Just one hypothetical: does anyone seriously believe that if the Washington Post had endorsed Harris like it had planned, ANYONE would have cared?

The far right and all Republicans would arhue this was just another case of the liberal media raging against the hero. The far left, which as I've seen in their most progressive post of the Democrats, would dismiss it as meaningless (they did the same for the Times earlier this month) and no votes would have changed. There are undecided voters out there, I grant you, but if any of them read the Washington Post I would be shokced.

fURTHERMORe newspaper endorsements have been meaningless for a long time. In 1936, 2/3 of the newspapers endorsed Alf Landon and FDR won 46 of 48 states. As I recall somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of all publications endorsed Hoilary Clinton in 2016; we all saw how much that influenced people.

Endorsements might make snese for congressional races and definitely at the state and local level. but I'm pretty sure even when the editors were endorsing Harris they knew just how symbolic and meaningless it was. The implications of it being retracted might be disturbing, but let's not pretend there was anyone out there saying: You know I voted for Trump twice before but now that the Post has done, gosh darn it, I'm going to vote for Harris.

And its telling that the people who are the most outraged ARE jounralists and people who work in media. I'm pretty sure even the most die hard progressive knows that the Post's endorsement was not going to change the mind of a voter in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Endorsements don't elect Presidents. Voters do. Those crying the loudest would do well to remember that.