Ask Us Anything About Our Caucus Endorsement(s)


So who did you actually endorse, deep down in your pot-addled hearts?
Hilary Sanders
Bernie Clinton
Were there really no women caucusing the SECB for Hillary? I thought we were a more pragmatic gender than that.
Goldy wouldn't have put up with this shit.
Sure, the printing error was an honest mistake; and Hillary had her own email server just so she didn't have to keep track of two cell phones.
At the bottom of the Hillary endorsement, you said that the decision was not unanimous by the Board. Who voted for who?
You had to go back over 20 years to find a "progressive" accomplishment by Hillary Clinton, but you omitted her more recent actions: voting for the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, bank bailouts; the Libya debacle; her receipt of millions of dollars from Wall Street banks; millions more from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative that could be construed as bribes; various accounting scandals; her support for so-called free trade agreements that have decimated the middle class; and her ongoing and obvious lies, excuse me, misstatements. At the very least, this pattern of behavior shows incredibly poor judgement that should disqualify someone from office, yet you endorsed her anyway.

is there a link to your actual endorsement not based on the age question?
Does it feel good to finally be to the right of those hippies at the Seattle Times?
Are you all indeed, too cool for school?
@emma's bee: I'm so glad you asked this question. Yes, there were really no women caucusing the SECB for Hillary. Here is how the vote broke down in the room at the end of the day: Angela Garbes, Heidi Groover, Ana Sofia Knauf, Sydney Brownstone, and Jen Graves for Bernie Sanders (we had the majority) versus Dan Savage, Tim Keck, Christopher Frizzelle, and Rich Smith for Hillary Clinton (Sean Nelson was present but abstained).

As for the question of pragmatism, I think it's a good one. My take—and the other women should join in with theirs here, because I'm certainly not speaking for all of us—is that Hillary is not necessarily a pragmatic choice at all, because she could easily lose in November for many reasons. And this is a caucus.

Beyond that, for me there is of course the problem that there is nothing pragmatic about the current machine, which Hillary embodies and shape-shifts to match.

Casting Bernie as the impractical, pie-in-the-sky plays into the hands of those who'd like to see this country continue its accelerating race to the right. I liked what Charles wrote this morning: "Enough is enough. The press in the US and UK needs to stop lumping Sanders with Trump and other loonies. Sanders is not saying crazy things. He might be the most normal presidential candidate in the history of the United States. All of this lumping business is about distorting this obvious fact—he is a very rational, very sane politician. Hillary Clinton is madder than Sanders."

I want to be part of a crew that at least tries to help remind people that Sanders actually is the pragmatic choice.
@emma's bee: Should be "impractical, pie-in-the-sky candidate"
Why the age-ist endorsement widget on the website? I'm in my 30's and was "lucky" enough to finish graduate school, student loan laden of course, just as the economy tanked. With a degree in one of those fancy STEM fields that was supposed to guarantee me a perfect life instead of an endless series of contract positions and no job security... In other words, my age actually has very little to do with my selection
@10, that voting breakdown is really interesting... The Stranger patriarchy (led by Savage, Keck, Frizzelle) supports the safe, establishment, status quo candidate; and women, who have the most experience with structural and social injustice, go in for the one who is promoting real change in the system. I mean, that's one way of looking at it.
For both factions: were there any issues/weaknesses that made you consider supporting the other candidate?
How did the decision to make the online endorsement dependent upon age demographic come about, especially considering that the side with fewer votes had the publisher and senior editors? Do your news staff feel okay about this? How is this structurally any less cynical than the Seattle Times' "experiment" with free print ads during the last election cycle?
It's funny that in an election where the fucking Seattle Times actually endorsed the progressive candidate, the Stranger couldn't find the guts.

I know the dual endorsement was supposed to be cheeky and amusing, but I find it rather spineless. This isn't a game, and the SECB is actually pretty influential.
@10 and 11: My pragmatism heaped on top of my liberalism leads me to realize that Bernie has not a chance in hell to pass his ambitious and forward-thinking agenda, given our current Congressional makeup, regardless of how nuanced his understanding and disdain for the patriarchy may be. And I truly believe that, once the Rove machine unleashes its trolls on Bernie's plan (and people start fearing their rising taxes), he would be toast in the general. I would believe in Bernie's supporters more if they were taking credible steps to reshape Congress to be more amenable to his ideas, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

