Why The Economist endorses political candidates
Our independence is protected by our principles and structure
IN THE PAST week two prominent American newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, announced that their editorial boards would not endorse a candidate for America’s presidency. They argued that this would be less divisive and promote their independence. Today The Economist issued its own endorsement, of Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee. We have a long tradition of endorsing candidates, in Britain, America and around the world—not as a break with independence, but an example of it.
Discover more
Is RFK junior right to say America allows more toxins than the EU?
He is, but things are slowly beginning to change
What would it cost to kill coal?
The price of shutting down coal power, and what would be gained
Should America ban fluoride in its drinking water?
The idea by Robert F. Kennedy junior—nominated by Donald Trump as health secretary—may have teeth
Why is Donald Trump keen to use “recess appointments”?
The president-elect is testing the loyalty of the Senate’s next majority leader
Will Donald Trump’s power be unchecked if Republicans win the House?
A “trifecta” of presidency, Senate and House of Representatives would provide a huge opportunity
Is Kamala Harris right to call Donald Trump a fascist?
The f-word helps explain him, but may not help beat him