Donald Trump hasn’t received a single major newspaper endorsement so far. That’s odd enough for a nominee of a major party just over a month out from the presidential election.
But not only has Trump not been endorsed, he has prompted several publications that have historically endorsed Republicans to endorse Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton or Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.
That includes the Arizona Republic, which hasn’t endorsed a Democratic candidate since 1890; the Detroit News, which has only not endorsed the Republican candidate three times since being founded in 1873; the Dallas Morning News, which hasn’t endorsed a Democrat since 1944; and the Cincinnati Enquirer, which last endorsed a Democrat in 1916.
Even further, Trump has prompted what are being referred to as “disendorsements,” a plea to not vote for a particular candidate.
The USA Today editorial board broke a 34-year tradition of not taking sides in a presidential race to publish such a disendorsement for Trump, the only presidential candidate for whom it has done so.
“In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race,” it wrote. “We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now. This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.”
Newspapers obviously make these decisions hoping to sway voters to make what the editorial boards believe is the right decision for the country. But is it possible these endorsements — and disendorsements — could be helping Donald Trump?
A Reddit thread on the subject posed the question, “Do newspaper endorsements still matter in 2016?”
The answer? Unclear.
Some people professed interest in how newspapers had endorsed, particularly those who were traditionally Republican endorsing Clinton or Johnson. But no one who said they considered voting for Trump said they felt swayed to do otherwise due to a particular endorsement.
“To suburban Republicans and business Republicans, having a reliable and credible conservative newspaper endorse Clinton is kind of a green light to vote against the party you are loyal to,” one user wrote. “I think some of these endorsements might be the nail in the coffin for him even though I normally wouldn’t give a newspaper endorsement much weight.”
Other comments suggested that due to Trump’s base, who are typically anti-press, the disendorsements might just be reinforcing their idea of Trump as anti-establishment and therefore further motivating them to turn out on Election Day.
“Trump is probably helped in the eyes of his base by not having newspaper endorsements,” one wrote. “Remember, he’s part of the (former Alaska Gov. Sarah) Palin wing of American politics, where citing sources and studies is mocked as being soft, they value leaders who govern by feel.”