I should add that from doing visibility this morning, any time you get random motorists making hook signs as they drive past, you're winning.

And how many of these newspapers will NOT be endorsing Gordon Smith in November? I suspect method in their madness. The Trib: "Voters, if they are inclined...." East Oregonian: "...unconventional and audacious style...." Medford Mail: "Democrats who are serious...." Really, who are they kidding?

So we should ignore two of the only three papers to endorse Jeff, since they're conservative and likely to endorse the Republican in November as well?

If the Portland Mercury is furtively in the tank for Gordon Smith, maybe we should just pack it in.

Charlie - okay, I'll give you the Mercury.

TJ - No. The newspapers who endorsed Jeff had a much more on-balance endorsement, in my opinion.

"The newspapers who endorsed Jeff had a much more on-balance endorsement, in my opinion. "

And? How does that change the likelihood that the SSJ and certainly the Bulletin will go GOP this fall?

What IS your point, exactly?

local mom, WADR, the Oregonian is not a Republican paper. It is a paper with a divided editorial board that lurches from side to side on an ad hoc basis (rather like the Supreme Court used to do, only less transparent).

Bottom line is: with all his institutional advantages, Jeff should have put Steve away six months ago. If Jeff Merkley were the kind of candidate his supporters would have liked him to be, we wouldn't even be HAVING this conversation now.

Steve has been able to get traction that Jeff hasn't because Steve is a talented campaigner and an authentic political figure who says what he believes and believes what he says. People respond to that. There have been times when I have wondered what Jeff Merkley believes, or even if he has any core beliefs at all. No one will ever wonder that about Steve.

Sorry, I see local mom did not mention the O.

Obviously the point holds that the general election is a different election and it remains to see what these papers will do. But TJ is right -- if it's OK to peer behind the curtain for ulterior motives, then the same must be said of a couple of Merkley's papers.

I think that a conservative paper would endorse Merkley because they recognize that he is more conservative than Steve, AND they think that that makes Jeff a better general election candidate. They're entitled to their opinion. I think that when a conservative paper endorses Steve they are responding to his X-factor, the plain talk and honesty that cut across ideological boundaries. That X-factor, in my mind, is the thing that really makes Steve the superior nominee.

....with all his institutional advantages, Jeff should have put Steve away six months ago.

Or........Novick got some good name recognition early on because he's set himself up as the court jester and done some funny ads.

Once Merkley's ads started airing and people began to learn who he is, he gained 243% more supporters than Steve did over the same three week period.

Again, impressive only to folks who's preferences have not totally short circuited their ability to internalize new factual information.

"Once Merkley's ads started airing and people began to learn who he is, he gained 243% more supporters than Steve did over the same three week period."

Or he gained 13% and Novick gained 11%, depending on the accurate point on the range. Funny how SUSA was full of shit a month ago, now apparently they're right on the button with a lot of Merkley folks.

In any case, how does that represent putting Novick away six months ago?

"Steve is a talented campaigner and an authentic political figure...." And I thought all along the Novick supporters here have been calling Jeff Merkley the "establishment" candidate.

My point about the endorsements is that the endorsements with substance, IN MY OPINION, have supported Jeff Merkley.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree - again.

You mean substance like this?

They are both likely to be described as Portland liberals and both generally support the principal tenets of the Democratic Party. They both differ considerably from Smith on most issues. But there are differences between Merkley and Novick as well. Merkley speaks in measured, careful tones and prides himself on his ability in recent legislative assemblies to garner consensus. Novick is, well, a bit more of a flame-thrower. He speaks his mind, which is refreshing, if sometimes a bit dangerous, for a politician. There are some telling policy differences as well. Merkley supported a legislative move to restrict illegal immigrants' access to driver's licenses; Novick opposed it. Novick would push to eliminate the $100,000 income cap for paying Social Security taxes, requiring the wealthy to continue paying into the system, and would increase capital gains taxes; Merkley does not support either idea. Novick says we must have a "firm and swift" exit from Iraq, even if that results in a spike in bloodshed in that country; Merkley says the "responsible plan" is to begin removing troops immediately and remove U.S. troops from combat roles within six to 12 months. We think both Merkley and Novick are qualified candidates and both are capable of unseating the only remaining Republican senator on the West Coast. But Novick brings a spirit and focus to the campaign that is refreshing and we have no doubts that he would carry that same fearless approach to Congress. We endorse Steve Novick for the Democratic nomination to the U.S. Senate.

