Washington Post Non-Endorsement
So, the Washington Post is not going to issue a presidential endorsement this year. A couple of points should be considered as the voting public listens to Post reporters arrogantly claim this hampers press freedoms.
First, the Washington Post endorsing or not endorsing Kamala Harris, a candidate they have been pimpin’ since President Biden was forced out of the campaign, will not change ONE vote. Literally, not one undecided voter or tepid Republican voter would change their vote because of the Washington Post endorsement.
As Charlie Cook tweeted sarcastically this weekend, “I’m not going to cancel my subscription to the Post Because I am still hoping to find out what the paper thinks of Trump.The lack of an endorsement in this election has been a setback in this quest, but, if I keep my subscription and keep reading closely, I may still find out.”
Besides, they can feign neutrality all they want, but Washington Post subscribers, of which I am one, know exactly who they are supporting. They are not clever about hiding their support. Actually, they are not very clever.
Second, as of this writing, it is being reported that they have lost close to two thousand subscribers because of this progressive meltdown. I am not one of them, and my automatic $120 annual subscription fee went through today for another year.
The reporters are, of course, begging subscribers not to end their subscriptions because of the “how will we fund journalism” argument.
Folks, the Washington Post lost $70–$100 million in 2023. It is doubtful 2024 will turn a profit. They had to implement cost-cutting measures, including over 200 staff buyouts, and their traffic has dropped 50% since 2020. Their journalism is not paying the bills … Amazon stock is.
Folks, they are a dumpster fire because the exact staffers complaining about the Post’s non-endorsement are the ideologues who have put the paper on the verge of bankruptcy without the generosity of a billionaire owner.
Long story short, readers know who the Post supports. They are not as dumb as the reporters they subscribe to and read.
Project 2025
Kamala lies. That is a fact. Her media campaign may be one of the biggest misinformation campaigns in modern political history.
Donald Trump cannot deny his disavowal of Project 2025 enough. We are supposed to take her word on her plethora of policy flip-flops (e.g., think fracking, border wall, etc.), but not Trump’s disavowal of Project 2025?
CBS even put that to Kamala in an interview when she was attacking Project 2025 and trying to attach Trump to it. She replies, “As you know, I am a former prosecutor. His DNA is all over it. All over it.” Actually, it isn’t.
Want more proof of Trump’s distance from Project 2025?
From Politico this past week, if you like to read:
The names include conservatives linked to Project 2025 and Republicans viewed as disloyal to the former president.
Kamala will say anything to win.
Note: the opinions expressed herein are those of Chuck Warren only and not his co-host Sam Stone or Breaking Battlegrounds’ staff.
