Newspaper admits how wrong it was to endorse Christie

You may or may not recall that I Tweeted this Friday, when the N.J. governor abased himself before The Donald:

Well, I was not alone with the mea culpas. Of course, others had more to atone for:

Newspaper that endorsed Christie: ‘Boy, were we wrong’

The New Hampshire Union Leader backed the wrong presidential candidate, the paper said in an editorial posted online Monday evening.

The influential newspaper endorsed New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie last November, but his endorsement of Donald Trump is apparently a bridge too far.

“Despite his baggage, we thought that as a Republican governor in a Democratic-leading state he had the skills and experience the presidency needs (and hasn’t had of late),” publisher Joseph McQuaid wrote. “We also thought he had the best chance to take on and face down Donald Trump.”

“Boy, were we wrong,” McQuaid added….

I mean, at least I never endorsed the guy, unlike those pathetic losers in New Hampshire…

22 thoughts on “Newspaper admits how wrong it was to endorse Christie

  1. Brad Warthen Post author

    Oh, and before Bud says, “Aren’t you sorry you endorsed Bush 2004?” or some other Democrat says, “We await your apology for endorsing Joe Lieberman,” let me say…

    No. And no. Bush, as many problems as we had with him (all detailed in the endorsement) was the only choice under the circumstances.

    And I remain quite proud of endorsing Joe. It was exactly the right thing to do.

    I feel a little bad for having endorsed that Libertarian as a protest against incumbent Bernice Scott. And I still feel the loss of having endorsed Bush in the 2000 primary over my man McCain — but I’m satisfied I did everything I could to persuade the board to back McCain; I just failed. (One of these days I’m going to find and run that 4,000-word memo I wrote to our publisher from a hotel room in Fort Worth where I was attending a conference, explaining why we MUST endorse McCain.

    1. Mark Stewart

      What would have happened had McCain been elected and then died? The State was right not to agree with your opinion. Of course, that’s about the situation we are actually about to live through this time around – total lunacy.

  2. Howard

    You’d think the liberal media would love Donald Trump. He’s going to sell papers.

    These liberal newspapers are doing nothing more than Monday morning quarterbacking. But on Saturday they were cramming their expertise and logic down our poor ignorant throats.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      I think we DID go to Billy Bob’s, or someplace like it, one night. It wasn’t very impressive. It was mostly empty.

      I do recall having lunch at Riscky’s, on the day I left. Most disappointing ribs I’ve ever eaten…

  3. Margaret Pridgen (Maggie)

    Brad et al — What would happen if Rubio and Kasich joined forces right now and ran as a ticket with Rubio (since he has more support) at the top? Kasich as VP could provide gravitas, House and executive experience that Rubio lacks. Could that pairing take both Florida and Ohio? What would that do to the delegate math?

    1. Bryan Caskey

      First of all, that’s not going to happen. Second, even if it did, I’m not sure it would be enough. Look at Florida, for instance:

      Currently, the RCP Average has 40.3%, Rubio at 20.8%, and Kasich at 5.0%.

      40.3% is still more than 25.8%. A lot more.

      Kasich just doesn’t move that many votes. They could maybe win Ohio (meaning Rubio gets the delagates in your scenario, I guess) but I’m not sure where else they win. Rather than “combining” it needs to get down to a two person race for anyone to have a chance to beat Trump.

      Unfortunately, it may be too late to do this. I just don’t see Cruz or Rubio getting out in the next week, and I kind of doubt Kasich will either. Ergo, Trump wins.

      Not sure why Carson is still around. Maybe he’s still waiting to get called on in one of the debates.

  4. Phillip

    What’s the math among House Republicans between those who would be backing Trump vs. those who would prefer somebody else, a somewhat more “establishment” GOP-er? I ask because with all the angst among many Republicans over the prospect of a Trump nomination, it brings up the question of a 3rd-party GOP-splinter group run—maybe Romney stepping to do so? I could then see a scenario where Trump wins a small handful of states, the “establishment GOP” 3rd party person winning a few other states, and Hillary leading Electoral College by far but falling a little bit short of 270.

    And then what are the rules for the House electing the President? Does a plurality suffice? or is the third-place finisher on a first ballot eliminated, leaving a second ballot for the top two finishers? If the latter, then I could totally see Hillary winning the popular vote, leading by a lot in electoral votes, yet being denied the Presidency via a GOP-led House.

      1. Bob Amundson

        A plurality does suffice, and the process gives a great deal of power to smaller States (e.g., Utah and South Carolina) with Republican dominated House delegations.

        1. Brad Warthen Post author

          What’s worse than a President Trump? A President Trump elected by the House of Representatives in a vote in which the most populous states are outvoted.

          Talk about an unhappy country….

          1. Phillip

            But each state’s “vote” is determined by its members’ vote, right? My reason for bringing this up is that I think it might be the GOP establishment’s best shot to elect a Republican President who is not Donald Trump.

            1. Mark Stewart

              Phillip, may I introduce you to Mark Sanford, Joe Wilson, Jeff Duncan,Trey Gowdy, Mick Mulvaney. Jim Clyburn, and Tom Rice?

              I would not want to wager that four (or more) would be willing – or able, frankly – to hold fast to such a principled stand as you suggest.

            2. Norm Ivey

              Interesting question. It’s governed by the 12th amendment. The HoR chooses the president, and the Senate chooses the VP. In the House, each state gets ONE vote, not one vote per representative. In the Senate, each senator gets a vote. Sounds like we could wind up with POTUS and VPOTUS from two different parties.

              I’m trying to find the reference, but wasn’t there one election–seems like during Reconstruction–that was contested because of an Electoral College tie? I heard the story years ago, but can’t find anything online.

                1. Norm Ivey

                  No, but that one was interesting. I found it. It was the election of 1876. It wasn’t a tie; it was a one EV margin. Tilden won the Electoral College, but Republicans challenged 20 votes and were able to flip it.

    1. Bryan Caskey

      I think the Twelfth Amendment covers the scenario if no one gets a majority of the electoral college.

      “…if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.”

      Each state gets one vote, limited to top three Presidential Candidates, and you have to get 26 states to win.

Comments are closed.