In a noteworthy endorsement, British publication The Economist announced its support for Kamala Harris in the 2024 US presidential race. The endorsement, delivered on Thursday, emphasized Harris’s “steady” leadership compared to Donald Trump’s unpredictability. The editors expressed concern over the economic and global risks they believe a Trump administration might pose.
Editorial Rationale for Endorsement
“The Economist has chosen to endorse Kamala Harris,” the editors wrote, underscoring their reasoning that the stakes are particularly high this election. They argued that a Trump victory could lead to “gambling with the economy, the rule of law, and international peace.” Highlighting that Harris’s perceived shortcomings are manageable, *The Economist* editors noted they believe her leadership offers more stability for Americans.
A Broader Media Divide on Endorsements
While The Economist joined the growing list of Harris supporters, other publications took different stances. Outlets like USA Today and The Washington Post opted not to endorse any candidate, aiming to remain neutral in an increasingly polarized environment. This decision wasn’t without consequence; The Washington Post reportedly lost over 200,000 digital subscribers due to its non-endorsement stance.
Publications Backing Kamala Harris
The Economist’s endorsement places it among other major publications supporting Harris in 2024. Here’s a rundown of the media outlets backing her campaign:
– USA Today
– The Washington Post
– New York Times
– Boston Globe
– Seattle Times
– Las Vegas Sun
– New Yorker
– Philadelphia Inquirer
These publications are vocal about their endorsement, each citing Harris’s vision for America’s future and stability as key factors in their choice.
Harris vs. Trump: Media’s Divided Support
Contrastingly, The New York Post has backed Trump, while others like USA Today remain neutral. Yet, The Economist’s support for Harris highlights the sense among its editors that this election year requires a candidate capable of “unifying and stabilizing the nation.” As the editors concluded, “If The Economist had a vote, we would cast it for her.”
