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:
Notes re: Primary Resuslts. Detailing the various counties and the percentage of voters voting for Nixon or Brown. 3pgs. [Other Document], n.d
A Complete Analysis of Final Official Primary Resuslts for Governor. 19 pgs. [Report], 8/1/1962
A report re: The Republican vote for Governor in Los Angeles County. 6pgs. [Report], 7/25/1962
A note re: dividing the state into fifths. 1pg. [Other Document], n.d
An analysis of the Democratic vote in the June Primary. 2pgs. [Report], 6/22/1962
An Analysis of the Republican Gubernatorial Primary Vote. 7pgs. [Report], 6/11/1962
Further reflections on the June Primary results. 2pgs. [Report], 6/12/1962
The Media Distribution and the June Primary Vote. 5pgs. [1 duplicate, not scanned] [Report], 8/27/1962
An analysis by county and town of the media distribution for the primaries. 13pgs. [Report], 1962
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26128225
label
WHSF: Returned, 67-4
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26128225
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Returned, 67-4
description
This file contains:
Notes re: Primary Resuslts. Detailing the various counties and the percentage of voters voting for Nixon or Brown. 3pgs. [Other Document], n.d
A Complete Analysis of Final Official Primary Resuslts for Governor. 19 pgs. [Report], 8/1/1962
A report re: The Republican vote for Governor in Los Angeles County. 6pgs. [Report], 7/25/1962
A note re: dividing the state into fifths. 1pg. [Other Document], n.d
An analysis of the Democratic vote in the June Primary. 2pgs. [Report], 6/22/1962
An Analysis of the Republican Gubernatorial Primary Vote. 7pgs. [Report], 6/11/1962
Further reflections on the June Primary results. 2pgs. [Report], 6/12/1962
The Media Distribution and the June Primary Vote. 5pgs. [1 duplicate, not scanned] [Report], 8/27/1962
An analysis by county and town of the media distribution for the primaries. 13pgs. [Report], 1962
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
26128225
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
82033475346e5928
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
White House Special Files Collection
Folder List
Box Number Folder Number Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
67
4
n.d
Other Document
Notes re: Primary Resuslts. Detailing the
various counties and the percentage of voters
voting for Nixon or Brown. 3pgs.
67
4
8/01/1962
Report
A Complete Analysis of Final Official
Primary Resuslts for Governor. 19 pgs.
67
4
7/25/1962
Report
A report re: The Republican vote for
Governor in Los Angeles County. 6pgs.
67
4
n.d
Other Document
A note re: dividing the state into fifths. 1pg.
67
4
6/22/1962
Report
An analysis of the Democratic vote in the
June Primary. 2pgs.
67
4
6/11/1962
Report
An Analysis of the Republican Gubernatorial
Primary Vote. 7pgs.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Page 1 of 2
Box Number Folder Number Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
67
4
6/12/1962
Report
Further reflections on the June Primary
results. 2pgs.
