The editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle announced yesterday that they will not be endorsing a candidate in California's June 7 presidential primary. The reason? Basically, none of the candidates are good enough.
The paper addresses the three major-party candidates one at a time, dismissing Donald Trump as "a nonstarter" before moving onto the classic Bernie vs.Hillary struggle.
Of the heavily favored Clinton (Five Thirty Eight has her at an 86 percent chance of winning the California primary), the paper writes that her backing out of a pledge to debate Sanders in California this past May "only feeds into the perception (established through the years) of the Clintons’ sense of entitlement and their presumption that they can set their own rules. The nation’s most populous state deserves better," they add.
What's more, Clinton's decision to not sit down with the editorial board seems to have irked someone over at the Chron. "[There] remain serious questions about her judgment and ethics," they write. "Our editorial board would have liked to have pressed her on some of those issues, including myriad questions about her email server and those six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs."
OK, so, no Clinton and no Trump. What about Sanders? Is the paper's editorial board feeling the Bern? Not so much, it turns out. While the senator "has had a profound impact on the debate," they argue that "there is a certain disconnection with reality in Sanders’ aggressively progressive promises."
I guess Bernie's love of Sightglass wasn't enough to sway them.