The last time NYT endorsed a Republican was Eisenhower in 1956 . The Washington Post started endorsing people for president in 1976 and has never endorsed a Republican. It did not endorse anyone in 1988.

The playbook is always the same for major newspapers as they collude to elect Democrats for president. It does not matter how good or bad the economy is; the Washington Post and New York Times will always support the Democrat running. They always play the race card and sex card and say the Democrat will be better at running the country and the economy.

Only one significant newspaper (from Las Vegas) endorsed Trump in 2016. Think how they all supported Hillary even though they knew how corrupt she was. Not one of those newspapers cared about all the women Bill and Hillary physically, mentally abused and sought to destroy as they pretend to care about abused women.

The track record of major newspaper presidential endorsements is found here.

In 1980, the economy was in the tank, and they endorsed Carter for re-election.

In 1984, Reagan had started turning the economy around and they endorsed Mondale.

In 1988, the economy was on a good run, but they would not endorse Bush.

In 1992, Bill Clinton ran on a series of bald-faced lies on the economy and the media endorsed him. He said the economy was the worst in fifty years and that the tax cuts only helped the wealthy. Does that sound familiar?

The fact is, Reagan inherited a disaster of very high inflation, high interest rates, and an economy in a severe recession. He and Bush turned it around with tax cuts and a focus on the private sector. Clinton inherited an economy that had real growth of 4.38% in 1992. We essentially had 18 years of almost continuous growth, with a minor blip in 1991.

Here is some of the crap Clinton said in the spring of 1992 as he was lying his way to the presidency with the help of the sycophant media.

A speech in Philadelphia on April 16, 1992:

For 11 years, we've had no economic vision, no economic leadership, no national economic strategy. The single driving idea behind economic policy in the '80s has been to keep taxes low on corporations and upper-income individuals and keep government out of our way. This idea was evidenced most clearly in the President's recent veto of a tax bill crafted largely by Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, a pro-business Democrat, and Congressman Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois. The bill would have increased investment in new plant and equipment, homes and real estate, and small business. The President vetoed it because these incentives would have been paid for by increased taxes on the wealthy whose taxes were lowered in the '80s. This policy hasn't worked. The current administration has compiled the worst economic record in 50 years. George Bush's Presidency has produced slower economic growth, slower job growth, and slower income growth than any administration since the Great Depression — and the biggest deficits and highest middle-class tax burden of any administration in history.

Note:

In 1980 the prime rate was 15.2% and average mortgage yield was 12.7%[.]

Inflation in the 1980s:

The 1980's began with the world in a major recession and the U.S. had massive inflation and unemployment. In addition to economic woes, Jimmy Carter was dealing with the 444 day Iranian hostage crisis which began on November 4th 1979 and culminated precisely at the conclusion of Reagan's inaugural address on January 20, 1980. Reagan was a staunch believer in laissez faire capitalism and a follower of "Austrian economics" he emphasized reduced government intervention, lower taxes and deregulation of the stock markets which lead to an economic revival in the mid- to late 80s. Over the decade the New York Stock Exchange nearly quadrupled as it went from just over 500 to almost 2000. At the same time the Consumer Price Index increased 62% from 77.8 to 126.1 so the stock market outpaced inflation by about three-fold. In January 1980, inflation was 13.91% and Unemployment was 6.3%. Inflation peaked in April 1980 at 14.76% and fell to "only" 6.51% the following April. By December 1989 inflation had decreased drastically to 4.65% and unemployment had declined to 5.4%. At the beginning of the decade the American auto industry was suffering partially due to the poor economy. Unions began a "Buy American" campaign which helped a little but Chrysler and American Motors were near bankruptcy.

Japanese cars were produced on modern rapidly customizable assembly lines so quality defects could be rapidly corrected while American assembly lines were not so easily upgraded. This led to the popular perception that imports were of higher quality than American made vehicles. The auto makers recovered with the economy by 1983 and in 1985 auto sales in the United States actually hit a new record. But Japanese cars continued to control a significant portion of the auto market and even began manufacturing cars in the U.S. to avoid tariffs.

In 1981 Reagan cut the top rate to 50% from 70% and in 1986 he cut the rate further to 28%.

Growth rates demonstrate the effects:

What Reagan inherited. Real GDP growth-1980 -.04%, 1981-1.30%, 1982 -1.44% After Reagan's tax cuts-1983-7.9%, 1984, 5.58%, 1985-4.18% What Clinton inherited 1992-4.38% What Bush inherited: 2000-2.97, 2001-.15%, 2002 2.09%

Jobs:

Jobs bottomed in 1982 at 80.5 million and by the time Clinton took office there were 98.1 million Unemployment rates hit 10.8% at end of 1982 and was 7.4% when Clinton took office.

