Articles, Blog

NY Times Makes Cowardly Endorsement

January 23, 2020

>>The New York Times editorial board has
done something unconventional with their presidential endorsement. They have chosen to endorse two candidates
in the Democratic primary. And they’re two women who are incredibly different
when it comes to their political ideology and their policy proposals, Elizabeth Warren
and Amy Klobuchar. Now, let’s get into the reasoning that they
give or they provide in their piece on this. First, they announced it on Twitter, saying,
breaking, the New York Times editorial board has endorsed two candidates, Amy Klobuchar
and Senator Warren, for the Democratic presidential primary. Now, in the piece that they link to, they
write, the Democratic Primary contest is often portrayed as a tussle between moderates and
progressives. To some extent, that’s true, but when we spent
significant time with the leading candidates, the similarity of their platforms on fundamental
issues became striking.>>That may be because you’re not doing journalism.>>Or reading anything about their policy
proposals or ideology, but let me give you more. Nearly any of them, meaning all of these Democratic
candidates, would be the most progressive president in decades on issues like health
care, the economy, and government’s allocation of resources. Where they differ most significantly is not
the what but the how, in whether they believe the country’s institutions and norms are up
to the challenge of the moment. We worry about ideological rigidity and overreach,
and we’d certainly push back on specific policy proposals like normalizing health insurance
or decriminalizing the border. But we are also struck by how much more effectively
their messages have matched the moment. So look, before we get into the specifics
of what they had to say about Warren and Klobuchar, I do wanna note that this is such a, I think
that it’s a cowardly move on behalf of the editorial board. And the reason why I say that is because the
way they handled this is, well, look, we don’t wanna have to make a decision and endorse
one specific person. So instead, we’re going to endorse two people
who represent two different ideological components of the Democratic party, right? But I mean, what is that supposed to help
with? Sam Seder said something pretty funny. So if there was a dictatorial, pro-totalitarian
government candidate, do you give that option as well? Here’s the progressive candidate, here’s the
centrist candidate, here’s the dictator candidate, go ahead, take your pick. That’s not the point of the endorsement, but
anyway.>>To be fair to the New York Times, there
is that candidate, and they didn’t endorse him, that’s Trump, okay, and they were very
clear about that. They’re like, he’s a threat to democracy,
and they actually did point that out. I’ll be further fair to the New York Times,
at first, when I saw the headline, I was like, don’t tell me that you think they’re the same
people, their policies are completely different. Now,we did read you that quote where they
say they’re strikingly similar, but then they went on to say, well, no, they do represent
the two different wings of the party, the centrist wing and the progressive wing. Now, if you wanted to pick somebody who represents
the progressive wing, well, it’s fairly clear who you would pick, you would pick Bernie
Sanders. But they loathe him, so I’m gonna-
>>They can’t stand him.>>But there are specifics on that, we’ll
get to that in a second. But the first comment I wanted to make is,
they said in that same quote that Anna read, they’ve done a great job of resonating with
the voters. No, they haven’t, Warren has done a good job. At one point, she had caught Biden and even
passed him in the national polls. She’s gone up and down, up and down, but she’s
been in the race the entire time. Klobuchar’s never cleared 5%.>>They’re so desperate to make Klobuchar
a thing.>>That’s exactly my point.>>They’re so desperate, it doesn’t matter
how poorly she’s performing in the polls, it doesn’t matter how uninspiring she is for
voters. They’re still focusing on her, it’s amazing.>>Along with the rest of the mainstream media,
they’re trying to will Amy Klobuchar’s campaign into existence. It has not resonated at all with the voters. She, most of the campaign, was seventh or
eighth behind Andrew Yang. But yet Yang would often be ignored and they’d
be like, but Klobuchar. And even at this late date when she has absolutely
no chance, they’re endorsing Klobuchar, why, cuz they want it so bad. And they later noted Cory Booker, Kamala Harris,
and these other people they call moderates. They’re like, it’s a shame they didn’t do
well. Well, then think about it, New York Times. Is there some chance that the Democratic voters
don’t agree with you? You desperately want what you considered a
moderate to win, but they’re not winning. And Klobuchar’s not anywhere close to winning. And all those other moderate candidates ran
right into a brick wall. But yet, it’s your point of view that it’s
gotta be a centrist, which actually is the worst part of this editorial, which I’ll get
to at the end.>>So I actually want to go to what they had
to say about Bernie Sanders. Now, to accompany this dual endorsement, they
have started putting out the full interviews with the various candidates. They put out the interview with Bernie Sanders
first. And if you wanna get your blood pressure up,
you should watch it, or listen to it, I should say. But here’s what they wrote about Sanders in
this piece. There’s how Sanders approaches politics. He boasts that compromise is an anathema to
him. Only his prescriptions can be the right ones,
even through most are overly rigid, untested, and divisive. By the way, they referred to him as divisive
several times in this piece. He promises, that once in office, a groundswell
of support will emerge to push through his agenda. Three years into the Trump administration,
we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington
for another. So they compare him to Donald Trump. But more importantly, understand that they
minimize and they belittle the groundswell of support that Bernie Sanders can tap into
in order to accomplish his legislative agenda. At the same time though, these are the same
people who go after the so-called Berniebros on Twitter, because of their support for Bernie