Lastly, based on what we saw here in Ohio over the past few election cycles, young people cannot be relied upon to vote in off-year elections, making any progressive changes to the Congressional composition that much harder to sustain.
Whose idea was it to alienate your entire readership, regardless of age, by pulling the survey endorsement stunt? If your publication really couldn't decide (despite it sounding like there were more votes overall for Bernie), why did you just not endorse either candidate? Does the staff actually read the dozens upon dozens of comments posted daily by readers who are calling out the blatant favoritism this publication has had since the beginning, or just the ones where they ask people to comment? Does it unnerve the editors that the likelihood of any significant amount of your readers actually changing their vote based on your endorsement is very low?
Both the democratic primaries and the Stranger appear to prefer awarding "proportional" delegates/endorsements rather than having winner-take-all. I worry this sentiment for fairness is what allows conservatives to have an outsize political influence in America even when liberals in the majority. Why can't Dems pick a side already and focus on crushing the opposition?
This is ridiculous. Another vote that Bernie won outright and Hillary still managed to steal from him.

What a bunch of hypocrites that couldn't endorse the only progressive candidate in this race.
In Hillary's endorsement, the SECB states "... his history of selling out certain liberal ideals for political expediency". Can you please provide some concrete examples to support this other than that he voted against a few gun bills? And seriously, Bernie has vocally supported all gun reforms that the majority of Americans say they now want, so are they really any different on gun legislation they would propose?

I'm pretty sure if we match up Clinton vs Sanders on this claim about selling out ideals, we'll find that Hillary is a lot more guilty. In the debates for example she is against single-payer healthcare and free higher education. You can say, oh she's just talking about what's possible now given congress. That sounds to me like "history of selling out certain liberal ideals for political expediency".
Why did you decide to NOT make the endorsement articles for both democratic candidates available to everyone? I find myself exceptionally pissed off that I can't read both because of how your website operates. I guess I could find a different computer, and lie about my age, but really why make me jump through those hoops? I am mostly on one side of this argument, but I really want to read the type of well reasoned shit you guys generally write to help solidify my decision.

It's hard to feel shut out of the conversation by you, Stranger. That's never been my experience with you. Jesus, my feelings are actually hurt.
@22 Hi Mom. If you open an incognito window, clear your cookies, and click on the link you'll be able to see the other article. if you don't know what I just said than I can't really help you.
Re: The answer. I guess this is my commentary, when I saw the age links, my first thought was, I bet they send all the 30+ to Hillary...and sure enough. Why not use a random number generator to send folks to either of the pages? As a person in my 30s I know why I'm supposed to like Hillary (all the reasons in your endorsement frankly), so all I was seeing was the echo chamber of those familiar arguments. It seems like getting a random answer (and being able to play again, once it had my IP it always diverts to Hillary) might actually be more effective at getting folks to look at both sides.
@ 13, that also was my thought from this whole primary ordeal. The people who're benefitting from the status quo and want it to continue have the classic "I've got mine, so screw you" attitude, so naturally they're voting for Clinton.

I would appreciate it if some people of color could explain Clinton's appeal to them, since the fallout from the Clinton years and the Obama years have been economically disastrous for their communities.
This election in particular has created polarized worlds of Facebook sharing where conspiracy theories and bad information flourish—yes, even among liberals. If that’s the world you want to live in, where reality changes based on the link you click, you should actually really like the way we did our endorsements. If it isn’t the world you want to live in, we should all strive to be better informed—and support good journalism.

So is this an admission by the Stranger that they aren't adhering to "good journalism" practices? Rather than being a "commentary", most people I talked to were simply confused by it, not realizing there were actually 2 endorsements. The fact that the widget stores your answer in a cookie means that you can't go back and see what other people are seeing. I fail to see this as a commentary on the "social media echo chamber", where at least you can dig up information on the other side if you're looking. This was just awkward and ageist.
@26 See Ansel's answer, part one. For chrissakes, we're called the Stranger Election Control Board. An endorsement--which is, by nature, opinion--does not equal reporting. The idea that the two covers were somehow a breach of journalistic ethics is bananas.
I am actually sad that I am supposed to take the double endorsement as srs bzns re: the divided SECB (rolls eyes). Since people who care about the Democratic primaries at this point obviously just want to have their existing opinions/prejudices confirmed (i.e., they only want to be told what they've already decided they want to hear), I thought the "we've endorsed YOUR favorite candidate!" thing was pretty funny.
1. Did you have any idea that people would take this so seriously, personally, and deeply offended by this split endorsement? If so, was this a feature or a bug?

