New York Times Endorsements for president since 1860
 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...4-endorse.html

Interesting link, haven't looked at it super close but the one WTF moment to me was the endorsement of Wendell Wilkie over FDR in 1940.

Great fodder for the folks that love to talk about how biased the NY Times is.

Carter twice then Mondale and Dukakis- you'd almost think the times is a liberal paper.

Has there been a R worth endorsing in the last 50 years?

So FDR was President for four terms? I guess the two term max wasn't always in place?

Yup, it was put into place after he died...

More specifically, it was put into place *because* of him. George Washington set the informal standard by declining to serve more than two terms, and no President after him challenged that, even though nothing said they couldn't. It was a deferential thing.

Then FDR ran for office four times and did some other things that kind of pissed Congress off, like threatening to pack the Supreme Court if he didn't get his way on some of the New Deal bills, and they were happy to slam that barn door shut so that they didn't have to go through that again.

Heh, check out the quote from the 1964 endorsement of Johnson vs Goldwater:

"Rarely in modern times and never in recent years has there been a campaign in which the issues facing the nation have been so inadequately discussed by the two leading candidates; rarely has a campaign added so little to public knowledge; rarely has its end been so welcome."

Ouch!

And no other president before him sought office after two terms in deference to George Washington, who declined to run for a third term.

Those nutjobs, advocating throwing one's vote away with an independent party in 1896.

I like that one of the supporting reasons for voting for Lincoln was his "manliness."

I was about to persecute your grade school teachers for not doing their job. Then I realized you were from Canada. :D

\m/

Probably as good a reason as most people give nowadays to vote for a particular candidate

I'd be interested to see this for other papers as well. The Dallas paper just endorsed McCain, which shocked me. Even though it's in Texas, the DMN seems pretty liberal to me (relative to complete neutrality, if not other papers - as a paper, it obviously is going to lean left, though it may not lean left as much as other papers.)

Interestingly it seemed one of the reasons the Times backed Wilkie (in addition to they thought his fiscal policy was saner) was because they abhored Roosevelt's running for a 3rd team and messing with the tradition.

That's what his boyfriend liked about him, too.

Ha, hey, if its one thing I know about history, the further back you go the more only the manliest of men are willing to indulge on some man on man lovin'.

In my time in Dallas, the Dallas morning news usually was a hair to the right of most of my feelings on several things. I don't see Mccain's endorsement as a suprise here at all, just the same as I don't see Obama's endorsement by Chicago or New York or Boston papers as a suprise. (I assume Boston Globe has endorsed Obama, if not they will eventually)

Yeah, but look at how many Republicans they've endorsed - Lincoln, Ulysses, Hayes, Garfield, McKinley, Taft, Wilkie, Dewey and Ike.

Eh, what a bunch of RINO's. :)

Why is it ok for newspapers to endorse candidates? Shouldn't they just be reporting what they see and then throwing in some Op Ed pieces if they feel a need to provide opinion?

Just wanted to point out that Teddy Roosevelt ran for a third term in 1912 since he disliked Taft so much. He ran under the famed Bullmoose party.

Roosevelt pulled many of the moderate republicans to form this party and in my opinion, though many could disagree, this was the beginning of the Republican party having a much more conservative ideology.

There was one year listed there (forgot which, since I looked earlier today) where a Democrat guy beat two Republicans? What's that all about? How can you have two candidates from the same party?

from 68 and 72... pretty interesting...

68--on Spiro and the wisdom of appointing him... (he was outside of watergate, but rather dirty on his own doing... but hey, a Michigan boy benefited from this...)... and then 72-- Nixon's lack of principle...

I'm sure they messed up as well, but these two comments seem the most interesting to me...

Re: Bill Clinton in 1996:

"The Presidency he once dreamed is still within his reach if he brings the requsite integrity to the next four years."

Heh.

It's hard to believe, but Wilkie was someone who actually had less experience than Obama.

When I was learning to drive, my Grandma told me something akin to "You won't know about Wendel Wilkie; he ran for President years ago. But one thing I remember about him is that he didn't drive because he said that he would get to distracted on the road." And then she would emphasize that I should not get distracted while driving.

So I guess what I mean is, Wendel Wilkie saved my life, so I think that the NYT was right to endorse him.

The moderates rejoined the Republican Party soon afterwards. People tend to forget this, but Hoover, in addition to being somewhat of a hero for his actions during and after World War 1 in providing humanitarian aid, was a moderate.

Experience is only important if you are running for vice-president.

Most of those guys didn't have experience being President.

And the Republicans, by pushing through the 22nd Amendment, shot themselves in the foot, IMO. They have had two presidents since (Eisenhower and Reagan) who would have cruised to third (and possibly even fourth) terms in office.

Reagan, yeah, I could see a third term. A fourth would be out since his Alzheimer's disclosure was in the early 90s.

However, I don't think Eisenhower would have been an obvious winner in the 1960 election. His late presidency was weighed down by the U-2 shootdown and subsequent buttwhipping by Khrushchev on the world stage in 1960. It's very possible that such an incident might've ruined his change at a third term since the incident happened in the months leading up to the election.

Eisenhower left office with an approval rating in the high 50's. I believe that only one sitting president has lost an election with an approval rating above 50% (Bush Sr.).

Couldn't the same be said about Abraham Lincoln?