Been thinking about whether there are some endorsements a candidate would rather not have, or slates you don't want to be on.

Ruby Sinreich's picture




Ruby Sinreich's picture

For example

If a person also endorsed a Republican, or a goofball candidate like Tim Sookram, I take the whole slate of endorsments less seriously. Anyone else?

Ruby Sinreich's picture

Breakfast Club

I've also had candidates tell me there were certain endorsements they weren't touting as loudly as others. Especially those who were concerned about how the Breakfast Club treated Michelle Johnson.

James Barrett's picture

it depends...

So I included a link to the CH Watch endorsement on my website, because while I think they go overboard on many things, they add an interesting voice and question things sometimes that need to be.  I didn't publicize any beyond that, because of the reasons you list above. One a slightly different question, we received a questionnaire from Triangle Conservatives United (  It was early in the campaign (August) and I struggled a bit on whether to answer it.  I would not have linked to an endorsement from them if it had come, but I did decide that the questions were good enough questions (ie, not leading as I would have expected) to write up answers to.  It has been interesting because I've seen web searches and hits on my site because of that link.  I didn't say anything I don't believe in the questionnaire, so I hope it showed conservatives where I stand without scaring off too many liberals.  If the questions had been different, I wouldn't have bothered to try to answer, but as I said, it depends.  :)

penny rich's picture

interesting voice

I think it is more of an angry, libellous, misleading voice. Intead of focusing on isses, it digs into people with assumptions that are almost always mean spirted and false. What could have been a great blog turned into a pissing match for misfitted information and mean spirted commentary.