2. Did you consider writing two editorials that differed only in endorsement, yet consisted entirely of the many policy points where Sanders and Clinton agree?
When does The Stranger change it's name to The Rocket?
Anyone who's looking at this race with even a modicum of objectivity - something direly lacking in BOTH Democratic camps, IMO - has a high degree of confidence that Clinton will win the nomination; not that it's a foregone conclusion by any means, but the voting trends so far leave far too large of a margin for Sanders to overcome at this relatively late stage in the Primary cycle. So, I simply take this dual endorsement in the spirit in which (I hope) it was intended: a tacit acknowledgement that both candidates have merit, and that both are deserving of support.

So far as I'm concerned partisans can go ahead and fight over their respective candidates right up until the Convention in July. But AFTER that, I sincerely hope they can put aide their mutual acrimony and support the nominee, whoever they are, because that's what I, and I'm sure many like-minded liberals, intend to do. If they CAN'T do that; if those whose candidate loses can't suck it up, act like adults, and do what's best for the country, despite their disappointment; if they plan to act like spoiled children, kick sand, stomp their feet, take their ball home with them and sit out the November General, then frankly, they're sending ALL of us up the proverbial creek, and I have no use for them.
@13 and @25 are right. I don't see the Clinton vote agreeing to the dual endorsement if they'd happened to be in the majority.
This is how I sum up this year's election:

If you like the status quo, vote Hilary.
If you want change, vote Bernie.
If you hate America, vote republican.
As if endorsements meant anything to anyone.
Hey Dan,

Why don't you read some fucking polling information? Overwhelmingly, Bernie Sanders polls better than Hillary against Republicans. Quit spreading misinformation about the Republicans wanting to face Bernie over Hillary.
I'm for Bernie, and I agree that many Bernie supporters are insufferable and probably don't consider themselves feminists, despite the fact that Bernie is a feminist. On to my question: Dan, on Savage Lovecast, you often say that you are "in the tank" for Bernie and Hillary. What pulled you over to Hillary in the end?
On a different note, is Matt Baume actually a real person or is he a reactionary mouthpiece for Keck????
@ 34, They do, actually. That's why so many people are calling bullshit on the Clinton endorsement. Under the bluster, the SECB is usually principled, logical, and factual, which is why it rings so false (just like Clinton's campaign--whooooaaaa!!).
@36, Dan's tax bracket
Do you regret your decisions about the endorsement yet, or are you just going to come to regret them down the road?
Just posting this here too... @5 asked a great question: "At the bottom of the Hillary endorsement, you said that the decision was not unanimous by the Board. Who voted for who?"

As Jen Graves mentioned, when the SECB made its final decision last week, a majority voted for Bernie Sanders: Angela Garbes, Heidi Groover, Ana Sofia Knauf, Sydney Brownstone, and Jen. (I was out of town last week, but I’d made my choice clear—Sanders, duh!—in a meeting before I took off.) In the minority were Dan Savage, Tim Keck, Christopher Frizzelle, Eli Sanders, and Rich Smith for Hillary Clinton. (Sean Nelson was present but abstained.)

I have three comments about how things turned out:

1. Stop e-mailing us your frothy outrage, for god’s sake. Share your feelings, by all means, but activate your brain first. The response to the endorsement has definitively proven, on the whole, that Bernie supporters are more insufferable than Hillary supporters. But I judge a candidate on record and policy, not supporters. Seriously, people: Our endorsement comes from something called The Stranger Election Control Board. We’re sincere and discerning (hopefully) in our political choices, but we don’t take ourselves more seriously than we should. Neither should you.

2. What’s fascinating to me is that the Hillary endorsement, written by older white men, picks out one minority demographic—Black voters—and claims that we must honor and go along with their majority support for Hillary. This is not unlike the condescending commandment from Gloria Steinem, an older woman, to young women that they must support Hillary Clinton—for which she later apologized. While most Black voters have supported Clinton in the primaries, Blacks cannot be reduced to pro-Hillary monolith. Ta-Nehisi Coates is voting for Bernie Sanders, along with many others. Just as masses of white voters can be deluded in thinking Republicans will advance their interests, so too can masses of black voters be wrong about Hillary, whose record on racial and economic justice is far from stellar. And, um, this is about the race for the Democratic nomination. If Bernie gets it, I kinda doubt Black voters will vote Trump instead.

