Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
To Chapin, Mitchell, Stans, Haldeman, Flanigan, Kleindienst, Garment from Ellsworth Re: Notes on strategy and tactics through November 5. 23 pages [Memo], 6/24/1968
Appendix A to memo dated 6/24/1968. 18 pages [Report], 6/24/1968
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26127064
label
WHSF: Returned, 39-1
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26127064
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Returned, 39-1
description
This file contains:
To Chapin, Mitchell, Stans, Haldeman, Flanigan, Kleindienst, Garment from Ellsworth Re: Notes on strategy and tactics through November 5. 23 pages [Memo], 6/24/1968
Appendix A to memo dated 6/24/1968. 18 pages [Report], 6/24/1968
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Returned White House Special Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26127064
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d3a34e85f6229a1f
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
White House Special Files Collection
Folder List
Box Number Folder Number Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
39
1
06/24/1968
Memo
To Chapin, Mitchell, Stans, Haldeman,
Flanigan, Kleindienst, Garment from
Ellsworth Re: Notes on strategy and tactics
through November 5. 23 pages
39
1
06/24/1968
Report
Appendix A to memo dated 6/24/1968. 18
pages
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Page 1 of 1
June 24, 1968
Reading
MEMORANDUM
TO:
DC
Mitchell
Stans
Haldeman
Flanigan
Kleindienst
Garment
FROM:
Ellsworth
RE:
Notes on Strategy and Tactics through November 5.
This is an up-dated revision of my memo of June 9,
revised to reflect the substantial changes in public opinion
reported in the Gallup Poll of June 10, and a staff reassess-
ment of states.
SUMMARY: The campaign in 1968 has become a national
campaign in a more complete sense than ever before. The
old politics of regional geographical campaigns, and the
old politics of ideological and class campaigns, have to
a substantial extent given way to the new politics of
media campaigning (as suggested in the Haldeman memorandum
of 1967) with tactics based on demographic analysis.
One of the deep running currents in American politics
today is the demand for a change in leadership: the opening
theme of the Nixon campaign, the Johnson abdication, the
Kennedy and McCarthy campaigns (netting some 75% of the
vote in recent Democratic primaries), and the Wallace
campaign -- all give evidence of this current. One
-2-
effect of the RFK killing and TV coverage is to heighten
the sense that the "ins" have failed to govern effectively
and to intensify the pressure for changes in policies and
leadership.
Assuming that Nixon and Humphrey* are the nominees
of the two major parties, Wallace would be the main com-
petitor against Nixon for the votes of those who desire
substantial change. In addition, Wallace will tap a
substantial regional popularity in the South, plus the
residual racism of the South, plus whatever white backlash
may have been generated in recent years in the rest of
the country.
Given the nationwide character of the "new politics"
campaign that is indicated this year, it remains that the
President has to be elected (according to the Constitution)
by the electoral college. This means. that local and
regional factors must be taken into account, that the
demograph of the principal states has to be read and
accounted for, and that the Wallace candidacy has a
double potential for mischief: in that Wallace may win
a substantial number (27 or more) of electoral votes,
and in that he might drain off enough "we want a change",
anti-Humphrey and white backlash votes in several states
to deprive Nixon of electoral votes by throwing those
states to Humphrey.
*
A source close to Secretary Fowler says LBJ will
now accept a draft. at the Convention.
-3-
In thinking about campaign tactics, it is also
necessary to keep in mind that we will have 25 candi-
dates for Senate seats (including incumbents running
for reelection) who appear to have a reasonable chance
of winning. All of those votes in the Senate will be
important to Nixon as President.
The foregoing points: (1) the national quality
of the election campaign, (2) the electoral college
effect, and (3) the Senate candidates effect -- are
analysed in some detail on the following pages, and at
the end the campaign efforts -- budget, non-candidate
efforts, the Vice Presidential candidate's effort and
the Presidential candidate's effort -- are assessed in
light of the entire analysis.
-4-
I. The campaign in 1968 has become a national
campaign in a more complete sense than ever before. The
old politics of regional geographical campaigns and the
old politics of idelogical and class campaigns, have to
a substantial extent given way to the new politics of
media campaigning with tactics based on demographic analysis.
Politicians tend to think in terms of states or
geographical regions, and while it is necessary to take
account of regions and states later, it is better to start
with a look at the national electorate. It may be a truism
that the American people have become homogenized, but it
is certainly true that television and other national media,
together with the great mobility of large numbers of the
working class (not to mention the sales, business and
professional classes) -- all accelerated and strengthened
by mass college education -- have made Presidential pol-
tics genuinely national.
In fact, Presidential politics today are to a
large extent non-partisan. When George Gallup talks about
the Republican Party being a third party (43% Democrats,
not
30% Independents, and 27% Republicans) he is ^ talking about
in Presidential elections.
how people vote ^ The fact is, both parties are minority
parties in terms of Presidential politics in the United
-5-
States -- and have been since World War II. In the last
5 Presidential elections, the Democrats have received a
majority of the popular vote only once -- in 1964. More-
over, when all the votes cast for President in the last
5 elections are added up, the Democrats come out with
49.6%, the Republicans with 49.1% and others with 1.3%.
Thus: modern mass media permit -- even require --
a truly national Presidential campaign. On historical form
the two major Presidential candidates can expect to have
an equal chance at winning, regardless of their party
identification, and the politically potent issues appear
to be genuinely nationwide.
That being the case, what are some of the nation-
wide demographic groupings in which the Nixon candidacy
may be expected to have strength, and where may problem
areas expect to be encountered? How large are these
different groups in terms of votes? Answers to these
questions are important so that the campaign can be de-
signed to emphasize the appeal to and build up the vote
turn-out in the strong groups, largely through organiza-
tional efforts -- and at the same time design appeals to
the problem areas for the purpose of minimizing antagonisms
and emphasizing possible positive appeals. No accurate
study has been made in this area; one is needed.
-6-
In a rough and preliminary way, we have developed
a highly speculative analysis, based on the June 1968
Gallup Poll and designed to show relative strength and
weakness with basic groups of people as used by Gallup.
(In instances where figures were not available from the
June poll, average figures from other recent polls were
used.)
I want to emphasize that the following figures
are included in this memorandum only to indicate the
utility and importance of a professional demographic analy-
sis being developed quickly for use in this campaign.
The figures that follow on page 7 are so extra-
polated, converted and estimated that they cannot be
taken as anything other than indicative.
