Why endorsements matter (with video!)
Kari Chisholm
Every campaign devotes substantial resources to chasing down endorsements. Whether it's former governors, local community leaders, labor unions, or issue groups, the amount of time that campaigns spend recruiting endorsements, working relationships, or filling out questionnaires, the work of landing endorsements is always a substantial investment in time and energy.
But do endorsements really matter? After all, they don't usually make it in the TV spots (unless they're really big) and there's only a short list that will make it into the direct mail or the voters' pamphlet.
The reason endorsements matter is that every endorsement - whether from someone known statewide or from someone known only on their block - is important to the community that surrounds that endorser. When you're building a grassroots movement for change, you need people in every corner of the state to help you spread the word, build the operation, reach out to ever-widening circles of voters.
Those of us who spend our time talking big-picture politics and policy often forget that campaigns are won on the ground, by neighbors talking to neighbors, friends talking to friends. As Malcolm Gladwell described in The Tipping Point, every social movement that takes off is powered by the people he calls Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen.
Because it's mostly invisble, happening far away from the spotlight, this part of campaigns is almost entirely ignored by media, ignored by bloggers, ignored by far-away critics and observers.
But if you're trying to figure out who's really building a grassroots movement, pay attention to the endorsements - especially the little ones.
If we're going to defeat Gordon Smith, we're going to need a huge, statewide, active grassroots operation. And that's what Jeff Merkley's been slowly building all across this state:
When this campaign started, Jeff promised the largest grassroots campaign in Oregon history. And we're well on our way. If you're ready to endorse Jeff Merkley, add your name to the big list here.
[Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's campaign website, but we can't take any of the credit for this video. As always, I speak here only for myself.]
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Mar 20, '08
Let me translate:
Kari works for Merkley and he'd like you to vote for the guy who pays him. I didn't read every word, but I think that's the drift.
Mar 20, '08
Let me translate Daniel's comment:
If Novick had done the work and had the same depth and breadth of endorsements as Merkley, I'd be shouting them from the rooftops. But I can't so I'm reduced to taking pot shots.
There. Now we've had tit for tat. Can we be done with the Merkley/Novick back and forth on this?
Merkley's video is great. Can't you just awknowledge it and move on, Daniel?
7:22 a.m.
Mar 20, '08
I added my name to Steve Novick's effort. Along with John Kitzhaber, Les AuCoin, Jeff Cogen, Desari Strader, David Bragdon, Liz Smith Currie and many others.
Mar 20, '08
Actually, Merkley is just a DLC-friendly, DSCC tool whose campaign hasn't caught fire. Like Clinton he arrogantly believed the nomination was his because he had played ball and carried water with those self-servers and wusses who have destroyed our Democratic Party and actually helped the Republican Party trash our country. I've not exactly been impressed with Novick in this race (and I'm certainly not on his staff), but I'll be voting for him specifically to vote against the kind of politician Merkley is. It's time to send all their ilk back to private life as rank-and-file voters and try to vote in some true Democratic leadership.
8:37 a.m.
Mar 20, '08
If Jeff's a tool, then I'd call him a hammer, which good, progressive Oregonians can use to beat down Gordon Smith and pound him from office.
Sorry, that was really cheesy and I apologize. Back to your regularly-scheduled barbs.
Mar 20, '08
Posters like Anon 2 astonish me. To accuse someone of "arrogantly believ[ing] the nomination was his" is itself the height of arrogance, as if you have the power to get inside someone else's head and analyze their motives.
Plus, you're not paying attention. Jeff's efforts played a major role in flipping the House to D control and then passing a whole raft of legislation moving Oregon in a progressive direction. They went as far as they could with a bare 31-29 majority.
Nothing against Steve Novick, a courageous, principled fighter for all things good. But Jeff Merkley has proven to be an effective progressive in a legislative body, which is exactly what we need from Oregon's next Senator.
Mar 20, '08
I'm not sure any reasonable response to Anon 2 is going to do anything. To quote Maurer's Rule: Any time you see someone use the word "ilk" in a political rant, you're talking to someone who's one can short a sixpack.
Let's all be happy he managed to type that without drooling on his keyboard.
9:00 a.m.
