The Arizona Republic endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for president Wednesday, following in the footsteps of a number of papers breaking decades-old tradition to endorse a Democrat in 2016.
“This year is different,” the Arizona Republic editorial board wrote, explaining why the paper is endorsing a Democrat for the first time since its founding in 1890. “The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.”
Citing the now-familiar line of thinking that Clinton is the superior candidate because she has decades of experience in government, has a steady temperament and is remarkably resilient in the face of intense scrutiny and attacks, the paper acknowledges her “flaws” but states she is the superior candidate.
“She has withstood decades of scrutiny so intense it would wither most politicians,” the board writes. “The vehemence of some of the anti-Clinton attacks strains credulity. Trump hasn’t even let the American people scrutinize his tax returns, which could help the nation judge his claims of business acumen.”
The endorsement follows that of The Dallas Morning News and the Cincinnati Enquirer, two other papers that typically endorse Republicans but have chosen Clinton this year. Readers of both paper have vowed to unsubscribe as a result, and Dallas Morning News editor Joe Wilson has acknowledged the paper “paid a price” in the form of dropped subscriptions.
The Dallas Morning News is extending a promotional discount in an effort to retain subscribers as it scrambles to deal with the fallout. Wilson has declined to reveal how many subscribers have left the paper since the endorsement.
Readers of the Arizona Republic seemed to have a relatively positive response to the endorsement, at least in the online comments, as many applauded the paper for its bravery and courage in endorsing Clinton. But as in the case of The Dallas Morning News and Cincinnati Enquirer, others were critical and vowed to unsubscribe.
“Hi Nicholas – We’re sorry to lose you,” the paper responded. “But editorial boards don’t exist to write purely popular opinions. If we got you to think critically about your vote — even if it’s different than ours — we’ll call that a success.”
Another commenter added: “The Republic editorial board ignores all evidence that Clinton is a pathological liar and uses her position to create millions in personal wealth. You bone heads need to read things other than your own editorials.”
Send tips to rachel@
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.