Uh, it’s a ticket. You can’t vote for one and not the other. Walz is implicitly endorsed. I don’t understand what the point of the headline’s distinction is.
Yeah, dumb title confused me too. I didn’t care enough to read the article but comments helped me realize “no VP endorsement” means she’s not endorsing Harris, who is the current VP.
Ah. Yeah, I suppose that makes more sense. But also, I feel like the distinction is somewhat pedantic. You’re openly saying you’re voting for them, which is essentially an implied endorsement. That’s not a tortured chain of logic. That’s a pretty direct inference.
Yeah, it’s pedantic but I can respect the nuance. Endorsement may feel like condoning things you don’t approve of, while saying you’re voting for them acknowledges it’s the best of bad options. It’ll most likely have the same effect, but it makes sense to me why someone wouldn’t want to put their name behind someone they don’t feel totally aligned with.
Silly comparison that comes to mind, but in my family we have the concept of a “tout” vs a “recommendation.” If I recommend something, it’s because I like it and you might too. A tout is a serious thing though; that is putting our reputation on the line to say, “I believe you will love this thing,” and if someone touts something, you’re pretty much obligated to check it out. If a tout was wrong, you don’t have to take their word for things again. We recommend plenty, but the use of a tout comes with weight.
So in this case, this person recommends Harris, but doesn’t tout her. Harris is good enough to deserve her vote, but she doesn’t want her reputation aligned with anything Harris may eventually do.
Uh, it’s a ticket. You can’t vote for one and not the other. Walz is implicitly endorsed. I don’t understand what the point of the headline’s distinction is.
She’s voting for Kamala but not endorsing her.
Yeah, dumb title confused me too. I didn’t care enough to read the article but comments helped me realize “no VP endorsement” means she’s not endorsing Harris, who is the current VP.
Ah. Yeah, I suppose that makes more sense. But also, I feel like the distinction is somewhat pedantic. You’re openly saying you’re voting for them, which is essentially an implied endorsement. That’s not a tortured chain of logic. That’s a pretty direct inference.
Yeah, it’s pedantic but I can respect the nuance. Endorsement may feel like condoning things you don’t approve of, while saying you’re voting for them acknowledges it’s the best of bad options. It’ll most likely have the same effect, but it makes sense to me why someone wouldn’t want to put their name behind someone they don’t feel totally aligned with.
Silly comparison that comes to mind, but in my family we have the concept of a “tout” vs a “recommendation.” If I recommend something, it’s because I like it and you might too. A tout is a serious thing though; that is putting our reputation on the line to say, “I believe you will love this thing,” and if someone touts something, you’re pretty much obligated to check it out. If a tout was wrong, you don’t have to take their word for things again. We recommend plenty, but the use of a tout comes with weight.
So in this case, this person recommends Harris, but doesn’t tout her. Harris is good enough to deserve her vote, but she doesn’t want her reputation aligned with anything Harris may eventually do.