Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Political endorsements: Do they help or hurt trust in journalism?
Smart or spineless? Should newspapers endorse candidates, or does it undermine their objectivity?
When Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos announced last week that his paper would no longer publish political endorsements — as they have done for decades — the backlash was swift. 200,000 people canceled their subscriptions, according to NPR. Retired Post Executive Editor Marty Baron unleashed a furious volley on X. “This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty,” he raged. “Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”
For Baron, missing editorial vertebrae is a virtual news pandemic. The Los Angeles Times also canceled endorsements. Gannett, which owns 200 papers including USA Today, banned presidential endorsements earlier in the year.
Was the Post’s move, as Baron suggested, a lame, last-minute attempt to appease Donald Trump (should he win) and curry political favor?
The timing sure looks bad. If Bezos wanted to change the Post’s policy, he should have done it much earlier. Yanking endorsements days before a close election is like giving yourself a political wedgie, an awkward, painful experience that seems totally inappropriate. It undermines the integrity of the decision and gives it the sour sniff of desperation, a weak obeisance to Trump’s anti-media threats. Showing fear of the powerful is a malignant condition for any news organization.
But while the timing looks weak, the merits of the argument are strong. Bezos is right to point to aGallup poll from October showing that trust in the media is at an all-time low, with only 31% saying they are confident the media reports the news fairly and accurately.
“For the third consecutive year, more US adults have no trust at all in the media (36%) than trust it a great deal or fair amount,” wrote Gallup. “Another 33% of Americans express ‘not very much’ confidence.” As a comparison, in the 1970s, trust in the media was closer to 70%. Even in the early 2000s, trust was still about 55%.
Bezos sees endorsements as one reason for this collapse. To him, endorsements are a dangerous vestige of a bygone era that undermines the trust in objective journalism. “What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias,” he wrote. “A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”
Gannett took a slightly more nuanced position than Bezos, banning national endorsements for president but letting its local papers endorse at the local level. “We believe America’s future is decided locally – one race at a time,” Gannett announced in a statement to CNN.
This may be a distinction without a difference, but nuance matters. Papers have long published editorials on various subjects, and readers look to those positions for some guidance. They should and will continue. Editorials are marked as such and function as separate sections for readers to discern. An election endorsement is different. It taints all reporters’ work with a political hue.
Outlets that openly skew to one political side — right or left — should be happy to continue to endorse and present their reasons. Why not? They are open about their partisanship and political bent, and they make money selling their papers to people who like that view.
But for any media organization fighting to maintain an objective, nonpartisan reputation, political endorsements alienate readers from one or another side, driving them to partisan outlets that may have no journalistic standards at all. Readers can make up their own minds on who to vote for without a paper picking sides.
At GZERO, we have never endorsed a political candidate. Our policy is to maintain objective, nonpartisan journalism and analysis, without becoming toothless bores whose neutrality masks an unwillingness to call out facts or press back against the tide of disinformation and bullshit. But who you vote for is up to you. Our job is to present the facts, the stories, and the policies clearly, put them in perspective, and make sure you have the tools to make an informed decision.
Speaking of election tools, we have a full toolbox for you here to get all the insights you need for the wild events surrounding this election, from our Bloc by Bloc series on America’s changing voting patterns and key factors that may sway the election, to a deep dive into the seven swing states that will determine the next president.
Also, please tune in to Ian Bremmer and Van Jones tomorrow on our new Substack channel (subscribe today) at 2:15 p.m. ET for a great chat about the drivers of the election so far.
We will also have election night coverage on our website and on Substack, where you can participate in the virtual watch party. And join us for our live X space at 11 a.m. ET on Nov. 6, even if there is no confirmed winner.
So while we don’t endorse endorsements, however you choose to vote, please join in the conversation. We keep it civil and fact-based, and we don’t think it is a crime to enjoy talking politics.
Graphic Truth: The rising cost of US elections
The 2024 federal election cycle is on course to be the costliest in US history, surpassing record levels of spending in 2020, according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit that tracks money in politics. Federal election cycles have been flooded by huge amounts of money for decades, but spending skyrocketed after the Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United decision in 2010, which held that political spending is a form of protected speech.
