This is interesting: NY Times endorsements since 1860

[Lief 🗽]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/23/opinion/20081024-endorse.html

They made some really odd choices (Wendell Wilkie in 1940?! John M. Palmer in 1896?), but its an interesting read nonetheless. I don't really know the history of the New York Times, but they seemed to swing back and forth until the 1960s, when they started endorsing the Democrat every year.

[Erc]

Not too surprising on Palmer, given their unequivocal endorsements of Cleveland the previous three cycles.  The New York Times is based in New York, and is hardly likely to be friendly to some upstart anti-gold fanatic like Bryan.

Interestingly enough, the NYT endorsements exactly match mine for every election from 1880 to 1924 (including Palmer).

[Robespierre's Jaw]

I can't say I'm all that surprised with the New York Times decision to support Wendell Willkie in 1940. Both FDR and Willkie were quite similar to an extent, except on their differing opinions on the TVA. I guess the New York Times based their endorsement of Willkie in 1940 on the United States' preparedness for the Second World War (though I could be quite wrong). Nonetheless, an excellent find Lief.

[Workers' Friend]

I have an explanation for their post-1960 endorsements.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Really since the turn of the century (no coincidence when the parties flipped as well) they have only endorsed a handful of Republicans

Wilkie: maybe just fed up of FDR
Dewey: think Chicago Tribune with Obama
Eisenhower: its Eisenhower, he didn't real have opposition

[platypeanArchcow]

Eisenhower: its Eisenhower, he didn't real have opposition

Eisenhower had some of the greatest opposition ever.

Woman: You have the vote of every thinking person!
Stevenson: That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Eisenhower: its Eisenhower, he didn't real have opposition

Actually, Eisenhower said that he wouldn't have run for President if he knew he would be facing Stevenson.

[jimrtex]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/23/opinion/20081024-endorse.html

They made some really odd choices (Wendell Wilkie in 1940?! John M. Palmer in 1896?), but its an interesting read nonetheless. I don't really know the history of the New York Times, but they seemed to swing back and forth until the 1960s, when they started endorsing the Democrat every year.

NYT used to have reporters serving as delegates at the Republican convention.

[GMantis]

It's especially funny how they try to justify endorsing Roosevelt for a fourth term, when they endorsed Wilkie because three terms were too much.

[True Democrat]

It's especially funny how they try to justify endorsing Roosevelt for a fourth term, when they endorsed Wilkie because three terms were too much.

I would've felt the same way though.

I think it's different during a war.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Their pre-1960s choices seem to be entirely dictated by which of the two candidates was the most aristocratic or from New York.

Since then it just shows the alienation of the Intellectual elements in the NE from the Republican Party.

[Person Man]

Their pre-1960s choices seem to be entirely dictated by which of the two candidates was the most aristocratic or from New York.

Since then it just shows the alienation of the Intellectual elements in the NE from the Republican Party.

Pretty much. Except for Eisenhower. Stevenson was a total nerd, then again, who didn't like Ike?

What is also interesting is how you can see the evolution of the English language overtime from big words and cumbersome sentences to smaller words and sentences that are more graceful.

[GMantis]

Their pre-1960s choices seem to be entirely dictated by which of the two candidates was the most aristocratic or from New York.

Since then it just shows the alienation of the Intellectual elements in the NE from the Republican Party.

Pretty much. Except for Eisenhower. Stevenson was a total nerd, then again, who didn't like Ike?

What is also interesting is how you can see the evolution of the English language overtime from big words and cumbersome sentences to smaller words and sentences that are more graceful.

Or with other words, the dumbing down of the language. And it was far more graceful before.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Their pre-1960s choices seem to be entirely dictated by which of the two candidates was the most aristocratic or from New York.

Since then it just shows the alienation of the Intellectual elements in the NE from the Republican Party.

Pretty much. Except for Eisenhower. Stevenson was a total nerd, then again, who didn't like Ike?

What is also interesting is how you can see the evolution of the English language overtime from big words and cumbersome sentences to smaller words and sentences that are more graceful.

Or with other words, the dumbing down of the language. And it was far more graceful before.

And how over time the emphasis on candidates shifts more and more to their personalities, read the opening statement on the Mondale endorsement. WTF does that have to do with his ability to be president.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

The NYT endorsed MCGOVERN? And they claim not to be biased?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

They can f**k themselves for wanting TR to come in third in 1912.

[GMantis]

The NYT endorsed MCGOVERN? And they claim not to be biased?

Consider the alternative.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I guess endorsing Nixon wouldn't have gone over too well with the paper's readers, but they were in the vast minority of the country in '72.

[WillK]

Their pre-1960s choices seem to be entirely dictated by which of the two candidates was the most aristocratic or from New York.

Yet they didn't endorse Teddy Roosevelt

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Their pre-1960s choices seem to be entirely dictated by which of the two candidates was the most aristocratic or from New York.

Yet they didn't endorse Teddy Roosevelt

Given TR's strange combo of Populism and Nationalism I think he is the exception which proves the rule.

Oh yeah, I would have voted for a dead giraffe over Nixon in 1972. The Dead Giraffe has the advantage of not being evil.

[Jeff from NC]

Don't forget that Nixon promised to end the war, and made it longer instead.  Also a wee problem called Watergate.  Perhaps the NY Times showed better judgment than the rest of the country in 1972.

[DanielX]

I'll put it this way: the NYT's choice and my choice for President really don't coincide at all after about the 1890s.

Some examples:
1. They endorsed Woodrow Wilson twice. And wanted Teddy Roosevelt in third in 1912! That's insane. (I would have gone Taft-Roosevelt-Wilson... actually, Roosevelt-Taft-Wilson, given that the NYT seems to have it in for good ol TR. Either Taft or Roosevelt would have been better by light-years).
2. Their 1924 endorsement of John Davis is just sad. Progressives had a much better choice in LaFollette in my opinion, while conservatives kept cool with Coolidge. The NYT seems to have been "old school Democrat" at this point and time, even to the point of never endorsing Bryan. Good, I guess (I don't like Bryan, I think he's partially responsible for both the modern-day progressive left AND the religious right...).
3. They endorsed every Democrat since 1960 (the only Republicans from 1920-60 were Willkie, Dewey, and Eisenhower - all moderates, one from New York (Dewey), another wildly popular, and a third running against a 'cheater' who ran for a third term). Hell, every time they endorsed a Republican 1884-1920, it was when the Democrat was Bryan. They only endorsed one third party candidate (in 1896, against Bryan) - when there were obvious occasions to do so (such as 1972 when both candidates sucked - or 1980 which was a real third party bonanza... or 2008). They endorsed McGovern and Mondale....

[Ebowed]

The NYT endorsed MCGOVERN? And they claim not to be biased?

George McGovern was the only reasonable option in 1972.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Not interesting at all. They always endorse Democrats.

[RI]

They can f**k themselves for wanting TR to come in third in 1912.