Sanders. How they’re willing to fight for him, how
vociferously they’re willing to fight for him. They acknowledge that those people exist,
they acknowledge that they’re fighters, they acknowledge that they’re willing to do what
it takes to help support Bernie Sanders’s legislative agenda. But when that fact doesn’t suit them, or it
isn’t convenient for the argument they’re trying to make, they minimize it and they
belittle it.>>What’s actually the most disheartening
part of, not just this editorial, but what the New York Times has done throughout this
entire campaign, is finding out, turns out they were never in the fact business. They were in the establishment protection
racket, and this proves it. So wait, you’re telling me that you can’t
tell the difference between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, that you find them equally
divisive? But wait, one side is known for lying. Pathological liar Donald Trump has now lied
over 15,000 times while in office. The other side, whether you like him or not,
whether you agree with his policies or not, is known for being the one honest politician. Do you think that Bernie Sanders hasn’t been
honest, can you credibly make that claim? You can disagree with him, but the guy’s had
the same position for 40 years, he’s been consistent, he’s never changed his mind on
it. Even when I disagree with him, I say, well,
I might disagree, but he’s at least honest, right? And that’s what almost everybody says, I’ve
seen the most right-wing guys in the world say that. So you’re saying that Trump, you can’t tell? Well, then you shouldn’t be a reporter if
you can’t tell the difference between Trump and Bernie Sanders. And I’m not even just talking about policy,
I’m talking about them being divisive. Well, once a guy says, let’s divide the whole
country, it’s us and only us, and screw all the minorities and Latinos and African-Americans
and Muslims, etc. Another guy says, let’s bring everybody together,
you can’t tell the difference? You’re a reporter? You’re a reporter, this is the editorial board
of the New York Times? I mean, it’s like saying, look, you got Stalin
on one side and you got Mother Teresa on the other side, they’re both equally divisive. I mean, Stalin says, let’s kill everybody
we don’t agree with, and only help the powerful within my Politburo. And then Mother Teresa says, let’s help the
poor and the needy. I mean, they’re both divisive, why isn’t Mother
Teresa helping the billionaires? Why isn’t she doing it, divisive. So that’s who the New York Times is. They’re here to serve the wealthy and the
powerful. So that’s why Bernie Sanders gets under every
nerve they have.>>Yeah, and I also wanna point out that what
they find appealing about Warren, and they state this in their piece, is the fact that
she is willing to compromise and back down on progressive policies like Medicare for
All. Just one more excerpt from it, just to prove
my point. They write, Warren sometimes sounds like a
candidate who sees a universe of us-versus-thems, who, in the general election, would be going
up against a president who has already divided America into his own version of them and us. This has been most obvious in her case for
Medicare for All, where she has already had to soften her message, as voters have expressed
their lack of support for her plan, what?>>Yeah, that’s not what happened at all. But that goes to prove their bias.>>Manufacturing consent.>>That’s right, so her numbers dip after
she says, well, not exactly Medicare for All. New York Times looks at that and goes, you
see that, she’s too progressive. But wait a minute, she announced a plan that
was avowedly less progressive. And then she says, well, look, that’s not
even good enough, I’m gonna go for public option. That is clearly less progressive, her poll
numbers go further down. New York Times goes, see, too progressive. Okay, well, then you’re not fact-based, you
have a total alternate reality with alternative facts. So that gets me to the worst point. Before that, though, I do it every time, under
their skin, hits a nerve, two different sayings. Okay, so now, they talk at the end of the
piece about compromise, we need compromise. And you saw the earlier quote that Anna read
to you about, Bernie doesn’t compromise, it’s an anathema to him, right? Who are we compromising with, Mitch McConnell? Wait, wait, wait, you’re a reporter for the
New York Times, and you think Mitch McConnell will compromise with Democrats? Is that what you think? You think that he’s gonna do a give and take,
you think that he’s gonna be reasonable? But wait a minute, all the Republicans support
Donald Trump 100%. Look at what’s happening in the Senate right
now. Are you in the Biden camp of, no, don’t worry,
after I win, Republicans will become reasonable again. No, if you’re watching today’s politics, and
your job is to report on it. And you genuinely believe that after this
election, the Republicans will completely switch over and go, we’re back to compromising. We don’t wanna obstruct Democrats like we
did when we blocked Obama’s Supreme Court pick for a year, and when we broke the filibuster
record. And we’re not serving our donors at all, we’re
having a philosophical debate. Hey, what’s your ideology, what’s my ideology? The checks I got, the millions of dollars
they got from donors, that’s not relevant at all. Look away, New York Times, what are you, the
paper of record? No, don’t look at the one thing that drives
me the most. Instead, pretend I’m having an ideological
debate, and that if you are reasonable enough with me, that the Republicans will compromise. If that is your naive, childish view of politics,
you should actually fold up shop. That’s not reporting at all, that’s embarrassing. If you actually did real reporting, you would
talk about the donors that they have and you would say, hey, look at that. It appears when I match the donors to their
voting record, it’s nearly a 100% match. My god, I might have found the Rosetta Stone. What’s the oldest thing in journalism, follow
the money. But when it comes to corruption, The New York
Times never does that. Instead, they encourage that corruption and
put childish op-eds like this. And my god, if Democrats would just compromise
with the Republicans, I bet they’d be really reasonable. Really, that’s reporting? That’s super sad.

