The Economist endorses Kamala Harris

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Economist has endorsed Kamala Harris for President. It writes in part:

While some newspapers refuse to back a presidential candidate this year, today "The Economist" is endorsing Kamala Harris.​

​

Tens of millions of Americans will vote for Mr. Trump next week. Some will be true believers. But many will take a calculated risk that in office his worst instincts would be constrained. We see that as recklessly complacent.​

​

By making Mr. Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law, and international peace.​

​

Ms. Harris's shortcomings, by contrast, are ordinary, and none of them are disqualifying.​

​

If "The Economist" had a vote, we would cast it for her.​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Economist has endorsed Kamala Harris for President. It writes in part:

While some newspapers refuse to back a presidential candidate this year, today "The Economist" is endorsing Kamala Harris.​

​

Tens of millions of Americans will vote for Mr. Trump next week. Some will be true believers. But many will take a calculated risk that in office his worst instincts would be constrained. We see that as recklessly complacent.​

​

By making Mr. Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law, and international peace.​

​

Ms. Harris's shortcomings, by contrast, are ordinary, and none of them are disqualifying.​

​

If "The Economist" had a vote, we would cast it for her.​

Cue the MAGA types to dismiss this as another example of the "left wing media" being biased against Trump.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I prefer Forbes anyways. The Economist clearly regressed back to the third grade.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I prefer Forbes anyways. The Economist clearly regressed back to the third grade.

"The grapes were probably sour anyway."

 

[metis]

If Trump supposedly is so good at economics, then what about his business failings, including a casino???

 

[Twilight Hue]

If Trump supposedly is so good at economics, then what about his business failings, including a casino???

He's much better at golf courses and real estate.

 

[Viker]

He's much better at golf courses and real estate.

He's only had success at licensing his name and pushing that brand. He's been proven time and time again to be a failure at business responsibilities and decision making. He's really "great" at bologna....so far.

All hype - nothing inside.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He's much better at golf courses and real estate.

He's much better at money laundering and graft. Casinos aren't good for this - too much oversight from regulators.

And with him out of office, even his golf courses aren't doing so well:

This Donald Trump golf course in Scotland has now lost about $20 million

It marks the 11th straight year of losses for Trump International Scotland.

golfweek.usatoday.com

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Economist has endorsed Kamala Harris for President. It writes in part: ...

I prefer Forbes anyways. The Economist clearly regressed back to the third grade.

So let me see if I understand: we have The Economist passing judgment on Trump and a Trumpeteer passing judgment on The Economist. Tough call.

 

[Twilight Hue]

He's only had success at licensing his name and pushing that brand. He's been proven time and time again to be a failure at business responsibilities and decision making. He's really "great" at bologna....so far.

All hype - nothing inside.

He has business success. Ignore it if you want. It dosent change anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He has business success. Ignore it if you want. It dosent change anything.

Does he have business success, though?

A while back, Forbes (that's the one you prefer, right? ) did an analysis and found that if he had just invested his inheritance in an S&P 500 index fund, he would have ended up $400 million richer:

It’s Official: Trump Would Be Richer If He Had Just Invested His Inheritance Into The S&P 500

Trump’s fortune plunged at the outset of the pandemic, but unlike the overall stock market, his real estate empire hasn’t come roaring back.

www.forbes.com

 

[Kathryn]

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. I think we'd all be better off typically if we had just invested all our money in the stock market. Oh, wait, that article is over three years old and in todays' society, that's pretty ancient. @9-10ths_Penguin

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I prefer Forbes anyways. The Economist clearly regressed back to the third grade.

Cue the MAGA types to dismiss this as another example of the "left wing media" being biased against Trump.

QED

 

[Twilight Hue]

Does he have business success, though?

A while back, Forbes (that's the one you prefer, right? ) did an analysis and found that if he had just invested his inheritance in an S&P 500 index fund, he would have ended up $400 million richer:

It’s Official: Trump Would Be Richer If He Had Just Invested His Inheritance Into The S&P 500

Trump’s fortune plunged at the outset of the pandemic, but unlike the overall stock market, his real estate empire hasn’t come roaring back.

www.forbes.com

Well we all know how cherry picking works.

 

[Kathryn]

Well we all know how cherry picking works.

Plus, that article is over three years old. Since then, though some records have been hit, the stock market has also been more volatile,

 

[Twilight Hue]

Plus, that article is over three years old. Since then, though some records have been hit, the stock market has also been more volatile,

Yep. Hard to tell how the wind is blowing. I'll wager it will settle once the election results are In.

 

[anotherneil]

LOL What kind of a dummy is waiting around for a POTUS endorsement from the likes of not only a large corporation, but also one that makes money from advertising for other large corporations, rather than thinking for themselves?

 

[Koldo]

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. I think we'd all be better off typically if we had just invested all our money in the stock market. Oh, wait, that article is over three years old and in todays' society, that's pretty ancient. @9-10ths_Penguin

Irrelevant. Even if he somehow had better success in the past 3 years (which I take you have no idea one way or another, else you would have mentioned it), that doesn't make him a good businessman when we are talking about someone that has a long history of investments.

 

[Pogo]

I prefer Forbes anyways. The Economist clearly regressed back to the third grade.

Well then maybe you ought to read it, they don't like Trump's economic policies either.

 

[Regiomontanus]

The Economist has endorsed Kamala Harris for President. It writes in part:

While some newspapers refuse to back a presidential candidate this year, today "The Economist" is endorsing Kamala Harris.​

​

Tens of millions of Americans will vote for Mr. Trump next week. Some will be true believers. But many will take a calculated risk that in office his worst instincts would be constrained. We see that as recklessly complacent.​

​

By making Mr. Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law, and international peace.​

​

Ms. Harris's shortcomings, by contrast, are ordinary, and none of them are disqualifying.​

​

If "The Economist" had a vote, we would cast it for her.​

While that endorsement is good for Harris, which makes me happy, the Economist is a right-leaning magazine I find somewhat loathsome. But right now, we need all the help we can get.