Endorsements are fraught with danger. They can upset allies, lead to angry phone calls, and even divide people who agree on 97.4% of the issues against one another.
Endorsements, though, serve a purpose. In the current media climate where coverage is compromised by shrinking newsrooms and the demands of COVID-19, informed opinion about races might help voters make difficult choices between candidates. To ensure that our endorsements were as thoroughly researched and as fair as possible, we interviewed every candidate we could this year. In those 25-45 minute sessions, we learned a lot about the passion and intellect of the people running in the Democratic primaries.
We’re impressed with the crop of candidates in these races. We discussed their merits and weighed our options carefully, deciding this year that we would only endorse if all four of our staff writers agreed on a candidate in a race. We wanted to ensure that our endorsements reflected our unanimous support for a candidate.
It shouldn’t have to be said, but our endorsements this year are not intended to be slights to those candidates we did not endorse. In every case, we will happily support and vote for the candidates who did not receive our endorsement if they win their primary races.
We’re still going to publish articles in support of the candidates we endorsed and those we didn’t. We’re still in the business of promoting progressive politics and candidates in the state of Montana and covering the news that doesn’t always make the mainstream press.
We hope you’ll take these endorsements as we intend them: as statements of preference, not orthodoxy, as arguments of degree, not kind.
And we hope you’ll feel free to have some excellent debates about the merits of our choices over the next few days.