The Economist Endorses Hillary Clinton: "The choice is not hard"

[Fahrenthold451]

This type of endorsement would have stopped the world 8 years ago....


“The choice is not hard. The campaign has provided daily evidence that Mr. Trump would be a terrible president,” The Economist noted, noting that he has “exploited America’s simmering racial tensions” and possesses a character and temperament that would make him “horribly unsuited” for the presidency’s heavy responsibilities.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/the-economist-endorses-clinton-230674#ixzz4OxcPmfeF
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebookhttp://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/the-economist-endorses-clinton-230674

[Hortensis]

3. "Clinton’s policies...those of the pragmatic centre of the Democratic Party”

While the magazine said it was troubled by her tax plan and her opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, her positions on criminal justice reform, paid parental leave and education are in line with the endorsers’ thinking.

Further, Clinton’s history of creating change through, small, incremental steps makes her well-suited to the presidency, The Economist said, even if that same trait has weighed her down on the campaign trail, where “nominees are now expected to inspire.” Her “prosaic style combined with gradualism and hard work could make for a more successful presidency than her critics allow,”

“The best that can be said of Mr. Trump is that his candidacy is a symptom of the popular desire for a political revival,” the magazine wrote. ‘To hope that any good can come from Mr. Trump’s wrecking job reflects a narcissistic belief that compromise in politics is a dirty word and a foolhardy confidence that, after a spell of chaos and demolition, you can magically unite the nation and fix what is wrong.”

After chaos and demolition, the one thing we know is that a dysfunctional buffoon would not still be in charge. The grave danger is that the American people also would no longer be.