You Might Also Like


  • Reply The Young Turks January 22, 2020 at 3:22 am

    Take control of your internet experience this holiday season with at Get a 3-year plan for 70% off plus 1 extra month for free!

  • Reply aa Rayle January 22, 2020 at 12:17 pm

    Is it sad and uninformed? Yes. But its not "reporting" its op-ed. "Let's be real"

  • Reply Mike C January 22, 2020 at 12:17 pm

    They obviously are making this about sexism, in a bid to try and sway the sheeple.

  • Reply Steve Schmunk January 22, 2020 at 12:21 pm

    A silly attempt to split the vote somehow , question mark , like I said silly .

  • Reply Eric Burkheimer January 22, 2020 at 12:27 pm

    It's not that I can't stand Bernie, I can't stand his BERNouts. I'll say it again, his supporters are sycophantic zealots, and in terms of their zealotry, they're just like Trump's MAGATs. He can do no wrong. Besides, you all have this eat-the-rich mentality, and I just can't get behind that.

  • Reply Purethicknesse January 22, 2020 at 12:27 pm

    Who is klobachar?

  • Reply matt reeves January 22, 2020 at 12:27 pm

    Warren is the center wing though right? The other ones are the right wingers

  • Reply Eric Burkheimer January 22, 2020 at 12:32 pm

    You're right Ana, it doesn't matter how bad she's doing in the polls, or whether or not she's "inspiring." We all found Obama to be inspiring, and while I think he was a great President, you twats weren't satisfied. The point is, she would make a very good President… Even if she is moderate.

  • Reply Steve Schmunk January 22, 2020 at 12:33 pm

    Republicans compromising – a political anomaly.