-7-
NIXON-HUMPHREY RELATIVE STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS
NIXON STRENGTH (+)
OR WEAKNESS
(-)
EXPECTED NUMBER OF
VIS-A-VIS HUMPHREY
CATEGORY
1968 VOTERS
AND WALLACE
I. Sex
Men
36,200,000
even
Women
38,100,000
+1,500,000
II. Education level
Some college
18,000,000
+1,400,000
Some high school
38,800,000
even
Some grade school
17,800,000
-1,800,000
III. Occupation
Professional Sc business
15,900,000
even
White collar
10,700,000
-3,100,000
Farmers
3,700,000
+1,200,000
Manual
41,700,000
-8,400,000
IV. Religion
Protestant
27,200,000
+ 600,000
Catholic
18,600,000
-7,100,000
V. Geography
East
20,500,000
-2,400,000
Midwest
22,700,000
even
South
17,400,000
+ 700,000
West
13,400,000
+1,600,000
VI. Income
Over $7,000/year
30,800,000
-1,900,000
$5,000-$7,000
21,700,000
-4,300,000
$3,000-$5,000
13,800,000
-2,200,000
Below $3,000
10,800,000
-1,100,000
VII. Size of Community
Over 500,000
12,700,000
-2,800,000
50,000-500,000
16,000,000
-3,500,000
2,500-50,000
13,800,000
+ 300,000
Under 2,500
10,800,000
+2,500,000
-8-
The immediate political uses of such figures are
perhaps self-evident. For example, one should emphasize
getting out the vote of highly educated residents in com-
munities of under 50,000 and farmers. Nixon has great
appeal to these groups. For another example, it is inter-
esting to note -- in the "Geography" section -- the strengths
in the South and West very nearly balance the weakness in
the East. This is not to say that one should ignore the
East --- only that one should not focus one's campaign on
the East at the risk of diminishing the enthusiasm in the
Midwest, South and West. Other examples could be given --
the point is, a demographic/political analysis, professionally
and accurately done is needed. It will be useful.
On a national basis, the Wallace candidacy holds
dangers. The Gallup Poll in June 1968 shows the following
figures:
NIXON
36
HUMPHREY
42
WALLACE
14
UNDECIDED
8
Until we can get more precise research, it is
difficult to know what the full effect of the Wallace candi-
dacy will be. His percentages are very high in the South
and quite low in the rest of the country. The 14% showing
-9-
in the national polls is an average. According to the
May 1968 Gallup Poll, Wallace receives 30% of the vote
in the 13 Southern states; 53% in the Deep South (Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina); and
7% in the 37 states outside the South.
A February 1968 poll in the Atlanta Journal
and Constitution showed Wallace with 28%. A Nebraska
poll conducted in mid-April showed Wallace with 4%. A
4% vote for Wallace in Nebraska would probably not affect
the disposition of Nebraska's electoral votes; a 4% vote
for Wallace in Pennsylvania would: it might throw Pennsyl-
vania's electoral votes to Humphrey. (In fact, our own
poll shows Wallace with 12% in Pennsylvania.) However,
a study of Wallace's relative positions in Harris polls
over the spring gives some hint that, when Humphrey is a
candidate, Wallace support tends to come from Humphrey or
from undecideds, rather than from Nixon. A professional
study of the Wallace effect in key states outside the
South needs to be made.
In general: it has been said that, as election
day approaches, Wallace's appeal will fade and his percen-
tage of the vote will be greatly lower than his percentage
in various polls. This is good campaigning but not an
inevitable development. The hope might be based on the
-10-
historical experiences of 1948, when Thurmond and Henry
Wallace are supposed to have run less well in the election
than they did in the polls, and on the experiences of 1965
when William Buckley ran less well in the New York City
mayor election than he had been running in the polls.
However, careful research shows that while it did happen
to Henry Wallace and Buckley, this did not happen to Thur-
mond. Instead, he got a higher percentage of votes than
the polls showed he might. A Crossley poll, taken shortly
before the election of 1948, showed Thurmond with about
1.6% of the vote. Gallup showed Thurmond getting about 2%.
On election day, Thurmond got over 2% of the total national
vote, performing better than might have been predicted on
the basis of the polls.
Thus it can be seen that, although Henry Wallace
did get only about half the vote that had been expected
for him, Thurmond actually got a little more than what
he had been polling, on a national basis.
Truman ignored Thurmond on the right, correctly
assessing his appeal as intense but limited to a small
number of voters. Instead, Truman came out hard for federal
medical care and active government generally, berating and
ridiculing the "Republicans" for a do-nothing record. Thus
-11-
he occupied Wallace's ground by promising federal action
for the masses and drove Wallace to an untenable Communistic
left position.
The Nixon campaign should continue to occupy the
center as it has done so far, and should undercut Wallace
by stressing that Nixon represents a substantial change
from present leadership policies while Humphrey does not,
both in terms of domestic policies (government and private
capital to draw blacks fully into American life, bloc grants
for decentralization of power, judicial balance and crime
control for law and order) and foreign policies (peace,
no more Vietnams, use of economic and diplomatic power with
military balance vis-a-vis the USSR to insure stability in
the world). Nixon cannot compete with Wallace on regional
appeal or racism, but he certainly can on the change of
leadership issue.
Wallace's great weakness, even in the South,
is his lack of experience in Washington and the doubt that
he could manage the federal government. Nixon could.
-12-
II. Given the nationwide character of the "new
politics" campaign that is indicated this year, it remains
that the President has' to be elected (according to the
Constitution) by the electoral college.
At the present time I count 13 states solid for
Nixon with 73 electoral votes and 16 states leaning toward
Nixon with 173 electoral votes, for a total of 29 states
solid or leaning toward Nixon with a total of 246 electoral
votes -- 6 states (including D. c.) solid for Humphrey with
81 electoral votes and 6 states leaning toward Humphrey with
69 electoral votes, for a total of 12 states solid or leaning
toward Humphrey with 150 electoral votes -- 3 states solid
for Wallace with 27 electoral votes -- and 7 battleground
states with a total of 115 electoral votes.
The breakdown is as follows:
SOLID FOR NIXON
LEANING TOWARD NIXON
Arizona
5
Alaska
3
Virginia
12
Idaho
4
Colorado
6
Washington
9
Indiana
13
Delaware
3
Wisconsin
12
Iowa
9
Florida
14
Kansas
7
Hawaii
4
TOTAL
173
Maine
4
Illinois
26
Montana
4
Kentucky
9
Nebraska
5
Nevada
3
New Hampshire
4
Ohio
26
Oklahoma
8
Oregon
6
Utah
4
South Dakota
4
Vermont
3
Tennessee
11
Wyoming
3
Texas
25
TOTAL
73
-13-
SOLID FOR HUMPHREY
LEANING TOWARD HUMPHREY
Dist. of Col.
3
Arkansas
6
Massachusetts
14
Connecticut
8
Minnesota
10
Georgia
12
New York
43
Maryland
10
Rhode Island
4
New Mexico
4
West Virginia
7
Pennsylvania
29
TOTAL
81
TOTAL
69
SOLID FOR WALLACE
BATTLEGROUND STATES
Alabama
10
California
40
Louisiana
10
Michigan
21
Mississippi
7
Missouri
12
New Jersey
17
TOTAL
27
No. Carolina
13
No. Dakota
4
So. Carolina
8
TOTAL
115
A rough, preliminary demographic analysis of the
several states (similar to the rough national demographic
analysis explained above) is attached as Appendix A. This
should be refined and used for political analysis.
The electoral votes of California, or of any two
of the following states: North Carolina, New Jersey, Mis-
souri, Michigan -- when added to the electoral votes of the
solid and leaning toward Nixon states -- provide enough
electoral votes to win the Presidency. Clearly, the demo-
graphic data for all these states are of great political
significance. For example, within the top four battleground
-14-
states the business and professional class, in which Nixon
is even with Humphrey, runs at about the national average
or a little above (expressed as a percentage of the total
population). Farmers in these states, on the other hand,
run substantially below the national average. Manual
workers, with whom Nixon is not strong, run at or slightly
above the national average.
The political implication is clear for these key
states: strong get-out-the-Nixon vote efforts should be
organized among the business and professional classes;
Nixon should campaign to manual workers on themes (such
as law and order) that appeal to them and stay away from
economic themes that alienate them, and he should avoid
talking about farm problems.
In the same states (except for California), rela-
tively small percentages of the population live in rural
areas and as has already been seen by the minuscule percen-
tages of people engaged in farming, most of these are
probably suburbanites or exurbanites. In any case, Nixon
has great strength among people who live in communities of
under 2,500 and substantial strength among people who live
in communities between 2,500 and 50,000. The opposition
has great strength among people who live in communities of
over 50,000. What is indicated is a strong get-out-the-
vote drive among the suburbs.
-15-
In general, more effort should go into the battle-
ground states than into the Nixon states, and the least
effort should go into the Humphrey and Wallace states.
III. In thinking about campaign tactics, it is
necessary to keep in mind that we will have 25 candidates
for Senate seats who appear to have a reasonable chance of
winning.
They are as follows:
STATE
SENATE CANDIDATE
STATUS
ELECTORAL VOTES
Oregon
Packwood
Leaning to RN
6
California
Rafferty
Battleground
40
Nevada
Fike
Leaning to RN
3
Idaho
Hansen
Nixon state
4
Utah
Bennett
Nixon state
4
Arizona
Goldwater
Nixon state
5
Colorado
Dominick
Leaning to RN
6
No. Dakota
Young
Battleground
4
So. Dakota
Gubbrud
Leaning to RN
4
Kansas
Dole
Nixon state
7
Oklahoma
Bellmon
Nixon state
8
Missouri
Curtis
Battleground
12
Iowa
Stanley, Ray, Johnson Nixon state
9
Wisconsin
Leonard
Leaning to RN
12
Indiana
Ruckelshouse
Nixon state
13
Kentucky
Cook
Leaning to RN
9
Florida
Gurney
Leaning to RN
14
Ohio
Saxbe
Leaning to RN
26
Maryland
Mathias
Leaning to HH=
10
Penn.
Schweiker
Leaning to HHH
29
New York
Javits
Leaning to HHH
43
Conn.
May or Sibal
Leaning to HHH
8
New Hamp.
Cotton
Nixon state
4
Vermont
Aiken
Nixon state
3
Alaska
Rasmussen
Leaning to RN
3
-16-
At least for the first few months of a Nixon
Presidency, it would be beneficial to the White House to
have personally helped in the campaign of every one of
these men -- even the old-timers.
IV. The various campaign efforts must be
assessed and assigned priorities so as to produce the
maximum effect, within the limits of the time, money and
personnel that will be available for the campaign.
(1) Budget Priorities.
In the broadest terms, budget priorities
should be assigned as follows, from lowest priority to
highest:
(a) Lowest priority: those states regarded
as solid for Humphrey or Wallace.
(b) Next priority: those states regarded
as solid for I ixon.
(c) Highest priority: those states regarded
as battlegrounds.
As a general rule, the Candidate's effort, being
the most important, should be expected to consume the most
money.
The Vice Presidential candidate's effort may be
considered in the same category, but of course would not
consume as much money as the Presidential candidate.
-18-
men: National Committeeman Bud Wilkinson, Senators Baker
and Hatfield, Governors Agnew, Volpe and Hickel, and Con-
gressmen Brock, Bush, Morse, Rumsfeld and MacGregor.
The telephone-personal visit operation used so
successfully in Oregon involves the limited but active
involvement of thousands of men and women, for the most
part within metropolitan areas. Briefly: paid professionals
telephone and recruit volunteers to hand-carry packets of
campaign material to 5 neighbors. The original successful
calls of coure are followed up with direct mail and with a
further follow-up telephone call. This has worked well not
only in Oregon but in a number of other cities in the West.
It can be modified in various ways. The principal advantage
of such an operation is that it actively involves tens of
thousands of individuals directly in the campaign and thus
is very much in line with the new so-called "participatory
politics".
(3) The Vice Presidential Effort.
The Vice Presidential candidate, acting as an
alternate Presidential candidate, should design his campaign,
his media presentations and his personal appearances so as
-19-
to appeal, on a national basis, to those elements of the
electorate with which the Presidential candidate may not
have the greatest strength. For example, if there are age
groups or occupation groups or even ethnic groups -- in
the national electorate and more particularly the battleground
states -- where the demographic analyses show the Vice
Presidential candidate to have substantially more potential,
his campaign should focus upon those elements in those areas.
The Vice Presidential candidate cannot substitute
for the Presidential candidate, however, in the Senatorial
candidate area.
(4) The Presidential Candidate's Effort.
Fifty-eight calendar days lie between Labor
Day, the traditional start of Presidential campaigns, and
election day. Assuming that the Candidate can sustain a
high intensity effort 5 days out of every 7, that means
41 days are available for high intensity campaigning.
Assuming the Candidate can do with 6 hours' sleep
each day, that provides 738 hours. Assuming that no more
than one-third of those hours (i.e., 6 hours a day) can
be given to public appearances (including backgrounders,
conferences with political leaders, time actually spent
with staff) -- that leaves 246 hours for public appearances
by the Candidate during the general election campaign.
-20-
In attempting to arrive at a theoretical basis
for utilization of the Candidate's time (total 246 hours),
it is my feeling that at least 10% should be set aside for
personal visits with the leading figures of the national
press, radio and TV. The time that has been devoted to
this purpose during the last several months has been time
well spent. That leaves approximately 225 hours.
Although I assume most of the television advertising
production will be out of the way by Labor Day, it is quite
possible that some issue may come up requiring the production
of new advertising material by the Candidate during the cam-
paign itself. Ten percent of the Candidate's time should be
reserved for this eventuality. That leaves approximately
200 hours. These hours should be apportioned so as to put
the greatest effort in those places where the greatest effort
is needed and where is has the best chance of paying off.
Analysing the political situ, tion in the several
states, eliminating those states solid for Humphrey or Wallace,
assigning to each Nixon state its own electoral vote, assigning
to each Battleground state double its own electoral vote,
then adding to each Senate Candidate state that state's elec-
toral vote -- and then dividing the 200 public appearance
hours among the states on the basis of the relative weights
-21-
thus assigned to them, the Candidate's public appearance
time should be spent in various states approximately as
follows:
CANDIDATE'S
CANDIDATE'S
STATES (by region)
TIME (hours)
STATES (by region)
TIME (hours)
East
Midwest
Maine
1
Ohio
15
Vermont
1
Michigan
8
New Hampshire
1
Indiana
5
Massachusetts
0
Wisconsin
It
Connecticut
5
Illinois
15
Rhode Island
0
Minnesota
0
New York
Iowa
3
Pennsylvania
17
Missouri
7
New Jersey
No. Dakota
2
West Virginia
0
So. Dakota
2
Maryland
6
Nebraska
1
Delaware
1
Kansas
3
Dist. of Columbia
0
TOTAL
68
TOTAL
39
South
West
Virginia
5
Montana
1
Kentucky
5
Wyoming
1
No. Carolina
5
Colorado
3
Tennessee
4
New Mexico
1
So. Carolina
3
Idaho
1
Georgia
4
Utah
1
Alabama
0
Arizona
2
Mississippi
0
Washington
3
Arkansas
2
Oregon
3
Oklahoma
3
Nevada
2
Texas
10
California
24
Louisiana
0
Alaska
2
Florida
8
Hawaii
1
TOTAL
48
TOTAL
45
-22-
NB: It should be recognized that New York,
because of its preeminence in the communications world and
because of the nationwide implications of anything that is
done or not done in New York, represents a special case.
NB: South Carolina also represents a special
case. If Senator Thurmond campaigns for the Republican
ticket in the manner and to the extent he has indicated,
and if he or Harry Dent desires the Candidate in South
Carolina, the Candidate must give serious consideration to
going.
NB: It is essential that the "unity" theme which
has been stressed so successfully and so effectively so far
in 1968 -- effectively in terms of primary results, effectively
in terms of favorable standings in national polls and effectively
in terms of reactions of commentators such as Wicker and
Broder -- be given tangible, concrete form in the conduct
of the general election campaign. In detail, this menas
campaigning, and thus appearing to be concerned with, all
of the major geographical sections of the country. This
will be relatively easy as there are in fact either battle-
ground states or states with Senate candidates in every
section of the country.
It also means campaigning to the two groups that
are most alienated from the rest of the country and that are
-23-
causing the most trouble: the blacks and the young people.
I do not suggest that the Candidate modify his positions
on the issues or his views on either domestic matters or
foreign policies -- only that he campaign to these groups,
thus reassuring the rest of the country that, as President,
he would pursue a policy of national unification rather
than continued drift or further division.
"Probably every generation sees itself as charged
with remaking the world. Mine, however, knows
that it will not remake the world. But its task
is perhaps even greater, for it consists in keeping
the world from destroying itself.
Albert Camus, on receiving
the Nobel Prize for Literature,
1957.
APPENDIX A
Prof. & Business
I
White Collar
II
Farmers
III
Manual
IV
NORTHEASTERN REGION
CONN. 2,915,000
NEW JERSEY 7,003,000
I. 44%
I.
24%
II. 30%
II.
16%
III. 0.6%
III. 0.5%
IV. 25%
IV.
54%
DELAWARE 524,000
NEW YORK 18,336,000
I.
24%
I.
24%
II. 17%
II.
18%
III. 3%
III. 1%
IV. 47%
IV.
52%
MAINE 973,000
PENNSYLVANIA 11,629,000
I.
18%
I.
19%
II. 16%
II.
14%
III. 3%
III. 2%
IV. 58%
IV.
60%
MARYLAND 3,682,000
RHODE ISLAND 900,000
I. 17%
I.
19%
II. 21%
II. 15%
III. 2%
III. 0.5%
IV. 47%
IV.
59%
MASSACHUSETTS 5,421,000
VERMONT 417,000
I. 23%
I.
19%
II. 15%
II.
12%
III. 0.5%
III. 9%
IV. 56%
IV. 59%
NEW HAMPSHIRE 686,000
I.
19%
II. 12%
III. 2%
IV. 61%
Prof. & Business
I
White Collar
II
Farmers
III
Manual
IV
WESTERN REGION
ALASKA 272,000
NEVADA 444,000
I.
29%
I.
24%
II. 10%
II.
10%
III. 0.5%
III. 3%
IV. 51%
IV.
58%
ARIZONA 1,634,000
N. MEXICO
I.
23%
I.
26%
II. 12%
II.
11%
III. 2%
III. 5%
IV. 57%
IV.
55%
CALIFORNIA 19,153,000
OREGON 1,999,000
I.
24%
I.
22%
II. 14%
II.
12%
III. 2%
III. 5%
IV. 52%
IV.
59%
COLORADO 1,975,000
UTAH 1,024,000
I.
25%
I. 24%
II. 13%
II.
13%
III. 6%
III. 5%
IV. 49%
IV.
53%
HAWAII 739,000
WASHINGTON 3,087,000
I.
20%
I.
24%
II. 12%
II.
13%
III. 2%
III. 4%
IV. 60%
IV.
54%
IDAHO 699,000
WYOMING 315,000
I.
20%
I.
23%
II. 9%
II.
9%
III. 16%
III.
10%
IV. 51%
IV.
55%
MONTANA 701,000
U.S.A. 197,863,000
I.
20%
I.
21%
II. 10%
II.
14%
III. 15%
III. 5%
IV. 49%
IV.
55%
Prof. & Business
I
White Collar
II
Farmers
III
Manual
IV
MIDWESTERN REGION
ILLINOIS 10,893,000
NEBRASKA 1,435,000
I. 20%
I.
18%
II. 15%
II.
12%
III. 4%
III. 23%
IV. 54%
IV.
42%
INDIANA
NORTH DAKOTA 639,000
I. 15%
I.
18%
II. 12%
II.
9%
III. 6%
III. 34%
IV. 59%
IV.
35%
IOWA 2,753,000
OHIO 10,458,000
I.
17%
I.
20%
II. 12%
II.
13%
III. 22%
III. 3%
IV. 44%
IV.
56%
KANSAS 2,275,000
OKLAHOMA 2,495,500
I.
20%
I. 22%
II. 13%
II. 13%
III. 15%
III. 9%
IV. 48%
IV. 52%
MICHIGAN
SOUTH DAKOTA 674,000
I.
19%
I.
17%
II. 13%
II. 9%
III. 3%
III. 31%
IV. 60%
IV. 39%
MINNESOTA 3,582,000
W. VA. 1,798,000
I.
20%
I.
17%
II. 13%
II.
11%
III. 15%
III. 3%
IV. 47%
IV.
63%
MISSOURI 4,603,000
WISCONSIN 4,189,000
I. 19%
I.
17%
II. 14%
II.
12%
III. 10%
III. 10%
IV. 50%
IV.
35%
Prof. & Business
I
White Collar
II
Farmers
III
Manual
IV
SOUTHERN REGION
ALABAMA 3,540,000
MISSISSIPPI 2,348,000
I.
17%
I.
16%
II. 11%
II. 9%
III. 8%
III. 15%
IV. 61%
IV. 57%
ARKANSAS
NORTH CAROLINA 5,029,000
I.
17%
I.
15%
II. 10%
II.
11%
III. 12%
III. 11%
IV. 46%
IV. 57%
FLORIDA 5,995,000
SO. CAROLINA 2,599,000
I.
25%
I.
15%
II. 14%
II.
11%
III. 2%
III. 8%
IV. 54%
IV.
62%
GEORGIA 4,509,000
TENNESSEE 3,892,000
I.
18%
I.
17%
II. 13%
II.
12%
III. 6%
II. 10%
IV. 58%
1V.
58%
KENTUCKY 3,189,000
TEXAS 10,869,000
I.
19%
I.
22%
II. 11%
II.
13%
III. 14%
III. 6%
IV. 55%
IV.
48%
LOUISIANA 3,662,000
VIRGINIA 4,536,000
I.
20%
I.
20%
II. 12%
II.
13%
III. 5%
III. 6%
IV. 59%
IV.
56%
POPULATION IN CITIES OF 500,000 OR MORE
Alabama
0
Montana
0
Alaska
0
Nebraska
0
Arizona
0
Nevada
0
Arkansas
0
New Hampshire
0
California
3,783,000
New Jersey
0
Colorado
0
New Mexico
0
Connecticut
0
New York
8,313,000
Delaware
0
N. Carolina
0
D.C.
763,900
N. Dakota
0
Florida
o
Ohio
1,378,000
Georgia
O
Oklahoma
0
Hawaii
O
Oregon
0
Idaho
0
Pa.
2,606,000
Illinois
3,550,000
Rhode Island
0
Indiana
0
S. Carolina
0
Iowa
0
S. Dakota
0
Kansas
0
Tennessee
0
Kentucky
0
Texas
1,617,000
Louisiana
627,000
Utah
0
Maine
0
Vermont
0
Maryland
939,024
Virginia
O
Massachusetts
697,000
Washington
557,000
Michigan
1,670,144
W. Virginia
O
Minnesota
0
Wisconsin
741,000
Missouri
750,000
Wyoming
0
Mississippi
0
RURAL POPULATION
Alabama
1,472,000
Montana
336,000
Alaska
140,000
Nebraska
646,000
Arizona
332,000
Nevada
84,000
Arkansas
1,021,000
New Hampshire
254,000
California
2,144,000
New Jersey
693,000
Colorado
461,000
New Mexico
326,000
Connecticut
550,000
New York
2,451,000
Delaware
154,000
N. Carolina
2,754,000
D.C.
0
N. Dakota
409,000
Florida
1,291,000
Ohio
2,584,000
Georgia
1,763,000
Oklahoma
863,000
Hawaii
149,000
Oregon
668,000
Idaho
350,000
Pa.
3,217,000
Illinois
1,941,000
Rhode Island
117,000
Indiana
1,753,000
S. Carolina
1,401,000
Iowa
1,294,000
S. Dakota
414,000
Kansas
850,000
Tennessee
1,703,000
Kentucky
1,685,000
Texas
2,393,000
Louisiana
1,196,000
Utah
223,000
Maine
472,000
Vermont
240,000
Maryland
847,000
Virginia
1,749,000
Massachusetts
846,000
Washington
910,000
Michigan
2,084,000
W. Virginia
1,149,000
Minnesota
1,293,000
Wisconsin
1,430,000
Mississippi
1,357,000
Wyoming
142,000
Missouri
1,443,000
POPULATION IN CITIES OF 2500 TO 50,000
Alabama
922,110
Montana
218,800
Alaska
79,140
Nebraska
298,542
Arizona
302,200
Nevada
74,100
Arkansas
518,110
New Hampshire
346,242
California
4,124,000
New Jersey
2,823,000
Colorado
505,300
New Mexico
476,800
Connecticut
1,604,000
New York
3,138,000
Delaware
48,900
N. Carolina
951,582
D.C.
0
N. Dakota
228,500
Florida
1,332,000
Ohio
3,062,700
Georgia
1,154,000
Oklahoma
815,100
Hawaii
142,900
Oregon
484,600
Idaho
338,300
Pa.
3,904,800
Illinois
3,192,000
Rhode Island
437,600
Indiana
1,522,700
S. Carolina
546,400
Iowa
761,600
S. Dakota
197,200
Kansas
719,100
Tennessee
768,100
Kentucky
63,070
Texas
2,529,300
Louisiana
728,800
Utah
297,900
Maine
711,000
Vermont
272,900
Maryland
653,900
Virginia
517,400
Massachusetts
2,940,000
Washington
697,200
Michigan
1,213,964
W. Virginia
443,300
Minnesota
1,103,800
Wisconsin
1,194,725
Mississippi
635,500
Wyoming
183,900
Missouri
1,255,600
POPULATION IN CITIES OF 50,000 TO 500,000
Alabama
772,000
Nebraska
429,000
Alaska
0
Nevada
115,000
Arizona
659,000
New Hampshire
88,000
Arkansas
102,000
New Jersey
1,719,000
California
3,744,000
New Mexico
201,000
Colorado
654,000
New York
1,730,000
Connecticut
869,000
N. Carolina
724,000
Delaware
95,000
N. Dakota
0
D.C.
0
Ohio
2,116,000
Florida
1,354,000
Oklahoma
646,000
Georgia
999,000
Oregon
422,000
Hawaii
294,000
Pa.
1,202,000
Idaho
51,000
Rhode Island
422,000
Illinois
974,000
S. Carolina
228,000
Indiana
1,411,000
S. Dakota
65,000
Iowa
695,000
Tennessee
908,000
Kansas
404,000
Texas
2,746,000
Kentucky
449,000
Utah
189,000
Louisiana
429,000
Vermont
0
Maine
72,000
Virginia
1,402,000
Maryland
258,000
Washington
328,000
Massachusetts
1,543,000
W. Virginia
223,000
Michigan
1,467,000
Wisconsin
344,000
Minnesota
951,000
Wyoming
0
Mississippi
194,000
Missouri
702,000
Montana
107,000
Population by sex: 1960 Census, Statistical Abstract p.26
Education, 1960 Census, Statistical Abstract p.115
Persons 25 years old or over
Grade school - 8 years or less completed
High school :- - 1-4 years completed
College - 1 or more years completed
Breakdown by Age: Statistical Abstract, 1960 p.25
18-44 years old
45-64 years old
654 over
voting age 1960, RNC Study
(1968) voting populations projections, RNC Study
Alabama
California
Male
1,591,709
481%
Male
7,836,707
50%
Female
1,675,031
51%
Female
7,880,497
50%
Grade School
823,000
25%
Grade School
2,512,000
16%
High School
650,000
20%
High School
4,298,000
27%
College
196,000
6%
College
2,059,000
13%
Total 25+
1,670,000
51%
Total over 25
8,869,000
56%
18-44
1,201,000
37%
18-44
6,683,000
47%
45-64
658,000
20%
45-64
3,575,000
23%
65+
284,000
9%
65+
1,579,000
9%
Voting age
1,825,000
56%
Voting age
9,219,000
59%
(1968)
2,037,000
(1968)
12,052,000
TOTAL
3,276,000
Total
15,717,000
Colorado
Alaska
Male
Male
128,811
57%
870,467
50%
Female
Female
97,356
43%
883,480
50%
Grade School
Grade School
28,000
13%
284,000
16%
High School
22%
High School
440,000
25%
54,000
College
23,000
9%
College
217,000
13%
Total over 25
105,000
46%
Total Over 25
941,000
54%
18-44
48%
18-44
684,000
39%
108,000
45-64
45-64
36,000
17%
359,000
21%
65+
65+
6,000
3%
170,000
9%
Voting age
83,000
35%
(55% in
Voting age
1,007,000
57%
(1968)
(1968)
151,000
1968)
1,211,000
TOTAL
TOTAL
228,000
1,754,000
Connecticut
Arizona
Male
1,244,229
49%
Female
Male
654,928
50%
1,291,005
51%
Grade School
Female
647,233
551,000
22%
50%
Grade School
18%
High Sc ool
658,000
26%
234,000
High School
22%
College
272,000
11%
291,000
Total over 25
135,000
1,482,000
58%
College
11%
18-44
971,000
38%
Total over 25
661,000
51%
45-64
18-44
556,000
43%
610,000
24%
45-64
65+
268,000
265,000
9%
21%
65+
9%
Voting age
118,000
1,590,000
60%
(1968)
Voting Age
680,000
52%
1,813,000
(1968)
TOTAL
1,003,000
2,535,000
TOTAL
1,302,000
Delaware
Arkansas
Male
221,136
49%
Male
49%
Female
225,156
51%
878,987
Female
51%
Grade School
86,000
20%
907,285
Grade School
505,000
28%
High School
114,000
24%
High School
20%
College
45,000
10%
352,000
College
6%
Total over 25
246,000
55%
106,000
Total over 25
54%
18-44
176,000
403
964,000
18-44
35%
45-64
95,000
21%
628,000
65+
45-64
388,000
22%
39,000
8%
65+
208,000
12%
Voting age
264,000
57%
(1968)
Voting Age
58%
306,000
1,029,000
TOTAL
(1968)
1,188,000
449,000
TOTAL
1,786,000
D.C.
Idaho
Male
358,171
47%
Male
338,421
51%
Female
405,785
53%
Female
328,770
49%
Grade School
152,000
20%
Grade School
106,000
16%
High School
190,000
25%
High School
168,000
25%
College
120,000
16%
College
66,000
10%
Total 25+
461,000
61%
Total 25+
340,000
51%
18-44
282,000
37%
18-44
224,000
33%
45-64
178,000
24%
45-64
134,000
19%
65+
72,000
9%
65+
63,000
9%
Total
764,000
Voting age
372,000
56%
(1968)
404,000
Florida
TOTAL
667,000
Male
2,436,783
50%
Illinois
Female
2,514,777
50%
Grade School
1,067,000
22%
Male
4,952,866
49%
High School
1,282,000
26%
Female
5,128,292
51%
College
498,000
10%
Grade School
2,320,000
23%
Total 25+
2,845,000
58%
High School
2,562,000
18-44
25%
1,974,000
40%
College
927,000
9%
45-64
1,099,000
22%
Total 25+
5,808,000
58%
65+
719,000
13%
18-44
3,522,000
35%
Voting Age
3,099,000
61%
45-64
(1968)
2,290,000
23%
3,924,000
65+
1,044,000
10%
TOTAL
4,952,000
Voting Age
6,244,000
60%
(1968)
6,580,000
Georgia
TOTAL
10,084,000
Male
1,925,913
49%
Indiana
Female
2,017,203
51%
Grade School
1,002,000
25%
Male
2,298,738
49%
High School
740,000
19%
Female
2,363,760
51%
College
273,000
7%
Grade School
967,000
21%
Total 25+
2,015,000
51%
High School
1,233,000
26%
18-44
1,582,000
40%
College
350,000
8%
45-64
795,000
20%
Total 25
2,550,000
55%
65+
319,000
1.7%
18-44
1,642,000
35%
Voting Age
2,342,000
56%
45-64
(1968)
964,000
21%
2,834,000
65+
TOTAL
467,000
10%
3,943,000
Voting Age
2,784,000
58%
(1968)
2,946,000
Hawaii
TOTAL
4,663,000
Male
338,173
54%
Iowa
Female
294,599
46%
Grade School
117,000
19%
Male
1,359,047
49%
High School
141,000
22%
Female
1,398,490
51%
College
51,000
8%
Grade School