3. Hubris is a dangerous thing for any publication.
Dan Savage quoted me! *screams like a teenage fan girl* My life is complete.
Had Clinton received the majority of votes, would you have made the same decisions about how you presented the endorsements?
Sure, my heart's with Bernie, but the reality is the GOP attack machine would eviscerate him in November and leave us with President Trump. An outcome to terrifying to even contemplate. I'm caucusing for Hillary and will work and vote for her in November. With the Clinton and Obama political machines behind her, she can trump Trump. (And remember, it's not just the presidency we're talking about. This time it's the Supreme Court also.)
the fact that the sanders supporters are more defensive has less to do with the demographics that are supporting sanders and more to do with the fact that he's been labeled a fringe candidate/talked down to/dismissed by the media, and it was surprising that the stranger would echo that sentiment, if only a pale echo. you guys voted, and sanders won, and you decided to cram hillary down our throats too. i felt genuine anger at that, and it surprised me.
guys it's supposed to be Shillary not Shrillary. It's WOMAN OH MY GOD same old shit in big people's pockets. That's what everyone clamoring for Sanders wants. Not some revolution bullshit. Just a guy who isn't fucking giving private speeches to Goldman Sachs. Fuck every one of you who held Clinton over Sanders. What city do you live in??
> Ask Us Anything About Our Caucus Endorsements!

> It is not our job to explain to you what our commentary means, or how it works.

Interesting... noted...

Echoing previous comments, I'd be curious to know about support for the dual endorsement format itself, amongst SECB members — in terms of, not making any mention of the other endorsement in either paper, hiding the article online for the start of the day, then behind a survey you can't change, making it impossible to share one or the other, etc. Akin to the majority / minority for the candidates themselves, was the decision around the format split?
This discussion, and the entire process of being accountable to your readers/commenters, has been infinitely more informing/valuable than the (apparently) well-meaning, but poorly implemented endorsement scheme.

Just like you planned all along, right?
1. The usual line when something like this happens is to self-congratulate for "starting a conversation", and claim this was either on purpose or its own reward (or both).

I'm going to go re-read the SECB's Hugh Foskett endorsement and related coverage. Those were the days!
@ 48,

Uh, not really. The answers ran like "it was a joke, and you're too dumb to get it; we value an open dialogue with our readers, except you can all fuck off; ask us anything, but we don't need to rationalize jackshit."

Well, that clears everything up.
This was boring and tryhard as fuck, and you guys are airborn over the shark. This is coming from someone who's read this paper for over 15 years.
Why were the two writeups so focused around the usual tropes and sound-bites, with nothing about the quantum fed, drug war, war and empire, environment, the teams each candidate will bring in, stuff that matters? (ie. do SECB thoughts exist beyond the campaigns?)
Will there be an answer to why two unique urls exist but the reader is only allowed (without jiggering) to read one endorsement, or is this the dick-swinging mediocrity readers expect from the head editor?
And how about Sean Nelson's abstention, huh. Suppose Sean's vote would have resulted in a SECB mono-endorsement for Bernie. What if Bernie loses Washington because of The Stranger's little joke, then Bernie loses the Democratic nomination by the amount of delegates he would have otherwise won, and then Hilary loses to Trump when we all know Bernie obviously would have cruised to victory??? (for the want of a nail, etc.) It will all be Sean Nelson's fault!!!

Berning and berning in the widening gyre...
Why did you ask readers to comment if you're just going to get upset about the messages that people send? Even though there are less than 5 total responses on 53 posts, you managed to dig yourselves an even deeper hole by snarkily responding to people's serious inquiries. Keep it, up, Stranger!
Sounds like Sean Nelson got a little unhinged there. Why don't you have a drink there, kiddo, and collect your thoughts.

The split endorsement decision doesn't bother me, but I can at least understand where some might raise an eyebrow without being whatever SJW caricature you seem to be shouting at here.

