November 2, 2012

"Mitt Romney has garnered more than 100 endorsements from newspapers across the United States."

"President Barack Obama has earned 84 such nods from editorial boards to date. A total of 28 of the largest newspapers in America supported Obama in 2008, but have now changed their positions and endorsed Romney."

57 comments:

chickelit said...

Is there one--just one--foreign newspaper that supports Romney? We may wake up ostrasized by the world on Wednesday morning. Not that that's a bad thing.

Shouting Thomas said...

Interesting, I suppose. Is it of any consequence?

Do people decide how to vote based on newspaper endorsements?

Patrick said...

If newspaper endorsements ever did matter, I doubt they do now, except perhaps as a reflection of a small part of the electorate.

creeley23 said...

The polls keep saying how close the race is -- or better yet Nate Silver's 4:1 odds in favor of Obama -- but the differences between 2008 and 2012 are so large and disadvantageous to Obama that I just can't see him squeaking by.

dreams said...

And we're suppose to believe the polls that are based on the same Democratic turn out for Obama as in 2008. That's why I say the polls are bias in Obama's favor given what I read and hear from those who I respect.

tim in vermont said...

Well, on the candidates I know nothing about, if the Burlington Free Press endorses them, I vote against them, hard and fast rule.

Nonapod said...

I was just checking out the Google Trends graph on the words obama benghazi over the past 30 days.

SteveR said...

I agree with ST, given the predictability of the media's opinions and the decreasing importance of traditional media in general, who really cares.

Original Mike said...

Newspapers are a business. They need the economy to turn around as much as anyone.

joeyconnell said...

The intensity of Obama's endorsements compensates for volume. Romney's endorsements are all tempered and heavily qualified--as though they're judging low-calorie butter substitutes--and here's your winner: I Can't Believe it's not Better. Obama's endorsements are all, you know, "Explosions! The earth is moooving!" in their best Mira Sorvino impressions. Where did the NYT editorial board find space to smoke their cigarettes after that collective orgasm? Nanny Bloomberg would be muy triste if they smoked inside. Or outside. Anywhere, really.

dreams said...

"I agree with ST, given the predictability of the media's opinions and the decreasing importance of traditional media in general, who really cares."

If liberal papers are turning against Obama, I think that is a good indication that a lot of others are turning away from him too.

Unknown said...

Romney will win, and it wont even be close. Take it to the bank. Romney in an absolute landslide.

Remember 2004? How the media made it seem Kerry was going to win? The fake exit polls? You are going to see that like never before over the next 72 hours. Don't believe a single word of it. Democrats are depressed, and damn well they should be. I live in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and there are Romeny signs EVERYWHERE. You barely saw any McCain signs in 08.

Watch out for the landslide.

tim in vermont said...

I don't know about landslide, but I do know there is precious little evidence that this race isn't really winnable for Romney.

X said...

my neighbor the marxist cat lady was removing her Obama sign this morning and I asked why. she said he had failed to cut taxes and cut the deficit and promote a free market capitalist agenda.

MadisonMan said...

How can there be 28 largest newspapers?

edutcher said...

Landslide, no.

Avanlanche, yes.

Tidal wave, even.

I read somewhere one out of five papers that endorsed Choom in '08 have endorsed the Romster.

The Vegas paper rips him a new one and "unworthy" is the nicest adjective they use.

The Drill SGT said...

My Fav: LVRJ: To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation’s economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie “Dr. Strangelove,” would be disastrous.

If that was the consensus view of the editorial board, I'd be interested in seeing the 3SD right and left positions :)

Cosmic Conservative said...

Speaking of President Ladyparts defectors...

The Washington Post has a story today that supposedly is breaking down defecting Obama voters. If their breakdown is accurate, they are claiming that fully 13% of self-identified Obama voters of 2008 will not vote for Obama again this year. Not all of those will vote for Romney, but roughly 10% say they will.

If that is true, Obama is in real trouble. Even if you just count those as voters Romney gets in addition to McCain voters, that is more than enough to give Romney the edge.

If you factor in the depressed Republicans in 2008 who barely dragged their miserable selves to the polls to vote for McCain (I know, I was one of them) to the "Crawl over broken glass" Republicans of 2012...

As Jed Clampett used to say:

"Whew doggies..." Tuesday just might be an interesting day for lots of partisans...

Rabel said...

The endorsements have more to do with editorial policy post-election than with influencing the vote.

chickelit said...

X said...
my neighbor the marxist cat lady was removing her Obama sign this morning and I asked why.

You've got a marxist cat lady too? Does every neighborhood?

clint said...

joeyconnell said...

" The intensity of Obama's endorsements compensates for volume."

I guess you missed the Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsement...

bagoh20 said...

I can't think of a less reliable profession to get my political advice from, except maybe lawyers. A legal publication must surely employ people wearing drool buckets. No offense.

furious_a said...

This link shows newspaper endoresements by Obama/Romney and whom those papers backed in '08.

Noticeably more flips from Obama than from McCain.

AF said...

Mittmentum!!

Tim said...

It still can be closer than any Romney voter expects, but that seems increasingly unlikely.

Obama has pretty much made everything he's sought to fix worse, rather than better.

There are lots of reasons for this, of course (yes, he inherited a mess, but no one forced him to run), but the two primary reasons he's failed are 1) his ideology is oriented toward redistribution rather than growth; 2) he is, hands down, the least experienced man ever elected president.

His ideology and his lack of experience left him fatally, irretrievably, ill-equipped for the presidency.

Some of the newspaper endorsements generally recognize this.

Anyway, he should have stayed in the Senate.

FleetUSA said...

