Another conservative newspaper editorial page just endorsed Hillary Clinton


The last time the Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed a Democrat for president, the paper picked Woodrow Wilson as its choice in the 1916 presidential election. It’s been a long time.

Now Donald Trump has broken the streak. The Enquirer is joining other very conservative editorial pages in endorsing Hillary Clinton, calling Trump “a clear and present danger to our country.”

And while other typically conservative editorial boards have made clear that they’re holding their noses in endorsing Clinton as the only realistic alternative to Trump, the Enquirer’s endorsement is slightly more positive, describing her as a clearheaded pragmatist who can build coalitions and govern effectively. The board’s views on Trump are scathing:

Trump brands himself as an outsider untainted by special interests, but we see a man utterly corrupted by self-interest. His narcissistic bid for the presidency is more about making himself great than America. Trump tears our country and many of its people down with his words so that he can build himself up. What else are we left to believe about a man who tells the American public that he alone can fix what ails us?

Even more surprising than the Enquirer breaking its streak, though, is that it actually might make a difference. Research has found that when newspapers break with tradition, readers take it seriously. And unlike the other two solidly Republican newspapers that have refused to endorse Trump so far — the Dallas Morning News and the New Hampshire Union Leader — the Enquirer is in a swing state.


Oh the power of the press:rolleyes:DT is closing in on Hillary in Cinncinati,can’t have that.I guess the arrogant press will now tell the masses to rethink their vote:cool:

By endorsing Hillary Clinton they lose all credibility as being conservative.

  1. Trump is no conservative.
  2. They put country before party. They view Trump as “a clear and present danger to our country.”

Yes, because Trump favors suspending due process rights in order to infringe on 2nd amendment rights, supports Planned Parenthood, takes money from countries that kill gays and brutally oppress women…

That’s Clinton.

It sounds like the paper has returned to its progressive days.

They are entitled to their view about Trump as the quote you shared describes, but presumably the “120 retired admirals and military leaders” who have endorsed Trump, per Washington Times, do not think that, so the view of Trump described in the quote you shared, sure isn’t universally shared.

Sounds like the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.

Not really

Conservative is as conservative does. When one endorses probably the most liberal candidate ever to run, one’s actions speak louder than one’s claim to a conservative “brand”.

Did you look up the “No true Scotsman” fallacy? It is a textbook case, because the claim of being “conservative” was accepted right up until the point where they endorsed Hillary. So the statement “No conservative newspaper would endorse Hillary” becomes a tautology if you define conservative as “not endorsing Hillary”. Just like defining a “true” Scotsman as one who would “never do such a thing”.

And, many life long conservatives will tell you the same thing about conservatives who endorse or vote for Trump.:smiley:

It just isn’t.

A Scotsman is objectively a Scotsman by birth whether he acts like one or not. His actions do not determine his being a Scotsman. Conservatives are not born. A conservative is defined by his actions. When one supports industrial strength liberalism, one cannot rightly claim to be a conservative.

But I will grant that some who claim the brand “conservative” have decided that somehow voting against their avowed principles, and encouraging others to do the same, will bring about a resurgent, purer conservatism down the road. Lenin’s formula; “…the worse the better…” is not always true. Sometimes “worse” is just worse.

You have no idea. The rest of the article is worth mentioning IMO.

According to a study published in 2011, unusual endorsements like this might matter precisely because it’s not what readers expected to hear. Newspaper endorsements change the most minds when they break with the usual pattern to endorse a candidate of the other party.

Two political scientists, Chun-Fang Chiang of National Taiwan University and Brian Knight of Brown University, studied the effect of newspaper endorsements in 2000 and 2004, using a survey that asked voters in the days leading up to the election about which newspapers they read and which candidates they preferred.

The researchers sorted newspapers on a spectrum based on how likely they were to endorse Democrats for president. They found that when Democratic-leaning newspapers endorsed Republicans for president, or vice versa, readers were slightly more likely to support the candidate the newspaper endorsed.

If newspapers endorsed the candidates that typically lined up with the editorial page’s ideology, though, they didn’t really convince anyone. The effects were greatest among people who had seen the endorsement, as you might expect, and among older readers, who were more likely to read the editorial page.

The study’s findings might not be as true today. Newspaper circulation has fallen 20 percent since 2004, the last election the researchers studied, and more and more Americans are getting their news online or in other ways. Pew found that 81 percent of the public gets at least some of its news online. Meanwhile, the American public has become even more polarized.

But so far, not a single major daily newspaper has endorsed Trump — not even those, like the Enquirer, the Houston Chronicle, and the New York Daily News, that have picked Republicans in the past. Even if it’s only around the margin, surprises like this in swing states could make a difference.

Source for the bolded:,_2016

This distinction between a Scotsman and a conservative is irrelevant to the application of this fallacy. Let me quote from the Wikipedia article:
*When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim (“no Scotsman would do such a thing”), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule. *
In defending the assertion that “No conservative newspaper would endorse Hillary” against the counterexample offered, the fallacy modifies the definition of “conservative” to stipulate that to endorse Hillary is to be not conservative. But this modification is not based on any specific objective rule. An example of such an objective rule would be giving instances of previous actions by the newspaper that disqualifies it from being called conservative. The action of endorsing Hillary cannot be used as the “objective rule” because that would pre-suppose the very thing you are trying to prove - that no conservative newspaper would endorse Hillary. Thus the defense becomes a circular argument - begging the question - still a fallacy.

In the midwest, I’d rather have Bobby Knight out campaigning for me than getting an editorial nod from a newspaper. Bobby is a compelling advocate and we all know what people think of the media.

Just because one says they are a … fill in the blank…, does not mean they are that whatever.

Trump is for government support of health care, employer or government support payments of pregnancy leave and child care. Please don’t bring up abortion, I have a hard time believing he even knew how to spell it before his interview with Matthews. These are not traditional Republican views.

I don’t care who people vote for. But please don’t try to convince me that Trump is a traditional or life-long Republican.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit