Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1554445",
    "label": "Third Debate: Press Clippings",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554445"
}

{
    "id": "1554445",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554445",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Third Debate: Press Clippings",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554445",
    "collections": [
        "White House Special Files Unit Files",
        "Ford - Carter Debates Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Campaign debates",
        "Presidential campaign, 1976",
        "Public opinion polls"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/45/5544/1554445/content/library/document/0010/1554445.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/45/5544/1554445/content/library/document/0010/1554445.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/45/5544/1554445/content/library/document/0010/1554445.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554445",
    "naId": 1554445,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-10-31",
        "month": 10,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-10-01",
        "month": 10,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/45/5544/1554445/content/library/document/0010/1554445.pdf",
    "mediaId": "47e73a2a42b8b970",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 3, folder \"Third Debate: Press Clippings\" of the\nWhite House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 3 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nAL, FRIDAY, OCT. 15, 1976\nnuclear Program-wher?\nUndue Alarm Over Nuclear Spread?\nBy ERNEST W. LEFEVER\nclear technology spreads, but nuclear\nAmerican commitment. The anxiety is\nIn his accelerated effort to slow down\nbombs do not \"proliferate\" from one coun-\nsharpest In Seoul because of occasional\nthe spread of nuclear arms technology,\ntry to another like reactors or power sta-\ncongressional demands for the withdrawal\nPresident Ford last August sent Secretary\ntions. As far as is known, not a single\nof U.S. forces, and in Taipel because of\nof State Kissinger to Pakistan to persuade\nbomb has ever been transferred from one\npressure for Washington to normalize rela-\nPrime Minister Bhutto not to buy a pluto-\ngovernment to another by loan, gift, sale,\ntions with Peking. Their fear of being\nnium reprocessing plant from France. The\nor theft, in spite of rare attempts, such as\nabandoned virtually compels them to seek\nmission was backed by thinly velled con-\nthat of Libya's Khadafy to purchase them\na substitute for the problematical U.S.\ngressional threats to withhold development\nfrom Peking. The chances of terrorists\ncommitment, a substitute of their own\nof security assistance if Pakistan persisted\nstealing a bomb or bomb-grade nuclear\nmaking and under their own control. And\nin the French deal. On the same trip, Mr.\nmaterial have been exaggerated.\nwhat better vehicle of self-rellance than a\nKissinger pressured Paris to cancel the ar-\nIf additional governments acquire nu-\nnational nuclear deterrent?\nrangement. Just a few days ago, the\nclear forces they will be of their own man-\nAny nuclear force is a two-edged sword.\nFrench government Indicated a new will-\nufacture. Any decision to go nuclear is the\nJust like conventional arms, nuclear weap-\ningness to discuss limits on nuclear ex-\nresult of a protracted, agonizing cost-bene-\nons can deter or provoke, but the post-Hi-\nports.\nfit analysis, especially for a country with\nroshima experience demonstrates that nu-\nMr. Kissinger sought to achieve in Paki-\nscarce human and technical resources.\nclear arms have never provoked a nuclear\nstan what he achieved in South Korea last\nOnce a decision is made, the road is long,\nwar, or even a conventional war. To ac-\nJanuary. A congressionally-supported\nknowledge that nuclear arms to date have\nState Department threat to withhold Ex-\nhad a stabilizing impact is not to assert\nport-Import Bank financing for a $292 mil-\nthat they always will, but it surely sug.\nlion Westinghouse power reactor forced\nTwo assumptions-that\ngests that the apocalyptic voices predicting\nSeoul to cancel the planned purchase of a\nadditional national nuclear\nnuclear war by the 1950s or 1960s were\nFrench plutonium reprocessing plant. In\ndead wrong.\n1975 Washington failed to prevent the con-\nforces will increase the\nOne does not have to love the bomb to\nsummation of a comprehensive nuclear as-\ncaution against undue alarm over addi-\nsistance agreement between West Ger-\nlikelihood of nuclear war\ntional nuclear forces. The alarm was\nmany and Brazil which in time will provide\nthe latter with the technology for making\nand that the most effective\nsounded in the case of France, but where\nis the evidence that the strategic balance\nnuclear weapons, though U.S. pressure\nway to prevent nuclear\nof terror was weakened by France's Inde-\nhelped to ensure the stiff safeguards against\npendent deterrent? Has China's member-\n\"weapons application\" written into the pact.\nacquisition by the Third\nship in the nuclear club or India's 1974 ex-\nplosion made the world more dangerous?\nA Widely-Held Assumption\nWorld is to deny them the\nDoes Israel's presumed possession of a\nThe continuing U.S. efforts to halt, de-\ndozen nuclear bombs enhance or detract\nter, or slow down the manufacture of nu-\ntechnology-deserve more\nfrom stability in the Middle East?\nclear arms by additional governments is\ncriticial examination.\nLooking to the future, the burden of\nrooted in the widely-held assumption that\nproof certainly rests with those who would\nthe danger of local or strategic war or nu-\nargue that additional national nuclear ar-\nclear blackmail will inevitably rise with\nsenals would be good for local and world\nthe increasing number of governments that\nhard, costly, and replete with political\nstability. But an equal burden of proof\npossess them. The chief corollary of this\nrisks, as the cases of France, China and\nrests upon those who maintain-as most\nassumption is that the U.S. and the other\nIndia demonstrate.\nspokesmen in the arms control community\nnuclear-competent countries (the big nu-\nIt took New Delhi 15 years and perhaps\nseem to-that all further acquisitions any-\nclear powers plus West Germany, East\n$3 million to conduct its modest explosion:\nwhere and in all circumstances are equally\nGermany, Sweden, Belgium, Italy, and Po-\nthis expenditure was only a small part of\ndangerous.\nland) should refrain from exporting repro-\nIndia's extensive nuclear research program\nThe Nub of the Matter\ncessing plants, enrichment facilities, or\nwhich only a handful of Third World states\nother weapons-related nuclear technologies\ncan match. Working at maximum speed,\nIn pursuing its non-acquisition objec-\nto states which do not now have them.\nit would take years for India to build a small\ntive, Washington has overemphasized mul-\nFailing that, such exports should be ac-\nforce capable of reaching targets in Pakis-\ntilateral instruments such as the Non-Pro-\ncompanied by vigorous legal and physical\ntan. A force capable of striking China would\nliferation Treaty and the suppliers' consor-\nsafeguards against weapons applications.\nrequire a sophisticated missile-delivery\ntium and neglected efforts to deal with the\nIn mid-1975, Washington established a con-\nsystem.\nbasic motivation of exposed states to go\nsortium for these purposes along with the\nJ. Robert Oppenhelmer once said of the\nnuclear. This is the nub of the question. We\nSoviet Union, Britain, West Germany,\nhydrogen bomb: \"It was so technically\ncannot prevent the spread of nuclear tech-\nFrance, Japan and Canada.\nsweet, we had to do it.\" But the assump-\nnology, which is needed by many countries\nThis denial-of-capability effort is seen\ntion that a technical nuclear arms capabil-\nas a source of energy. But we can help un-\nby the participants as a more effective de-\nity always (or usually) leads to nuclear\ndercut the impulse to make nuclear arms\nterrent to new nuclear forces than the Nu-\narms has not been ratified by recent his-\nby continuing or increasing the U.S. secu-\nclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which em-\ntory. Six or more European states have\nrity commitment to several crucial states.