Breaking with established tradition, the New York Times has endorsed two Democratic presidential candidates for the party’s 2020 nomination to fight Donald Trump for the White House – Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.

The move offers a powerful but two-track vision for the political direction of the US in a moment of deep division between and within parties and voter communities.

Iowa's minority voters to Democrats: reject Trump and tell our story of hope Read more

“May the best woman win,” the paper said in an unprecedented two-page editorial with large portraits of the two women.

The dual choices of the Massachusetts progressive Warren and the Minnesota centrist Klobuchar speak to what the paper called “an essential debate … under way between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation”.

But rather than looking for differences between Warren, Klobuchar or other Democrats in the contest, the newspaper said, the endorsement was informed by the “striking” similarity of their election platforms on fundamental issues.

“Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration,” the Times said. “If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it.”

Klobuchar called the endorsement “an honor” in a tweet, while Warren – referring to her argument in the most recent Democratic debate – said: “So, I guess, Amy Klobuchar and I are now both undefeated in elections and undefeated in New York Times endorsements!”

But the paper acknowledged that “some of the most compelling ideas are not emerging from the center, but from the left wing of the Democratic party” while adding that “we worry about ideological rigidity and overreach”.

“There will be those dissatisfied that this page is not throwing its weight behind a single candidate, favoring centrists or progressives. But it’s a fight the party itself has been itching to have since Mrs Clinton’s defeat in 2016, and one that should be played out in the public arena and in the privacy of the voting booth,” it wrote.

Compared with Donald Trump, “nearly any of them would be the most progressive president in decades on issues like healthcare, the economy and government spending. Where the Democratic candidates differ most significantly is not the what but the how.”

That question, in turn, rests on an interpretation of the Trump presidency, and whether it represents a political aberration that can be reversed, or the should be viewed as a product of “rotten” political and economic systems that require fundamental reform.

Trump, the Times said, was clear in his agenda: the “veneration of a mythological past” informed by unchallenged hierarchy of “white nativism” and “America first unilateralism”, an escalation of cultural conflict, corruption and judiciary “stacked with ideologues”.

“The events of the past few years have shaken the confidence of even the most committed institutionalists,” the editorial board said.

﻿The board called Warren “a gifted storyteller” who speaks “elegantly of how the economic system is rigged against all but the wealthiest Americans”, and offers “an informed assessment of what the nation needs to do to reassert its historic ideals like fairness, generosity and equality”.

But, the paper warned, while US capitalism is responsible for its share of problems, “Warren often casts the net far too wide, placing the blame for a host of maladies from climate change to gun violence at the feet of the business community when the onus is on society as a whole”.

“The country needs a more unifying path,” the paper concluded

Kathleen Kingsbury (@katiekings) A preview of tomorrow’s print page. pic.twitter.com/LyC4EnQUdh

In co-selecting Klobuchar, “the very definition of midwestern charisma, grit and stick-to-it-iveness”, the paper acknowledged the senator’s reputation for treating staff harshly but said “her lengthy tenure in the Senate and bipartisan credentials would make her a dealmaker (a real one) and uniter for the wings of the party – and perhaps the nation”.

“Klobuchar speaks about issues like climate change, the narrowing middle class, gun safety and trade with an empathy that connects to voters’ lived experiences, especially in the middle of the country,” it added.

But the paper rejected endorsing Bernie Sanders on grounds that he would be 79 when he assumed office and “his health is a serious concern” after a heart attack in October. Moreover, it questioned his approach to politics and his perceived rejection of compromise.

The Times’ cruelest blow was delivered to polling frontrunner and former vice-president Joe Biden, calling his lead “a measure of familiarity as much as voter intention” while adding that his safe approach “will not get America where it needs to go as a society. What’s more, Mr Biden is 77. It is time for him to pass the torch to a new generation of political leaders.”﻿