The neo-liberals at the Times endorsed Quinn.
I am not surprised.
Some people thought de Blasio might get the endorsement.
I didn't think that would happen.
When you look at their neo-liberal positions on so many other issues at the NY Times, the Quinn endorsement makes the most sense - phony liberals endorsing another phony liberal.
As Dan Levitan put it, the newspaper that endorsed the 2nd and 3rd Bloomberg terms just endorsed a 4th.
Doesn't matter.
No one votes based on endorsements.
The way this hurts de Blasio is that media chatterers will be back talking Quinn up as having momentum again.
But the truth is, she hasn't been able to get above the mid-twenties in any poll since the late winter/early spring.
She is probably going to come in first on Primary Day with about 25% of the vote.
She is going to have a very difficult time beating whomever she faces in the runoff.
The Times endorsement gives her and her campaign something to crow about.
De Blasio is going to have to counter the criticism the Times leveled at him in the endorsement.
But in my estimation, the endorsement does not effectively change the race.
It's a three candidate race with Quinn looking like she has one runoff slot locked up, de Blasio and Thompson fighting for the other, and Quinn having an uphill battle in the runoff.
I agree the Times has defacto endorsed a fourth term, who cares? The fact that the tabloids I suspect the Post will follow suit endorse Quinn may allow for some chatter about momentum, but Term Limits and the fourth term are a double edge sword. I still believe that Quinn may not make the runoff as those labor unions that have endorsed Thompson and DeBlasio and their phone banks may in fact relegate Quinn to the third spot. If your scenario becomes reality I certainly hope that Quinn looses the runoff. ABQ big Time!
ReplyDeleteAll three majors endorsed Quinn. It makes sense - they're all about the status quo, and that's Quinn.
Delete