Especially since many people are complaining about being unable to read both endorsements (without unnecessary browser tweaking), so the idea that they're refusing to do the "hard work" and "read the whole thing" and balance out their foregone conclusions is just... well, like I said: collect your thoughts.
@50 Some of the responses read like that, yes, but there were some good insights that I appreciated (e.g. transparent staff votes and reasoning). Please don't make me do a thorough review of each response.
@50: It's not that readers can't take a joke. But when people are commenting about what they think is the official endorsement of this entity, but come to find out about the multiple endorsements and gimmickry - then its an outright deception and not a joke.
However, if they were up front and provided the multiple endorsements as a writing and intellectual exercise, it would have been great - really!
@23: FAIL! User experience is always key in publishing.
To borrow from Dan: "Not. Good. Enough." When you fuck up this badly, you apologize. Period. This rationale and excuse-making only offer insult to injury. I'm still waiting.
The hilarious and impotent rage of the commentariat here, as well as the intensely unearned pride and butthurt from the staff is so, so great.

It does not disappoint.
Was putting hill's picture on the cover of half of your papers and requiring your readers to dig through your paper to find your real endorsement a metaphor for all the votes hillary got either because people voted too early to have information on bernie and/or were too busy or lazy to dig past the corporate media headlines and find the truth about both candidates?
Ansel thinks Hillary has "viciously" attacked Bernie from the right? Oh boy, kiddo, just wait 'til the GOP gets hold of him. You ain't seen nothing yet.
One thing I do tire of is the "oh dear, we Democrats should stop fighting over the nomination and unify while the Republicans are split..."

Speaking as a Bernie supporter (but a realistic one who will happily vote for Hillary in the general) the Republicans are not going to magically become unified after their convention. We are watching a party coming apart, which only happens every 2-3 generations. Because the Republicans have generally turned "debate" into "political deathmatch to the extreme" I think we all believe that *any* intra-party debate means we are going to come unglued as a party.

It's not going to happen.

The differences between Hillary and Bernie are, believe it or not, not nearly as great as the issues dividing the Republicans. We as Democrats also can have civil discourse and debate without hating each other in the morning (or after the convention.)

In summary, there's no "closing window" to take advantage of the Republicans. They are screwed during this election cycle at the bare minimum...and probably for even longer after that.
I for one am surprised that Jen would tilt against the overwhelming opinion of African American voters that Bernie is not for them. I thought she planned to be a white ally by following the lead of the community. Not this time.
Is Gary Shandling really dead? If I click through will I be taken to an Aziz Ansari obituary instead?
This is so great. I wish I lived in Seattle so I could be this proud of my local newspaper. All the outrage from commenters just proves your point. Everyone is so used to seeing their own opinion echoed back to them through their social media, and getting angry about anything else. I guess outrage is just how we talk now. I hope the outrage keeps people engaged in a productive way past the primary and into the general election, and also into the 2018 election!
@57 you've just the right word: "gimmic" but they've decided not to address it, which comes as no suprise, being the same folks who don't care to see the trillion+ dollar chasm between the two, who imagine criticism from those guaranteed to support Clinton can sway her, and who forgive no matter the blunder, as they do their Savage for his many. Glad for this though, to see just how impotent and unengaged the mediocre dick swing is; no need to wait for insight.
@64 I didn't realize that because the majority of black voters prefer Hillary, it is wrong for me to vote for Bernie and that in doing so I am not a white ally. I guess I shouldn't let Cornel West lead me anywhere?…
So basically every Stranger editor who thought invading Iraq, the biggest strategic blunder in American history, was a "GREAT IDEA!" opted for Clinton?

Looks like you dumbshits have not really learned a lot since 2003.

Ah, hah hah. I spelled Garry wrong. Boy, you guys really showed me.
Nelson - 'Hypocrites' is totally meaningful when describing "progressives for Clinton", even if you can't see it.
Is the wave of negative comments from readers something the staff expected? If not, why not? If yes ... congratulations, you did it .. ?

(Feel free to use the above as my question if you so choose. Here's some more stuff about why you're all wrong, wrong, wrong! :)

During a job interview years ago, a potential employer asked me a series of non-standard "lateral-thinking" interview questions. Instead of asking about my graphic design or web experience, he asked, no prior explanation, questions like, "How many gas stations are there in the U.S.?" and "To kill the alligator, do you wrestle it or drain the swamp?" At the end, he said, "I know those may have sounded weird, but I'm a very straightforward kind of guy. And I asked those to see what made you tick."

He was not a straightforward guy. It was certainly apparent he thought he was. And that he'd really done something meaningful and important with those questions.

Likewise, this endorsements stunt wasn't a straightforward way of opening a dialogue between differing Democratic viewpoints.

I'm more than fine the staff was nearly evenly split. I sincerely am. That's great! But was the decision made that simply saying "We're split, folks. Let's have a discussion about it!" was too boring? Or, as Sydney might say, not independent enough?

