Thread by @PalmerReport

This New York Times endorsement of Warren and Klobuchar is valid.

Elizabeth Warren is easily the the best-qualified progressive running.

Amy Klobuchar is arguably the best-qualified moderate running.

#nytimesendorsement

If the nominee is a progressive, it'll be Warren (two liberals hate Bernie for every one liberal who loves him)

If the nominee is a moderate, it'll probably be Biden, not Klobuchar (look at polls)

But endorsements are supposed to be about who should win, not who's going to win.

Of course the Bernie cult will now insist that the New York Times has become part of an establishment conspiracy against progressives, even though it just endorsed Warren, a progressive.

But facts never do matter to fanatics.

What impact will this NYT endorsement have?

Klobuchar is polling at 3%. This alone isn't going to catapult her into contention.

Warren already has momentum coming out of her Bernie takedown. This endorsement will extend her positive news cycle.

But really, when's the last time a newspaper endorsement landed someone a presidential nomination? Social media took the piss out of endorsements.

Story hasn't changed. If Biden dominates in South Carolina, he'll be the nominee. If he struggles in SC, field will be wide open.

Some folks are making some real fools of themselves tonight by baselessly accusing the New York Times of arbitrarily endorsing Warren and Klobuchar because they're women. The reality is they're both very strong candidates, who just happen to be women. Deal with it.

Plenty of you are making legit arguments for why the New York Times endorsement should have gone to various other candidates, and that’s totally cool.

But it is hilarious watching certain insecure men freak out tonight because their gender didn’t get a participation trophy.