"The Economist" endorsements

[buritobr]

British newspaper The Economist "casts a vote" in every election. Outside UK, USA and Italy, The Economist always endorses conservative candidates. In Italy, The Economist doesn't like Berlusconi. In the UK, there were endorsements for the Tories and for the Labour.
In the USA, there were endorsements for Republicans and Democrats

The Economist US presidential endorsements were
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/us-presidential-endorsements

1980: Ronald Reagan
1992: Bill Clinton
1996: Bob Dole
2000: George W. Bush
2004: John Kerry
2008: Barack Obama
2012: Barack Obama

New Hampshire voted always according to The Economist endorsements, except 1996
Colorado voted always according to The Economist endorsements, except 2004


Problably the newspaper will endorse a Republican candidate in 2016. They like to alternate.




And the New York Times is Democrat since 1960. So, if one day this newspaper endorses a Republican candidate, one can be sure that the Democrat candidate is very bad.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

=
1980: Ronald Reagan
1992: Bill Clinton
1996: Bob Dole
2000: George W. Bush
2004: John Kerry
2008: Barack Obama
2012: Barack Obama

Problably the newspaper will endorse a Republican candidate in 2016. They like to alternate.

Except that time when they endorsed three Democrats in a row and (I'm assuming) three Republicans in a row.

[kcguy]

The Economist US presidential endorsements were

1980: Ronald Reagan
1992: Bill Clinton
1996: Bob Dole
2000: George W. Bush
2004: John Kerry
2008: Barack Obama
2012: Barack Obama

Talk about contrarians.  Did it really take them until 2012 before they endorsed the candidate of the party in the White House?

Interesting in that they refused to endorse either candidate in 1984 or 1988, largely because they blamed both candidates for not addressing the budget deficits of the 1980's.

[Kevin]

Interesting that they endorsed Bob Dole in 1996,

The same goes for Barack Obama in 2012 I thought they would have endorsed Mitt Romney. Esp. given that from 2010 to the present they have been quite critical of Obama and his policies since he became President. In addition to the fact that Mitt Romney seemed very much the type of Republican those at the Economist would like.

[H. Ross Peron]

Not that surprised (except for 1996) considering they're an economically liberal (in the sense of being pro-free market) periodical. I suspect in Italy they prefer the neoliberalism of Monti over the Berluscuoni's populism while New Labour certainly would have been attractive to the periodical.

[Indy Texas]

Interesting that they endorsed Bob Dole in 1996,

The same goes for Barack Obama in 2012 I thought they would have endorsed Mitt Romney. Esp. given that from 2010 to the present they have been quite critical of Obama and his policies since he became President. In addition to the fact that Mitt Romney seemed very much the type of Republican those at the Economist would like.

No, Mitt Romney is the type of Republican that Forbes and the WSJ endorse. He's a candidate for red-faced, bloviating commodities traders who think they're "economically productive job creators." He's not a candidate for Serious People.

I can't think of any viable Republican who would get an endorsement from The Economist; Jon Huntsman would come the closest.

[minionofmidas]

New Labour certainly would have been attractive the periodical.

It's more that no one who wanted the Tories to survive as a party in 1997 would have been inclined to keep them away from the opposition benches. It wasn't as if the party stood a hope of surviving in government.

I remember the 2000 endorsement. Whoever did the final editing of that tortured text must have disagreed with its conclusion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Interesting that they endorsed Bob Dole in 1996,

The same goes for Barack Obama in 2012 I thought they would have endorsed Mitt Romney. Esp. given that from 2010 to the present they have been quite critical of Obama and his policies since he became President. In addition to the fact that Mitt Romney seemed very much the type of Republican those at the Economist would like.

No, Mitt Romney is the type of Republican that Forbes and the WSJ endorse. He's a candidate for red-faced, bloviating commodities traders who think they're "economically productive job creators." He's not a candidate for Serious People.

I can't think of any viable Republican who would get an endorsement from The Economist; Jon Huntsman would come the closest.

Actually no, the WSJ and Forbes hated Romney as well, largely because of his immigration position.

[Lurker]

New Labour certainly would have been attractive the periodical.

It's more that no one who wanted the Tories to survive as a party in 1997 would have been inclined to keep them away from the opposition benches. It wasn't as if the party stood a hope of surviving in government.

Actually, The Economist endorsed the Tories in 1997 as well. Only three times have they not done so: 1964, 2001, 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#For_British_general_elections

[MATTROSE94]

Interesting that they endorsed Bob Dole in 1996,

The same goes for Barack Obama in 2012 I thought they would have endorsed Mitt Romney. Esp. given that from 2010 to the present they have been quite critical of Obama and his policies since he became President. In addition to the fact that Mitt Romney seemed very much the type of Republican those at the Economist would like.

No, Mitt Romney is the type of Republican that Forbes and the WSJ endorse. He's a candidate for red-faced, bloviating commodities traders who think they're "economically productive job creators." He's not a candidate for Serious People.

I can't think of any viable Republican who would get an endorsement from The Economist; Jon Huntsman would come the closest.

Actually no, the WSJ and Forbes hated Romney as well, largely because of his immigration position.

Did the WSJ and Forbes support Rick Santorum or Rick Perry during the primaries, or one of the other candidates for the Republican nomination?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Interesting that they endorsed Bob Dole in 1996,

The same goes for Barack Obama in 2012 I thought they would have endorsed Mitt Romney. Esp. given that from 2010 to the present they have been quite critical of Obama and his policies since he became President. In addition to the fact that Mitt Romney seemed very much the type of Republican those at the Economist would like.

No, Mitt Romney is the type of Republican that Forbes and the WSJ endorse. He's a candidate for red-faced, bloviating commodities traders who think they're "economically productive job creators." He's not a candidate for Serious People.

I can't think of any viable Republican who would get an endorsement from The Economist; Jon Huntsman would come the closest.

Actually no, the WSJ and Forbes hated Romney as well, largely because of his immigration position.

Did the WSJ and Forbes support Rick Santorum or Rick Perry during the primaries, or one of the other candidates for the Republican nomination?

Why would they support Santorum who has the same position on that issue and is weaker on economics? There actually was some interest in Rick Perry from these "disgruntled business types" for a short while in the summer of 2011.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1964

!!!!

[Lurker]

1964

!!!!

Yeah, I was pretty surprised about that myself.

The excerpt on wikipedia doesn't really illuminate matters much : "It does seem to The Economist that, on the nicest balance, the riskier choice of Labour - and Mr Wilson - will be the better choice for voters to make on Thursday."

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I suppose the government was looking extremely tired by 1964, but that's not really been a factor in other Economist endorsements. It's particularly odd given their endorsement at the next election.

[windjammer]

Lol "The Economist", slighty libertarian isn't it?