Or he gained 13% and Novick gained 11%, depending on the accurate point on the range.

According to the most recent poll, (accurate or otherwise) Novick gained 7 points over the previous poll and Merkley gained 17 points in the same time period.

That this just happened to coincide with the beginning of Jeff's media effort is undoubtedly.....er...coincidental.

Not arguing for the accuracy of the poll, just the accuracy of comments on the poll. As far as I'm concerned, unless you have an aggregation of several different polls, you're less likely to get accuracy. Even then it's a crapshoot as we've seen in several recent primaries around the country.

"According to the most recent poll, (accurate or otherwise) Novick gained 7 points over the previous poll and Merkley gained 17 points in the same time period."

Sixteen, actually. They rounded.

As for an aggregation of polls, that makes 6 of 6 with Novick ahead, right?

Personally, I don't think the historical evidence shows that newspaper endorsements make a big difference.

In 2006 the O and Mail Tribune (two of the three biggest) both endorsed Saxton, but Kulongoski won by a comfortable 8 points, including the Metro area where the O has it's greatest circulation/readership. Even adding Mary Starrett's votes in, Kulongoski still would have won by several points. And Kulongoski had a mere 36% approval rating going into that vote - which seems to me to counter-weight the fact that he was the incumbent.

Endorsements like those of the Humane Society Legal Fund, the SEIU and of AFSCME seem to be more influential over the final outcome than newspapers.

"Personally, I don't think the historical evidence shows that newspaper endorsements make a big difference."

Can you name a time where all four papers, covering 2/3 of the state's population, endorsed the same person for a major race? What was the outcome in that case or cases?

Kevin's having trouble with polls again--using the standard SUSA monthly poll, Ted was at 39% in October, not 36%. And in a survey taken right at election time, he was at 47-48.

But you keep doing that Dance of the Factually Challenged that you do so well...

That's a good point, MCR. However, Saxton outraised and outspent Kulongoski, if my memory is serving properly, which effectively negates the fundraising advantage. In fact, I just did a quick Google and as of late September 2006 Saxton had raised nearly twice as much as Kulongoski.

Nevertheless, being the incumbent is clearly a historical advantage.

In any case, I'm skeptical of the value of newspaper endorsements as a whole in relation to organizational endorsements which include phonebanking and other active support which newspapers don't offer their endorsees.

I went off a Wikipedia entry on the Gubernatorial race which cited a SUSA poll from late September putting Gov. K at 36% - which was the most recent poll stat in the Wiki entry.

That's it. No attempt to assassinate the messenger/critic. No gradeschool insults. Just the facts.

As another blogger who traded his keyboard for a set of walking shoes on Saturday, I also got a great response from the people who were home. Most of the people I talked to were at least familiar with Steve, having seen the ads or seen him in the paper. I found it surprising how many knew about the Senate race given how intense the Presidential primary has been.

I also didn't see a single Merkley lawn sign on my turf, but saw half a dozen Novick signs. Several people who said they would be voting for Steve said they'd be happy to put signs up.

I live in Aloha, travel through Beaverton, and work in downtown. And for what it's worth, if I had nothing else to guide me, I'd know exactly where I was by the signs I see. Steve Novick is a strictly true-blue phenomenon. He does best in areas where most races are liberal Democrat vs too-leftist-to-be-Democrat. Merkley is prevalent everywhere else - but at a reduced rate of sineage; he seems more attractive to the low info voters than the diehards.

apropos of who does well where, I'll tell you right now that Roseburg, redder than red, will be Novick country on the 20th.