67
4
8/27/1962
Report
The Media Distribution and the June Primary
Vote. 5pgs. [1 duplicate, not scanned]
67
4
1962
Report
An analysis by county and town of the media
distribution for the primaries. 13pgs.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Page 2 of 2
Primary Results
State Total
69
53
05
81
5
7,052
100'
40
8
Pepub
Turn out
#
Nexon
Brown
Write
%
Reg
90
%
In
Blank
Rep
Den
of
Losaugeles (1) 2,811
40
40
68
50
67
85
2
9
alameda (2) 442
6
37
68
56)
69
85
3
8
Saw Diego (3) 439
6
46,
70
56)
(70)
74
11
6
San Francisco(2) 367
5
35
63
58
(75)
(88)
-
8
Orange (1) 328
5
50
(74)
51
61
75
7
7
Santa Clara (2) 273
4
44
47
53
68
84
3
5
9)
San mates (2) 211
3
44
63
50
(70)
86)
3
7
Sacraments (4) 214
3
36
73
58)
50
78
7 8
San Bernardine 208
3
40
66
52
(70)
80
4 8
Contra Costa (2) 191
3
38
(71)
58
68
80
(7) 7
Fresno (6) 141
2
31
69
(56)
63
78
6)
10
Reverside X 129
2
46
(70)
(56)
70)
79
5 8
Kern X 1,3
2
35
(72)
53
55
73
8 8
San Joaquin X
99
/
38
(76)
57
67
73
7
10
Ventura X 81
/
39
(2)
57
60
77
10)
7
Sauta Barbarax 76
/
47
69
51
65
79
9,
7
marin (2)
72
/
51
22
59
70
82
7
8
17 Countres 6,195
89
I LA-Orange
3,139
45
25F-M-SM-SC.CC All,556
22
3 San Diego
439
6
Sacramento
214
560 Bernardino
208
W
3
/resno
141
2
5,697
5,489
7881
Registration - Democrat
Primary- 3,997
Increase 503
Final
4,500
4,500
Turnout - %
85%
#
3,825
3,825
Brown Defection%
25%
20%
#
956
765
Brown Vote-Dew 2,869
3,060
Repub Regis
Primary 2,834
Increase 366
Final 3,200
Turnout % 90%
# 2,880
2,880
Nixon defection % 10%
10%
# 288
288
Brown Repub 288
288
Dem 2,869 3060
Total 3,157 3,348
Nixon Repub 2592 2592
Dew 956
765
3,548 3,357
Registration Total
Primary 7,052
Increase 10% 705
Final 7,757
Indecided 11% 853
Brown 46% 3,568 X 8070-2,854 85%=3,033
Nixon 43% 3,336 X 90% = 3,002
Reput
Dem
Other
Totol Registered 7,500 3,000 4,275 225
Brown 46 3,450
Nuon 43 3,225
Undecided // 825
Total Registered
400
1,000
4,000
570
30
Brown 46
460
10%
40
72% 72% 4111 411
30% 9
Nixon 43
430
80% 320
19%
104
20% 6
Undecide 11
110
10%
40
9% 55
50% 15
Total Nixon Brown
85% Dears 484
90% Repubs 360
80% Other 24
868
Harold H. Griffin
8/1/62
Complete Analysis of Final Official Primary Results For Governor
In assessing the complete official returns of the June, 1962,
primary, four tables have been compiled, each of which taken both
separately and together shed significant light upon the behavior of
California voters last June. These are:
(1) An itemisation by vote totals and percentages of the
Democratic vote, including write-ins for Nixon and Shell,
by county.
(2) An itemisation by vote totals and percentages of the
Republican vote, county by county.
(3) A eounty-by-county breakdown of Democratic and Republican
voter turnout for Governor, as percentage of registration.
(4) A county-by-county breakdown of persons who went to the polls
but cast blank ballots for the office of governor.
Table I: The Democratic Vote
On the Democratic side, the final official vote was reported
as follows:
Brown
1,739,792
(81.4%)
Three Unknown Democrats
294,363
(13.8%)
Nixon Write-Ins
35,883
Shell Write-Ins
66,712
{ 1.7%)
1 3.1%)
TOTAL DEMOCRATIC VOTE
2,136,750
(100.0%)
The Brown Vote: Even though Brown averaged 8114% of the vote
statewide, he received more than 80% in only 10 counties, including
most of the largest ones by population:
Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Plumas, San Bernardino, San
Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sierra, and Solano.
He received less than 75% in 22 counties. His highest percentage was
recorded in San Francisco (88.4%) which uses voting machines, and his
lowest percentage was in Sutter (60.1%). ).
