Lea en español 
 
 
 
 There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton. 
 
 We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections. The party's over-reliance on government and regulation to remedy the country's ills is at odds with our belief in private-sector ingenuity and innovation. Our values are more about individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense. 
 
 We've been critical of Clinton's handling of certain issues in the past. But unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has experience in actual governance, a record of service and a willingness to delve into real policy. 
 
 PART ONE Donald Trump is no Republican His name may be at the top of the GOP ticket, but Trump doesn’t reflect Republican ideals of the past; we are certain he shouldn’t reflect the GOP of the future. 
 
 Resume vs. resume, judgment vs. judgment, this election is no contest. 
 
 In Clinton's eight years in the U.S. Senate, she displayed reach and influence in foreign affairs. Though conservatives like to paint her as nakedly partisan, on Capitol Hill she gained respect from Republicans for working across the aisle: Two-thirds of her bills had GOP co-sponsors and included common ground with some of Congress' most conservative lawmakers. 
 
 As President Barack Obama's first secretary of state, she helped make tough calls on the Middle East and the complex struggle against radical Islamic terrorism. It's no accident that hundreds of Republican foreign policy hands back Clinton. She also has the support of dozens of top advisers from previous Republican administrations, including Henry Paulson, John Negroponte, Richard Armitage and Brent Scowcroft. Also on this list is Jim Glassman, the founding executive director of the George W. Bush Institute in Dallas. 
 
 
 
 Clinton has remained dogged by questions about her honesty, her willingness to shade the truth. Her use of a private email server while secretary of state is a clear example of poor judgment. She should take additional steps to divorce allegations of influence peddling from the Clinton Foundation. And she must be more forthright with the public by holding news conferences, as opposed to relying on a shield of carefully scripted appearances and speeches. 
 
 Those are real shortcomings. But they pale in comparison to the litany of evils some opponents accuse her of. Treason? Murder? Her being cleared of crimes by investigation after investigation has no effect on these political hyenas; they refuse to see anything but conspiracies and cover-ups. 
 
 We reject the politics of personal destruction. Clinton has made mistakes and displayed bad judgment, but her errors are plainly in a different universe than her opponent's. 
 
 Trump's values are hostile to conservatism. He plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best. His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness. And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control. 
 
 After nearly four decades in the public spotlight, 25 of them on the national stage, Clinton is a known quantity. For all her warts, she is the candidate more likely to keep our nation safe, to protect American ideals and to work across the aisle to uphold the vital domestic institutions that rely on a competent, experienced president. 
 
 Hillary Clinton has spent years in the trenches doing the hard work needed to prepare herself to lead our nation. In this race, at this time, she deserves your vote. ||||| The Dallas Morning News broke with more than 75 years of tradition on Wednesday morning to endorse a Democrat for president, choosing Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. 
 
 And in doing so, they got right to the point: "There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November," the editorial began. "We recommend Hillary Clinton." 
 
 The Dallas Morning News’ editorial page is very, very conservative. It hasn’t endorsed a Democrat for president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1940. (Its unbroken streak of Republicans has one exception: In 1964, the newspaper declined to choose between Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Baines Johnson.) And the editorial included a critique of the Democratic Party’s "over-reliance on government and regulation." 
 
 But the editorial went on to savage Trump: 
 
 He plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best. His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness. And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control. 
 
 Clinton, the editorial board wrote, is a "known quantity." 
 
 The endorsement is a sign of how much Trump’s campaign has shaken even staunch bastions of Republicanism. But will it matter to anybody else? Given how polarized American politics have become — not to mention the waning influence of newspapers — it’s reasonable to be skeptical that any Republicans were sitting around waiting to hear what the Dallas Morning News had to think before making up their mind on Trump. 
 
 A surprising newspaper endorsement could actually make a difference 
 
 According to a study published in 2011, though, an unusual endorsement like this might matter precisely because it’s not what readers expected to hear. Newspaper endorsements change the most minds when they break with the usual pattern to endorse a candidate of the other party. 
 
