
<p>Two of the most prominent – and most liberal – newspapers in America have announced their last minute decision to skip making the anticipated endorsement of Vice President Harris. To say that is a shocker is a gross understatement.</p>



<p>The decision by these two publications is tearing the heart out of the left-wing Democrat establishment – which has considered the Times and the Post as essentially in-house newsletters.</p>



<p>It is especially noteworthy in an election year in which Democrats have been trying to draw a stark contrast between good and evil – accusing Trump of being a dyed-in-the-wool fascist authoritarian who will literally end the 235-year-old American democracy.</p>



<p>The last time the Post passed on a presidential endorsement was in 1976 – in the race between Jimmy Carter and incumbent President Jerry Ford. ; That was attributed a belief that both men were equally qualified. ; Neither Carter nor Food were considered to be ; &#8212; ; nor accused of being &#8212; a threat to democracy itself.</p>



<p>Newspaper non-endorsements have always been based on the belief that there is no notable difference between the candidates in terms of qualifications or policies. This one will be seen as the same rationale by many – and THAT is what has the left’s hair on fire. If Trump was truly the political ogre as Harris claims him to be, the Post and the Times would have a moral and civic obligation to oppose him. </p>



<p>Are voters to believe that the Times and the Post both believe that Trump would destroy America, but do not care? ; Of course not. They clearly have to believe that it does not matter which candidate is elected President of the United States – that Trump is not the serious threat to democracy as Democrats campaign narratives claim.</p>



<p>While the two publications said that their decisions were based on a dedication to “independence”, the decision was clearly beneficial to Trump. Certainly, a publication whose motto is “Democracy Dies in Darkness” is clearly undermining the Harris contention that Trump is an existential threat to democracy.</p>



<p>The shock to the left-wing establishment’s system was evident in the immediate resignation of Robert Kagan, the D.C. Post’s editor-at-large, and a number of writers from the LA Times. ; There was also a rash of subscriber cancelations.</p>



<p>In search of some explanation, those on the left point the finger at Post owner and Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos, who is alleged to have made – or at least influenced the editorial decision for the Post. ; They claim that it is due to the fact that he and Trump have feuded – and Trump could be a threat to Bezos’ empire. ; If that were the case, it would make more sense for him to do everything possible to defeat Trump. ; Taking a pass on an endorsement only helps Trump by pushing back against the Harris end-of-America campaign strategy.</p>



<p>That also does not explain why the LA Times made a similar decision. ; After all, the Times is a very liberal publication in a very deep blue state. ;</p>



<p>Ironically, an LA Times and a Post endorsement would not have had much impact on the race. California is a deep blue state and will wind up in the Harris column. Since everyone assumed the Post would endorse Harris – as they planned to do – such an endorsement would have had little impact. But the non-endorsement does. It gives voters a reason to question Harris’ claims that Trump is a fascist who will end democracy in America.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

LA Times and DC Post not endorsing in presidential race. WHAT?