The Vote for the Three Other Democrats: Because of the completely
unknown character of Brown's three opponents, their vote must be
2.
regarded almost solely as an anti-Brown protest vote. Two facts
support this thesis: (1) The combined vote for the three Democrats
was spread far more evenly throughout the state than the votes for
Brown or the write-ins for Nixon and Shell, and (2) No one of the
three candidates displayed sufficient popularity to open up a gap
over the rest of the field, and the total statewide vote for each of
the three was nearly equal: Stuart-103,654; Moore-100,237; and
Hamilton-90,472.
Most counties elung close to and slightly above the statewide
average of 13.8%. However, seven counties recorded combined votes
for them of less than 12%, and 14 counties recorded votes of greater
than 18%. But no county polled less than 10% for these candidates.
The Shell Write-In Vote: Although Shell's state average was 3.1%,
there was a wide disparity in the returns from county to county. Shell
polled more than 5% of the Democratic vote by wite-in in 25 counties.
These were generally the smaller, rural counties; however, the list
included Monterey (7.6%), Sacramento (5.9%), San Diego (6.6%), Kern (5.6%),
and Ventura (6.9%). Shell's two highest counties were Glenn(18.0%), and
Sutter (14.3%), and these were also the TWO LOWEST counties for Brown.
Shell's vote was less than 2% in nine counties, including most of the
larger, metropolitan areas: Los Angeles (1.4%), Alameda (1.5%), San
Mateo (1.8%), Santa Clara (115%), and San Francisco (.2%). San Francisco's
abnormally low write-in vote is undoubtedly explained by their use of
voting machines.
The Nixon Write-In Vote: Nixon's state average was 1.7%. He pelled
less than 1.5% of the vote in 19 counties, including most of the larger,
metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles (.8%), San Francisco (13%),
Alameda (1.2%), San Mateo (1.5%), and Santa Clara (1.3%). Nixon received
unties, which .
7%). Nixon's best count.
Nixon gained more votes than She_
ancisco (.3% to .2%), and Imperial (3.1%
ded to go most strongly for Nixon by write-
in which Shell received the highest percenta/
also strong Shell was strong. For
or were the first and second best counties,
L Nixon and Shell. In Glenn, Shell received ]
in Sutter, Shell received 14.3% to Nixon's 6.
Republican Vote
.
blican side, the vote for Governor was:
xon
1,285,151
(65.4%)
hell
656,542
(33.4%)
Gale
17,369
0.88%)
Brown Write-In
5,236
0.27%)
TOTAL VOTE
1,964,298 (100%)
Vote: Nixon outpolled Shell by greater than 1
⑉
meda
Riverside
ine
San Benito
ntra Costa
San Bernardino
11 Norte
San Diego
mperial
San Francisco
Los Angeles
San Joaquin
Madera
San Mateo
Marin
Santa Clara
Mariposa
Santa Cruz
Mendosine
Solano
Monterey
Tuolumne
11 geographical areas are represented. Howev
be said that Nixon was strongest in Southern
Francisco Bay Area. If is probably signif
largest counties by population, Nixon defeated Shell by greater than
a 2-1 margin in eight of them, excepting only Sacramento and Orange.
Shell: Nixon's margin was 3-2 over Shell or less in 19 counties.
In seven of these, Shell defeated Nixon. These counties are as
follows, with the counties which Shell carried marked (*):
Amador, Butte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Kern, Lassen,
Nevada*, Placer*, Plumas*, Sacramento*, Shasta*, Sierra*,
Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity", Yolo, YUba.
The pattern set by these 19 counties is clear. All can be classified
as either San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Valley, or Mountain Counties.
With the exception of Sacramento, all are primarily rural and small.
Of the 10 largest California counties, Sacramento is the only one
in which Shell polled more than 40% of the vote.
The Gale and Brown Vote: As can be seen from the statewide
totals, the vote for Gale and the Brown write-in vote both amount
to less than 1% of the Republican vote total. Because these votes
are SO statistically insignificant, and because they are spread
fairly uniformly over the 58 counties] they have been ignored as
far as table II is concerned, and the figures given for Nixon and
Shell are in percentages of the combined Nixon-Shell total, for a
more accurate head- comparison between the two.
