American voters must choose between three, technically four, sharply divergent visions of the future. We have double-vision so we have eliminated two.

The incumbent president, Donald Trump, is clear about where he is guiding the Republican Party — white nativism at home and America First unilateralism abroad, brazen corruption, escalating culture wars, a judiciary stacked with ideologues. We don't like that one.

On the Democratic side, an essential debate is underway between two, actually three, visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation. Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible. Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced.

And then there is Bernie Sanders. Before this endorsement cycle The Editorial Board, in consultation with the current publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, developed a statement of its guiding values which includes: Supporting a world order in which “freedom and progress advance through democracy and capitalism." Senator Sanders is a socialist so we got rid of that vision, too.

The Democratic primary contest is often portrayed as a tussle between moderates and progressives. To some extent that’s true. But when we spent significant time with the leading candidates, the similarity of their platforms on fundamental issues became so striking it was very confusing.

Choosing who should face off against Mr. Trump means acknowledging that Americans are being confronted with three models for how to govern this country, not two. Actually, four models not three. Democrats must decide which of their two remaining models would be most compelling for the American people and best suited for repairing the Republic. And we can't help Democrats decide because we can't decide.

Nine candidates. Fifteen, actually fourteen, journalists. The Editorial Board's large and raucous field made having that clean debate difficult, too difficult. James Bennet, the editorial page editor, recused himself from any involvement in the 2020 elections because his brother, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, is running for the nomination. Who knew?

The history of the editorial board would suggest that we would side squarely with the candidate with a more traditional approach to pushing the nation forward. But the events of the past few years have shaken our confidence in our institutions, and this Editorial Board has very little history. Eleven of the remaining fourteen members have been with us only since 2016. We are not veering away from the values we espouse, we just don't know what those values are anymore, and we are rattled by the weakness of the institutions that we trusted to undergird those values. Amidst all of the raucous veering and rattling, we got our undergirdles in a wad.

There are legitimate questions about whether our democratic system is fundamentally broken. Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. The nativist and socialist models do not. 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. But we're not stable and we're not socialist and so we went with a two-headed president.

That’s why we’re endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.

May the best woman, or women, win.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/19/opinion/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-nytimes-endorsement.html