Actually, given that the Globe and Mail officially endorsed Mulcair ...
I checked this, and in fact I'm wrong. It wasn't a Globe endorsement, it was an endorsement from one of their columnists, Lawrence Martin.
It was an endorsement, but anyway, I was just pointing it out because I think we likely should just accept endorsements as is, rather than second-guessing them. The Star (or a columnist) endorsed Topp, and sure, I could say, well, the Star LOVES the Liberals, so they're only endorsing Topp because that will help the Liberals. But, well, perhaps they simply think Topp is the best choice, in the same way that Martin of the Globe thinks Mulcair is the best choice, and that Coyne thinks Nash would be the best choice. I took that as recognition that he was most versed in national economics, m_a, not an endorsement.