Have any switched from McCain to Obama this year?

Michael K said...

" Original Mike said...
Newspapers are a business. They need the economy to turn around as much as anyone."

I wonder. This leftist thing is closer to religion than practical economic sense. The LA Times was rational in 1960 when I paid attention to their endorsements. They are just not rational anymore. And they don't have the politician's excuses that the teachers' union will stiff them next election.

Tim said...

"You've got a marxist cat lady too? Does every neighborhood?"

Shockingly, mine doesn't.

We're all about dogs here.

But it totally fits the profile for neighborhoods that should have not one, but two or three.

Maybe the next street over?

Tim said...

FleetUSA said...

"Have any switched from McCain to Obama this year?"

According to the Washington Post, about 13% have switched from Obama to Romney.

That seems about right.

Cosmic Conservative said...

LOL, the idea that Lefty editorial boards make decisions based on newspaper circulation or business success is so laughable that I almost spewed my Sprite Zero on my screen.

Let's see, the last Republican Presidential candidate endorsed by the NY Times was....

Dwight Eisenhower.

That means they endorsed Carter over Reagan and Mondale over Reagan.

I really don't think anything more needs to be said about the business and circulation acumen of Lefty editorial boards...

garage mahal said...

Romney is not leading in one major national poll as of right now. Or in any swing state polls from today.

'Mentum.

Paul Risenhoover said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cosmic Conservative said...

Garage, yep, you are dead right. All those polls that you said meant nothing when Romney was ahead now show a virtual tie.

I am only interested in the poll next Tuesday.

garage mahal said...

Don't recall ever saying polls meant nothing.

Paul said...

Well the newspapers HELPED ELECT OBAMA, so they can shut up and go sit at the back of the bus.

Cosmic Conservative said...

Don't recall you ever admitting Romney was ahead. In fact I recall exactly the opposite.

Astro said...

Drudge has a headline saying 63% want Obama to have a 2nd term -- in China.

Maybe on Tues we'll find out that 63% of the U.S. voters want him to have a 2nd term also -- in China.

furious_a said...

The wiki site I cited about has 90 endorsing Romney, including 33 '08 Obama defectors.

alan markus said...

Democrats are depressed,

Biden said it best today:

Biden: "There's Never Been A Day In The Last Four Years I've Been Proud To Be His Vice President"

mariner said...

Drudge has a headline saying 63% want Obama to have a 2nd term -- in China.

I'd like to see him have another term, too -- in Hell.

EMD said...

Biden should know better than to go for the double negative.

Jane said...

Anybody see the headline story at CNN today? The backlash against Obama is just like the end of Reconstruction after the Civil War, and his potential loss at the polls will usher in a new era of racism.

AF said...

Mittmentum!

David said...

So?

Dante said...

The backlash against Obama is . . .
War, and his potential loss at the polls will usher in a new era of racism.


Just what all us mean conservatives have been waiting for! A new era of racism.

Please do describe what this era will look like? Then we can see how accurate you are (if Romney wins).

Dante said...

The backlash against Obama is . . .
War, and his potential loss at the polls will usher in a new era of racism.


Just what all us mean conservatives have been waiting for! A new era of racism.

Please do describe what this era will look like? Then we can see how accurate you are (if Romney wins).

Drago said...

garage: "Romney is not leading in one major national poll as of right now"

Yep. All you have to believe to believe those polls is that there will be an significant and unprecedented increase in democrat intensity, turnout and vote % for obama.

That's all you have to believe.

kcom said...

"Maybe on Tues we'll find out that 63% of the U.S. voters want him to have a 2nd term also -- in China."

Maybe Thomas Friedman could be his vice president.

VJ Martin said...

Here is the link to the Las Vegas Review Journal editorial. Cover your ears...

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/benghazi-blunder-obama-unworthy-commander-in-chief-176736441.html

James said...

HILARITY...

Tea Party News Network endorses "None of the Above."


Dunno who this TPNN is; they certainly don't speak for me.

Mary Beth said...

Louisville's "Courier-Journal" endorsed (Bill) Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama (2008), but they haven't announced an endorsement this year. Very odd, they are usually a reliable supporter of all the Democratic candidates for any office.

Jake Diamond said...

Well, on the candidates I know nothing about, if the Burlington Free Press endorses them, I vote against them, hard and fast rule.

I suppose you could do a small bit of research as an alternative method for deciding how to vote. But you seem pretty happy with voting while ignorant, so I doubt you'll change your ways.

Jake Diamond said...

"A total of 28 of the largest newspapers in America supported Obama in 2008, but have now changed their positions and endorsed Romney."

Crazy liberal media!

Michael K said...

"Romney's endorsements are all tempered and heavily qualified--as though they're judging low-calorie butter substitutes--and here's your winner: I Can't Believe it's not Better. "

Not the Las Vegas paper and not the DE Moines Register.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

In this era of the vulture capitalism you'd expect to pick on the carcasses of dying publishing companies, the relevant question is:

Who owns which of those papers?

Ailes has done an outstanding job of buying out local news markets for print media and underhandedly converting them to his paranoid conservative pet cause.

Synova said...

"In this era of the vulture capitalism you'd expect to pick on the carcasses of dying publishing companies, the relevant question is:

Who owns which of those papers?
"

Because purchasing a failing business in a market that is shrinking and may not make it is the way to get rich.

Do you ever think of the fantasies your world view forces you to believe?

Synova said...

And if Ailes can make a go with traditional media where the previous owners ran them into the ground... it might be a clue as to who has a better grip on reality in the world, particularly in how the economy works someplace other than in fever driven liberal fantasies.