In 2000, the stock market collapsed, the economy was slowing, and we were heading into a recession, yet the media strongly endorsed Gore.

Bush inherited a collapsed stock market and a recession that started less than two months after he took over. Income tax revenues declined from around $1.2 trillion to $900 billion by FY 2003. In May 2003 Bush passed a substantial across the board tax cut and the economy took off. Income tax revenues took off and rose over 60% to over $1.5 trillion in four years. The deficit also declined from over $300 billion to $161 Billion by FY 2007 despite two wars and Medicare Part B.

The NYT lied to the public when it endorsed Kerry against Bush in 2004 when they say the tax cuts starved the government. They actually fed the government huge amounts of money.

Here is what NYT wrote when they endorsed Kerry:

John Kerry The President's refusal to drop his tax cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change priorities. Mr. Bush did not just starve the government of the money it needed for his own education initiative or the Medicare drug bill.

President Obama inherited a slowing a severe recession, but it came out of the recession around 130 days after he took office before any of his policies, including the stimulus, could have had any effect. It came back because of TARP (where the government made money, TARP was loans, not grants), because oil prices dropped by the time Obama took office and because the Federal Reserve rapidly dropped interest rates.

Obama's high tax, big spending, massive borrowings gave us the slowest economic recovery despite almost zero interest rates and the Federal Reserve injecting liquidity by rapidly inflating their balance sheet. We also got stagnant wages, an effort to bankrupt coal companies and for-profit universities and a series of lies on Obamacare that greatly increased premiums and reduced purchasing power.

Yet with these pathetic results, almost every newspaper endorsed Hillary despite knowing of her illegalities and corruption. Somehow, according to the NY Times, those of us who told the truth about her corruption distorted perceptions of her character. (Will the Times and others ever admit that the dossier and the continued lies about Russian collusion have distorted perceptions about Trump's character?)

Hillary Clinton ... our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.) Similarly, Mrs. Clinton's occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character.

Since before Trump was elected, the media, in collusion with other Democrats, have sought to put fear into the public as to how Trump's policies would destroy the economy.

So far, the predictions have been 100% wrong, but now, as the election gets closer, the doom and gloom predictions get louder in order to instill fear into the public. The culprit this time is that, because the Federal Reserve has no common sense, the two-year interest rate was above the ten-year rate yesterday and that just might send the economy into a tailspin. Now the solution to this inversion is simple. The Federal Reserve should do its job and pay attention to market rates and inflation instead of thinking they should control economic growth. The market and inflation are saying that overnight rates should be way below 2%

The media and other Democrats are trying to talk the economy into a recession or talk the public into a recession.

Here are many statistics (facts) that show the economy is not heading towards a recession:

The jobless rates for all sexes, races and education are at or near historic lows.

Unemployment claims are near 50-year lows and in the early seventies the labor force was half what it is today.

Job openings are near records at over seven million which is more than the number of people seeking jobs.

Inflation remains very low despite predictions of doom and gloom. The import price index came out on Wednesday with year over year at minus 1.8%

Health insurance premiums have stabilized because Trump has given people freedom of choice after years of Democrat lies and massive premium, out of pocket and co Pay increases because of excessive mandates.

Retail sales remain strong and consumer spending is said to be 70% of the economy.

The stock market is near all-time highs.

Corporation earnings are holding up at higher levels. Lower taxes give them more flexibility and a greater incentive to operate here instead of some other country.

Oil production is at a record, keeping prices affordable. (I believe almost all farmers will vote for Trump, despite the tariffs, because they understand that the green new deal or some similar version will destroy the economy. How many believe cows and other livestock are causing climate change? How will Democrats export farm products without ships and barges powered by fossil fuels?)

Interest rates are now dropping which will greatly help the housing market and first-time home buyers.

Wages are rising faster than they did during any of the Obama/Biden years and especially for those at the bottom end of the scale, people who Democrats supposedly care about.

Revenues to the federal government along with states and cities are rising. Why does the media, along with other Democrats, continue to lie that Trump's tax cuts are costing the government trillions when revenues are rising because of higher wages, more jobs and faster economic growth than projected?

Thursday morning, Walmart came out with very good sales, very good earnings and a good forecast. If any company would show how the overall economy is doing, it is Walmart, the World's biggest retailer that caters to low- and middle-income people.

But we have a recession coming because of a minor interest rate inversion caused by the Fed?

When will the media tell the truth instead of spewing forth Democrat talking points as if that is the truth? As Biden said, Democrats believe in the truth instead of facts.

Graphic credit: Pixabay.