They only matter in that the over 60 crowd still reads newspapers, and that is one of Obama's weakest demographics.

I think all the evidence shows that we read newsmedia that support our prejudices, rather than being influenced by its editorial slant, we choose papers that have our editorial slant. Hence the anti global warming, free markets at any price slant of the Wall Street Journal. That's what its readership expects- -generally fine and objective reporting, coupled with wing-nut editorial and op-eds.

I think columnists have a bigger impact (as do talk radio hosts) than Editorial. Most just skip the editorial.

I did feel the 'johnny come lately' bandwagon effect. Now that Obama's victory is quite close, it's not a big risk, even with a Republican readership, to jump on the bandwagon.

Kerry picked up some juicy editorial support, but it surely didn't help him enough.

They only matter in that the over 60 crowd still reads newspapers, and that is one of Obama's weakest demographics.

I think all the evidence shows that we read newsmedia that support our prejudices, rather than being influenced by its editorial slant, we choose papers that have our editorial slant. Hence the anti global warming, free markets at any price slant of the Wall Street Journal. That's what its readership expects- -generally fine and objective reporting, coupled with wing-nut editorial and op-eds.

I think columnists have a bigger impact (as do talk radio hosts) than Editorial. Most just skip the editorial.

I did feel the 'johnny come lately' bandwagon effect. Now that Obama's victory is quite close, it's not a big risk, even with a Republican readership, to jump on the bandwagon.

Kerry picked up some juicy editorial support, but it surely didn't help him enough.

I don't think these endorsements, in and of themselves, will move many people since, I believe, most people have made up their minds. I do believe, however, that the Chicago Tribune's editorial provides powerful testimony of Obama's readiness. I would hope that McCain has the testicular fortitude to pull himself and his party back from the brink, but given the nature of their incendiary charges over the last two weeks, I honestly fear for this country. I understand that politics is not bean bags, but what they are doing has real consequences. Especially amongst the more unhinged element of our country. If indeed McCain is about country first, he will ultimately do the right thing--though I suspect it may be too late.

It matters because if McCain was getting all the endorsements, the MSM would be touting this in every segment.

So, we trumped that one even if they ignore it when the endorsements go to Obama.

it takes away a GOP talking point and that helps.

Hard to believe anyone is still on the fence after watching the ongoing McPalin trainwreck.

An editorial board does give off the whiff of solid citizenry - a good counterweight to the wingnut drumbeat.

Somebody says 'Ayers! Wright! Terrorist! Extreme Left! Muslim! ACORN!'

You say 'Well, look, every major newspaper in the country is endorsing Obama'.

I agree with both lilybart and Henry. I also think that this serves to further legitimize Obama in the eyes of some who may be uncomfortable with his skin color and his name. If he was a white man with the same rhetorical skills, McCain would have given up and gone home long ago. That's the only reason he still has a chance.

I think this shows what everyone is feeling - it is time for a "change." Most people with a modicum of intelligence look at the past 8 years, look at our position economically and in the world, look at McCain's erratic (yes erratic - I know its "negative") campaign and poor choices (VP and campaign manager, et al), look at the ad hominem attacks (Ayers, Wright and race) and then look at Obama's essential coolness under attack and his reasoned approach to the issues - and conclude two things - first that McCain's inconsistent approach in the campaign and his choices scream "don't pick me, the implications are way too scary," and that there is an even keeled candidate who fights going the low road, has reasonable and reasoned positions on the issues and uses appropriate measures to advance his platform. I honestly don't know which concern motivates people more - the negative side of the McCain campaign (Palin?) or the positive side of Obama - either way, thoughtful people are either running away from McCain or toward Obama - or both.

I think the editorial endorsements matter a lot when they run counter to the paper's normal orientation. Many non-wingnut Republicans can't be particularly happy with McCain but also probably aren't entirely comfortable voting for a Democrat in general or Obama in particular. Endorsements by conservative-leaning papers in effect give permission to those people to support Obama, and to talk about this to their friends. The endorsements are another step in Obama's sealing the deal.

I am blown away by how well he has run his campaign - very methodical, very incremental, very consistent, each step nailed down before moving on to the next level, all with very few missteps.

Of course it matters, particularly if we can get people/pundits talking about it.

More broadly, the weight of conservatives risking the wrath of their base and very real consequences of their actions is extraordinary. Like conservative talk show host Philadelphian Michael Smerconish yesterday:
http://a.media.abcnews.com/podcasts/081017_michael_sm.mp3

Seriously, can a newspaper, relying on a reading public, survive after endorsing a ticket with Palin?

Does it matter? I don't know.
But I do know that today there are 4,100 stories about Joe the Plumber and 2,000 about ACORN.
If nothing else, the McNasty team is continuing it's dominance of the MSM.

I wonder...is "Joe the Plumber" the October surprise we've been waiting for....as in a coordinated effort.......or just more flailing.

It would be interesting to see which dailies endorse Hon. Sen. McCain/Gov. Palin. It should read like a who's who of nutbag ranters.

The matter to the extent that McCain has to rely on the second string to make his case.

If someone is used to getting his/her arguments from a narrow range of sources, and those sources dry up or go against your assumptions, it can be a shock.

For me a good analogy is how my liberal instincts on an issue has softened when Obama came out with something unexpected. I didn't necessarily agree, but was forced to consider a larger reality, maybe even a political practicality.

