As I recall, back in the 1990s there was a very cocky environmentalist who said that his group was not endorsing either of the gentlemen with a strong environmental activist record because "the green in the wallet is more important than the green in the record". Sure their endorsed candidate had money and powerful friends. But he turned off so many voters he lost the general election. Exactly why was that a good endorsement decision?

As I recall, that endorsement caused someone to send that group a letter saying the group was no longer in his will.

This is of a piece with "unless you score high on our scorecard, you are scum".

Such actions short circuit thought and make politics look like a chess board or something with 2 teams and a bunch of spectators.

Then people wonder why we have low turnout primaries and campaigns empty of issues??

Back in the 1980s, the Oregon Journal did a full page article on 5 candidates in a contested primary. In it, the reporter said one candidate had collected most of the endorsements--and the reporter called that "an excellent 19th century strategy". In that election, that candidate with all the endorsements came in 2nd.

I know it is important for challengers without funds to get endorsements which prove they have valid campaigns.

But too many endorsements are simplistic. "I got a post card supporting Ted Kulongoski from NARAL. Are Sorenson and Hill not pro-choice? "

As I recall, Hill was on the NARAL Board at one point?

20 years ago, Norma Paulus ran for Gov. when there were 2 very active women's groups. One endorsed her as a female candidate, the other had a rigorous interview process. If groups are not transparent about their process, they breed ill will. For instance, an activist announcing prior to an endorsement convention "Well in this district we have a great candidate" as if it is not a contested primary (in the case I am thinking of, that "great candidate" lost the primary) it just comes across as a game, not as anything about serious politics where the goal is to earn the most votes.

Why is the bar set so low for incumbents? What does this behavior by endorsers do to their own reputation?

Maybe the answer to your first question lies with the answer to the second: Endorsement of incumbents may not be about that particular person, in that particular race, at all. The endorsement might be precisely to establish a reputation for the endorser--namely, incumbents can count on us, whoever they may be. Maybe it's a way of letting whoever holds the power know that if you help us, we'll remember come election time.

Here's a partial analogy: You frequent a particular restaurant often enough that you want to be known as good tipper. When you walk in the door, you want the wait staff to be happy to see you. Then one night, you get really bad service. Do you stiff the service person on the tip? No--because that might undermine the reputation you've worked hard, and spent money, to establish. You still leave a good tip, knowing that even if that service person never waits on you again--or gets fired before you come around the next time--your reputation as a reliable source remains unsullied.

Endorsements of incumbents, then, may not be about whoever happens to hold the office at all. It's a way of establishing a reputation as a good tipper--so the next office holder will be happy to see you coming.

Just a thought. . .

The Multnomah County Chair election was not about Ted Wheeler. It was about Dianne Lynn. Lynn was what everyone say they want in a politician: an iconoclast with an unwavering moral vision. She found out to her cost that voters lie about what they say they want. People don't want political courage. They want politicians who agree with them, even if everyone else doesn't.

Or maybe what happened was that there were enough people uncertain about Linn before gay marriage---maybe even friends of Lonnie Roberts. And when he was excluded from the discussion, maybe there were those who didn't think excluding Lonnie from such a discussion had anything to do with "unwavering moral vision". Maybe that tactic looked stupid to enough people that they started looking closer at the Linn record, talking to their friends about it. And maybe Wheeler looked like a new broom who sweeps clean.

Time will tell, but it wouldn't be the first time voters had grown tired of a known quantity and wanted a change.

With no disrespect intended toward the Multnomah County Democrats (whom I greatly respect), it should be noted that their organization issued a dual endorsement of Erik Sten and Emilie Boyles. No official retraction was ever made, though Boyles did disappear from their list of endorsements following the signature scandal.

Now how did that happen? Presumably Boyles was interviewed. She would have responded with the same intellect that was behind her accusations of racism toward Slavic people, Erik Sten's Voter Owned Election scheme to trip up honest VOE candidates like herself, and dubious justifications for campaign expenditure. Yet she emerged from the endorsement process sharing an endorsement with a three-term encumbent. How?

However a given endorsement is reached and what it means to the media and to voters, it is clear that there are problems with the role of public endorsements by organizations with large constituencies. Such endorsements should not be made zealously and social responsibility ultimately falls on the endorsing organization for the completeness and accuracy of its endorsement process.

as an Independent, I don't pay much attention to endorsements at all...except sometimes who to vote against.

Sore winner, eh?

Perhaps the environmental groups weren't huge fans of the large donations to Measure 37 from Ted Wheeler's foundation. Maybe.

And whatever the behaviour of local bigots afterwards, Diane Linn did all she could for Multnomah County gays and lesbians. Wheeler's position wasn't strong -- the way I heard it, he wanted to include the guy on the commission who'd have tried to prevent a single marriage from ever happening.

Since you don't back it up with substance, there's something ironic in the phrase "disgustingly trashy attack." Interesting to see timber heir Wheeler's supporters already lording it over the "disgustingly trashy" rest of us.

Could it be that some endorsers are merely (or partially) on an ego trip? Being asked to endorse, having your name of campaign mailers, newspaper ads, or a spot on tv could be an endorphine shot for some. Or it could help someone develop "name recognition" when they may run for office.

Jonathan Poisner: Can you give an example of a Burdick-Sten type match-up (two strongly pro-environment candidates) where OLCV chose to endorse the challenger over the incumbent? Thanks.

Kudos to Jonathan for taking a difficult stance on the Chair's race. To bastardize an adage: In politics, votes and actions talk and BS walks.