\nlong had this capability, but for political\nThe extension of a nuclear guarantee, de-\nbraces 100 adherents, but not some of those\nreasons they have refrained from exercis-\nfense pact, or military assistance-and in\nmost inclined to go nuclear, such as Israel,\nIng it.\nsome cases the provision of U.S. troops-is\nEgypt, India, Pakistan, Argentina and Bra-\nNeither Prime Minister Gandhi nor her\nthe single most effective way to encourage\nzil. (India had its first nuclear explosion\nfather pressed ahead with their costly nu-\nnuclear abstinence.\nin May 1974 and informed observers be-\nclear effort because It was \"technically\nAs Fred C. Ikle, director of the U.S.\nlieve that Israel has a small, but militarily\nsweet,\" but because they felt severely\nsignificant nuclear force.)\nArms Control and Disarmament Agency,\nthreatened by China. Likewise, Israel's nu-\nsaid in 1975:\nTwo assumptions-that additional na-\nclear force was built to enhance its secu-\n\"For many non-nuclear powers, pro-\ntional nuclear forces will automatically in-\nrity and ensure its survival. The pro-\ntection against nuclear threat or attack\ncrease the likelihood of nuclear war and\nfoundly political decision to go nuclear is\nrests on American commitments. Ameri-\nthat the most effective way to prevent or\nrooted in fear and nourished by the ever-\nca's self-interest dictates that we sustain\ndeter nuclear acquisition by Third World\npresent desire for prestige.\nour alliances. If we withdraw our protec-\ngovernments is to deny them the necessary\nThe four governments today that proba-\ntion-or if confidence in it were shaken-\ntechnology-deserve more critical examin-\nbly feel most strongly the need to develop\nstrong internal pressures would arise in\nation.\na nuclear deterrent, or to make prepara-\nmany countries to acquire nuclear arma-\nThe stubborn problems of \"nuclear pro-\ntions for exercising that option. are con-\nments for their own protection.\nTo the\nliferation\" are made less tractable by the\nfronted by remarkably similar external\ndegree that we appear to turn inward, we\nimprecise and often apocalyptic language\nthreats. Each faces 8. nuclear adversary\nencourage non-nuclear nations-from Asia\nin which they are discussed. The very\nand each lacks confidence that Its chief\nto Europe and the Middle East-to create\nterm \"proliferation\" has confused the issue:\nally, the United States will come to its aid\ntheir own nuclear (orces,\nBorrowed from biology. proliferation im-\nif It is attacked. South Korea faces a bellig-\nplies a natural or automatic multiplication\nerent North Korea backed by China and\nMr. Lefever is director of the Ethics\nof members of a certain species, e.g. the\nthe Soviet Union, Taiwan faces China, Pak-\nand Public Policy Program of the Kennedy\nspread of the Swine Flu virus.\nistan faces India, and Iran faces the Soviet\nInstitute at Georgetown University and a\nUnion.\nformer Senior Fellow at the Brookings In-\nThere is nothing natural or automatic\nSince the fall of Saigon, each of these\nstitution where he studied U.S. policy to\nabout the spread of nuclear weapons. Nu-\nexposed states has felt an erosion of the\nward nuclear arms in the Third World.\nCt\nas, analysis 10/3/76\nOCTOBER 21, 1976\nTWO OTHER Carter troubles have\nHarris Survey\nalso grown rather than diminished in\nthe course of the campaign. Despite two\ndebates, a 49-to-41 per cent plurality\nIs anyone\nnow feels that Carter \"makes me un-\neasy because I can't tell what kind of\nperson he really is.\" After the first de-\nbate, only 44 per cent felt that way\nwinning\nwhile 46 per cent did not. In addition, a\n49-to-37 per cent plurality still feels that\nCarter \"has ducked taking stands on\nissues to avoid offending anybody and\ndebates?\nthat is wrong\"-which represents virtu-\nally no change from the 49-to-34 per cent\nplurality who felt that way before any of\nthe debates.