4 ms·
In the 2016 campaign I referenced Clinton endorsements vs total endorsements. "No endorsement" received over 3x as many endorsements as the republican candidat
by birken 7y ago
In the 2016 campaign I referenced Clinton endorsements vs total endorsements. "No endorsement" received over 3x as many endorsements as the republican candidate. Also don't oversample from the 2016 election. One of the candidates literally referred to journalists as "enemy of the state". Probably not shocking that many journalistic outlets would rather endorse nobody than a candidate like that. Even going back 4 years you did not see that pattern.
According to Wikipedia, in 2004 the democratic candidate got 52% of the newspaper endorsements. In 2008 the democratic candidate got 62%. These are far from perfect measures but again, if 90% of journalists were in fact democrats then my guess is the number of newspapers that endorsed democratic candidates would be much closer to 90%, and it clearly isn't.
The total donations really aren't really convincing because clearly the vast majority of journalists donate to nobody, so you really don't know exactly what the preference is for the median journalist. I'd also be interested in the stats for 2012, 2008 and previous elections before making any conclusions.
- rayiner 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2008_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_... > As of November 4, 2008, Barack Obama had received more than twice as many publication endorsements as John McCain; in terms of circulation, the ratio was more than 3 to 1, according to the detailed tables below. By circulation, it was like > 75% Obama versus McCain. Assuming journalist employment is roughly proportional to circulation, that suggests that a similar percentage of journalists are Democrats.