  • Reply Mark Gorenshtein January 22, 2020 at 12:34 pm

    I used to be a Trump supporter. I’m ashamed. I need Ana to dress me up in slutty lingerie, spank me till I cry, rape me with a big black strapons and piss in my mouth when Bernie wins.

  • Reply Bickus Dickus January 22, 2020 at 12:45 pm

    I don't think it's cowardly, they didn't have to endorse anyone.

  • Reply denny den January 22, 2020 at 12:55 pm


  • Reply Jim Harrigan January 22, 2020 at 1:01 pm

    When hiring a dealer to represent you – Do not hire one who wants to compromise your positions from the start. Hire one who will fight to get everything one can, but compromise as a very last resort.

  • Reply zanechaos January 22, 2020 at 1:09 pm

    This person eats their dog’s ass

  • Reply Alejandro Frade January 22, 2020 at 1:14 pm

    Its actually very brave, they are supporting two strong women, and one is a Native American…….hahahahaha
    By the way, Sam Seder?? Really Ana? You listen to that moron?

  • Reply zanechaos January 22, 2020 at 1:19 pm

    I thought mother theresa was a racist and abused kids

  • Reply Justin Holmes January 22, 2020 at 1:19 pm

    NYT is ridiculous

  • Reply Aaron Sanders January 22, 2020 at 1:21 pm

    Bernie's policies have almost ALL been tested…in other countries where the people are actually protected by their governments.

  • Reply Alejandro Frade January 22, 2020 at 1:23 pm

    Oh yes, finally the NYTIMES endorsed two powerful women. Now we might finally have a Centrist woman with no charisma, who represents the rich.
    If only the last time we had someone like that against Trump.

  • Reply Mauritius Dunfagel January 22, 2020 at 1:48 pm

    I remember when NYT was a reputable paper. Now they are a tool of the establishment. Now I know Warren is a crook and a phony!

  • Reply Linda Blackwell January 22, 2020 at 1:52 pm

    NYTs is owned by the very People we the people are fighting against; the Oligarchy (extreme wealthy).

  • Reply Xnerdz January 22, 2020 at 1:54 pm

    Don't you see it? Klobutcher is polling at a STRONG 7th lol

  • Reply Ohhitisjustme January 22, 2020 at 1:54 pm

    So NYT wanna endorse the 2 weaker candidates… it’s their issues not ours

  • Reply White Creek Radio January 22, 2020 at 2:01 pm

    There are too many issues in today's society to cover with 1 candidate in 1 party. What do the Democrats stand for regardless? Biden wants a Republican running mate, Buttigieg is a lying corporate puppet and Bloomberg is another racist billionaire.

  • Reply Mauritius Dunfagel January 22, 2020 at 2:01 pm

    Warren is a genuine asshole!

  • Reply Nalidus January 22, 2020 at 2:12 pm

    NYT is still relevant?

  • Reply Dr Brooklyn January 22, 2020 at 2:18 pm

    Nobody wants to decriminalize the border. They snuck that in there to make someone look like a threat to Americans.

  • Reply jake reed January 22, 2020 at 2:18 pm

    It’s Sander’s way or no way. The NYT thinks thousands of people dying because of their lack of healthcare is debatable. They think a generation of young people should be debt burdened for life. They think we should let the planet die. Let’s just be clear on that. That’s Bernie being “divisive.”

  • Reply Nalidus January 22, 2020 at 2:22 pm

    Automatic downvote for your shilling of the worst VPN service out there, NordVPN.

  • Reply Stephen Lee January 22, 2020 at 2:23 pm

    Sounds like someone isn't familiar with Mother Theresa's legacy…

  • Reply Dr Brooklyn January 22, 2020 at 2:25 pm

    To be fair Mother Theresa was really racist. If you equate Stalin's classism with her racism they kinda are really similar.

  • Reply Nathan LeClair January 22, 2020 at 2:30 pm

    Ana with The Majority Report shoutout. Left is best!

  • Reply Carol Schneider January 22, 2020 at 2:32 pm

    Mother Teresa was a monster. Read Christopher Hitchens’ book the Missionary Position.