\nBy any measure, it is clear that the\nBy Louis Harris\ndebates have added to, rather than dis-\npelled, the troubled feelings voters have\nJIMMY CARTER has , serious prob-\nabout Jimmy Carter. It is also evident\nlem facing him in the third of the presi-\nthat in the debates the public is sizing\ndential debates Friday night. Whether\nup Carter in terms of his style and char-\nCarter wins or loses each specific de-\nbate, the doubts about him continué to\nacter far more than on the specific\nstands he is taking on issues-which\nincrease, the most serious of which is\nclearly has not helped him.\nthe 52-to-32-per cent majority feeling\nBy contrast, President Ford has\n\"that he doesn't have enough experience\ngained marginally from the debates,\nin national and world affairs.\"\neven though he clearly lost the second\nCarter lost the first debate by 40 to 31\none by 54 to 30 per cent, mainly because\nper cent, but in the process the number\nhe goofed on the Eastern European is-\nof his own voters who said they were\nsue. However, it is significant that the\n\"very strongly\" for him went up from\n35 to 46 per cent. He lost that debate\npredebate majority of 56 to 30 per cent\nprimarily because he dwelled too long\nwho felt that Ford \"is not very experi-\nenced in foreign affairs, and that is his\non endless statistics and did not seem\nforceful enough.\nweak point\" turned into a 47-to-40 per\nIn the second debate, Carter was the\ncent plurality who now disagree with\nclear-cut victor by a decisive 54-to-30\nthis charge. And the mistake he made\nabout Eastern Europe did not increase\nper cent margin. The Democrat took a\ncalculated gamble that by changing his\nthe number who think \"he is not very\nstyle to an aggressive stance-openly\nsmart about the issues facing the coun-\nattacking the President-he could rattle\ntry.\" This was denied by 50-to-38 per\ncent before the second debate and now\nhis opponent and force him into a griev-\nis denied by an only slightly smaller 48\nous mistake. He succeeded when Ford\nmade the patently ludicrous claim that\nto 40 per cent now.\nEastern European countries were not\nIN ADDITION, ON \"working for\nunder Soviet domination. A thumping 74-\npeace in the world,\" Ford holds a 46-to-\nto-10 per cent majority of the voters\n36 per cent lead over Carter; on \"han-\nthought that was a \"bad mistake.\"\ndling relations with the Russians,\" the\nPresident is ahead by 48 to 29 per cent;\nIRONICALLY, HOWEVER. Carter's\nand on \"keeping the military defense of\nvote went down instead of up following\nthe country strong,\" he is preferred to\nthe second debate. His lead over Ford\nCarter by 48 to 32 per cent. Even though\ndeclined from nine points in a two-way\nFord lost the debates, on every major\ntest down to five points, and from seven\nforeign policy and defense issue, he\ndown to four points with third-party can-\noutscores Carter.\ndidate Eugene McCarthy in the trial\nThe most crucial public attitude for\nheat. Furthermore, the number of Car-\nFord in these debates is the 59-to-27 per\nter voters who felt \"very strongly\"\ncent majority who believes he has \"the\nabout him declined from 56 to 37 per\nbetter experience to be President,\" and\ncent.\nthe 48-to-29 per cent plurality who says\nThe latest Harris Survey, conducted\n\"he seems to act and look more like a\nnationwide among 1,503 likely voters,\nPresident. In short, incumbency seems\nclearly indicates why Carter has not\nto be working for Ford in the debates,\nbenefitted from the debates. Before the\nwhile doubts about Jimmy Carter ap-\nfirst debate, a 48-to-29 per cent plurality\npear to grow.\nworried about his \"lack of experience.\"\nIn 1960, John F. Kennedy scored close\nAfter the first debate, in which Carter\nto a knockout over Richara Nixon in the\nreeled off a long string of statistics\nfirst debate and Nixon never did catch\nabout the economy, the number who had\nup to him. In 1976, IL is now beginning\ndoubts about his experience declined to\nto appear that the victor in the debates\n45-to-41 per cent.