YUGE: WaPo Declares It Will Not Endorse a Presidential Candidate This

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

In a somewhat stunning turn of events, The Washington Post has declared that it will not endorse a presidential candidate in the 2024 election — nor will it do so in future elections. But…why now?

From the horse’s mouth:

The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.

“Roots,” you say? When did things change? After reviewing the times when WaPo previously declined to endorse (1960, 1972), The Post added:

That was strong reasoning, but in 1976 for understandable reasons at the time, we changed this long-standing policy and endorsed Jimmy Carter as president. But we had it right before that, and this is what we are going back to.

The Post endorsed Joe Biden (and Kamala Harris) in 2020 and Hillary Clinton in 2016.

On the heels of the Los Angeles Times’ decision earlier in the week not to endorse, this announcement is sure to send shockwaves through the political media landscape.

WHOA! Kamala Harris Loses a Huge Home State Endorsement

Requiem for a Rag: The LA Times Implodes Over the ‘Non-Endorsement’ of Harris

The LA Times is clearly on the left end of the political spectrum. As RedState’s Jennifer Van Laar pointed out, the LA Times endorsed George Gascon in his bid to return as district attorney. Gascon is a terrible DA. Many of his seasoned prosecutors have nothing but disdain for him. But the LA Times endorsed him. Why? Because the Editorial Board is left, of left.

Thus, it was expected that the LA Times would endorse Kamala Harris. She’s from California and her politics are round peg to the Times’ round hole. So, when it didn’t endorse Harris, it was a thunderbolt, not because the paper’s endorsement would have changed a single vote. It wouldn’t have. But a non-endorsement is like Tim Walz’s wife suddenly coming out as a voting agnostic.

NPR has some added background on the story.

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris remains neck and neck, The Washington Post editorial page has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the editorial page editor told colleagues at a tense meeting Friday morning.

The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.

…

Shipley told colleagues the editorial board was told yesterday by management that there would not be an endorsement. He added that he “owns” this decision. The reason he cited was to create “independent space” where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.

The Post further explained its rationale for this change:

We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects. We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president.

They’re correct — it will be read in a range of ways, most of them not favorable to Vice President Kamala Harris.