  • Reply CaveWang January 22, 2020 at 2:41 pm

    Mother thresa is a bad bad example

  • Reply Baku kay January 22, 2020 at 2:46 pm

    Amy Kloubacha? LMAOOO

  • Reply utterlyviolet January 22, 2020 at 2:51 pm

    Stop trying to make Klobuchar happen! Stop trying to make Fetch happen!

  • Reply Wendell 717 January 22, 2020 at 2:54 pm

    The USA is a caricature of ELITISM.

  • Reply Wendell 717 January 22, 2020 at 2:59 pm

    The USA MSM and Establishment rely on stupid people reading and watching their BS reporting. If the general public would STOP IT and find other independent outlets, they'd be better informed🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🙄.

  • Reply ping oh' January 22, 2020 at 3:01 pm

    Are they different?

  • Reply Cnut Olderson January 22, 2020 at 3:07 pm

    Bernie is the totalitarian candidate

  • Reply Chantay Berry January 22, 2020 at 3:08 pm

    It's messed up that Klobuchar (a former prosecutor) had an ABSOLUTE HORRIBLE record when it came to black people. But if course, Kamala Harris was dragged by the people from the right and even the left. The media need to do their job to hold Klobuchar accountable for her record.

  • Reply Cnut Olderson January 22, 2020 at 3:10 pm

    Bernie Sanders is a Stalin in the making

  • Reply Ringersoll January 22, 2020 at 3:12 pm

    “To put it quite clearly: we have an economic program. Point No. 13 in that program demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as Democratic Socialism. …the basic principle of my Party’s economic program should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. My progressive administration would always retain the right to control property owners.”
    -Bernie Sanders 2024

  • Reply Scott Jordan January 22, 2020 at 3:26 pm

    I endorse Bernie Sanders because I don't tolerate bullshit terribly well.

  • Reply k31than January 22, 2020 at 3:35 pm

    Identity politics, obviously.

  • Reply Bee Juice January 22, 2020 at 3:52 pm

    What does it matter? Trump is going to win in 2020. I can’t wait for the TYT meltdown.

  • Reply Bee Juice January 22, 2020 at 3:56 pm

    Bernie’s bass supports gulags, reeducation, and setting reporters on fire in the streets. Trumps base wants to make America great again. We are the people that want to work hard and make our country and our community better.

  • Reply Joe Anderson January 22, 2020 at 4:02 pm

    😂😂🤣🤣 Tyt regurgitates Nyt trash stories constantly, now they call the bull$hit it's about time.

  • Reply NoQB January 22, 2020 at 4:02 pm

    How to know when Bernie is done, when NYT's tells you to kick rocks. what TYT and their small group of viewers
    don't understand, America is made up of republicans and democrats and Cuba is where socialist live.

  • Reply sheri672 January 22, 2020 at 4:20 pm

    NYT, stop trying to make fetch happen! It's not going to happen!

  • Reply shutdafup January 22, 2020 at 4:34 pm

    Nobody cares about ANYBODY'S endorsements ….. If anything, endorsements turn people off to a candidate

  • Reply Michael Gast January 22, 2020 at 4:45 pm

    The NYT has become a sellout, oligarch-seduced propaganda machine for the status quo.

  • Reply ArchAngel_G January 22, 2020 at 4:48 pm

    Mother Teresa wanted to help the poor by making them suffer. She thought their suffering brought them closer to God. I would do some research into that vile woman because she doesn't deserve to be compared to another monster.

  • Reply NoRace January 22, 2020 at 4:49 pm

    NYT always had Horrible reporting

  • Reply Ashley Miller January 22, 2020 at 5:01 pm

    at least they didn’t endorse Biden.

  • Reply MalleyaBull January 22, 2020 at 5:05 pm

    I can only picture the cowardly lion all like….well…youd have to see into my mind.

  • Reply MalleyaBull January 22, 2020 at 5:06 pm

    Yes because they have more than one writer.

  • Reply MalleyaBull January 22, 2020 at 5:08 pm

    Ana doing the head bobbing thing. Lol.

  • Reply Mishnel Vincent January 22, 2020 at 5:21 pm

    The NYT endorsement was Warren, she has more detailed text, but they didn't want to offend the establishment so they pick Klobishar as a backup.