\ncould well be President Ford by attri-\nAfter the second debate, when Carter\ntion. His presidential presence has been\nwas less factual, more assertive, and\nreinforced by each debate, while Carter\nmore argumentative, doubts about his\ncontinues to slip after each encounter.\n\"lack of experience in national and\nHowever, Friday's debate is likely to be\nworld affairs\" rose to 52-to-32 per cent.\nthe most decisive of the three, and per-\nMore importantly, by 59 to 26 per cent,\nhaps Jimmy Carter can correct what up\na majority of the voters thinks that\nto now has been his failure to establish\nPresident Ford, not Jimmy Carter, \"has\ngreater credibility with his debate per-\nthe better experience to be President for\nformances.\nthe next four years.\" This finding shows\nhow crucial it is for Carter to overcome\nthis feeling that he does not have ade-\nquate experience.\n0005\nBnr Edit Page Tues Makup\n0006\n0007\nPls prf to Dave Hardin\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN\nThe Country Needs\nKin morrell\nEditor\nPresident Ford\n0012\n0013\nTHE NASHVILLE BANNER today endorses Gerald\n0015\nR. Ford for President of the United States.\n0016\nThe choice, of course, is between two men - but\n0017\nthere also is another aspect to that choice: what role\n0018\ngovernment should play in our lives.\n0019\nAn overwhelming majority of the American public\n0020\nhas reached the point where it wants less federal\n0021\ngovernment, less intrusion into their lives and liber-\n0022\nties, less tax burden and fewer grandiose programs\n0023\nwhich cost billions of tax dollars.\n0024\nPresident Ford shares that view. His opponent does\n0025\nnot, promising more and more costly federal pro-\n0026\ngrams which must be paid for by the people.\n0027\nThe Banner's Editorial Board of publisher, editors\n0028\nand key news and editorial staff members directly\n0029\ninvolved with the coming elections made its decision\n0030\nbased on the strength and character Mr. Ford has\n0031\ndisplayed in the performance of his duties in the White\n0032\nHouse and from the sharply contrasting views of the\n0033\ntwo men, the party platforms they are pledged to\n0034\ncarry out and our opinion of the mood of the\n0035\ncountry.\n0036\n0037\nIn the two years he has held the Presidency, Mr.\n0038\nFord has restored integrity to an office left in\n0039\nshambles by Watergate; despite opposition of\na\n0040\nDemocratic Congress, he has served as a check\n0041\nagainst the liberalism that rants for greater deficit\n0042\nspending yet is deaf to the pleas of the taxpayer; he has\n0043\nbeen the encouraging force behind attempts to bring\n0044\npeace abroad; he has been instrumental in steering an\n0045\neconomy - stricken by war and big government\n0046\nspending - back onto a course of eventual health.\n0047\nMr. Ford is a leader. Mr. Ford has brought a new\n0048\ndignity to the office. But dignity does not mean\n0049\naloofness; it does not mean that he is blind to the\n0050\nconcerns of those who truly need the services of\n0051\ngovernment. He has made it clear that cities, that\n0052\nindividuals, will continue to be beneficiaries of gov-\n0053\nernment. The key is that it be done responsibly. He has\n0054\npledged more tax cuts, not more increases.\n0055\nGovernment largesse, that would cut off one leg to\n0056\nhelp buy its owner a pair of shoes, is opposed by\n0057\nhim.\n0058\n0059\nBy staying away from government-contrived, arti-\n0060\nficial cure-alls, Mr. Ford's administration has re-\n0061\nduced double-digit inflation. Although unemployment\n0062\nstill is higher than anyone wants, it is less than it was.\n0063\nFurther, total employment is at an all-time high.\n0064\nProductivity is up.\n0065\nThe gross national product is up.\n0066\nWe are not at war with anyone anywhere.\n0067\nWe are not reassured by his opponent, former Gov.