Further, and this is really the biggest sticking point: can't anyone on the staff graciously say, "Yep, we know we kicked a hornet's nest here. We understand your ire. We don't like it, but we understand."

Do you understand it? That's what I really want to know. Does anyone want to be taken seriously as a professional journalist on the staff? (Looking at you, Ansel, with your "frothing rage"/"activate your brain" comment. That literally sounds like the very kind of comment you're asking people to refrain from.)

I recognize the staff sees this as a brilliant, groundbreaking way to foster a dialogue. And I'm all for innovation in any form. But, like trying to convince my staunchly conservative father that climate change is a thing and cultural sensitivity is more than just a courtesy, I feel the pointless yet powerful impulse to scream "WHY CAN'T YOU SEE HOW WRONG YOU ARE" and hope that you'll consider, for however fleeting a moment, that we might actually be onto something with all this irrational rage.

Sydney implied this is "good journalism" and, if we're really thoughtful readers and citizens, we'd appreciate this. Can anyone not recognize the arrogance of this statement? Good journalism earns respect. It doesn't demand it.

The staff has definitely done one thing it sought to do: unite Hillary and Bernie supporters. But in much the same way, to borrow from Alan Moore, that Ozymandias used a genetically engineered squid monster to unite the nations of the world against a common foe. So congrats on your squid monster.

To paraphrase Sydney again, newspapers shouldn't strive to be independent or dogmatic. They should strive to be straightforward. Anything less is condescending.
Who's your favorite Gawker writer? Is it J. Sarge? HamNo? Rich J? I NEED to know!

This staff AMA is so contrived, derivative, and embarrassing for your TALENTED writers who shouldn't have to defend themselves (and also obviously your idea). You keep saying "we" but it seems all the decisions are pretty unilateral at this point since you pout your minority decisions to publication. This wouldn't have been a horrible idea if you would've created substantive debate rather than just use the whole thing to parrot the same tired idea that it doesn't matter who! ANYTHING is better than a republican! There is one dem candidate that supports an industry responsible for the conclusions drawn in your clickbait, sea-rise, Slate Xpost. Since when has the feedback cycle between ice sheets and oceans been "little known" btw? To me, you're fucking with your readership and your staff writers here. Was that editorial job ever really open to the public? Give it to someone else already, it's not your schtick. You have at least 6 bright, hungry, capables available to you.
On the bright side, I guess the fact that so many people are pissed off is evidence that The Stranger is still relevant. (I'm not pissed off, by the way, just have some time on my hands today, and curious to see how this plays out)
At present, by my own unscientific methods (I even used a calculator!), I count 54% of comments and questions so far that could, even loosely, be construed as negative toward or a criticism of this endorsement stunt. Care to comment?
SECB women and minorities overruled by rich white men--and a couple not-so-rich.
@37: I was going to ask something similar about Sean Nelson. He isn't allowed to vote or have comments on his posts? Does "Sean Nelson" actually exist?
Also, why didn't Charles vote?
Anything? OK. Can we see web traffic data (quality page views, average engaged time) from the endorsement page(s) versus this one? Curious about number of impressions you made with your nondorsement versus the level of "engagement" in this discussion.
It's like an echo chamber. Am I just not seeing responses from The Stranger or are they just chickening out? I see no more than 2 responses to all 77 questions...
Are they giving us permission to vote for either because that's how worried they are that Trump will win? RE: Hillary vs the 21st century born NON gang member...1996 was a bad year for the Drug Wars That Failed. I'm still wondering why the Clintons had to suck up to the fear mongerers of that era, but people need to look at history being repeated, this time it's the fear mongering about terrorism. Every presidency will have something like that to make the country paranoid about. The 90's was the drug related crimes, the 2000's was Arab/Islamic terrorists. I'm guessing whoever gets elected to POTUS will get the gun control issues and a large computer folder full of mass murder funeral eulogies left over from the last POTUS to memorize for their stint in the white house. #BLM activism only matters until the next psycho pulls out an arsenal to gun down people with. Bad Cops and prisons will be the least of the next POTUS's worries.
If your vote as a board yielded just one vote more for Bernie over Hillary, why the 2/3 to 1/3 weighting of the clickthrough options? Why not create a system that yielded the endorsements in a ratio that reflected the votes, 4/9 and 5/9?
Dan's a scardy cat.
Media organizations should never endorse a candidate, because it destroys their objectivity toward that person. This is a problem that reaches beyond the election to what the candidate does once in office. Will a newspaper that openly likes a politician be as tough on that politician when he does something wrong?
Read more about a recent problem involving the Stranger (and also the Seattle Times) here:
Oh Danny Boy - stop swimming in your own santorum and support the REAL progressive.
"My concern, though, is that Bernie’s policies are ultimately DOA given the House he’ll inherit if he wins. When pressed about how he expects to work with a very red House to get anything done, he says a magical swell of “millions” from the political revolution will swoop in and presumably transform the House into a blue body of progressive action. Full stop. That’s it. No elaboration." - Rich Smith