But I don't doubt low info voters like Merkley. A big enough platform was always Steve's biggest challenge.

Just curious, Kevin, how many doors have you knocked for Merkley?

it sounds like you're threatening me with the gun pointing at your own head. It's like hating the Dead because hippies annoy you--you're not costing them any of their joy.

Time and time again here i've seen novick supporters freely and openly admit disagreement and disappointment with things about Steve or said by Steve. That's much the point--he only gets the pedestal so he can reach the mike; it's not to elevate his stature otherwise. Steve's real and honest, like your friend who says "I think you're getting fat" because if not them, who will? Sometimes, both the truth and a good way to tell it can be awkward.

Where I sit, most of the tortured spinning and denial is squarely in Camp M.

David M. and other undecided voters: We'd love to have you come check out Novick this Wednesday at the Northstar Ballroom if you can. It's free and should be a lot of fun. I think Novick's the best to take out Smith, but if you're able, you should come see for yourself.

It will probably come as little surprise that my view of the governor's reelection is substantially different from Kevin's. Earned media was absolutely critical in repairing Kulongoski's standing with voters, even if he didn't earn every media endorsement. Starting in the summer, the governor went on the offensive and really never stopped.

This is not an insignificant point. With Smith poised to significantly outspend either Merkley or Novick, our nominee cannot win without an aggressive earned media strategy in the fall. It's one of the reasons Novick will be a stronger nominee: even setting aside the near sweep of endorsements, Novick's coverage has outshined Merkley week after week long before major papers weighed in.

Organizational endorsements help a lot. In the general, we need both organizational endorsements and strong media. But most traditional democratic-leaning organizations will support our nominee no matter who he is. It will be a lot more difficult for Merkley to win better coverage post-primary than it will for Novick to make his case to the Sierra Club.

Let's be practical here - Merkley pays his wife for work while his regular support person is not working. It is not against any rules. He does so in two consecutive months over a nine year span. And that's a story?

Surely WW knows that Jeff Merkley didn't get to write the ethics reform rules without having to compromise with the other legislators in Salem. That's how democracy works! The fact that there was ethics reform should be the story. To criticize him is just another example of how desperately WW wants Steve Novick to win, and they don't care how much non-news they have to drag out.

Charlie's earned media point is unrelated to what I'd said and thus isn't a disagreement at all. He simply used me to preface his comment.

As for what I did say... The O and the Mail Tribune both endorsed Saxton and Kulongoski won.

I'm a little unclear on the "near sweep of endorsements" Charlie mentions.

Would that the the near sweep of union endorsements Merkley won?

Or perhaps the nearly total sweep on progressive activist organizational endorsements Merkley won? Activist organizations like Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, Basic Rights Oregon, Council for a Livable World, the Human Society Legal Fund, Citizens for Global Solutions, Oregon Small Business for Responsible Leadership, eQualityGiving and Just Out magazine.

I canvassed door to door for Merkley in Portland on Saturday. But I didn't ring any door bells. Creative knocking is the preferred method for canvassing, as Sal's question infers.

That said, I've focused more on networking with friends and coworkers. Just yesterday a coworker who I'd only ever casually, albeit frequently, talked politics with came up to me and said that I'd convinced him to vote for Merkley and that his ballot is in the mail. I didn't even know he was a Dem! Of course, the fact that I'm in two of Merkley's TV ads gives me an opening to discuss the race with folks which Sal obviously doesn't have. Which is why I've focused more on direct conversations than knocking on doors.

How many doors? I didn't count them. It was two or three hours worth.

Interestingly enough, although it didn't occur to me to make the connection, several other Merkley canvassers said they had spectacular success talking with dog owners about the HSLF endorsement of Merkely.