This election year has been anything but normal, and it has also proven to be one of the most important presidential elections ever. There is a lot at stake in 2016, and the candidate the American voters elect come November will play a serious role in shaping the future of this country. Recognizing this, the New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton for president and made a last-minute plea to undecided voters in an editorial published on Saturday, Sept. 24.
In its post, the editorial board wrote: "We’re aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs. Clinton — because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent and a political system that seems broken." In some ways, the New York Times' message likely rings true with the various types of voters who have suggested they are perhaps neither interested in Clinton, nor GOP nominee Donald Trump.
Voters have had a hard time putting their trust in Clinton and the New York Times has attempted to reach those voters who are particularly important to this abnormal election. It suggested that comparing the two candidates this year made little sense, as one has a record of public service and the other "discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway."
The Times' endorsement of Clinton comes just days before the first scheduled presidential debate on Sept. 26, which will be especially important for the undecided voters of this year who hold an ever-important role in this election. The outlet argued that Clinton wins its endorsement due to her character, her intellect, and her experience, noting that even with her career setbacks, missteps, and moments that have caused distrust, she is the most obvious choice to lead the country moving forward.
The editorial suggested that this election year has brought to the front the plight of poor and middle-class Americans, noting specifically that they "say their government has done little to ease the burdens that recession, technological change, foreign competition and war have heaped on their families." But the Times' stands by its endorsement of Clinton, and indicated that she is someone who will represent these Americans, citing that she had previously "fought for money for farmers, hospitals, small businesses and environmental projects."
Clinton, according to the New York Times, is the only logical choice for this country moving forward, and the editorial board shared with voters — both decided and not — that "Mr. Trump [is] the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history."