So - the Mail Tribune is actually endorsing Gordon Smith? That's what their "rationale" boils down to.

Oh come off it. You may think they're wrong, but unless you've got some actual evidence for such conspiracy theories, like say that they have a consistent record of endorsing Republicans in the general, the "actually endorsing Smith" line is just nonsense.

I have no way of knowing whether the Mail Tribune's editorial staff had nefarious motives for this endorsement or not, and I don't think anyone else does either.

But I believe that Medford and most of the surrounding area (except for Ashland) routinely vote for Republicans by a sizable margin and the Mail Tribune's editorial staff know that as well as anyone.

I spent most of my early childhood in the Rogue Valley (Medford, White City, Jacksonville) and almost all of my extended family on both sides once lived in the Valley too. My father was born in Medford, as was my paternal grandfather.

"If someone sees the Novick "pull the plug ad" and says "the first time was amusing, but the more I watch it, the more Steve seems angry and stomping off the stage", why would this endorsement make a difference?"

And think of the veterans!

I have never encountered anyone who has such a binary framework for looking at everything. It's really perplexing to me. I think we're all fairly aware neither the ad nor the endorsement will magically elevate Steve into the Senate.

It's an endorsement. That's all it is.

Oh, but there's another, bigger endorsement for Steve tomorrow.

We get it, LT. Your mind was made up long ago and this endorsement won't change it. No endorsement would change my mind now, either.

But there are plenty of voters whose minds aren't made up, and endorsements by their favorite newspapers are one of the factors they take into consideration when they are deciding how to vote.

We'll see how it goes soon enough.

Quoth LT:

But anyone who thinks this means all residents of Medford or Jackson County will fall in line and support Novick because some poll had Merkley in 3rd place and 40% undecided is just foolish.

Unquestionably right.

But here's the thing, LT. NO ONE THINKS THAT. No one remotely implied anything of the sort. Not that everyone will fall into line, not even that anyone would "fall into line."

The debate over endorsements on BO falls in a range between "they are essentially meaningless" to "every little bit helps." The only time I can remember anything stronger being said referred to what it means if there is a widespread pattern of endorsements.

This sort of straw man that you like to set up an knock down is much the dullest of what you write.

If someone sees the Novick "pull the plug ad" and says "the first time was amusing, but the more I watch it, the more Steve seems angry and stomping off the stage", why would this endorsement make a difference? Well, it might not. Then again, maybe some people who watch t.v. and also read newspaper editorials (maybe a minority) would consider that their impression from the ad was one piece of information and the description of Steve's background was another, that they went in opposite directions, and might be influenced a little away from the bad impression you hypothesize, or suck out of your thumb. But once more, why would anyone think anyone is looking at this endorsement in that context at all? Here's a serious question for you, LT -- does it mean anything that a down-valley paper in a fairly conservative district (according with Kevin) endorses one way or another, in terms of the good and interesting questions you sometimes raise about getting away from Portland-centrism? I mean, if the endorsement had been for Jeff, would you possibly be saying that it spoke to his getting out beyond the metro region? Is that a possible reading of what it means about Steve's campaign? Or it may just reflect personalities on the editorial board, and style preferences as to "fighting" for the little guy, for principles etc. as Steve bills himself. (I notice that Jeff now advertises himself as a fighter too, btw). Such personal or small-group quirks are one reason why any given newspaper endorsement is a limited form of information. I'd be much more interested in your thoughts about what it might mean, or not, stated directly, than in trying to figure out where on earth you are coming up with straw man rhetorical questions that have no foundation in anything anyone has said. If my tone ends up being nastier than I mean it to be, which may well be the case, I apologize, but the thing is, I find it particularly frustrating or exasperating when you go into this mode, because some of the other things you write can be so interesting. And here's another serious one about which I'd be interested in your thoughts based on your experience: The poll IMO gets cited mainly as evidence that Steve has been climbing faster out of the low name recognition hole than Jeff. As you say, the 40% undecided means both have a lot of room and a lot of climbing to do. But it also does suggest that Steve has climbed higher to date, and the number of weeks until the primary is shrinking. So maybe it's good for Steve & not so good for Jeff. But the other piece I wonder about is how much of that 40% ends up not voting at all in the primary? And how should we look at that in terms of the problem of either of them raising a successful challenge to Smith in November? Are either of them doing well enough? Any thoughts?

Jackson County has seen a surge in Democratic registrations. Last fall, the Republican lead was around 10,000. They've cut the Republican lead in that county by 4,000. So I wouldn't discount Jackson County by any means.

Also, you'd be surprised at how much more of an impact that endorsements made by a local paper can have as compared to the really large dailies. Of course, the endorsements need to come from the local paper, and not the people who own multiple papers and don't have the ties to the local community. For instance, The Gresham Outlook endorsements haven't gone well in Gresham, as they were made by Pamplin and were best suited for The Portland Tribune.

The Medford Mail Tribune endorsed Ron Saxton over Ted Kulongoski in 2006.

Interestingly enough, so too did The Oregonian, which is endorsing Novick.

For some historical contrast look no further than the Eugene Register Guard. In 2006 they endorsed Kulongoski and recently endorsed Merkley.

Hmmm... interesting.

Breathing suggestions from the same guy who tried to tag my Jewish backside with the KKK label.