Clinton’s policies “are those of the pragmatic centre of the Democratic Party,” The Economist writes. | AP The Economist endorses Clinton: She's 'a better candidate than she seems'

The Economist, the Europe-focused news magazine, has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, writing in its Nov. 5 print edition that the former secretary of state is “a better candidate than she seems and better suited to cope with the awful, broken state of Washington politics than her critics will admit.”

While the endorsement’s writers offered warm praise of Clinton’s candidacy, they also wrote that their choice was made much easier given the alternative of Donald Trump in the White House.


“The choice is not hard. The campaign has provided daily evidence that Mr. Trump would be a terrible president,” The Economist noted, adding 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.

The Manhattan billionaire’s policy proposals are just as troubling for The Economist, which highlighted his plans on taxes, the environment, immigration and “America’s role in the world,” amongst others, as issues where the writers disagree with Trump. “We would sooner have endorsed Richard Nixon—even had we known how he would later come to grief,” the magazine wrote.

Clinton’s policies, by contrast “are those of the pragmatic centre of the Democratic Party” according to The Economist. 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 magazine wrote.

If she were to win, Clinton would inherit an immensely divided U.S. political landscape with parties as unwilling as ever to compromise with one another. The Economist noted that while Trump is seen by some as a candidate who would tear down and rebuild a broken Washington system, that assessment is ultimately shortsighted and does not hold water.

“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.”Î