The British newspaper ' The Economist ' has announced its endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris in the upcoming 2024 U.S. presidential election, marking a strong stance against her opponent, former President Donald Trump . In a detailed editorial published on Thursday, the editors outlined their reasons for supporting Harris, characterising the choice as critical amid a contentious political environment.
“While some newspapers refused to back a presidential candidate this year, today The Economist is endorsing Kamala Harris,” the editors wrote, signalling their confidence in her candidacy. They pointed to the high stakes involved in this election, stating that “tens of millions of Americans will vote for Mr. Trump next week. Some will be true believers. But many will take a calculated risk that in office, his worst instincts would be constrained.” The editors warned that a Trump victory could mean Americans are “gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace.”
Earlier this year, The Economist had urged President Joe Biden to step aside from the race, noting what they considered his underwhelming performance in a debate against Trump. “Mr. Biden says he is standing again to help ordinary Americans and to save democracy from Mr Trump’s vengeful demagoguery,” the editorial noted. The editors argued, however, that if Biden truly prioritises his stated goals, “his last and greatest public service should be to stand aside for another Democratic nominee.”
Some major American outlets have chosen not to endorse a candidate this cycle. USA Today and The Washington Post, aiming to maintain neutrality in the current political climate , notably refrained from backing either candidate. Yet this neutrality may have impacted readership, with NPR reporting a significant loss of digital subscribers for The Washington Post following its announcement to remain neutral. The New York Post, meanwhile, is among the few prominent publications to publicly back Trump.
For The Economist, the editorial supporting Harris acknowledged her potential limitations but ultimately deemed them manageable. “Harris’s shortcomings, by contrast, are ordinary. And none of them are disqualifying,” the editors noted, ending on a decisive note: “If The Economist had a vote, we would cast it for her.”
With this endorsement, The Economist joins other outlets supporting Harris, including The New York Times , Boston Globe, Seattle Times, Las Vegas Sun, New Yorker, and Philadelphia Inquirer, further strengthening the international and domestic backing for the vice president’s campaign.
“While some newspapers refused to back a presidential candidate this year, today The Economist is endorsing Kamala Harris,” the editors wrote, signalling their confidence in her candidacy. They pointed to the high stakes involved in this election, stating that “tens of millions of Americans will vote for Mr. Trump next week. Some will be true believers. But many will take a calculated risk that in office, his worst instincts would be constrained.” The editors warned that a Trump victory could mean Americans are “gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace.”
Earlier this year, The Economist had urged President Joe Biden to step aside from the race, noting what they considered his underwhelming performance in a debate against Trump. “Mr. Biden says he is standing again to help ordinary Americans and to save democracy from Mr Trump’s vengeful demagoguery,” the editorial noted. The editors argued, however, that if Biden truly prioritises his stated goals, “his last and greatest public service should be to stand aside for another Democratic nominee.”
Some major American outlets have chosen not to endorse a candidate this cycle. USA Today and The Washington Post, aiming to maintain neutrality in the current political climate , notably refrained from backing either candidate. Yet this neutrality may have impacted readership, with NPR reporting a significant loss of digital subscribers for The Washington Post following its announcement to remain neutral. The New York Post, meanwhile, is among the few prominent publications to publicly back Trump.
For The Economist, the editorial supporting Harris acknowledged her potential limitations but ultimately deemed them manageable. “Harris’s shortcomings, by contrast, are ordinary. And none of them are disqualifying,” the editors noted, ending on a decisive note: “If The Economist had a vote, we would cast it for her.”
With this endorsement, The Economist joins other outlets supporting Harris, including The New York Times , Boston Globe, Seattle Times, Las Vegas Sun, New Yorker, and Philadelphia Inquirer, further strengthening the international and domestic backing for the vice president’s campaign.
You may also like
PGA Tour and LIV Golf set to end sport's civil war as Rory McIlroy 'helps broker £1bn deal'
Facebook India's net profit up 43 pc to Rs 505 crore in FY24
FA Cup hero forced to work day job hours before historic Huddersfield Town upset
Indian Coast Guard rescues critically-ill seafarer from Liberian carrier MT Babylon
Travel Insurance: The way there have been threats of bombing flights in the recent days, awareness about travel insurance has once again increased among passengers
