Why no national endorsement?

Dateline: Tue 21 Aug 2012

Some of us were a bit taken aback by the Indianapolis Star's decision not to wade into the presidential race with an endorsement.

However, as a friend says, who really cares what the Star thinks about presidential politics? Let them stick to local issues, which is what the editorial boare proposes to do in the fall races.

Still, this Obama/Romney brouhaha is a pretty decisive test of ideologies, and for the Star to sit out shows a bit of -- what? Cluck cluck cluck?

Just a guess: the editorial board is divided, once again, split pretty evenly between those who lean to President Obama and those who favor a Romney/Ryan ticket. 

The state will certainly go for the red meat this time; Obama does not have the chance he had in 2008 to take Indiana in 2012.

So if the paper endorsed Obama, it would be going against the tide of (probably) the majority of its readers and subscribers. Thus inviting the Dan Carpenter @#%%%!!!! respponse syndrome, meaning plenty of those furious letters to the editor. On the other hand, if the Star chose Romney for whatever reasons, it would risk looking like the old throwback to the Pulliam days. Not good, when Gannett wants to be seen as a game-changer.

Hey, it's a tough election. Why shouldn't the pain play out in Peoria?

Also: what are other Gannett papers doing? That's the question of the moment in this issue. If anyone knows, speak out.

 

 

Comments

hendy [Member] said:

(sound of crickets)

I disagree that the outcome of the Obama/Romney election will be as you describe it. Dan Carpenter is an old-school Democrat and actually quite unlike the Indiana voters that put Obama in office. Indianapolis helped, and the white donut counties fought. The election maps really showed it: urban Indiana voted Obama while rural/suburban Indiana voted for McCain. This demographic hasn't changed much in four years, save suffering thru the BS that Bush/Cheney foisted upon us.

2012-08-21 07:46:23

John M [unverified] said:

I don't think that's an accurate description of how it played out in 2008, Hendy. Every county in Indiana voted for Obama in higher percentages than for McCain, and there was a shift of 15 or more points in the vast majority of Indiana counties. McCain was +22 in Hamilton County in 2008, but Bush was +49 there over Kerry in 2004. Hancock, Hendricks, Johnson, and Boone made similar shifts. Fully 10 percent of Obama's 1.34 million Indiana votes came from the collar counties. Unquestionably, Obama couldn't have done it without huge support from Marion and Lake counties, but he won by 0.9 percent. He couldn't have done it without anything he got, and he made huge gains everywhere in Indiana--suburban, rural, black, white, Catholic, Protestant, etc.

2012-08-21 08:25:02

John M [unverified] said:

Major typo above. I meant to say that every county in Indiana voted for Obama in 2008 in higher percentages than for KERRY in 2004. In other words, every county that Kerry won, Obama won by more. Obama won a handful of counties that Kerry lost. In every county that both of them lost, Obama lost by less. And, in most counties, the shift was dramatic.

2012-08-21 08:28:14

hendy [Member] said:

I recall seeing the county-by-county red vs blue maps. The urban areas/counties were blue, and surrounding as an example, Indy, were red. Allen County, Lake, Porter, etc., all the same way withe perhaps the exception of Tippecanoe were blue islands surrounded by red. It was tight. I believe it can happen again. Getting the vote out is important for all of us.

2012-08-21 09:45:52

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Actually, John, Hendy pretty-much nailed it. By the time Nov. 2008 rolled around, it was a rare site to see a reasoned Bush supporter. Failed stupid wars, imploded Fed....

2012-08-25 20:39:08

Comments are closed.

Login

or Register

Search

Syndicate Blog