With just over six weeks to go before the general election in November, the New York Times editorial board has officially endorsed Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. That the generally liberal paper of record in America’s largest city would lend its name to the Democratic nominee should come as no surprise to anyone, lease of all Clinton’s Republican rival Donald Trump. However, the belated timing of the endorsement has left scratching their heads, especially since conservative-leaning papers like the Dallas Morning News and the Cincinnati Enquirer beat them to the punch.
In early September the Dallas paper lent its support to Clinton in a move significant for its timing, as it hadn’t endorsed a non-Republican presidential candidate in 76 years. Attempts to dub the Morning News a “liberal paper” notwithstanding, this was a big deal. So too was the Cincinnati Enquirer‘s decision to do the same this week, which as The Hill pointed out, hadn’t occurred “in roughly a century.” (The Ohio paper hadn’t endorsed a Democrat since Woodrow Wilson’s reelection campaign in 1916.) So why did the Times wait so long to back the “obvious” choice?