Citizens United opened the door for corporations, unions, and other groups to spend unlimited funds on elections – as long as they don’t formally coordinate with candidates or political parties – and paved the way for the creation of super PACs.
Super PACs differ from traditional PACs, or Political Action Committees, which can directly contribute to candidates and political parties (with limits on total contributions).
Elections have not only become more expensive since Citizens United, but they’ve also become less transparent in terms of the sources of spending. This is thanks to what are known as dark money groups, which are generally nonprofits that aren’t required to publicly disclose their donors. Even though super PACs are required to disclose their donors, the funding they receive from dark money groups keeps the original sources hidden.
Does money have too much influence on US politics? Should there be more limits on how much can be spent? We would love to hear your thoughts.
Trump likely can’t steal the election, but he can make it dangerous
Donald Trump’s big Madison Square Garden rally on Sunday made news because of the racist wisecracks of an opening act, but jumpy Democrats seized on an off-the-cuff remark.
“I think with our little secret we are gonna do really well with the House,” Trump said, gesturing to House Speaker Mike Johnson. “Our little secret is having a big impact. He and I have a little secret. We will tell you what it is when the race is over.”
Democrats are so rattled by the prospect of Republicans trying to game the system on Election Night that they decided Trump was hinting at a secret plan to overturn the election.
On CNN, Democratic Congressman Dan Goldmanwarned of a plot to decide the election results in a House vote.
“I suspect … Donald Trump’s little secret plan with Mike Johnson is a backup plan for when he loses and he tries to go to the House of Representatives to throw out the Electoral College … and try to overturn this election.”
By hook or by crook
Johnson said later that Trump was talking about their get-out-the-vote plans, which makes sense in the context. But Democrats are concerned that Trump and his allies have a secret plan to try to take power, perhaps by forcing a vote in the House.
But it does not look easy. The contingent election is designed for situations where nobody wins a majority of Electoral College votes. The last time that happened was in 1824, when there were four presidential candidates. That should not happen next week, since no other candidates are on the ballot, but Trump is expected to try to get Republican legislatures to send alternative slates of electors in states he loses, setting up a situation where Congress could choose which electors to pick. Theoretically, Johnson could hold a special vote in the House of Representatives and make Trump president.
Trump likely does want to do that, says Richard Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law School.
“I imagine he will be trying to find ways to get to a contingent election in the House — maybe that’s the little secret — but with our existing rules, that would be very hard to do as it would require finding a way to assure that Harris would not have a majority in each house,” he said.
Nervous about the Supreme Court
It looks highly unlikely, in part because it would require the cooperation of many Republicans who would be reluctant to overturn clear results from voters. And the Electoral Count Reform Act, which was passed with bipartisan support, tightened the rules around certification. Trump is more likely to try to flip a close state in the courts by challenging some contested ballots, as happened in 2000, when George W. Bush prevailed over Al Gore after the Supreme Court ruled that Bush had won Florida’s Electoral College votes.
“If the race is as tight as it was in 2000, like Bush v. Gore tight, then there will likely be a recount in a state that matters, and issues may get litigated all the way to the Supreme Court,” says Hasen.
“The 2020 election was not close like 2000. It was over 10,000 ballots difference, and multiple states mattered. If that’s what we see, and Trump loses, then I expect Trump will try litigation and political strategies to try to change the results to his favor.”
There are 115 voting lawsuits open at various courts. If the Republicans can find a cause to get to the Supreme Court, they might hope that the 6-3 Republican majority of justices will rule in their favor. The court surprised observers by ruling in Trump’s favor in the presidential immunity case, and on Wednesday, the court approved a controversial Republican purge of voters, so Democrats are nervous about what might happen if Trump manages to get a case to the court.
Drop boxes firebombed
The polls could not be closer, and both sides will have armies of lawyers standing by on election night to try to seek advantage.
“Although recounts very rarely change the election outcome, and the courts have consistently rebuffed such shenanigans from the Trump team in the past, these lawsuits will be headline-grabbing events and will perpetuate uncertainty,” says Natasha Gaither, a researcher at Eurasia Group.
