The New York Times continued its 64-year streak of supporting Democrats for president over Republicans by endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris this week.
“Kamala Harris is the only choice,” The New York Times editorial board wrote in an article from Monday headlined, “The only patriotic choice for president.”
This is the 17th straight election that the outlet has supported a Democratic candidate for president over a Republican, with the outlet’s continuous blue streak beginning in 1960 with John F. Kennedy. The last Republican it backed was President Dwight D. Eisenhower, when he successfully ran for re-election in 1956.
“This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election,” the editorial board wrote.
“For this reason, regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president,” The Times wrote.
Harris, The Times continued, is not a “perfect candidate” but is a “more than necessary alternative” to Trump on issues like the economy, immigration, and America’s international alliances.
“She has committed to using the power of her office to help Americans better afford the things they need, to make it easier to own a home, to support small businesses and to help workers. Mr. Trump’s economic priorities are more tax cuts, which would benefit mostly the wealthy, and more tariffs, which will make prices even more unmanageable for the poor and middle class,” the board wrote.
The Times acknowledged that some voters are concerned over Harris’ press avoidance strategy.
“Many voters have said they want more details about the vice president’s plans, as well as more unscripted encounters in which she explains her vision and policies,” The Times wrote. “They are right to ask. Given the stakes of this election, Ms. Harris may think that she is running a campaign designed to minimize the risks of an unforced error — answering journalists’ questions and offering greater policy detail could court controversy, after all — under the belief that being the only viable alternative to Mr. Trump may be enough to bring her to victory.”
“That strategy may ultimately prove winning, but it’s a disservice to the American people and to her own record,” the editorial board continued. “And leaving the public with a sense that she is being shielded from tough questions, as Mr. Biden has been, could backfire by undermining her core argument that a capable new generation stands ready to take the reins of power.”
The endorsement doesn’t come as a surprise. In 2016, the Times’ liberal board declared Trump to be the worst major party nominee in the nation’s history and has continued to speak out vehemently against him since then. It endorsed Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden against him in the past two elections.
During its lengthy streak of supporting Democrats, the Times has endorsed such candidates as George McGovern in 1972, Walter Mondale in 1984 and Michael Dukakis in 1988, who all were defeated in electoral landslides.
The Trump campaign was unconcerned.
“An endorsement from the New York Times is about as useful as a moldy old dishrag that hasn’t been cleaned in years,” Trump Campaign Communications Director Steven Cheung told Fox News Digital in a statement. “They had to apologize in 2016 for misleading their readers and completely misreading President Trump’s historic victory, but it seems like they still haven’t learned their lesson. Kamala Harris is endorsed by the Fake News because she is fake, a phony, and unfit for office.”
The Harris campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.
The Times isn’t alone in major newspapers having blatantly Democratic-favoring editorial boards. The Washington Post began endorsing presidential candidates in 1976 and has never supported the Republican hopeful.
Fox News’ Brian Flood and David Rutz contributed to this report.
