Endorsements

   Do newspaper endorsements of presidential candidates matter?
   Historically, there's no clear evidence that they do, and such endorsements may be largely a reflection of reader and voter sentiment.
   After all, it can be said that newspapers don't shape public opinion so much as they reflect it.
   With that in mind, consider this: Of the major newspapers that have endorsed a presidential candidate so far this year, Republican Donald Trump has none. Zero. Nada. Zip.
   Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, he of "Aleppo moment" fame, has six major newspaper endorsements to his credit, most recently that of the Chicago Tribune. Others include The Detroit News, the New Hampshire Union-Leader, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the Winston-Salem Journal and The Caledonian Record.
   In making its choice, the Tribune said Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party nominee, is "undeniably capable," but cited "serious questions about honesty and trust," as well as her plans to increase federal spending and taxes.
   On the other hand, the Chicago Tribune called Trump "not fit to be President."
   The New York Times,  listing similar reasons, has endorsed Hillary Clinton.
   In the past, USA Today has refrained from endorsing any Presidential candidate, but this year the national daily urged readers not to vote for Trump.
   The Arizona Republic has never before endorsed a Democrat, but for the first time in its 126-year history, the paper's editorial board said Hillary Clinton "has the temperament and experience to be President. Donald Trump does not." There was some blowback from readers in traditionally conservative Arizona, as many cancelled their subscriptions.
   The Dallas Morning News endorsed Clinton, with the comment that Trump does not deserve the votes of Texas citizens.
   The Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed Clinton.
   And the San Diego Union-Tribune, for the first time in its 148-year history, endorsed a Democrat for President -- Hillary Clinton.
   Many of the major papers choosing Clinton are not fully satisfied with her, but given the choice of backing her or the volatile Trump, they listed numerous reasons why Trump would be too dangerous to occupy the Oval Office.