Mar 20, '08
(Now for what I was really going to say before I started reading the comments.)
Endorsements, in a competitive environment, are also a way to judge the personality of a candidate. People who work well with others, who build bridges to achieve common goals, get more of them.
It's especially impressive when a candidate gets endorsements from people who normally either don't endorse, or endorse the opposition - without compromising their actual beliefs. I've see this from three candidates during this primary season: Barak Obama, John Kroger, and Jeff Merkley.
This is what we need in candidates. Not people who scream in anger at Americans who aren't doing the right thing. We need candidates who can persuade those Americans to do the right thing.
9:02 a.m.
Mar 20, '08
... or, Jeff could be a vacuum cleaner, sucking up the corrupt Gordon Smith from Washington.
Wait, is a vacuum cleaner even a tool?
Well, in any case, Steve is right.
Mar 20, '08
Speaking of endorsements, in district 38, Linda Brown sent out a PR saying she got the endorsement of the Oregon Nurses Association. But, her press release doesn't even keep the facts straight with regard to health care. So, why the heck are they endorsing her? She says "hundreds" of Oregonians are without health insurance. Um, try hundreds of THOUSANDS. Is this really the best person to handle health care issues? I don't think she has even done much work with the health care industry... mostly the school board. Boy, I think some endorsements might just be backdoor friendships gone mainstream. I hope Oregonians check the candidates experience before falling lockstep with an endorsement.
Mar 20, '08
Endorsements are not ideas. They are the one of the lowest common denominators in politics. The only message endorsements convey to voters is this: If you are too lazy or too stupid to decide how to vote on your own, do what these famous, powerful, or otherwise recognizable people are doing. I mean for the love of god, anyone that plans to vote for Rick Metzger because Bill Walton has endorsed him.......
Mar 20, '08
I think its funny that an article entitled "Why Endorsements Matter" highlight a candidate who has garnered by far more endorsements than his opponent but will still lose the primary.
Mar 20, '08
As a voter, I cannot say that I am swayed by individual or group endorsements. However, I am certainly influenced by them at times.
An endorsement from an ally will certainly prompt me to take a second look at a candidate who had previously not gotten my attention, or whose campaign had failed to impress me favorably to that point. Conversely, an endorsement from someone with whom I have done political battle serves as a red flag -- it makes me want to know why they're supporting him or her.
The length and breadth of an endorsement list is also something I take into consideration as an indication of electability, but I try not to let such pragmatic considerations trump either qualifications or platform unless the opposition candidate is so odious that even a yellow dog would, in fact, be a quantum leap toward improvement.
In the instant case, that Jeff Merkley has earned the endorsement of such a broad swath of Oregon Democratic Party and progressive movement noteables on both sides of the mountains speaks to his abilities as a coalition builder and his broad appeal to Oregon voters.
I suspect my attitude in this regard is not atypical of most Oregonians... we tend not to take a lock-step approach toward anything.
J-M +
By way of full disclosure, I serve on the state coordination team for Progressive Democrats of Oregon which has not endorsed either candidates in this race. I support Jeff Merkley in my capacity as a private citizen.
10:46 a.m.
Mar 20, '08
The only message endorsements convey to voters is this: If you are too lazy or too stupid to decide how to vote on your own, do what these famous, powerful, or otherwise recognizable people are doing.
Well, that's one way of looking at it. But the reality is that most voters aren't going to spend their time analyzing the policy papers of candidates. They're going to take cues from people they trust.
Have you ever gone to a restaurant on the recommendation of a friend? Have you ever seen a movie because a friend liked it? Word of mouth is almost impossible to measure, but it's massively important.
Sure, endorsements from "famous" people aren't worth much. But endorsements from people you trust are worth a lot. (Which is exactly what I wrote above - whether from someone known statewide or from someone known only on their block. Next time, try reading the post - not just the headline.)
Mar 20, '08
I'm only familiar with one endorsement in this race, the endorsement of SEIU Local 503, my labor union. That endorsement was only a step towards another endorsement by the Oregon State Council - we do not make statewide race endorsements by ourselves, there's another SEIU local involved.