Reminds me of how Clinton has effectively grieved over his support for Obama. You respect his support even more because it is an obvious compromise.

I, too, am skeptical about how much weight newspaper endorsements carry these days. Newspapers are in trouble because people simply don't read them any longer. People are more likely to be influenced by local factors and local media, I believe.

I, too, am skeptical about how much weight newspaper endorsements carry these days. Newspapers are in trouble because people simply don't read them any longer. People are more likely to be influenced by local factors and local media, I believe.

They only matter in that the over 60 crowd still reads newspapers, and that is one of Obama's weakest demographics.

So doesn't that mean that they have the potential to help Obama in one of his weakest demographics?

I think that everyone who has remarked on the over-60 crowd (OMG, I'm almost there!) being the only ones who still read newspapers are correct.

Particularly in terms of the Chicago Tribune. I'm originally from Chicago and I think the Trib's endorsement will mean something to the older crowd, some of whom still take the endorsement page into the voting booth. I think it will provide "back-up" to those who want to vote for Obama and yet can't quite get over the age/experience/race "factors".

A possible endorsement tomorrow by Colin Powell would also help to legitimatise Obama's bonafides among the older voters.

BTW, I saw "W" yesterday. Quite good, actually, and I am NOT a big Oliver Stone fan.

These editorial endorsements matter because they affect the Village conventional wisdom, and thus help create the environment in which Obama will govern, which definitely matters. This is the magical unity pony appearing before our very eyes.

KC Star let a total tool named Tom McClanahan write an editorial dissent praising McCain's policies as the sane and reasonable choice. Not a word about health care, of course...

Greg Mitchell is wrong on editorial endorsements. In 2004, American Journalism Review had an extended piece showing they’re of little value.

The more local the the paper's level, and the endorsement level, the more power it has.

As a community newspaper editor, I'll take credit for the margin of victory of a couple of bond propositions I endorses, but not the victories themselves, and will take credit for he 52-48 defeat of another.

The Denver Post's endorsement is lukewarm, at best. I may have to to write them an angry letter. McCain disqualified himself when he picked Palin as his running mate.

Of course, this is really good news... for McCain.

Actually, I am a bit curious: Will the tribune's endorsement make any real difference outside of Illinois, which Obama already has locked in? The only mention that I've seen of this so far is on blogs like this one.

David Broder will think that these endorsements are significant.

Newspapers are more than newspapers now. They have websites. There is cross-ownership at both the local and national level. They have reporters and columnists who show up on TV to give opinion and perspective. Their editors and publishers are at the very top of the media foodchain and tightly connected to the corporate establishment.

So, yes, they still matter.

It's no surprise that the Chicago Tribune, which serves a city that is 132% black and pretends to be a conservative paper so no one will accuse it of being anti-white, would endorse Mr. Walking Race Card. Would that almost all-male editorial board have endorsed Hillary Clinton if she'd gotten the nomination she deserved and was more qualified for? No, they would not have, because she's white and female. This stinks to high heaven.

I, too, am skeptical about how much weight newspaper endorsements carry these days. Newspapers are in trouble because people simply don't read them any longer. People are more likely to be influenced by local factors and local media, I believe. -- carol

actually, more people read newspapers these days. circulation is down, and has been declining for years. but internet readership more than makes up for lost subscribers in terms of readership. and newspapers ARE local media in their home towns.

and while i generally agree that endorsements have minimal impact on voters — most by now have made up their minds — they could sway a few of those sitting on the fence, especially in this election.

greg mitchell points out that 10 papers that endorsed bush in '04 have endorsed Obama.

no paper has "flip-flopped" to mccain....

the denver post had some tool named chuck whatshisname write a dissent... he thinks palin has a thicker resume than o... nuff said...

spellchecka

ps
upthread somebody writes: "It would be interesting to see which dailies endorse Hon. Sen. McCain/Gov. Palin. It should read like a who's who of nutbag ranters."

complete list [so far] here:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875230

Kris asked if this will have any weight outside of Illinois. To the extent that any newspaper endorsement does, it will have a big effect in Indiana, which is a swing state. The Tribune is widely read, even as far as Bloomington, where I grew up. It's usually in a group of paper dispensers alongside the local paper, the Indy Star, and the USA Today.
I suppose it's too much to hope for the Star to endorse Obama.

Can I suggest people are looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope? It's not a question of whether voters will change their minds/make their decisions based on what an editorial endorsement says. It's a matter of each unexpected endorsement for the Democrat reflecting a certain demographic that has switched from the GOP. Just as Lincoln Chafee and Susan Eisenhower and Michael Smerconish represent a segment of the electorate that has soured on Republicanism, so too does the fact that McCain -- supposedly a down-the-middle, "acceptable" Republican -- can't win over a bastion of GOP-ism like the Chicago "American paper for Americans" Tribune tell us he's likely to lose big.

I know people will say it was a long time ago, but the fact that one GOP paper after another endorsed LBJ in '64 alerted us to how big the landslide was going to be. Again, it wasn't a case of voters bowing to the wishes of editorial boards; it was the editorial boards reflecting the scent in the wind.

Demtom is right. And don't forget, all these papers have Web versions make the same endorsement.

They're all just the "EE-LEET" media. Real Amurkinz will reflexively disagree.