The New York Times’ editorial board took an unorthodox route by endorsing two Democratic candidates for president, Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone considering the paper’s desperation for someone to beat President Trump, but the candidates it chose are surprising given their long odds of victory.
The endorsement of both candidates is a blatant slap in the face to black voters, a majority of whom have placed their support behind former Vice President Joe Biden. It shows the New York Times editorial board didn’t take into account that to win the Democratic nomination, you have to do well with black voters who are the Democratic Party’s most loyal and important voting bloc. Neither Warren nor Klobuchar polls well with black voters. A recent Washington Post-Ipsos poll has Warren receiving 9% of the black vote and Klobuchar receiving less than 0.5% support from black voters.
There is a consistent and persistent theme in politics, a serious level of naivete regarding electoral politics and black voters. This endorsement by the New York Times is the clearest example of that and shows just how little people understand about black voters, including the white “woke” liberal class.
Let’s take a deeper look at the Washington Post-Ipsos poll, conducted Jan. 2-8.
When asked who has the “best chance of beating Trump,” 53% of black voters said Biden, compared with 18% for Bernie Sanders, 5% for Warren, and Klobuchar, who had 0.5% or less.
When asked who would best “handle issues important to black voters” among the Democratic candidates, 32% said Biden, 19% Sanders, 7% Warren, and once again, Klobuchar had less than 0.5%.
When asked who “would unite the country,” 43% of black voters said Biden, 19% said Sanders, 6% said Warren, and 1% said Klobuchar.
When asked which candidates are “closest on issues” to black voters, 35% said Biden, 20% said Sanders, 9% said Warren, and 2% said Klobuchar.
With numbers such as those for both Warren and Klobuchar, how in the world could any sensible person expect one of them to win the Democratic nomination, let alone win in a general election? No serious person should give the New York Times endorsement any serious consideration or weight because it doesn’t warrant any.
This endorsement says a lot about how black voters are viewed and their importance in electoral politics and not in a good way. The endorsement speaks of a class of people, like demigods, who are so far removed from the reality of how black voters feel, they didn’t even bother to place any serious weight on actual data that showcase black sentiments.
Endorsements are supposed to be meaningful and go to candidates who can actually win. They’re supposed to signify candidates who are in the best position to cross the finish line, which neither Warren or Klobuchar can do with their current standings. Moreover, the lack of thoughtfulness, serious consideration, and reflection that comes as a result of this endorsement voids it of all legitimacy.
This endorsement will be nothing more than a temporary boost that may yield a brief increase in fundraising, but that’s it. It won’t help Warren or Klobuchar increase their standings with black voters, and until that changes, neither one has a chance of winning their party nomination.
The road to the Democratic nomination and ultimately the White House if you’re a Democrat is with African Americans. The fact that the New York Times would endorse two candidates who can’t win over black voters makes a mockery of the importance of the black community.
Shermichael Singleton (@Shermichael_) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a Republican strategist and political analyst regularly appearing on MSNBC.
