4 ms·

The Venn diagram of those who'd be influenced by a WaPo endorsement and committed Kamala Harris voters is a perfect intersection. For 50 years, WaPo has endorse

by screye 2y ago

The Venn diagram of those who'd be influenced by a WaPo endorsement and committed Kamala Harris voters is a perfect intersection. For 50 years, WaPo has endorsed the democratic candidate [1] for president. No mystery here. It's a pointless endorsement. [1] https://noahveltman.com/endorsements/ https://noahveltman.com/endorsements/

lostdog 2y ago
The endorsement lets them write why they support the candidate. Laying out the reasons is what could be convincing, and is what's also being blocked here.
- warner25 2y ago
  I think the intuition of the parent comment is right, but you also make a fair point[1]. I just wonder if you genuinely believe that any prospective Trump voter could be convinced by any argument to vote for Harris at this point. I mean after all the things that have already been written and said by so many, even by Trump himself, and have failed to convince ~47% of Americans that he's unfit to be the president. Honestly, I look at the billions of dollars being poured into political ads, and I can't help but think that it's all a tremendous waste because it's hard to imagine that there's anybody left who didn't already form a strong opinion about Trump at some point over the past ten years. [1] Like even assuming that prospective Trump voters don't read this newspaper, an especially novel or powerful argument could get picked up and spread by other outlets that do reach prospective Trump voters.
  - smokedetector1 2y ago
    Political ads have many purposes, including convincing people to vote for their candidate, instilling a sense of urgency/motivation/purpose to actually get out and vote, and then second order goals like general PR/familiarity for the party, etc.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Undecided voters will decide the election, yes they exist and yes they can change opinions
  - Glyptodon 2y ago
    I don't really expect that there are Trump voters who could be convinced to vote for Harris by the op-ed, but I do think there could be voters who may have been on the verge of reconsidering Trump who may hear something like this story (of Bezos stopping an endorsement) as something that makes them identify their moment of reconsideration as a mistake because they think Bezo's behavior should be perceived as supporting the concept that Democrats and other anti-Trump parties are the ones off-kilter.
- refurb 2y ago
  But this change doesn't stop any of the journalists from writing editorials endorsing a candidate, including laying out reasons, correct? The difference is that the paper as a whole won't endorse a candidate?
rozap 2y ago
And it opens to them up to retribution from Trump if he wins, which is his entire method of operating. From a game theory perspective it doesn't make sense for them to do an endorsement when a mob boss type character is about to get elected.
- noirbot 2y ago
  Let's be clear who "them" is. It's Bezos. The people at the paper wrote up the whole thing and then were blocked by Bezos and the CEO of the paper. You can argue it's game-theory sensible, but it certainly tells you that Bezos doesn't care to put any of his vast money at risk for any cause at all.
  - rozap 2y ago
    Yes but we know this about him.
    - noirbot 2y ago
      Sure, but let's not pretend the writers at the paper are deciding this is better for their future. And let's not even give Bezos the grace that this is about if the Post succeeds. It's clear this is about if Amazon or Blue Origin gets contracts in the future under Trump and he's willing to burn down the Post to avoid that downside.
- addandsubtract 2y ago
  "Lets not oppose nazis in case they gain power again." You're morally and humanly bankrupt if you believe and act this way.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Well, lots of people did and do and will behave that way. Cravenness runs amok.
  - JeremyNT 2y ago
    > You're morally and humanly bankrupt if you believe and act this way. Those characteristics are, if not strictly required, at least overrepresented in billionaires. It seems like a reasonable approximation for how Bezos might perceive his situation here. You don't usually get to be a billionaire by caring very much about morality.
selimthegrim 2y ago
1988 isn’t 50 years
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  They skipped 88 because the editorial board decided they didn't want to endorse.
metabagel 2y ago
On the other hand, Trump is using the L.A. Times non-endorsement to attack Harris. So, it does matter. Endorsements express the values of the paper and gives people more information about the candidates and what is at stake.

by screye 2y ago

lostdog 2y ago

The endorsement lets them write why they support the candidate. Laying out the reasons is what could be convincing, and is what's also being blocked here.

warner25 2y ago
I think the intuition of the parent comment is right, but you also make a fair point[1]. I just wonder if you genuinely believe that any prospective Trump voter could be convinced by any argument to vote for Harris at this point. I mean after all the things that have already been written and said by so many, even by Trump himself, and have failed to convince ~47% of Americans that he's unfit to be the president. Honestly, I look at the billions of dollars being poured into political ads, and I can't help but think that it's all a tremendous waste because it's hard to imagine that there's anybody left who didn't already form a strong opinion about Trump at some point over the past ten years. [1] Like even assuming that prospective Trump voters don't read this newspaper, an especially novel or powerful argument could get picked up and spread by other outlets that do reach prospective Trump voters.
- smokedetector1 2y ago
  Political ads have many purposes, including convincing people to vote for their candidate, instilling a sense of urgency/motivation/purpose to actually get out and vote, and then second order goals like general PR/familiarity for the party, etc.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Undecided voters will decide the election, yes they exist and yes they can change opinions
- Glyptodon 2y ago
  I don't really expect that there are Trump voters who could be convinced to vote for Harris by the op-ed, but I do think there could be voters who may have been on the verge of reconsidering Trump who may hear something like this story (of Bezos stopping an endorsement) as something that makes them identify their moment of reconsideration as a mistake because they think Bezo's behavior should be perceived as supporting the concept that Democrats and other anti-Trump parties are the ones off-kilter.
refurb 2y ago
But this change doesn't stop any of the journalists from writing editorials endorsing a candidate, including laying out reasons, correct? The difference is that the paper as a whole won't endorse a candidate?

rozap 2y ago

And it opens to them up to retribution from Trump if he wins, which is his entire method of operating. From a game theory perspective it doesn't make sense for them to do an endorsement when a mob boss type character is about to get elected.

noirbot 2y ago
Let's be clear who "them" is. It's Bezos. The people at the paper wrote up the whole thing and then were blocked by Bezos and the CEO of the paper. You can argue it's game-theory sensible, but it certainly tells you that Bezos doesn't care to put any of his vast money at risk for any cause at all.
- rozap 2y ago
  Yes but we know this about him.
  - noirbot 2y ago
    Sure, but let's not pretend the writers at the paper are deciding this is better for their future. And let's not even give Bezos the grace that this is about if the Post succeeds. It's clear this is about if Amazon or Blue Origin gets contracts in the future under Trump and he's willing to burn down the Post to avoid that downside.
addandsubtract 2y ago
"Lets not oppose nazis in case they gain power again." You're morally and humanly bankrupt if you believe and act this way.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Well, lots of people did and do and will behave that way. Cravenness runs amok.
- JeremyNT 2y ago
  > You're morally and humanly bankrupt if you believe and act this way. Those characteristics are, if not strictly required, at least overrepresented in billionaires. It seems like a reasonable approximation for how Bezos might perceive his situation here. You don't usually get to be a billionaire by caring very much about morality.

selimthegrim 2y ago

1988 isn’t 50 years

unethical_ban 2y ago
They skipped 88 because the editorial board decided they didn't want to endorse.

metabagel 2y ago

On the other hand, Trump is using the L.A. Times non-endorsement to attack Harris. So, it does matter. Endorsements express the values of the paper and gives people more information about the candidates and what is at stake.