584,000
21%
Total over 25
309,000
49%
High School
710,000
26%
18-44
274,000
43%
College
247,000
9%
45-64
116,000
19%
Total 25+
1,541,000
56%
65+
36,000
51%
18-44
850,000
31%
Voting age
321,000
56%
45-64
565,000
(1968)
21%
421,000
65+
343,000
13%
TOTAL
633,000
Voting Age
1,699,000
59%
(1968)
1,653,000
Total
2,757,000
Kansas
Maryland
Male
1,081,377
50%
Male
1,533,200
49½
Female
1,097,234
50%
Female
1,567,489
50%
Grade School
424,000
19%
Grade School
694,000
22%
High School
562,000
26%
High School
707,000
23%
College
230,000
11%
College
292,000
9%
Total 25+
1,216,000
56%
Total 25+
1,693,000
55%
18-44
738,000
34%
18-44
1,274,000
41%
45-64
447,000
21%
45-64
682,000
22%
65+
254,000
11%
65+
255,000
7%
Voting Age
1,315,000
60%
(1968)
Voting Age
1,819,000
57%
1,339,000
(1968)
TOTAL
2,168,000
2,180,000
Total
3,101,000
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Male
1,508,448
49.4%
Male
Female
2,486,235
48%
1,529,708
50.6%
Female
Grade School
2,662,343
52%
926,000
30.4%
Grade School
High School
990,000
19%
506,000
17%
High School
1,473,000
28%
College
178,000
6%
College
Total 25+
547,000
11%
1,610,000
53%
Total 25+
18-44
3,011,000
58%
1,077,000
36%
18-44
45-64
1,762,000
34%
608,000
45-64
65+
1,155,000
23%
310,000
10%
65+
Voting age
603,000
12%
1,876,000
62%
(1968)
Voting age
3,230,000
63%
2,062,000
(1968)
TOTAL
3,379,000
3,038,000
TOTAL
5,149,000
Louisiana
Michigan
Male
1,592,254
49%
Male
Female
3,882,868
491%
1,664,768
51%
Female
Grade School
3,940,326
50%
850,000
26%
Grade School
High School
1,556,000
20%
570,000
17%
High School
2,035,000
26%
College
220,000
7%
College
Total 25+
627,000
8%
1,639,000
50%
Total 25+
18-44
4,217,000
54%
1,209,000
37%
18-44
45-64
2,783,000
36%
640,000
20%
45-64
65+
1,645,000
21%
264,000
8%
65+
Voting Age
701,000
9%
1,770,000
54%
(1968)
Voting Age
4,519,000
57%
2,032,000
(1968)
TOTAL
4,853,000
3,256,000
TOTAL
7,823,000
Maine
Minnesota
Male
479,054
49%
Female
490,211
50%
Male
1,692,962
49½
Grade School
194,000
20%
Female
1,720,902
50%
High School
265,000
27%
Grade School
755,000
22%
College
75,000
8%
High School
759,000
22%
Total 25+
534,000
55%
College
330,000
10%
18-44
319,000
33%
Total 25+
1,845,000
54%
45-64
195,000
20%
18-44
1,110,000
33%
65+
111,000
11%
45-64
699,000
20%
Voting Age
574,000
582%
65+
387,000
11%
(1968)
596,000
Voting age
2,003,000
59%
TOTAL
969,000
(1968)
2,097,000
TOTAL
3,413,000
Mississippi
Nevada
Male
1,067,933
49%
Male
147,521
51½
Female
1,110,208
51%
Female
137,757
48½
Grade School
549,000
25%
Grade School
39,000
14%
High School
383,000
17½
High School
86,000
30%
College
132,000
6%
College
34,000
12%
Total 25+
1,065,000
49%
Total Over 25
160,000
56%
18-44
748,000
34%
18-44
171,000
60%
45-64
415,000
19%
45-64
79,000
28%
65+
201,000
9%
65+
23,000
8%
Voting age
1,163,000
54%
Voting Age
174,000
61%
(1968)
1,308,000
(1968)
285,000
TOTAL
2,178,000
TOTAL
285,000
Missouri
New Hampshire
Male
2,108,279
49%
Male
298,107
49%
Female
2,211,534
51%
Female
308,814
51%
Grade School
1,159,000
27%
Grade School
132,000
22%
High School
985,000
23%
High School
159,000
26%
College
349,000
8%
College
55,000
9%
Total 25+
2,493,000
58%
Total 25+
345,000
57%
18-44
1,455,000
34%
18-44
227,000
37%
45-64
952,000
22%
45-64
135,000
22%
65+
525,000
12%
65+
73,000
11%
Voting Age
2,651,000
61%
Voting Age
367,000
61%
(1968)
2,770,000
(1968)
418,000
TOTAL
4,320,000
TOTAL
607,000
Montana
New Jersey
Male
343,743
51%
Male
2,971,991
49%
Female
331,024
49%
Female
3,094,791
51%
Grade School
125,000
18½
Grade School
1,401,000
23%
High School
161,000
24%
High School
1,619,000
27%
College
70,000
10%
College
580,000
9½
Total 25+
356,000
53%
Total 25+
3,600,000
59%
18-44
227,000
34%
18-44
2,355,000
39%
45-64
137,000
20%
45-64
1,485,000
242%
65+
66,000
9½
65+
629,000
9%
Voting Age
387,000
56%
Voting Age
3,827,000
63%
(1968)
412,000
(1968)
4,402,000
TOTAL
675,000
TOTAL
6,067,000
Nebraska
New Mexico
Male
700,026
49½
Male
479,770
50%
Female
711,304
50%
Female
471,253
Grade School
280,000
20%
49½
Grade School
108,000
11%
High School
374,000
26%
High School
135,000
14%
College
138,000
10%
College
91,000
10%
Total 25+
791,000
56%
Total 25+
445,000
47%
18-44
461,000
33%
18-44
344,000
36%
45-64
291,000
21%
45-64
163,000
17%
65+
174,000
12%
65+
60,000
6%
Voting Age
857,000
59%
Voting age
491,000
51%
(1968)
891,000
(1968)
562,000
TOTAL
1,411,000
TOTAL
951,000
New York
Oklahoma
Male
8,123,239
48½
Male
1,147,851
49½
Female
8,659,065
51%
Female
1,180,433
50%
Grade School
3,876,000
23%
Grade School
537,000
23%
High School
4,542,000
27%
High School
535,000
23%
College
1,706,000
10%
College
228,000
9½%
Total 25+
10,124,000
601%
Total 25+
1,300,000
56%
