By Dan Murphy
There is debate across the country about whether newspapers matter anymore, and subsequently, whether the endorsement of a newspaper – or other people – matters. Well, I’m here her to tell you, yes, endorsements do matter, because you are reading this newspaper and this story is proof of that.
But there are other reasons endorsements matter. One is that it reminds voters about an election and gets voters to focus on an election they might not usually focus on… which brings us to Judge Judy’s endorsement of Michael Bloomberg for president.
Most of you know Judge Judy from her decades-old television show with the same name, but our newspapers know her from the mentoring program she has sponsored here in Westchester for many years, and the dozens – if not hundreds – of young women who have benefitted from it.
But for those who say endorsements don’t count: How can you ignore Judge Judy’s endorsement of Bloomberg? Judge Judy has built a viewership audience of 10 million daily viewers, who love her and admired her work, and have watched her show for years and consider her part of their family.
Judge Judy has the same TV appeal that another former TV show host had, and he is now our president – Donald Trump. Ask anyone in public relations, Judge Judy’s positive ratings far outweigh her negative ratings, and anyone, or any product that associates themselves with someone as popular as Judge Judy, will benefit, or else she would not be on TV as long as she has.
Add to it the fact that Judge Judy has never gotten involved in politics before. She has not abused her position, and her endorsement is pristine. Judy Sheindlin (her real name) doesn’t tolerate nonsense on her TV show, and that is the reason she is endorsing Bloomberg, and called him last year to urge him to get into the race.
The way Judge Judy sees it, our country cannot stand another four years of what she sees as “a plague of disrespectful political discourse.”
Judge Judy is already on the campaign trail with Bloomberg – and guess what: local TV and media are more inclined to cover Bloomberg campaigning with Judy than without; another reason why endorsements matter.
“America probably still needs a little tweaking,” said Sheindlin. “It doesn’t need a revolution.” A shot at Bernie and Warren.
Judge Judy films only 52 days a year, for which CBS pays her an estimated $47 million, and she has been the star of the highest-rated show in syndication every season for the past decade,
The NY Times and reporter Lisa Lerer recently wrote about Judge Judy’s endorsement: “Adrienne Elrod, a Democratic strategist who managed celebrity surrogates on Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, said that when Mrs. Clinton’s team tested the reach of their endorsers before the general election, the people who were the most valuable with undecided voters were stars, like Ms. Sheindlin, who reached broad audiences on network television.
“A lot of these celebrities like Judge Judy appeal to Middle America, people watching network television and not cable news all day,” continued Elrod. “Anybody who has a mainstream following on network television is someone you want because it means they have mainstream appeal.”
Bloomberg, according to Judge Judy, “holds no constituency other than the people who elected him.”
Bloomberg said of Judge Judy: “There’s nobody this country respects any more than you. There are other people, as well, but you really are a great American and you should be very proud of what you do.”
Judge Judy has praised Bloomberg’s pragmatism and his work on gun control and climate change, and his experience in managing the greatest city in the world, New York City, at a time when she lived in the Big Apple with her kids.
Why did Judge Judy finally endorse someone for president? Because she is concerned, or horrified at the lack of reasonable political discourse in our country and said she believes Bloomberg is the one democratic who can beat Trump.
“Nobody gets angry in my courtroom, but I see it in the social discourse – my family, friends,” she said. “Enough damage has been done. My mission is to see that Mike Bloomberg is in the White House for the next four years. We need to heal.”
So if we can now all agree that at least some endorsements matter, coming from someone like Judge Judy, here’s a couple more closer to home here in Westchester:
Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, who represents northern Westchester and the Hudson Valley in the House of Representatives’ 18th district, recently endorsed Joe Biden for President.
“Joe Biden’s unmatched record, command of domestic and foreign affairs, and progressive vision for America’s future is the leadership we need at this critical moment,” he said. “Joe hasn’t just advocated for progressive change throughout his career, he’s delivered on it – from ushering through the Violence Against Women Act, to fighting shoulder to shoulder alongside President Obama to pass Obamacare, and supporting marriage equality.
“The next president faces a monumental task: Restoring America as a leader in the world and bringing our country together. We live in dangerous times, and Donald Trump’s actions have made us less safe and more isolated. At home, our political process has become so fractured we cannot deliver results for working families across the country.
“As president, Joe Biden will deliver the local tax relief, infrastructure, clean drinking water and support for our military and veterans that my neighbors in the Hudson Valley want,” continued Maloney. “And, as he has always done, Joe Biden will seek to unite us as Americans and drain the poison out of our divided politics.”
Maloney’s endorsement of Biden may not be as important as a celebrity endorsement from Judge Judy, and it ties Maloney, who has to run for re-election this fall, to the former vice-president.
Maloney’s opponent this fall, Republican Chele Farley, said Maloney’s endorsement of Biden “shines a spotlight on the shameless hypocrisy of the American left. Maloney boldly claimed that Biden is the only candidate capable of ‘restoring America’ because ‘our political process has become so fractured we cannot deliver results for working families across the country,’” she said. “The 2020 election represents a very clear choice between socialist policy, meaning more government control – as embraced by leftists like Sean Patrick Maloney and Joe Biden – or continued free market economy and prosperity under President Trump.”
And The New York Times couldn’t decide on one candidate to endorse for President, so they chose two: U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
The Times also went on to point out that: “Newspaper endorsements can help educate voters on national and local candidates and lead to better-informed decisions at the ballot box. In nearly all presidential elections from 1940 to 2016, the candidate with the most newspaper endorsements won.”
The Times also made an anti-endorsement, the first of its kind in 2016, writing an anti-endorsement of Donald Trump. But the Times has endorsed a democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1960. President Dwight Eisenhower was the last republican endorsed by the Gray Old Lady.
This newspaper also endorses political candidates for office, in an effort to inform but also to influence the voters and explain our reasons for an endorsement. If you agree, great. And if you don’t, fine also. Just get out and vote!