Can Rich Smith or anyone explain this line of thinking to me? I've seen a ton of Hillary supporters use this as an example of why they're not voting for Bernie (almost always preceded by a "I like Bernie but...) and I don't understand it and no one that trots this shit out ever explains it. Do you really think anyone in the House is going to work well with Hilary fucking Clinton? They really, really, really hate her. Why do you think a bunch of old, rich, sexist as fuck white men are going to play nice with the first female president any more than they would Bernie Sanders? It seems like a really disingenuous argument to make. I don't think there's a democrat president in the world that is going to get shit done until those motherfuckers are voted out and I think the point Sanders is trying to make is that he will inspire way more excitement in people to do just that because he'll actually change things for the better and Hillary will keep things the way they are.
86's a shot, though I'm not sure you actually want to dialogue on the topic.

Congress is not just intransigent Republicans; it's also nearly half Democratic. A Democratic President doesn't need all of the Republicans to enact laws; it needs all of the Democrats and then a few Republicans who can crossover to support a President to enact laws.

Enter the Super Delegates. I know most Bernie supporters think they're completely evil; but Super Delegates are the first test a Presidential candidate faces to see whether they can get anything done in Congress. Because you'll need their support more than the support of anyone else to get things done. The Super Delegates are free to back whom they will; that they aren't backing Bernie is not a conspiracy; that's completely on him. He hasn't won them over yet. And he's been in congress with many of them for 25+ years. So, he's failing, so far, his first test on who he'll get support from, and that's troubling.

When he was here at Key Arena last week, he made a point to say that he's filed legislation to legalize marijuana. The crowd cheered and hollered! I went and looked at the legislation. It was filed just last November. He's got zero co-sponsors, and govtrack gives it a less than 1% chance of passing. But he's convinced you and others that his mere mention of it will make the needed changes.

Democrats in congress will not just give Bernie support just because he attached a "D" to his name in October 2015. They, too, have to face re-election, and many of them don't live in Washington State or Vermont where they can support any and all legislation that Bernie supports. They have to be careful, often, to maintain their own coalitions. Hillary understands this, which is manifest in their supporting her as super delegates.

Finally, you argue in your post that "no Democrat will get anything done" but then at the end of your post, you say "he'll actually change things for the better..." So which is it?
87 more thought...

Back to why, in part, the super delegates are supporting Hillary (and again, their support matters more than the support of Republicans in congress in order to get anything done)...

Last I checked, Hillary had raised nearly $30 million for the Party this past year, which is vital to supporting down-ballot races. Building up that supportive congress she'd need to get anything done. Bernie had raised $1800; $1000 of that was given to him by the DNC to seed his fundraising efforts for down ballot races. He's done zero work to build out a supportive network of Democrats. Just the opposite, he and his followers have demonized Democrats at every turn.
You guys have to understand that Dan and Keck are really wealthy, and candidates like Sanders threaten their tax bracket to some extent. So it is easy to convince themselves that Hillary is the better candidate, because to them, the status quo is really great.

Dan and Keck are in charge, so despite Sanders "winning" the endorsement, Hillary still gets her "half" of the endorsement as well. Pretty simple, unsure where all the rage and confusion is coming from.
I though endorsements were something that mattered in the Greek System.
"There was some confusion at the print shop due to "belly band configuration" and the print shop decided "to move pages rather than re-plate." The SECB doesn't know what that means exactly—we are not printers—but they shouldn't have done that."

You don't understand how printing works, but you think people should take your PUBLICATION seriously when you "endorse" candidate for president?
"Credibility" is far from the first word that comes to mind when considering your self-identified shortcomings in the realm of media and reporting.
If The Stranger really could not decide whom to endorse (which is plenty troubling in itself), I wish you had simply published a sincere conversation about that. Instead you made Seattle voters the butt of a joke. And since it was a joke framed in ageism, I will go there: Newsflash, aging white gay men running the Stranger: You're flattering your Hillary-voting selves if you think the stereotypical age break in this election is 30. It's more like 50.
Screw the democratic caucus.