That all said and done I was one of those referred to in the press as a "dissenting votes." As I, and some of those other "dissenting votes" announced in the meeting, we would continue to work for Novick.
Still, we fought as hard as we did with our union brothers and sisters because we know how much this endorsement means to the candidate who receives it. If Steve goes on to win the nomination then you can be sure he's going to defeat Gordon Smith!
12:09 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
While this probably belongs under the heading of "anecdotal"... what I saw at the PDX Peace rally was a significantly larger grassroots turnout on behalf of Merkley than on behalf of Novick. It wasn't even close.
12:31 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
Let's all be happy he managed to type that without drooling on his keyboard.
See, this is the kind of crap I'm really tired of.
Don't like what someone said? Fine. But there's no need for this personal attack crap.
Kari works for Merkley and he'd like you to vote for the guy who pays him.
Actually, there's more to it than that. Kari works for people he supports, not the other way around. He wants you to vote for Merkley because he supports him. Just like I want you to vote for Novick because I support him. The fact that both of us have been paid by the corresponding two campaigns at some point has nothing to do with who we want you to support.
1:22 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
So I've made a "personal attack" against "Anon 2" ? Is Mrs. 2 and all of the little 2 children also terribly hurt as well? Have I hurt 2's career with my vile slander?
As far as I'm concerned, that anonymous internet troll is receiving the full measure of respect he deserves for his spittle-flecked attack against both Democrats in our Senate race - including the one he says he's going to hold his nose and vote for.
So Jenni, while I admire the angel of your better nature, I would suggest that you save your sympathy for someone who actually deserves it.
1:43 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
Have to agree with Steve on this one (as I often do, by the way -- I just usually neglect to post when I have nothing new to add. I really appreciate what your voice adds to this blog, in spite of what it may appear.)
Anonymous posters who use their anonymity to lob attacks should be discouraged by any means necessary. It's a totally different bar than those willing to risk their reputation by associating their names with their words. Anonymous posting is appropriate in a few circumstances, but more often it's just used by cowards who don't want to be held accountable to what they say.
Mar 20, '08
Kari -
I did read your full post. I agree that endorsements influence voters. However, your post and the accompanying advertisement suggest that readers should support Merkley BECAUSE he has more endorsements.
My point is that anyone who supports Merkley instead of Novick BECAUSE Merkley has more endorsements - is an idiot. Endorsements may provide a good reason to learn more about a candidate, but they do not provide a good reason to caste a vote in that candidate's favor.
Of course I've gone to a restaurant or movie based upon the recommendation of a friend and I assume that you've done likewise. Yet this fact proves nothing. Sometimes, when I adhere to the recommendation of a friend, I conclude the restaurant or movie sucked. Other times, the restaurant or movie turns out to be great. Yet in these situations, I will not like or dislike the restaurant or movie because of my friend's recommendation. Rather, my views toward the restaurant or movie will be predicated upon my assessment of qualities the restaurant or movie possessed - qualities that are independent of my friend's recommendation.
It should also be added that while I've gone to restaurants or movies based on the recommendation of friends without any further investigation on my part: I have never purchased a car, boat, or house because my friend recommended it - and I never will. The reason for this is obvious: If I go to a movie my friend recommends and I ultimately do not like it - its not that big of a deal. In this situation, I've lost 2hrs of my life and 8 bucks. If I purchase a house because my friend recommends it and ultimately am not satisfied, I'm out several hundred thousand dollars and many hours.
I would suggest that readers treat their vote more like the purchase of a house and less like the decision of where to eat dinner after finishing cocktails. There may be plenty of reasons why Merkley would be a better U.S. Senator than Novick, but the fact that he has lots of endorsements is not one of them.
2:06 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
endorsements are worth a lot, except when they're not worth anything. To call your neighbor on the block as delivering "an endorsement" really stretches the definition, unless they're a notable person beyond the block as well. Otherwise it's a recommendation, and campaigns have little to no control over those, which is why they spend time on more macro-effect people. At the back fence level, it's not called seeking endorsements, it's called door knocking.
