Great post. There is an irony in the exploding head resignations and outrage. As Paul notes, endorsements have little or no impact, but it strikes me the explosions and resignations might give legs to a decision that has none. The resignations and staff outrage become national news, and convey some suggestion the paper owners don't think Harris is up to presidential snuff. And there might be something to that. Jim Dueholm
Michael Smerconish (CNN) made a good point this morning. “If you’re really outraged at Jeff Bezos [for his not allowing WaPo to issue an endorsement in the Presidential election], are you just going to cancel your subscription to WaPo, or are you also going to stop using Amazon?”
Great post. There is an irony in the exploding head resignations and outrage. As Paul notes, endorsements have little or no impact, but it strikes me the explosions and resignations might give legs to a decision that has none. The resignations and staff outrage become national news, and convey some suggestion the paper owners don't think Harris is up to presidential snuff. And there might be something to that. Jim Dueholm
Michael Smerconish (CNN) made a good point this morning. “If you’re really outraged at Jeff Bezos [for his not allowing WaPo to issue an endorsement in the Presidential election], are you just going to cancel your subscription to WaPo, or are you also going to stop using Amazon?”
The news is a failure to make an endorsement. That is unusual. It leads to rankspeculation as to why, and is deemed a negative for Harris.
I disagree with one thing. Not one vote will be changed by the Times or the Post endorsing or failing to endorsed Harris.