    But, the real question is : who care about that endorsement once in the voting booth?

  • Reply Kolypsa Disruptive Technology January 22, 2020 at 5:25 pm

    Let's be honest about what's going on. Babyboomers are only reason cronies haven't been removed already.

  • Reply MalleyaBull January 22, 2020 at 5:40 pm

    Ana bobs her head in the 2nd minute

  • Reply lladnara stalinovich January 22, 2020 at 5:41 pm

    Great example of Cenk repeating the worst lies in history. Mother Tereasa said "poverty is beautiful" and a thorough examination of her life reveals that she was profoundly cruel to those in her care.

    You think the millions of people that moved from mud huts into modern apartments with electricity and running water thought Stalin only helped the party elite? There is a mystical view of Stalin as a menace every soviet citizen hated. That's not how leadership works. Every leader needs a base of support.

    Do you know what it was like not to be able to read during the 20th century? Most in eurasia did before the bolsheviks ran massive literacy campaigns to change it. Do you think they thought Stalin only helped the politburo?

    There were famines every handful of years for centuries in the russian empire. People knew the pain of hunger. Despite difficulties, the bolsheviks ended that hunger. Do you think they thought Stalin only helped the party elite?

    When the Red Army killed over 90 percent of the nazis killed during world war 2, at a cost of 20 million civilian and military casualties- saving the world from Hitlerism nearly single handedly, do you think mankind thought the Soviet Union only helped the politburo?

    There are many valid criticisms of Stalin, but the obvious conclusion of the cult of the man of steel is that he was like a god to millions of people because he became a personification of their new dignity and honor. Propoganda alone does not make a world historical individual.

    In a thousand years, when the wind of history has blown away the lies- Stalin will be remembered as that. A world historical individual. Anticommunist historiography will be forgotten.

  • Reply Lizzy Chan January 22, 2020 at 6:15 pm

    we endorse two candidates most likely to not win the primary!

  • Reply BOSS NASS January 22, 2020 at 6:16 pm

    2:34 Ana proves she still got it 🤤

  • Reply Estunto January 22, 2020 at 6:26 pm

    That endorsement confirms what I thought about all three of them: each of them is about the most evil and conniving in their respective market segment, if you leave out Joe that is, whom they now consider incapable of delivering.

  • Reply xAbominationx January 22, 2020 at 6:30 pm

    I'm not sure mother theresa is really as much of a "good guy" as you suggest.

  • Reply Blue Bandit January 22, 2020 at 6:32 pm

    I think tyt is just angry Bernie is going to fail and won’t get to steal our money, and now that they realized it they are just yelling at people who don’t like Bernie. Progressive mentality in a nutshell ladies and gentlemen

  • Reply xAbominationx January 22, 2020 at 6:32 pm

    the repugnants don't compromise, why should liberals, those of us invariably on the right side of history, compromise with the enemy of progress?

  • Reply Tychoxi January 22, 2020 at 7:02 pm

    like anyone outside of actual "coastal elites" gives a shit who the NYT endorses

  • Reply Justin Roth January 22, 2020 at 7:08 pm

    Cenk, I love ya buddy but PLEASE look into the awful history of Mother Theresa. I hate seeing you guys continue to perpetuate the misconception that she was a good person

  • Reply Navywxman January 22, 2020 at 7:30 pm

    30 years ago reading Chomsky, he pointed out how the NYT among others manufactures consent, how what they put out is how they want you to perceive things, not how they really are, and it is ALWAYS in service of the corporate establishment. Over the past 30 years I have watched them time and time again engage in that. It is beyond pathetic how a paper like the NYT shows contempt for journalism and slavishness to wealth and power, engaging in propaganda for them.

  • Reply Bill Olander January 22, 2020 at 7:37 pm

    Just cancelled my subscription to nytimes

  • Reply ryanspears1986 January 22, 2020 at 7:50 pm

    Major newspapers endorsing political candidates is weird and seems wrong.

  • Reply San Cambly January 22, 2020 at 8:26 pm

    Anna has a little hermaphrodite dick.

  • Reply Bro K January 22, 2020 at 8:33 pm

    Newyork times is propaganda, tyt is propaganda. Battle of the Propaganda machines!

