Probably, the New York Times and the Economist will endorse Hillary Clinton

[buritobr]

The last Republican endorsed by the New York Times was Eisenhower in 1956. Even in the landslides of 1972 and 1984, the NYT endorsed McGovern and Mondale. Even in 1976, when the race had a religious southern democrat and a moderate northern republican, the NYT endorsed Jimmy Carter. The NYT will endorse Donald Trump only if the newspaper decide to make some trolling. Or if the Trump Family buy the newspaper. Otherwise, if the NYT decide not to endorse Hillary Clinton, there is bigger probability to endorse Jill Stein.

The Economist had more balanced endorsements. This British newspaper endorsed Ronald Reagan 1980, Bill Clinton 1992, Bob Dole 1996, George W. Bush 2000, John Kerry 2004, Barack Obama 2008 and Barack Obama 2012. Since it endorsed democrats in the three most recent elections, there would be a bigger probability to endorse a republican this year. But Donald Trump doesn't fit into the Economist's political views. The Economist could endorse a more free-marketer republican. Maybe, the newspaper can endorse Gary Johnson. But I think it is hard to endorse a minor candidate. So, I think that probably, the Economist will endorse Hillary Clinton too.

[angus]

Ima give you a pass on the whole subject-verb agreement thing because you do it with style.

Stay thirsty, my friend.

[DavidB.]

In other news, grass is green.

[GMantis]

Hillary Clinton winning all fifty states (including the 3rd district of Nebraska) is considerably more likely than the New York Times endorsing Trump.
As for the Economist endorsing Trump, this is slightly more likely - as in about as likely as Clinton winning 45 states.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yeah I've heard DailyKos is going to endorse Hillary as well - most shocking endorsement since Bill Clinton endorsed Hillary imo.

[Lachi]

Hillary Clinton winning all fifty states (including the 3rd district of Nebraska) is considerably more likely than the New York Times endorsing Trump.
As for the Economist endorsing Trump, this is slightly more likely - as in about as likely as Clinton winning 45 states.

Well if the Dallas Morning News endorsed Hillary, who knows what could happen?

[angus]

do y'all read the New York Times?  I usually read the Washington Post online.  As a matter of fact, I check in just about every day.  Even when I lived in Manhattan I rarely read the times.  It's stolid and particularly boring.  I suppose it appeals to some folks, but I guess I'm too shallow for it.  For example, right now, if you click on nytimes.com, you'll see that the main headline is A Secret History of Colombian Warlords in American Jails.  Sure, it's an interesting and well-written story, and it should be told--and heard--but the telling there is stodgy.  

I really don't think endorsements matter, by the way.  If your hometown newspaper endorses Curious George for mayor, are you any more likely to vote for Curious George because of it?  So we can regard the whole discussion as more of a curio than anything else.  Still, I wonder how many of you turn to the NYT as your main daily digest in the first place.  I know I don't.  There was a period when it was free--my neighbor when I lived in Manhattan subscribed by he was a very late riser, and I'd walk out into the hallway and get his paper around 7:30 and read it and return it by 10 or so; he was never the wiser.  All I ever got out of it was black fingertips.

[Indy Texas]

It seems like this election is accelerating the trend seen since 2008 of "smart/respectable" conservative/market-friendly newspapers and magazines distancing themselves from the Republican Party.

[buritobr]

NYT endorsed Hillary Clinton
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html?_r=0

[Antonio the Sixth]

NYT endorsed Hillary Clinton
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html?_r=0

Why'd it take so long? If I were them I'd make a point of endorsing Hillary right after Drumpf got officially nominated at the RNC. Would have been a good way to show that the choice is so obvious.

[Hilldog]

In other news, grass is green.

New York Times isn't taken seriously outside of the Democrat Party.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

prophetic.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Since it endorsed democrats in the three most recent elections, there would be a bigger probability to endorse a republican this year.

I'm no math major, but that's not how statistics works.

[DavidB.]

New York Times isn't taken seriously outside of the Democrat Party.

lol ok

[HisGrace]

NYT isn't even a question.

There's maybe a minuscule chance The Economist endorses Johnson, but there's a 99% chance they endorse Clinton.

[buritobr]

The Economist endorsed Hillary Clinton
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21709540-why-we-would-cast-our-hypothetical-vote-hillary-clinton-americas-best-hope