The Morning: 3 thoughts on the NYT endorsement

On Monday, the New York Times editorial board endorsed Kamala Harris for president.

This is, um, not shocking news. There was roughly a 100% chance it would happen. That said, I have three thoughts to keep in mind about the endorsement.

1. The editorial board ≠ the political staff. I know I am fighting a losing battle with spin and public perception here but it is important to note that the political reporters of the New York Times have ZERO to do with the editorial board’s decision to endorse Harris. They are entirely separate staffs. They do not interact in any meaningful way. (I know this from my years spent at the Washington Post, which also has an editorial board that makes endorsements.) Again, I KNOW I am shouting (or doing something else) into the wind here. But, in my experience it’s 100% true. Editorial boards exist. But they do not represent the people actually covering the campaign.

2. This will change no one’s mind. If you are the sort of person who reads the pieces produced by the New York Times editorial board, you are already voting for Harris. For most people — especially most undecided voters — this endorsement will mean nothing in terms of their decision (if they see it at all). And Harris’ campaign is very unlikely to tout it in, say, central Pennsylvania, where an endorsement from the Times probably hurts her more than it helps her.

3. A warning to Harris on the campaign she is running. The bulk of the endorsement bashes Trump and praises Harris. But, about halfway through it, there’s a really important paragraph about the kind of campaign the vice president is running. Here it is:

   Many voters have said they want more details about the vice president’s plans, as well as more unscripted encounters in which she explains her vision and policies. They are right to ask. Given the stakes of this election, Ms. Harris may think that she is running a campaign designed to minimize the risks of an unforced error — answering journalists’ questions and offering greater policy detail could court controversy, after all — under the belief that being the only viable alternative to Mr. Trump may be enough to bring her to victory. That strategy may ultimately prove winning, but it’s a disservice to the American people and to her own record. And leaving the public with a sense that she is being shielded from tough questions, as Mr. Biden has been, could backfire by undermining her core argument that a capable new generation stands ready to take the reins of power.

   I think that’s right. If Harris wants to not just win but to actually have the ability to, in her words, “turn the page” on the Trump era, she needs to aggressively sell her vision of the country — rather than just sort of try to run the clock out.

   I’d add this: I am not so sure the run-the-clock-out strategy is the right one politically either. I still remember the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign in which the former Secretary of State and her campaign just assumed that voters wouldn’t, ultimately, vote for Trump — and that all she had to be was a credible alternative. The reality is that there are a lot more Trump voters out there than Democrats sometimes think. And to win, you need to make an affirmative case FOR you as opposed to just one against him.

The Morning is always a FREE post. But I need your support to continue to do this work! I hope you consider becoming a paid subscriber today. It’s $6 a month or $60 for the year!