And there's a difference between noting endorsements, and making them into a proxy for the candidate's merit or platform. So far, we see, Merkley's campaign has been mostly the phrase, "look who likes me!" I encourage them to continue in this vein. :)
2:21 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
I think Kari's note about paying attention to the little endorsements is valid. It's not by any means the primary or sole measure of a candidate but obviously the more groups and influential people on board with a candidate the better. The idea is that the endorsements are not kingmakers, but network nodes.
That said, I think anyone actively involved probably does their own research at the same time as those who end up making endorsements. I read Merkley's website materials, researched his excellent progressive legislative record, and went to hear him speak before I decided to sign on as a supporter. Endorsements at this point are also morale-boosters, and the ad is pretty effective at that.
Of course, there will also always be voters who do not take the time to do their own research, and for them I suppose an ad like this may at least carry a subtext that there are a lot of people and groups you know supporting this guy, so check him out. That's not implying that's the best way to make political decisions; it's just a way to get your candidate recognized by more folks - it's an ad, after all.
2:35 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
Thank you, Jenni. I've generally stopped trying to respond to this stuff. Folks who know me know that I regularly turn down clients that I don't support; and have - on several occasions - had my pick of clients in a race, and chosen the one that paid me less (in one case, a LOT less.)
I'm pretty sure my firm would have made more money to date if I'd signed on with Novick back in March '07 when he asked (repeatedly) if I would join his campaign, rather than waiting until August '07 for Merkley. I was happy to be able to refer Steve to someone else (you) that was highly competent and capable of providing him with excellent service.
I decide who I'll support, and then offer my services. Sometimes that means that I don't end up with any client in a race - because sometimes the candidate I prefer selects another firm. Which is OK. Life is good, and I don't get enough sleep as it is.
3:31 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
"I suppose an ad like this may at least carry a subtext that there are a lot of people and groups you know supporting this guy, so check him out."
I think endorsements are largely meaningless if the person isn't known to the viewer/reader. 90% of those "leaves" will register a big fat blank with 90% of the electorate. (Obviously the Kulongoski and Roberts leaves are together in one shot for just this reason--to at least hook people with the two biggest).
Mar 20, '08
I think you're all missing the bigger news from that ad: Jeff's wearing flannel! Just like "one of the guys"! You know? A "regular joe" so to speak.
The, uh, type of guy you'd like to...have a...beer with?
4:16 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
Steve's clever ad aside, I had a beer with Jeff. It was pretty awesome.
4:27 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
Junkmail--definitely the image that sticks with me as the ad ends...Merkley goes all Lamar Alexander (actually I suspect he's Testerizing.) More stock politician tricks.
4:45 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
Pete Seeger thought tools were cool:
If I had a hammer I'd hammer in the morning I'd hammer in the evening All over this land I'd hammer out danger I'd hammer out a warning I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters All over this land
If I had a bell I'd ring it in the morning I'd ring it in the evening All over this land I'd ring out danger I'd ring out a warning I'd ring out love between my brothers and my sisters All over this land
If I had a song I'd sing it in the morning I'd sing it in the evening All over this land I'd sing out danger I'd sing out a warning I'd sing out love between my brothers and my sisters All over this land
Well I've got a hammer And I've got a bell And I've got a song to sing All over this land It's the hammer of justice It's the bell of freedom It's the song about love between my brothers and my sisters All over this land
4:58 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
jeff, are you saying Merkley would accept the endorsemet of a COMMUNIST?
(I love pete. See how dumb name association attack politics is?)
5:03 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
A true story:
I usually like sports movies, but until about three years ago I had never seen Caddyshack.
Almost everyone I know (except my husband) had seen it and loved it. They all expressed shock and horror that I had never seen it. They raved about how funny it was. They predicted how much I would love it. I said I would rent it someday. Finally one day my friend Karen brought her own copy to me and pressed it into my hands and said, here, it kills me that you haven't seen this, please take it home and watch it, and you'll know what I mean.
I took it home and put it into the DVD player. My husband and I began to watch it. After about 20 minutes he turned to me and said, " When is this supposed to get funny?" I confessed that I was thinking the same thing. So we turned it off and watched an unrated DVD from the first season of The Osbournes instead, and it was much better.
MORAL:
Although that was 20 minutes of my life I'll never get back, it was no big deal. My vote is a lot more important. I think most people at least want to check a candidate out before they will vote for him or her based on an endorsement, even from a close friend.