Even if Trump’s lawyers do not prevail, that uncertainty could lead to violence.
“We are likely to witness sporadic clashes between law enforcement and extremist partisans on either side of the aisle as long as certification of the results is deferred by legal fights,” says Gaither.
Election night will be tense, with angry partisans gathering outside counting places as mail-in and absentee ballots are tabulated.
Trump keeps telling his supporters — without evidence — that the election could be stolen by cheating Democrats, and they believe him. Ballot drop boxes were firebombed on Monday, for example. More than 7 in 10 Americans are worried about election-related violence.
It would be nice to tell them they needn’t worry, but they are right to do so.
Supporters attend a rally for Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump at Madison Square Garden, in New York, U.S., on Oct. 27, 2024.
Trump rallies in NYC, Harris hits Philly in star-powered final push
With the US election just eight days away, it’s crunch time for the presidential campaigns. Republican candidate Donald Trump headlined a rally Sunday night at Madison Square Garden in New York, a state that last backed a Republican in 1984. While the former president knows he's unlikely to win the Empire State outright, his event could boost local GOP candidates. Trump was accompanied by familiar allies like Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Rudy Giuliani.
The speeches all communicated a similar message: Trump’s support is underestimated, his followers are oppressed, and the system is rigged. “No fair system would elevate someone like Kamala Harris to a presidential nomination,” said Carlson.
But racial insults and a distasteful comment about Puerto Rico at the event from pro-Trump comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, host of the “Kill Tony” podcast, have led to a backlash, even from fellow Republicans.
Still, there was no shortage of support on the streets outside the arena, with lines stretching across multiple avenues and some supporters even camping overnight to get a good seat. “I’m here because of the high interest rates and securing the border,” Tom Miller, of Pennsylvania, told GZERO's Riley Callanan. “New York is going down the tube. There are lines down the block in Times Square of migrants that get to live in hotels for free,” complained Jay Murphy, 56, while Carol Harper, 43, of Fire Island, cautioned that “There’s already voter fraud happening in Pennsylvania.”
Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris was in The Keystone State, visiting a barbershop and a Puerto Rican restaurant in Philadelphia. Harris focused on mobilizing Black voters at Philadelphia’s Church of Christian Compassion, warning that if voters pick Trump, they’ll get a president “full of grievance … retribution and revenge.” On the same theme, Harris will be in Washington, DC, on Tuesday to deliver what her campaign calls her “closing argument,” speaking from the Ellipse, the grassy space adjacent to the National Mall where then-president Trump exhorted his supporters to march on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The stars are shining bright – but will they matter? Trump’s Sunday night event was set to feature Elon Musk, conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, Hulk Hogan, and RFK Jr. As for Harris, after a week featuring appearances by both former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama, as well as singer Beyoncé, the vice president plans to visit North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on Wednesday with musical performances featuring Mumford & Sons. Trump will also make a stop in Wisconsin before heading to speak on Friday at Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, the site of this year’s Republican National Convention.
Contributed reporting from Riley Callanan.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ruled Tuesday that certifying elections is a required duty of county election boards in Georgia, and they’re not allowed to refuse to finalize results based on suspicions of miscounts or fraud.
Trump faces setback in Georgia
Trump previously praised the three right-wing board members who formed a conservative majority on the board and pushed the rule through as “pit bulls fighting for honesty, transparency, and victory.”
But Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney said Tuesday that the rule “is too much, too late.”
Earlier in the day, McBurney in a separate case also said that local election officials “have a mandatory fixed obligation to certify election results," in another blow for Trump allies who’ve contended results could be delayed over fraud concerns.
Georgia was at the heart of Trump’s push to overturn the election results in 2020, which ultimately led to him being indicted.
Republican Sen. JD Vance and Democrat Gov. Tim Walz greet each other before they square off during the CBS News vice presidential debate in New York City on Oct. 1, 2024.
Civility wins: Vance and Walz play (mostly) nice, spar on policy
The debate kicked off with the escalating situation in the Middle East, as the moderator asked the candidates whether they would support Israel if it launched a preemptive military strike against Iran. Both candidates said Israel has a right to defend itself, but while Walz dodged answering the preemptive question directly, Vance said it was “up to Israel what it needs to do to keep their country safe. We should support our allies.” He also praised Trump’s deterrence strategy, saying that the world was more stable under his administration – an argument that is becoming more potent as the situation in the Middle East escalates.
