Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton just got another endorsement this weekend, from the New Yorker magazine.
In a lengthy piece from the Oct. 31 issue, but already available online, the editors frame the election as a contest between a “distinctly capable candidate: experienced, serious, schooled, resilient” and a real-estate mogul “manifestly unqualified and unfit for office.”
It’s the latest endorsement for Clinton, who has a wide advantage on Donald Trump among the editorial boards around the country. She’s earned the backing of some of the most prominent newspapers, including the New York Times and the Washington Post. And conservative publications around the country have defied their traditions and endorsed her as well. The Dallas Morning News, for example, hadn’t endorsed a Democrat in more than 75 years, it said in an editorial on Sep. 7. “Resume vs. resume, judgment vs. judgment, this election is no contest,” it wrote.
This kind of unexpected switch from the hometown paper can have a big impact on voters, the Washington Post reports, citing research.
The New Yorker’s endorsement is no surprise. In the last election, the editors supported Barack Obama. But in the latest piece, the magazine presented its choice in starker terms than when the Republican candidate was Mitt Romney, someone it described as “handsome, confident, and articulate” and who these days is himself campaigning against Trump.
“The election of Hillary Clinton is an event that we would welcome for its historical importance, and greet with indescribable relief,” the magazine wrote in its Clinton endorsement.