Having said that, endorsements are good, and Merkley clearly has a big advantage in sheer volume. I like to think that if I ran for office (which, don't worry, I never will), many of my current and former colleagues would support me, as many of Steve's are, and as many of Jeff's are. The difference is that Jeff's colleagues are elected officials. That's part of the package of being an elected official yourself. It also helps to have a sitting governor twisting arms for you. How it all shakes out, we'll see soon enough.
6:07 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
The, uh, type of guy you'd like to...have a...beer with?
Thanks for the reminder of why we were all supposed to like George W. Bush... because he was supposed to be the kind of guy we'd like to have a beer with. What a novel way of choosing who to vote for...
6:13 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
The difference is that Jeff's colleagues are elected officials.
The backing of colleagues doesn't address the endorsements from unions like AFSCME and the SEIU or progressive organizations like the Sierra Club and Council for a Livable World.
The endorsement of that last one is particularly compelling. They said in part,
6:46 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
Sounds great. If I didn't know better, I'd consider voting for that guy myself.
And at such time as he is the best alternative on the ballot (i.e. if he is on the ballot against Gordon Smith), I will.
But as long as there's a better, more progressive alternative on the ballot in the person of Steve Novick, I've got to cast my vote that way.
8:18 p.m.
Mar 20, '08
well, hell, i guess i give up. i thought the votes of the people mattered, but apparently not. just the Names. (not sure why Kitz' name isn't there ... oh, that's right: he endorsed Steve Novick.)
Mar 20, '08
i thought the votes of the people mattered, but apparently not.
Don't give up t.a., this is a year where voters show Republicans and people like Merkley who never quite lived up to what it means to be a Democrat are shown the door, given the chance. The Rassmussen poll from last month carries a lot of significance for those with the statistics knowledge to actually understand the meaning of "margin of error":
Smith 48% Merkley 30% Smith 48% Novick 35%
(If the actual meaning of MOE for this poll has been discussed on this site previously, feel free to ignore this. It would take me longer to find it than to go over it.)
The fact Smith is below 50% is a good sign for Democrats, locked as we are now in a primary that is quite appropriately divisive. Wusses who moan about that have nothing relevant to add to the debate --- this is a battle between two middle-aged white guys who'll be running against another middle-aged white guy.
Although Rasmussen doesn't give an MOE, it's almost certainly no worse than 4%-5%. That means in fact that there is 98%-99% probability that Merkley's actual support on 2/20 was LESS than 34%-35% with a mean of 30% while there is a 98%-99% probability that Novick's actual support was GREATER than 30%-31% with a mean of 35%.
That in fact means Merkley was doing quite badly against Novick and those constituencies who figure in the endorsements were already accounted for in those numbers. There is no serious question in the mind of any statisician that Novick was preferred over Merkley by likely voters. We'll have to see if those numbers change significantly in the next poll, but there is no evident reason why they should. For most people, Merkley and Novick have not figured in the news in the intervening month except as two middle-aged white guys saying something about politics. (Ask your friends who aren't political geeks any meaningful news they can remember over the last month about Novick or Merkley).
This poll holds more solidly bad news for Merkley supporters.
Merkely: Favorable 33%, Unfavorable 30%, Unsure 38% Novick: Favorable 36%, Unfavorable 26%, Unsure 37%
The same argument about MOE holds: There is something like a 98%-99% probability that Novick is viewed favorably by MORE than 31%-32% of the voters with a mean of 36%. There is something like a 98%-99% probability that Merkley is viewed favorably by LESS than %37-38% with a mean of 33%. Put another way, there is less than a 50% probability that Merkley is viewed favorably by more than 33% of the voters while there is much, much more than a 50% probability (more like 90%) that Novick is viewed favorably by the same voters.
Given that Merkley's name recognition should be much higher than Novick's --- he is Speaker of the House after all --- Merkley actually is being decisively (although not overwhelmingly) rejected by likely voters in favor of Novick.
<h2>The cold reality for Merkley supporters is that elections only need be won barely, not even decisively, and certainly not overwhelmingly.</h2>