Climate change came second, as North Carolina reels from Hurricane Helene, and as Americans across the country are facing more frequent, and expensive, natural disasters. Walz focused on the Biden-Harris administration’s investment in clean energy through the Inflation Reduction Act, pointing out that it created jobs and gave funding for adapting infrastructure to withstand climate change.
Meanwhile, Vance did not explicitly deny that carbon emissions are warming the Earth, straying away from Trump, who has repeatedly called it a hoax. But he emphasized the need for more investments in nuclear and natural gas, and for restoring US energy production and manufacturing, which he claimed was cleaner than producing it overseas.
The discussion about abortion offered Walz one of his strongest moments. He rearticulated that the Harris-Walz campaign stands for restoring Roe v. Wade and for reproductive rights, one of Democrats’ strongest issues heading into November.
Surprisingly, Vance criticized the uneven availability of abortion services and referenced instances where state regulations resulted in medical complications for women. While this concern runs contrary to the times he has said he supports a national abortion ban, viewers unfamiliar with Vance’s previous statements would have heard a candidate who was sympathetic to the need to ensure reproductive care. He even acknowledged that the GOP needed to do a better job in “earning the American people’s trust back” on abortion issues.
On the economy, Vance argued it was better under Trump and highlighted the need to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States, expressing unease about the relocation of production to nations like China. Walz didn’t disagree with him on manufacturing and China, but he also highlighted Harris’ plans to create an “opportunity economy” and plans to increase housing.
They both attacked their running mates’ economic records. “Tim, I think you got a tough job here because you gotta play Whac-A-Mole,” Vance said, accusing Walz of having to “pretend” that Biden’s economy didn’t have higher inflation than Trump’s. Walz rebutted that Harris from Day One had been plagued by “Donald Trump’s failure on COVID that led to the collapse of our economy.”
When asked about immigration, Vance called for a strict crackdown at the Southern border, saying the Trump administration would focus its mass deportation efforts on undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes. Walz focused his answer on the bipartisan border deal that Republicans tanked in the Senate at Trump’s request earlier this year. He also highlighted the Biden-Harris administration's success in curbing the opioid crisis and took Vance to task on lies he told about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, eating people’s pets. The altercation, one of the spiciest of the night, led to both men’s mics being muted.
So, who won? With 35 days left before the election, few voters are likely to be swayed by the outcome of this debate. Vance appeared prepared and reasonable and landed significant punches against Walz and Harris that the Minnesota governor struggled to refute. He was also effective in laundering many of the Trump-Vance tickets’ most extreme statements on immigration, abortion, and healthcare to make them sound more appealing to moderates.
Walz struggled out of the gate. It was apparent that he had done fewer press interviews and was less comfortable on the debate stage than his Yale-educated, frequent-cable-news-guest opponent. The governor spent much of the debate with his head down, taking notes. But he ended strong, vigorously pressing Vance on giving a “damning non-answer” to the question about whether he would acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 election.
Vance was, in large part, performing for an audience of one: Trump. After a series of recent flubs spurred rumors that the former president might regret his VP choice, Vance knew he needed to win over the boss. While Vance strayed away from Trump’s rhetoric, the former president seemed pleased with the performance, posting on Truth Social in all caps, “GREAT JOB JD.”
Independent US presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks at Bitcoin 2024 in Nashville, Tenn., on July 26, 2024.
RFK Jr. to endorse Trump
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the strongest third-party US presidential candidate in a generation, has reportedly decided to leave the race and cash in his chips – with Donald Trump.
The eccentric, conspiracy-minded, anti-corporate crusader – best known for his vaccine skepticism – polls around 5% nationally and in key swing states. He has drawn outsized support from Black, Latino, and young voters.
RFK Jr. is expected to formally announce his withdrawal in a big speech in Arizona on Friday and is in talks with the Trump campaign about a formal endorsement. Trump, who is also campaigning from the Grand Canyon state that day, has said he’d be open to giving RFK a position in his administration if he wins.