Wheeler may be a fine Chair (I really hope he will be), but on enviromental issues he had no real record (Forest Park is great, but it ain't the Columbia Gorge). Linn, despite all her supposed shortcomings, (gawd, I hope no one ever holds me to my Outlook calendar) had taken the lead on a number of environmental issues (one of the real secrets in federal legislation is the amount of influence county commissioners exert on federal and state policies) important to her constituents.

Knowing how damaged candidate Linn was, I think the OLCV (and other orgs') position produced a net positive.

If you don't back "them what brung ya", no elected official worth their salt will be comfortable taking the tough vote for your issues. Alternatively, if electeds know you will support them, even in the face of a torrential downpour of negativity, they will be more likely to consider voting the publics' interest, instead of their own.

And if they don't, there's always the next election...

Duke - "If you don't back "them what brung ya", no elected official worth their salt will be comfortable taking the tough vote for your issues."

Precisely. And, this has nothing to do with political machination, and everything to do with trust. An elected official needs to trust that those who've supported her will trust her in return, giving her the freedom to lead the public beyond the safe and predictable path. Without such trust, we'll never have leaders, just poll-driven politicians, pandering to whatever mind-set the media washes over the public (while panicking over the contents of their calendar).

I'm glad to read that some folks in this thread believe loyalty is an important principle in politics and civil society. The fact that loyalty's value in our society has been reduced so far that some - such as John Calhoun - now apparently see it as a negative trait speaks volumes about the disintegration of our social fabric. Loyalty and trust are the glue which bond people so they can move, together. Dissolve that bond - through cynicism, mistrust, and the trivialization of loyalty - and you have a passive, easily manipulated electorate.

Endorsements should not be so cheaply bought as some seem to have wanted in this election. As Jonathan Poisner with OLCV wrote, "[t]o suggest that we must always dual-endorse whenever both candidates pass some threshold ... means we can't help the fabulous defeat the very good -- at a time in world history when on some issues ... we're in desparate need of the fabulous."

However, it also tarnished them [BRO], in my opinion, because it was a statement that basic competence didn't matter, nor did Wheeler's position on gay marriage rights or the fact that the other three Commissioners who supported him also supported gay marriage.

That's right, then Basic Rights Oregon took it a step further making statements against Wheeler as a supporter of our civil rights and made it seem like a vote for Ted Wheeler was not only a betrayal, but dangerous.

To the person named Duke who posted previously: Could you include a last name, initial, or some other other second identifier with your posts in the future? On a couple of occasions, including today, I have had a couple of folks contact me via email and phone about your posts thinking that I made them (seems silly I know, but Duke just isn't a common enough name and Oregon's a small state). Thanks for your consideration. Sorry to be off topic.

BRO WATCH: While I doubt you are explicitly tied to the Wheeler campaign, as K suggests, I must echo here K's concern about the anonymity of your ongoing attacks on BRO and Roey Thorpe.

A fundamental truth of GLBT politics is that we will never win equality fighting from inside a closet. The single most powerful political act we GLBT people have at our disposal is to come out and be honest with everyone about who we are. So, to criticize Roey Thorpe and BRO as strongly as you do, for what you assert as their failure to take "personal responsibility" for your concerns over their endorsement of Diane Linn over Ted Wheeler, is both ironic and hypocritical, given you are yourself evading all responsibility by speaking from the closet of an anonymous, approved-comments only blog, and anonymous postings here on BlueOregon.

If you want your viewpoints to be heard and respected as part of the civil dialogue in Portland's GLBT community resulting from Diane Linn's defeat in this recent election, come out of the closet and take personal responsibility for your views, both here and on your blog. As is, you are damaging the credibility of the viewpoints you espouse. There are very good reasons why (credible) newspapers do not print anonymous letters to the editor, and why there are bylines on editorials, which you are amply illustrating here in the "new media" blogosphere.

My apologies to Kari Chisolm (the named and known responsible party behind this blog) and the broader Portland progressive community for how much oxygen is being sucked up here on BlueOregon by the waves around the recent election. I hope Portland's GLBT community moves quickly forward towards healing the rift this election created (open-mike community forum, anyone?). There's too much work to be done (um, like the upcoming Federal Marriage "Red Meat for Wingnuts" Amendment to be voted on in the Senate the week of June 5th ... called Gordon Smith yet?) for this to be an ongoing distraction.

Admittedly, my candidate - Diane Linn - badly lost this election, so it's obvious I should want to move on. I just hope the few sore winners out there finish their grave-dancing quickly.

Lastly, on the subject of gay marriage, anyone needing a giggle here might want to listen to this:

http://gay-gop.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

AND CALL GORDON "REPUBLICAN SWING VOTE" SMITH! at 503.326.3386 (Portland office) and ask him not to support the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Please ...

Loyalty is so frequently called into question whenever anyone questions Basic Rights Oregon - and it has happened to us on numerous occassions - that we feel the need to focus on the issues and the changes that we'd like to see made at BRO, rather than on who we are specifically.

Maybe organizations which make endorsements based on loyalty over the issues are also out of touch with their supporters. Certainly in this case through both public and private, open and 'anonymous' communication with BRO about their endorsement process, BRO still chose to handle themselves as they did.

It has tarnished BRO in the eyes of some and as anyone can see here has created a somewhat divisive discussion within the LGBTQ community.

It's an odd struggle. Maybe the voters are a bit wiser these days with all the access we have to information, the rise of blogs and online discussions. Where once we depended upon an organization to do the homework and give some guidance with an endorsement we can take more responsibility for making those decisions on our own.