Liberal Paper Bites Barbara Boxer

No, Ma'am: The S.F. Chronicle ed board has refused to endorse either major candidate in the California U.S. Senate race, in the process saying some unfriendly things about the incumbent, Barbara Boxer:

Boxer, first elected in 1992, would not rate on anyone's list of most influential senators. Her most famous moments on Capitol Hill have not been ones of legislative accomplishment, but of delivering partisan shots.

Hey, if that's how the ed board feels it would have been nice if they'd met with me! Lucky I'm not bitter about things like that....

P.S.: You'd think the Chronicle's non-endorsement could be troublesome for Boxer if it's reiterated at a later date. The voters who would be influenced by it probably aren't reading the editorial pages in September. But it's already troublesome for the L.A. Times ed board, which probably wants to write basically the same thing (because it already has). ...

P.P.S.: Good to see that the L.A. Times is fulfilling its traditional role of lulling Democrats into complacency about their chances. The latest Times poll shows Jerry Brown ahead of Meg Whitman by five points. Latino voters supplied all those points3but the Times apparently surveyed Latino voters separately, using an outfit called Latino Decisions.

A total of 400 Latino registered voters were interviewed by Latino Decisions, by telephone from September 16–22, 2010. Name and phone number samples were provided by Survey Sampling International (SSI) which included about 12% cell-phone only Latino households. Respondents were first screened by Spanish surname based on the name listed on the publically available list of registered voters in California. Respondents then confirmed if they were Latino and currently registered to vote in California, and only self-identified Latino registered voters continued with the survey. The survey was available in English or Spanish, at the preference of the respondent, and all interviewers were fully bilingual.

Isn't it possible that grilling voters on how Latino they are—not to mention the offer of an interview in Spanish—might skew the results? Maybe it makes them more accurate. Or maybe those surveyed take the questions, and the Spanish interview offer, as a cue that they are dealing with PC fellow Latinos and should be on their best pueblo unido behavior. ... I'm even suspicious of the bilingual operators: Do you think a lot of anti-amnesty types wind up as bilingual operators for Latino Decisions? And maybe they have subtle ways of indicating approval or disapproval? Just asking! ...

Update: The Chronicle's Carolyn Lochhead argues that Boxer's huge 38-point lead among Latinos in the poll

shows that immigration politics may outweigh the economy even with more than 12 percent of Californians out of work ....

Huh? Why is Lochhead so sure that the Latino voters made their choice because of the immigration issue, as opposed to other issues? Maybe they simply think pro-stimulus Democrats like Boxer are better on jobs. ... Seems like there is a familiar, unstated, mildly condescending assumption here—that immigration must be the issue for a Latino voter. ... 3:30 p.m.