 Two political scientists, Chun-Fang Chiang, of National Taiwan University, and Brian Knight, of Brown University, studied the effect of newspaper endorsements in 2000 and 2004, using a survey that asked voters in the days leading up to the election about which newspapers they read and which candidates they preferred. 
 
 The researchers sorted newspapers on a spectrum based on how likely they were to endorse Democrats for president. The Dallas Morning News was the most predictably conservative of the group — endorsing Democrats just 17 percent of the time. At the other end of the spectrum, the New York Times endorsed Democrats 90 percent of the time. 
 
 They found that when Democratic-leaning newspapers endorsed Republicans for president, or vice versa, readers were slightly more likely to support the candidate the newspaper endorsed. If newspapers endorsed the candidates that typically lined up with the editorial page’s ideology, though, they didn’t really convince anyone. The effects were greatest among people who had seen the endorsement, as you might expect, and among older readers, who were more likely to read the editorial page. 
 
 The study’s findings might not be as true today. Newspaper circulation has fallen 20 percent since 2004, the last election the researchers studied, and more and more Americans are getting their news online or other ways. Pew found that 81 percent of the public gets at least some of its news online. Meanwhile, the American public has become even more polarized. 
 
 Still, given the Dallas Morning News’ strict conservative bent, its choice to endorse Clinton isn’t just making headlines — research suggests it could make a real difference. 
 
 What the media gets wrong about Trump voters ||||| The Dallas Morning News has not endorsed a Democrat for president since before World War II. Nearly 20 elections have come and gone since then and the paper has stuck with the Republican nominee in every one of them, its editorial board notes, saying the party more closely shares its values of free markets and strong national defense. 
 
 This election, it is going in another direction. The Texas paper has endorsed Hillary Clinton. 
 
 Donald “Trump's values are hostile to conservatism,” the editorial board wrote. “He plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best. His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness. And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control.” 
 
 Texas has long been a stronghold for Republicans, and it is a must-win state for Trump. Most polls show him leading there – but not as comfortably as Republicans have in the past, suggesting Democrats are gaining ground in their years-long push to at least turn the state purple. 
 
 They are getting a boost from a population that is growing increasingly diverse. The uneasiness that many Latinos have with Trump is hampering his efforts to lock down Texas in this cycle, and Democrats are confident that growing share of the electorate will stick with them. 
 
 In an extensive 50-state poll released this week by the Washington Post and SurveyMonkey, Clinton and Trump were in a dead heat in Texas, a finding that surprised strategists who anticipated the state would not be in play this cycle. The poll surveyed more than 5,000 Texans.
– A Texas newspaper just did something it hasn't done since before World War II: recommended a Democrat for president, the Los Angeles Times reports, noting the Lone Star State is a "must-win" for Donald Trump. In a Wednesday editorial, the Dallas Morning News says it had no choice but to throw its support behind Hillary Clinton, calling her the only "serious candidate" on the ballot. "If you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections," the paper notes about the end of its streak (it endorsed FDR in 1940, per Vox). The paper adds it still has beefs with the Democratic Party and a wariness regarding Clinton, but that its endorsement comes because "unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has experience in actual governance, a record of service, and a willingness to delve into real policy." The paper cites how Clinton reached across the aisle in the Senate and wielded her authority as secretary of state to make "tough calls" about the Middle East and in the "complex struggle against radical Islamic terrorism." The paper acknowledges Clinton is still dealing with controversy regarding her emails, the Clinton Foundation, and a general perception by many that she's not honest and trustworthy. But it says those who are lobbing charges of "treason" and "murder" are just "political hyenas" bent on seeing nothing but "conspiracies and cover-ups" and that her mistakes "are plainly in a different universe than [Trump's]." Meanwhile, the GOP nominee is labeled as unprepared, lacking in judgment and impulse control (as evidenced by his often-ranting "midnight tweets"), and someone who "[exploits] base instincts of xenophobia, racism, and misogyny." Clinton "has spent years in the trenches doing the hard work needed to prepare herself to lead our nation. In this race, at this time, she deserves your vote." (Trump's latest endorsement came from 88 retired military officials.)