After the editorial board published its endorsement of Hillary Clinton — and its anti-endorsement of Donald Trump — lots of readers had questions. Below, Elizabeth Williamson, an editorial writer who specializes in national politics, answers a few of them. Some questions have been condensed and edited for clarity.
On the editorial board
Robert Leighton: I’m curious as to the editorial board’s vote count — was the endorsement unanimous? How many people make up this board? And, now that the paper is officially endorsing Mrs. Clinton, should readers expect any difference in the coverage of the campaign moving forward?
The editorial board is made up of 16 journalists, with a range of backgrounds and areas of expertise. The board is seldom unanimous on anything. The endorsement reflects our range of views about Hillary Clinton. When it comes to endorsements the board is a modified democracy; the endorsement editorial is formulated and written by the board, but final signoff is given to the publisher. Both candidates visited the full board at the start of primary season and each spent more than an hour answering questions.
The editorial pages are separate from the news side and one doesn’t influence the other.
Gavin Huang: Does The Times always write anti-endorsements along with their endorsements?
No. For the reasons outlined in the Trump anti-endorsement, we made an exception this year.
Jeremy Houck: When was the last time The New York Times endorsed a non-democratic candidate?
In 1956, the Times endorsed Dwight D. Eisenhower for re-election over Adlai Stevenson, his Democratic challenger. It was the second Times endorsement of Mr. Eisenhower.
The Times also endorsed Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and 1864; Ulysses S. Grant in 1868 and 1872; Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876; James Garfield in 1880; William McKinley in 1900; William H. Taft in 1908; Wendell Willkie in 1940; and Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956. With the exception of Mr. Willkie, every Republican we’ve ever endorsed in the general election has won — does that count for anything?
Rose L Tynes: Why did you wait all this time to declare that Trump is unqualified to serve as the leader of the Free World? This was evident the moment he became the nominee! Were you not sure about Mr. Trump, or about Sec. Clinton?
We’ve written many pieces before, during and since his nomination criticizing Mr. Trump’s qualifications, record, and statements. There’s never a perfect moment to publish an endorsement, but the board felt it was important to endorse Mrs. Clinton before the two nominees debated face-to-face for the first time.
On the Hillary Clinton endorsement
Francis Bo Majors: Why is everyone who does not support Clinton automatically presumed to support Trump? I do not support either one of them; however, after having worked in healthcare for eight years in NYC, I really do not believe that every time she is called into accountability for her behavior it is “Republican spin,” or merely “attacks on her character.” I have never witnessed a candidate that has people believing that anytime anything surfaces regarding her integrity it is “just all fictitious.”
The endorsement editorial was not aimed at Trump supporters, it was aimed at the people you mention — those who don’t support Mr. Trump, but are not yet ready to support Mrs. Clinton. We have called Mrs. Clinton out on her lapses in accountability in the past, as well as in the endorsement itself. Polls suggest that voters are pretty wise to the way all candidates try to deflect criticism as “spin” or unwarranted personal attacks.
Nancy Stalker Swett: The editorial was refreshing, am wondering what new persons or things the board successfully and finally injected into the process.
The endorsement was the result of reporting that examined Mrs. Clinton’s record during her 40-year career, including interviews and research into what people of both political parties thought were her career’s high and low points, as well as her strengths and weaknesses.
On the Donald Trump anti-endorsement
Deborah Radovsky Silva: Why doesn’t the press focus more on his Alt-Right advisors and their dangerous beliefs? These are the people he listens to and will continue to listen to, if elected. It seems that the press allotted about two days of coverage on these people and their influence on him.
Speaking for the editorial board, we’ve written a separate piece on this movement and its influence on Mr. Trump’s supporters. But more should be written about this and no doubt will be.
Bob Mudge: You omitted societal change as an issue of concern to Trump supporters. It’s what has motivated the so-called deplorables, and will be something the next president has to deal with. Can Clinton reach them?
You are right, societal change is a large and partly unexplored factor in Mr. Trump’s rise, as is official Washington’s failure to address these changes. In the endorsement we express our faith that Mrs. Clinton has these people’s interests in mind, and we call upon her to address their concerns as president.
Michael Rowand: Would you say that the editorial is intended primarily as ammunition for readers to convince friends and family?
That’s certainly one possible use for it!