The New York Times offers its completely delusional 2016 primary endorsements

Yesterday, while simultaneously reporting on the FBI investigation that threatens to destroy her candidacy, the New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. We all knew they'd do this. They really had no other choice. As the liberal rag of record, they want to be influential leading up to the Iowa causes, but an endorsement of socialist Bernie Sanders would be their "Declaration of Socialism." Yes, they are socialists, and they never miss the opportunity to fight for big government over-regulation and redistribution of income, but they do so under a laughable guise of impartially. Just like the Democrat Party itself, they're not ready to come out and admit what they really believe because they know most Americans won't follow them down the socialist path.

Never mind that, just one day prior, they ran a story with the headline: "22 Clinton Emails Deemed Too Classified to Be Made Public." The NYT and their liberal allies will never let lies and a potential indictment get between them and their choice for president. It's Hillary’s turn. She is owed. That's all that matters to them. ...And they're so self-absorbed they think their bootlicking will help her get the nod. They would have been better off refusing to endorse anybody, but they can't resist the temptation to believe that their approval will influence voters. Over on the other side of the aisle, things get really bizarre. The New York Times is telling Republicans that they only have one "plausable choice" for 2016. That person is.... John Kasich. When you're done laughing, you can check out their reasoning.

Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, though a distinct underdog, is the only plausible choice for Republicans tired of the extremism and inexperience on display in this race. And Mr. Kasich is no moderate. As governor, he’s gone after public-sector unions, fought to limit abortion rights and opposed same-sex marriage.

---

According to the Times, every other candidate is some kind of alarmist, extremist, or crazed social climber. This is simply delusional. They trash the three Republican who are way out front in the polls, and try to make the case that a middle-of-the-roader like Kasich is the only plausible choice. That's utter insanity. Kasich is in a battle for the "single digits" in the polls. Either the Times is purposely trying to pick a loser, or they bought into Kasich's claim that that Republicans can't win the presidency unless they win Ohio and he's the only one who can do it. Since he's the Governor of Ohio, he should have been a shoe-in, right? Wrong. If that's the Times' tortured logic, they're sorely mistaken. It just isn't working out because of Kasich's inability to inspire people who aren't already enthralled by his political resume. Add to that the unpredictability of this entire presidential race, and you've got one of history's craziest longshot endorsements. The good news is that, despite the Times' wishes, no one really cares what they think. Newspaper endorsements aren't what they used to be. Their impact can never really be determined, because there are too many other factors in play, but if they provide any 'bump' at all, it's a fleeting one. We've seen a lot of them over the last two weeks, and they generate some media attention for about one day. After that, they're mostly forgotten. But nice try, New York Times. Your clout just isn’t what it used to be. You've misled too many people, too many times. I don't think Republican voters are interested in letting you pick their candidate. Let the voting begin!