Reserve your vote for Trump in the GOP Primary.

Best chance to flip the House and the Senate.

That would have been an epic Stranger cover.
Here's where I'm coming from, and maybe a few other longtime readers: you decided that you're simultaneously endorsing both candidates, or neither one, for Reasons. Ok - I will accept this and move on.

But if we're then supposed to embrace this idea that your coverage of both candidates is somewhere in the realm of neutral and/or equal, can you explain why last weekend you chose to put all hands on deck to breathlessly Slog about a train station, but sent one person to cover the Sanders rally at Key Arena? Why the morning news today didn't even mention the Sanders rally at Safeco field tonight at 4pm?

I say this not just as a Sanders fan, but as someone who still looks to Slog for news of relevance. How is a political rally in Seattle at venues of this size by one of the two candidates for the DNC nomination not more newsworthy?
Plenty of us got the joke immediately.

We just didn't think it was very funny.

Very few places in the media actually sit down and address the pros and cons of both. Even liberal media doesn't do this - which is why I think it was such a failure on the part of The Stranger to address an endorsement this way.

"we are engaging with our readers about it here, on Slog, which was a part of the plan all along." Okay - then you can go about it differently. How about creating a great in-depth look at both candidates, centered around a theme of unification, instead of doing it this way? It's entirely disrespectful to think we couldn't have an adult conversation based around that, as opposed to this paper thin ploy.
I am indeed disheartened to learn that the youth of today don't know of "Life of Brian"
@94: Would their endorsement sway your opinion? Do you actually care who Dan Savage is voting for? Not trying to be a dick, but really, what work is an SECB endorsement doing for folks on an individual level?
What are the most "vicious" attacks Hillary has leveled against Bernie "from the right"?

Her most common refrain is that his plans are unrealistic and unlikely to pass. This hardly counts as "vicious". She talks about his opposition to gun control, which is an attack from the left. She misrepresented a couple of his votes, but those were, again, attacks from the left.

What I haven't heard is her talking about how he's going to raise taxes on everyone "and that includes YOU, ordinary American!" or something along those lines. Bernie's plans would raise taxes on the median household by over $5,000*, yet I haven't heard Hillary pounding Bernie on this. Maybe I've missed it?

*According to this:…
Because I was lucky enough to obtain a Hillary-covered edition, and finally encountered your Hillary endorsement lurking in the bowels just before the issue's anus, I penned the following reactions and posted them over with the fossilized responses at your 'Support The Real Progressive' forum-ruins (as it were):

Thank you, The Stranger, for virtually endorsing me to vote Green Party without guilt. Your pathetic, disgraceful entrance into the Mainstream Media Arena™ is duly noted. That you would actually endorse Hillary with a list of stenographic, boilerplate reasons smacks of a Murdochian agenda that lurks beneath your rapidly-fraying hipness. Thus, there must be something in it for you to Go Hillary™. 4-8 future years of this AIPAC Angel's nouveau version of Clintonism is just another disappointment in the My Country 'Tis Of Thee Experience. If you're squandering your own votes on succumbing to your dismal concept of political reality, I shall rest easy in spending mine on political ideals. There was a time when The Stranger would stand for those very ideals, even in the face of defeat. That era is now concluded. Your choice will remain on your record. But remember, Bernie's just the beginning of a movement. Hillary's nothing but status quo, and you know it. Welcome to being just another mainstream member of little consequence. PS: Thank you for approving of that Scotch Beer Fest flyer, added to the cover, to veil Hillary's beaming visage, while subliminally UN-veiling your own shame in 'trumpeting' your defeatist endorsement. PPS: My own little fantasy scenario for women to save us from further Empire-degradation: Jill Stein, Michelle Obama, and Elizabeth Warren, rotating presidential duties by the month, as the moon suggests. Golden centuries of peace!

NOTE: Mind-fucking with your readership is yet another sign of The Stranger's fading cleverness. I loved you once! (I miss Paul Constant, Lindy West, Goldy, Aaron Huffmann, others...)
At the Bernie rally now - Tacocat is playing a live set on the field. Maybe that will be enough to get someone from The Stranger down here... nah.