. . . kind of confused over the newspaper endorsements. Does anyone really care what some newspaper has to say? I recognize that these endorsements are a good sign for Romney, but would it be more accurate to say that this is an effect of the candidates’ performance rather than something that will have any influence, or not?
Yesterday, Ed Morrissey asked a similar question, wondering if newspaper endorsements matter.
They do, I have argue, “do sometimes serve as a barometer of trends in public opinion” as Ace explained in excerpting and analyzing the The Nashua (NH) Telegraph’s endorsement this year of Mitt Romney after backing Barack Obama in 2008:
I’ve written earlier that these flips in newspaper endorsements are somewhat helpful for Romney, as a direct matter, as they will tend to sway some undecided voters.
But they’re also important indirectly as proxies for, as the Telegraph says, the “conversations taking place in kitchens and living rooms across America.” Editorial staffs aren’t kitchens and living rooms, of course– but they’re actually more liberal, and more likely to buy into Obama’s brand of progressivism than most families talking about the question.
The Telegraph editors had compared their “spirited debate” about the endorsement to those very conversations. If this group of editors decided to switch from supporting Obama in 2008 to endorsing Romney in 2012, then perhaps families across the country may be reaching similar decisions when they wrestle between doubling down on the man they backed four years and the man who represents real change.
ADDENDUM: Ed links an Investor’s Business Daily editorial finding that “if those major metro dailies that have announced their picks, more than one in five that had previously backed Obama are now pushing Romney, according to a tally by the American Presidency Project.” One in five have flipped from Obama to Romney. . . . that’s 20%!