Skip to main content
In 2012, when Erik Lukens ran the editorial page of The Oregonian, the daily broke with its longstanding tradition and did not endorse a presidential candidate.
Earlier this year, Lukens moved to Bend to take over as editor of The Bulletin, a paper that reliably—including in the past four elections—endorses Republicans for president.
But yesterday, The Bulletin broke with its longstanding tradition and endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton.
"An unusually large number of voters may be tempted this year to vote for neither Trump nor Clinton, instead lodging a protest vote in favor of a minor party candidate like Libertarian Gary Johnson or Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Clinton's going to carry Oregon anyway, right?" The Bulletin wrote. "Before voting in protest for one minor party candidate or another, Oregonians should ask themselves whether they really consider a Clinton presidency as objectionable as a Trump presidency. If the answer is 'no,' even by the slimmest margin, they should vote for Clinton. Imagine waking up on Wednesday, Nov. 9, to discover that she has prevailed in the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. That's no way to encourage Trump to quit politics and pursue other interests."
In an email, Lukens who is one of seven members of The Bulletin's editorial board, explained why he was willing to endorse this year but not in 2012.
"The Oregonian and The Bulletin are very different news organizations with very different cultures," Lukens says. "The Bulletin has consistently endorsed in presidential elections, including in 2012, and the board saw no reason not to do so again this year."
The Bulletin's decision stands in stark contrast to The Oregonian, which again this year decided not to endorse a presidential candidate.
Related: The Oregonian declines to endorse in presidential race.
In making that choice, The Oregonian broke ranks with nearly every large newspaper in the country and other large dailies the Newhouse family's Advance Publications own, such as the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, the New Orleans Times-Picayune and The Birmingham (Ala.) News.
Here's how the Birmingham News editorial board explained its choice to a reliably Republican state:
"Alabama has voted for every Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan, a man that captured our imagination with a hopeful view of America as a shining city upon a hill," the editorial board wrote. "The 2016 election is not a choice between two candidates equally fit to serve, or a choice between the ideology of two parties. Trump is a unique threat and in an election where supporting third party candidates splits a national vote, we see but one option. Clinton may be the second least popular major party candidate in 50 years but she is also one of the most qualified candidates in history. And ultimately, if it isn't her, it's him. And that would be a disaster for America and the world."
Other, non-Newhouse papers in red states have made similar choices.
In Phoenix, the Arizona Republic, which had always endorsed Republicans until this year, is facing threats from outraged readers.
"On its more than 125 years, The Republic had never endorsed a Democrat for president. So, over the many months of the campaign, we found ourselves with this question: Endorse no one, or endorse a Democrat for the first time in our history?" Publisher Mi-Ai Parrish wrote to readers. "We made our choice soberly. We knew it would be unpopular with many people. We knew that, although we had clearly stated our objections to Trump, it would be a big deal for a conservative editorial board in a conservative state to break ranks from the party. We chose patriotism over party. We endorsed the Democrat."
The Oregonian's non-endorsement caused a backlash among some readers, including former Gov. Barbara Roberts, a Democrat and Clinton supporter, who say the daily missed an opportunity to distinguish between two candidates, both of whom may be unpopular but who boast vastly different qualifications.
"I was disappointed," Roberts tells WW. "I thought it was a chance for another voice in Oregon to indicate that Donald Trump does not represent the views of most Americans—and that there's no question between the two candidates."
Related: WW endorses Hillary Clinton for president.
Over the weekend, in response to comments from some readers who criticized the non-endorsement, Oregonian editorial page Editor Laura Gunderson explained the decision:
"We are working hard to provide quality endorsements on local races. In my mind, endorsements mean we have some skin in the game. We are, in essence, vouching for some candidate or issue because we did a significant amount of homework. More than most readers have the time to do," Gunderson wrote at Oregonlive.com. "It's not that we did or didn't do the homework in this case, we chose to focus our energy on certain issues and candidates. It's not that we couldn't decide. We have a policy to focus on local."
Willamette Week