\n0068\nJimmy Carter of Georgia. He, too, has made pledges\n0069\nof tax reductions and more efficient government\n0070\nspending. But he supports a Democratic platform that\n0071\nis solidly contrary to those pledges. It includes heavier\n0072\ngovernment spending in the area of unemployment,\n0073\nthus increasing the tax load. While advocating a more\n0074\ntightly-run government, the programs that he sup-\n0075\nports could push the deficit well above $100 billion, the\n0076\nmost serious economic problem the country faces. His\n0077\nown record as governor saw state expenditures rise by\n0078\n50 per cent. It is a Neverland of promises, and he has\n0079\nmade serious errors in attempting to explain who he\n0080\nwould tax, who he would abort, who he would forgive.\nTroop\n0081\nA Carter presidency would seem to open the door to a\n0082\nwelfare state that Mr. Ford has been able to block.\n0083\nUnlike the sincere, conservative, responsible image\n0084\nMr. Carter was able to portray in the primaries, he\n0085\nnow emerges as something different a calculating\nhuded\n0086\npolitician who already has cheapened the presidency\n0087\nhe seeks with his public use of gutter language, even\n0088\nwhile quoting the Scriptures, in a blatant grab for\n0089\nvotes.\nHe\nanomal.\n0090\nThe thought of entrusting to his care the defense of\n0091\nthis country and its foreign policy horrifies us only\n0092\nmorethan the thought of the economic ruin that surely\n0093\nawaits if the high-spending promises he dictated in the\n0094\nDemocratic platform are carried out.\n0095\n0096\nMr. Ford is what President Nixon was not - and he\n0097\nis what Mr. Carter is not. A humble, non-scheming\n0098\nman who believes that the power of government\n0099\nbelongs to the people, Mr. Ford has restored public\n0100\nconfidence in the highest office in the land and in the\n0101\ntotal government once more.\n0102\nMr. Ford is the country's guarantee against fiscal\n0103\nirresponsibility, against confiscatory taxes on work-\n0104\ning people, against free-wheeling concepts that would\n0105\nbring only more inflation, more unemployment, more\n0106\nindebtedness. He is the country's guarantee against\n0107\nforfeiture of a workable foreign policy under which the\n0108\nUnited States is at peace.\n0109\nWe endorse Gerald Ford because the country needs\n0110\nhim. And because he already has proved that he is\n0111\nworthy of that trust.\nIMM\nUNClas\nFOR COMMCENTER USE ONLY\nPRECEDENCE\nCLASSIFICATION\nDEX\nFROM: The SituatioN ROOM/KIOS\n0611\nDAC\n014 GPS\nTO: Bud Me Farlane, for\nLDX\nPAGES 1\nGen Scoweroft\nTTY\nCITE\nINFO:\nDTG: 2312107\nREL DN BASED BY:\nTOR: 231221211 2312217 70\nECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:\n1976 GCT 23 12 05\nWHCA FORM 8, 22 FEB 74\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nAPB103\nSCOWCROFT, 11YLA.\n089\nPULL- (TOPS)\n(RADNOR, PENNSYLVANIA) -- THE ASSOCIATED PRESS POLL SAYS THE FINAL\nFORD-CARTER DEBATE WAS A TOSS-UP WITH THE BROADCAST AUDIENCE. FORD WON\nTHE DEBATE, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, BUT THE MARGIN OF ERROR IN THE\nSTATISTICS AND OTHER FACTORS MAKE IT A VIRTUAL DRAW. OF\nONE-THOUSAND-27 VOTERS POLLED, 35-POINT-FIVE PER CENT SAY FORD WON THE\nDEBATE, 33-POINT-ONE PER CENI GIVE IT TO CARTER, AND 31-POINT-FOUR\nPER CENT DON'T KNOW WHICH OF THE CANDIDATES WON.\n06:19AED 10-23-76\nAPB104\n090\nDEBATE (TOPS) TAKE 2\nTHE MARGIN OF ERROR FOR A SAMPLE OF THIS SIZE IS ABOUT TWO AND\nWINE-TENTHS PERCENTAGE POINTS IN EITHER DIRECTION. THAT MEANS THE\n1NO-POINT-FOUR PERCENTAGE POINTS SEPARATING CARTER AND FORD CANNOT BE\nRELIABLY PROJECTED TO STAND FOR THE NATION AS A WHOLE.\nTHE INTERVIEWERS FOR THE A-P SURVEY FOUND A SMALLER PERCENTAGE OF\nTHE SAMPLE AT HOME AND HAVING WATCHED THE DEBATE THAN AFTER THE TWO\nPREVIOUS DEBATES. THOSE VOTERS WHO DID WATCH TENDED TO BE OLDER AND\nTERE SLIGHTLY MORE LIKELY TO BE REPUBLICANS THAN DEMOCRATS.\nTHE A-P RESULTS APPEAR TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH A SURVEY OF 353\n'IEWERS TAKEN FOR THE PUBLIC BROADCASTING SYSTEM WHICH FOUND THAT 40\nPER CENT THOUGHT CARTER WON, 29 PER CENT WERE FOR FORD AND 31 PER CENT\nCALLED IT A DRAW.\nHOWEVER, THE MARGIN OF ERROR IN THE P-B-S SAMPLE IS SIX PERCENTAGE\nPOINTS IN EITHER DIRECTION, MEANING THAT THE RESULT COULD BE 35-T0-34\nFOR FORD.\n06:26AED 10-23-76"
}