18-44
6,175,000
37%
18-44
830,000
36%
45-64
4,098,000
24%
45-64
502,000
21½
65+
1,850,000
11%
65+
268,000
11%
Voting age
10,788,000
64%
Voting age
1,399,000
61%
(1968)
11,773,000
(1968)
1,546,000
Total
16,782,000
TOTAL
2,328,000
North Carolina
Oregon
Male
2,247,069
50%
Male
879,951
50%
Female
2,309,086
492%
Female
888,736
50%
Grade School
1,171,000
26%
Grade School
312,000
18%
High School
828,000
18½
High School
488,000
28%
College
308,000
7%
College
196,000
11%
Total 25+
2,307,000
46%
Total 25+
996,000
55%
18-44
1,818,000
41%
18-44
647,000
37%
45-64
898,000
20%
45-64
409,000
23%
65+
354,000
7½
65+
203,000
111/2%
Voting Age
2,521,000
57%
Voting Age
1,089,000
61%
(1968)
2,919,000
(1968)
1,193,000
TOTAL
4,556,000
TOTAL
1,769,000
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Male
323,208
51%
Male
5,509,851
49%
Female
309,238
49%
Female
5,809,515
51%
Grade School
158,000
25%
Grade School
2,775,000
25%
High School
111,000
17½
High School
2,998,000
26%
College
55,000
9%
College
832,000
7%
Total 25+
324,000
51%
Total 25+
6,606,000
58%
18-44
210,000
33%
18-44
3,848,000
34%
45-64
125,000
20%
45-64
2,603,000
23%
65+
62,000
10%
65+
1,189,000
10%
Voting Age
350,000
56%
Voting age
7,102,000
62%
(1968)
370,000
(1968)
7,234,000
TOTAL
632,000
TOTAL
4,319,000
Ohio
Rhode Island
Male
4,764,228
49%
Male
421,845
49%
Female
4,942,169
51%
Female
437,643
51%
Grade School
1,978,000
201%
Grade School
211,000
25%
High School
2,613,000
27%
High School
222,000
26%
College
787,000
8%
College
66,000
8%
Total 25+
5,378,000
55%
Total 25+
498,000
58%
18-44
3,453,000
36%
18-44
305,000
35%
45-64
2,056,000
21%
45-64
192,000
22%
65+
948,000
9%
65+
95,000
11%
Voting Age
5,833,000
59%
Voting Age
533,000
61%
(1968)
6,235,000
(1968)
561,000
TOTAL
9,706,000
TOTAL
859,000
Male
1,175,818
49½
Male
444,924
50%
Female
1,206,776
50%
Female
445,703
50%
Grade School
595,000
25%
Grade School
91,000
10%
High School
389,000
16%
High School
223,000
25%
College
152,000
6%
College
106,000
12%
Total 25+
1,136,000
48%
Total 25+
419,000
47%
18-44
924,000
39%
18-44
340,000
38%
45-64
432,000
18%
45-64
161,000
18%
65+
169,000
7%
65+
68,000
8%
Voting Age
1,227,000
52%
Voting Age
469,000
53%
(1968)
1,455,000
(1968)
562,000
Total
2,383,000
Total
891,000
South Dakota
Vermont
Male
344,271
50%
Male
191,743
49%
Female
336,243
492%
Female
198,138
51%
Grade School
157,000
23%
Grade School
82,000
21%
High School
141,000
21%
* High School
95,000
24%
College
62,000
9%
Total 25+
213,000
542%
Total 25+
360,000
53%
18-44
130,000
33%
18-44
209,000
31%
45-64
81,000
21%
45-64
132,000
19%
65+
45,000
11%
65+
77,000
12%
Voting Age
230,000
59%
Voting Age
388,000
56%
(1968)
244,000
(1968)
370,000
TOTAL
390,000
TOTAL
680,000
*College
36,000
9%
Tennessee
Virginia
Male
1,740,690
49½
Male
1,979,372
49½
Female
1,826,399
50%
Female
1,987,577
50%
Grade School
1,019,000
29%
Grade School
934,000
24%
High School
660,000
19%
High School
791,000
20%
College
233,000
7%
College
358,000
9%
Total 25+
1,912,000
54%
Total 25+
2,083,000
52%
18-44
1,365,000
47%
18-44
45-64
1,650,000
42%
755,000
21½
45-64
817,000
21%
65+
336,000
10%
65+
320,000
8%
Voting Age
2,079,000
59%
(1968)
Voting Age
2,244,000
57%
2,361,000
(1968)
TOTAL
2,690,000
3,517,000
Total
3,966,000
Texas
Washington
Male
4,744,981
494%
Male
1,435,037
501%
Female
4,834,696
50%
Female
1,418,177
49½
Grade School
2,054,000
21%
Grade School
456,000
16%
High School
2,082,000
22%
High School
790,000
28%
College
894,000
9%
College
331,000
12%
Total 25+
5,031,000
52%
Total 25+
1,577,000
55%
18-44
3,710,000
39%
18-44
990,000
35%
45-64
1,962,000
20%
45-64
612,000
21%
65+
854,000
8½
65+
298,000
10%
Voting Age
5,329,000
55½
(1968)
Voting Age
1,703,000
59%
6,289,000
(1968)
1,838,000
TOTAL
9,580,000
Total
2,853,000
West Virginia
Male
915,035
49%
Female
945,386
51%
Grade School
540,000
29%
High School
346,000
19%
College
114,000
6%
Total 25+
1,000,000
54%
18-44
595,000
32%
45-64
383,000
21%
65+
182,000
10%
Voting Age
1,085,000
59%
(1968)
1,073,000
TOTAL
1,860,000
Wisconsin
Male
1,964,512
50%
Female
1,987,265
50%
Grade School
930,000
24%
High School
912,000
23%
College
333,000
8%
Total 25+
2,175,000
55%
18-44
1,308,000
33%
45-64
837,000
21%
65+
439,000
11%
Voting Age
2,373,000
60%
(1968)
2,484,000
TOTAL
3,952,000
Wyoming
Male
169,015
51%
Female
161,051
49%
Grade School
50,000
15%
High School
87,000
26%
College
36,000
11%
Total 25+
174,000
53%
18-44
108,000
33%
45-64
65,000
20%
65+
29,000
9½
Voting Age
186,000
57%
(1968)
202,000
Total
330,000
HOURS OF CAMPAIGN TIME
3
1
1
2
1 1
0
3
/
1
7
0
0
0
2
5
8
1
17
7
3
6
1
2
15
5
15
1
D.C. - 0
0
1
5
3
24
3
7
5
5
4
3
2
3
1
2
o
0
4
10
0
Alaska - 2
8
Hawaii - 1