  • Reply Lochlan Murdock January 22, 2020 at 8:53 pm


  • Reply What's Up In Space? January 22, 2020 at 9:28 pm

    It's shocking how much the NYT has damaged their reputation over the past several months.

  • Reply orbitsun January 22, 2020 at 10:17 pm


  • Reply orbitsun January 22, 2020 at 10:22 pm


  • Reply orbitsun January 22, 2020 at 10:25 pm


  • Reply Dan K January 22, 2020 at 10:35 pm

    the right will not work with the left and the left will not work with the right… the centrist will work with both sides and compromise and what works best for the majority… yet the idiots at tyt are against it…

  • Reply TurdFurgeson571 January 22, 2020 at 10:56 pm

    Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician. Sounds like a unifying figure, right?

    NTY: He's too divisive! Also, K L O B U C H A R exists!

  • Reply Collin Grimes January 22, 2020 at 10:57 pm

    Can someone please tell the NY Times that single-payer is not "nationalizing health care"?

  • Reply HAUS OF AARON January 22, 2020 at 11:11 pm

    Read between the lines! The NYT is saying that Warren is better than Sanders and Klobachar is better than Biden. And I’m here for it. 🤪

  • Reply Brian Houghton January 22, 2020 at 11:35 pm

    Like billionaires need any help

  • Reply gagatube January 23, 2020 at 12:00 am

    I think the woke NY Times wants a female candidate. Trustworthiness, political ability, electability and good policies don't count.

  • Reply Darrin Howard January 23, 2020 at 2:31 am

    The NY times is own by Jeff Bezos the same guy that own Amazon that refused to pay his workers proper wages until Burnie steeped in and fought for the workers to get higher wages so I expected the NY Times to keep doing hit jobs on Burnie and I never expected them to endorse him he is to honest the establishment media love dishonest corrupt politicians

  • Reply EvolvedApe33 January 23, 2020 at 2:38 am

    This is so incredibly low brow.

  • Reply d.u.g. Drilly January 23, 2020 at 3:02 am

    i said this about Klobashar about 3 months ago. I should have been a reporter/journalist.

  • Reply Joshua Lefever January 23, 2020 at 3:06 am

    Looking forward to Super Tuesday when Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Yang, and the billionaire drop out.

  • Reply MrThetrizzle January 23, 2020 at 3:43 am

    why is TYT always a day or two late on information?

  • Reply mr white January 23, 2020 at 3:55 am

    Jesus you liberals put up weak candidates. NONE of these people gonna beat Trump, no way. What's embarrassing is that you idiots actually think you have candidates that can win! 😂

  • Reply Mike Benko January 23, 2020 at 4:05 am

    Amy Klobuchar… Lol.

  • Reply Keith Donovan January 23, 2020 at 4:14 am

    Mitch McConnell has already said whoever the Democrat is, they are a radical socialist that is a danger. This was when people had no idea who'd win, and Biden was way up. He's not a guy waiting for a centrist to start working with Democrats.

  • Reply Chuck Stark January 23, 2020 at 4:39 am

    The only way to watch theses shows is with Ad Blocker. No kidding.

  • Reply MalleyaBull January 23, 2020 at 7:01 am

    New York Times:"Do u think Hillary likes us?"
    Tyt:" do u think bernie likes us?"

  • Reply Joanna S January 23, 2020 at 8:46 am

    It comes down to this. If anyone other than Bernie Sanders or possibly Tulsi Gabbard gets elected as the democratic nominee the election will be handed to Trump. No way can any other candidate inspire people to go against Donald Trump when they are part of the establishment.

  • Reply Lyndsey Craig January 23, 2020 at 9:03 am

    NYT went into the interview with Bernie already hating him. The looks on their faces during the interview were completely closed off and just LOOKING for things to hate him over. So disappointing.

  • Reply Jonelle85 January 23, 2020 at 10:38 am

    I honestly didn’t even know so many people knew who Klobuchar is

  • Reply HIIIPOWER 000 January 23, 2020 at 10:50 am

    All they did was pick two women and hid behind there gender

  • Leave a Reply