Why we won't endorse in the presidential race

The Statesman editorial board is in the midst of interviewing more than 70 candidates for federal, state and local office.

Our paper plans to endorse in more than 40 elections.

One exception will be the presidential race.

This isn’t an unprecedented decision — our paper didn’t endorse in the 2012 GOP presidential caucus, nor the 2008 Democratic caucus and GOP primary, despite Idaho appearances from candidates of both party.

And really, it comes down to a simple difference between the president’s race and the other races.

When it comes to candidates for everything from Congress to Ada County Highway District, our editorial board has the chance to interview the candidates in depth. Just as important, we have had a chance to watch the candidates up close, in elected service or in the community.

Access to the candidates, and institutional knowledge, allows us to make better-informed endrosements. Readers don’t always agree with our picks, and I appreciate that. But I also think we have a unique perspective we can bring to these endorsements.

That doesn’t mean I won’t write about presidential politics in this space, as I have in the past. But as for endorsements, we’ve decided to focus our time and resources on the rest of a crowded ballot.

Get Twitter updates on my blog and column and Statesman editorials. Become a follower. You can also get updates on Facebook's Idaho Statesman Opinion Page.

"Why we won't endorse in the presidential race"

Because you know the conclusion in Idaho is already foregone?
About the only bet to make is the over/under of Romney's winning percentage.

"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart

You endorsed Obama last time and he has failed.

To endorse Obama again you would have to tell us why. You can't point to any real success. 6T in new debt,and 1.5% growth to show for it, with N. Africa on fire. Failed policies in Afganistan. ...You should say, I'm sorry.

So, we will be on the edge of our seats for your Dog Catcher endorsement. Your non-endorsement is like Obama voting "Present".

Election Season

Now, how about if the Editorial Board gets inline with some "transparency and disclosure"?

I would like to see the Editorial Board pen their opinion on the Top 10 issues of this election (maybe one list for Treasure Valley and one list for the state). Such as:

Sales Tax vs property tax-
Local taxing disticts-
State education funding-
Teacher Unions-
School funding-
River dams-
Gun rights-

Put it all in ONE place for the upcoming election, instead of spreading it throughout 100 different pieces.

It seems to be the endorsements are pretty much the same thing, just in cognito.
Let's cut through the fog.

I challenge the editors to CLEARLY express their political opinions on ALL the major issues in ONE summary piece.

Yeah Richert,

it's your fault. I'm changing my blame game from Bush's fault to Richert's fault. Yeah, that's the ticket, Richert's fault.

Statesman = Spineless

Statesman = Spineless

McClatchy and the Statesman - trapped by their own ideology.....

Two things drive KR's decision:
1. KR doesn't want to endorse a loser. He knows all the polls showing BHO up by as much as 10 points are a result of oversampling Dems by 7 to 11 points and weighting polls based on an assumption that this election's voter demographic will mirror that of 2008.
2. Today a Lib reporter asked Romney how he would feel if he were responsible for the defeat of our first black President! The "white guilt" liberals carry with them prevents them from selecting (endorsing) a candidate based on merit - or not endorsing Obama based on his record.
The journalistic cowardice here is stunning - yet entirely understandable given Obama's record and the ideology that traps liberals.


I find it hard to believe any "reporter" (other than Barker) would be dumb enough to ASK that question. Source?
Altough I saw the Seahawks/Packers game. So anything is possible.

I did read the Bloomberg story saying Romney is "trying to defeat the first black U.S. president".

And again...the assertion that all the polls in the nation are

rigged...boy, when you get a talking point, no matter how unprovable it is, you stick with it.

Is it that you want to believe?

"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart

What is your explanation....

as to why KR will not hazard an endorsement? Hopefully you have something more believable than the the "journalistic cowardice" KR and the Statesman are exhibiting.

I don't have an explanation for the Statesman stance.

For one, I have no data as to what their internal discussions are. In case you didn't notice, I sort of chided them above that since the outcome in Idaho is not in doubt why would they? Personally I don't care why they don't because it doesn't matter to me.

Still, the Statesman not endorsing doesn't mean your assertion regarding polling data is true. It's a talking a point that I've seen in other conservative blogs; none of which back it up either because it appears to not be true.

"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart

So, apparently the Statesman has.....

met the low standard you set for them. I expect more for my subscription; as a consumer, the service/product I'm paying for is not meeting my expectation. I guess that's just the difference between one subscriber and another.

Why do you care?

It won't influence your vote. The Statesman is part of a corporation, and as you repubs know, a corporation can dang well do whatever it wants.


Please reconsider, Kevin. Gary Johnson could use the the publicity.


"Weaseling out of things is important, it sets us apart from the rest of the animals... except the Weasel" the Simpsons.

If you did you'd have 300 pages of stink on doodoo, that's why.

You reluctance is well understood. It's a monster, avoid it.


You fry wants with that?

None of the above?

"Access to the candidates, and institutional knowledge, allows us to make better-informed endrosements."

The majority of Idaho voters would agree the Statesman made a poorly-informed endorsement of Barack Obama in 2008, but what makes this election any different from other presidential elections, past or future, in terms of access and institutional knowledge? Can you say copout?

Isn't Unprecedented?

Instead of referring to primaries and caucuses, when was the last time the Statesman didn't endorse a democrat vs. republican presidential race?? ---- Ever?
Who cares about who you endorse. Have the guts to write an opinion. Isn't that the purpose of an editorial page?
The explanation given for no endorsement is a bunch of junk.