How will this affect the race? RFK’s endorsement would certainly counterprogram the climax of the DNC and could deliver Trump a few extra points worth of voters that he’ll need in a tight election. Polling has consistently shown RFK drawing more Trump-leaning voters than Biden-leaning ones.
Still, bringing aboard RFK – a conspiracy-theory aficionado whose brain has been eaten by a worm and who recently admitted to a bizarre bear-killing cover-up – could also play into one of the Democrats’ main strategies, says Clayton Allen, the US director at Eurasia Group.
“If he joins the Trump campaign,” says Allen, “that may exacerbate the Democrats’ “weird” attacks.”
Attendees walk past a sign at the United Center ahead of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois, on Aug. 19, 2024.
Democrats are running a campaign built on vibes
In standard practice and just days ahead of the party’s Democratic National Convention, Democrats released their 2024 policy platform over the weekend. The rest of the race, however, has been anything but typical.
In the latest twist, Democrats chose not to update their party platform despite the name atop the ticket switching from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris. Instead, they opted to stick with a version approved in mid-July – from before Biden dropped out of the race. The platform frames a battle between “opportunity and optimism” versus “revenge and retribution,” laying bare a fundamental difference between the 2024 Democratic and Republican campaigns: one is about atmospherics, and the other is deeply personal.
In the month that Harris has sat atop the ticket, she has overseen a near-total change in the campaign narrative. Until July 21, 2024, Biden and former President Donald Trump had spent months locked in a protracted and bleak conversation about who was the bigger threat to democracy. Was age the more significant concern? How would the US manage a president with felony convictions? For months, US voters sat on the sidelines of a slow walk to a repeat of the 2020 election, which a meaningful proportion of those polled did not want.
With Biden’s exit from the race in July and the surprisingly seamless convergence around Harris, the storyline has shifted from a rerun to a “new way forward,” to take one of the vice president’s campaign taglines. And as the 2024 party platform reflects, for Dems, this way forward need not be connected to one politician or another.
Despite the newfound support for Harris – her campaign raised a reported $200 million during her first week as the candidate – this is not yet the Harris Democratic party. Harris is a conduit for Democrats who were searching for a lifeline out of a crisis and a path to preserve their November ambitions. If the policy platform is not updated to any specific Harris policy viewpoint, that’s not seen as a hindrance. If her vision of an “opportunity economy” is questioned by economists, it deserves only a bit of hand-wringing. While a Harris presidency would likely move policy in impactful ways, what is driving the moment for Democrats is unity behind defeating Trump.
This campaign tactic or strategy is paying dividends. Harris now leads Trump in head-to-head polling and across key swing states, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. For the first time in the 2024 race, the latest monthly polling shows that more voters trust Harris to handle the economy than Trump. These poll results came in even before Harris had the opportunity to present her economic plan last Friday in North Carolina, where she homed in on tackling price gouging, housing insecurity, and rising tax bills.
In stark contrast, the Republican Party is synonymous with Trump. The party’s policy objectives are intertwined with Trump’s political agenda. The 2024 Republican platform, rife with capitalization and exclamation points, promises to seal the border, end the weaponization of government against the American people, and turn the US into a manufacturing superpower. Each is a key Trump view. As a sign of how far the campaign needle has moved, Trump’s allies are now urging him to return to the more disciplined, issue-based messaging he managed earlier in the 2024 campaign. The risk is that as Democrats go conceptual, Trump becomes too personalized and personal.
All of this will be on display at this week’s DNC in the Windy City, where a who’s who of Democratic heavyweights and orators – including both Obamas and Clintons – have assembled. Harris will take the stage on Thursday, the final night, to deliver an address under the aspirational theme “For our Future.”
Just as the race approaches the post-Labor Day homestretch, the world is watching as Democrats inject something into the campaign that has been missing over the long election slog: energy. The party convention represents a key test of both how well Harris can hold the party together, including around fault-line issues like the Israel-Gaza conflict, and whether Democrats can sustain the good vibes over the final push of the campaign season.
Lindsay Newman is a geopolitical risk expert and columnist for GZERO.