Will The Columbus Dispatch Follow Suit?

While it's debatable how influential newspaper endorsements are these days, they're still capable of being newsworthy in and of themselves.  We've had four examples in recent days.

The Dallas Morning News endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, saying, "There is only one serious candidate on the ballot," and "This election is no contest."  Donald Trump, they said, "exhibits a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control, and an astounding absence of preparedness."  It's been 75 years since the Morning News backed a Democrat.

The Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed Hillary Clinton, saying, "It's time to elect the first female U.S. President, because she's hands-down the most qualified choice."  They called Trump "a clear and present danger."  The last time the Enquirer endorsed a Democrat was 1916.

The Arizona Republic endorsed Hillary Clinton, saying, "Clinton has the experience and temperament to be president.  Trump does not."  Trump, they said, was "beneath our national dignity."  In its 126 year history, the Republic has never before supported a Democrat.

From the start, USA Today, the 34-year old national daily, had a policy against making political endorsements.  Yesterday, they effectively broke from that tradition, not by backing Hillary Clinton by name, but by urging Americans not to vote for Trump.  They wrote, "Resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue who lacks temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty.  By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump."

All of these newspapers received angry messages and subscription cancellations from the Trump-nuts.  The Arizona Republic even received death threats!


The question is, will my own reliably conservative local fish-wrap, the Columbus Dispatch, show the same backbone and endorse Hillary?  I'm not betting on it.