She can step in as commander in chief on Day One, which in this dangerous, complicated world is no small matter. She is well-equipped to navigate foreign policy, collecting a wealth of knowledge and credibility as the most-traveled secretary of state in our nation’s history. She visited 112 nations during her four years in office, met dozens of leaders around the globe and knows how diplomacy works – and it’s not the bluster and ultimatums Trump believes in.”

The Desert Sun, which has never endorsed a Democrat in its 90-year history, wrote of Trump, “We can’t possibly trust someone who can neither control his Twitter finger nor summon intelligible arguments.” The California paper concludes, “Great leaders tap our better angels. And greatness requires `vision, integrity, courage, understanding, the power of articulation, and profundity of character.’ So advised one our most respected desert neighbors, Dwight D. Eisenhower. By these measures, there is no other choice for president this year than Hillary Clinton. Though demonized by her critics, Clinton is supremely qualified to lead, especially compared to Trump.”


Reply to DRisby

Every reader enjoys the right to question, or to differ with, the content of a published article. But it is simply wrong to abuse that right by launching a baleful personal attack on the writer. The abuse is especially clear when the writer is widely recognized as a serious journalist of high integrity. Such an unfounded and unwarranted attack only makes the person making it look small, very small.

Trump Zero

Remember Coke Zero? Neither do I.