The Christopher Vote: The county-by-county vote totals for
Christopher for Livutenant Governor are included on Table II for an
additional comparison. Despite a uniform statewide drop-df in vote
from Governor to Lieutenant Governor, from a total of 1,964,298
to 1,831,131, Christopher compiled a larger total vote than did Nixon
in 38 counties, and Nixon a larger total than Christopher in only 20.
This is probably a reflection more of Shell's greater strength over
McCarthy (Christopher's opponent) than it is a reflection of
5.
Christopher's strength over Nixon. Shell received far greater
publicity and traveled much more widely during the campaign than
McCarthy. Yet, it is probably significant that among the 20 counties
in which Nixon ran stronger than Christopher, are included Imperial,
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and
Santa Barbara--all of the counties in "deep Southern California."
It was well-known that Christopher was the mayor of San Francisco,
but much less well known that McCarthy was also from the North. Thus
is is possible that Christopher's relatively poorer showing in all of
the "deep South" counties might reflect some degree of anti-Northern
sentiment. With few exceptions, Christopher ran strongly in nearly
all of the Northern counties. Therefore, the primary results do
not seem to indicate any important degree of personal amimosity
toward Christopher in his home area, where he is most familiar.
Table III: Democratic and Republican Turnout
The vote totals for both the Democratic and Republican votes
in Table III include not only the votes for all major and minor
candidates, but write-in votes for members of the opposite party.
By this measure, Democratic rnout for governor was 2,136,750
against a statewide registration of 3,996,964, for a percentage of
53.46%. Republican turnout was 1,964,298, against a statewide
registration of 2,833,889, for a percentage of 69.31%.
Turnout was generally lower on both the Republican and Democratic
sides in the larger, metropolitan areas, and highest in the smaller,
rural counties. For the Democrats, the top counties were Alpine and
Amador, both with 70.8%, and the lowest county Los Angeles with 49.5%.
The top county for the Republicans was Alpine (93.2%), and the lowest
San Francisco (62.8%).
6.
The average turnout differential between the Democrats and
the Republicans statewide, was about 16%, and there was only one
county in which the differential was less than 9%, San Francisco
(Republican-62.8%, Democratic--57.6%).
Comparing Table III with Table I, it can be observed that the
larger, metropolitan counties with the lowest vote turnouts tended
to go most heavily, percentagewise, for Brown. In the amaller,
rural counties, with high vote turnouts, there was a tendency toward
a much greater "anti-Brown" vote. Here is the picture:
Average
Democratic
Percentage
Turnout
For Brown
Under 56% (17 counties)
78.7%
56% to 60% (12 counties)
77.3%
60% to 66%
(18 counties
75.4%
Over 66%
(11 counties)
73.8%
The reverse was also true, as witness the following table:
Percentage
Average
For
Democratic
Brown
Turnout
Over 80% (10 counties)
56.9%
72% to 80% (41 counties)
60.2%
Under 72% (7 counties)
62.8%
Thus, it appears to be true that in general, THE GREATER THE
2
PERCENTAGE OF DEMOCRATS THAT WENT TO THE POLLS, THE GREATER THE
DROPOFF IN THE VOTE FOR BROWN! The importance of this observation
in predicting the voting behavior of Democrats who failed to vote
in June, but vote in November cannot be overemphasised. It is a
reasonable prediction that the Democrats who failed to vote in the
June primary and who may vote in November will go Republican in even
greater percentages than those who protested against Brown in June.
7.
In comparing Table III with Table II, it can be observed that
Nixon was strongest in the larger, metropolitan counties which had low
turnouts, while Shell was strongest in the smaller, rural ciunties
which had the highest turnouts. In other words, the best Nixon areas
were usually the best areas for Brown, and the best Shell areas were
the worst areas for Brown.
Republican Surnout was under 70% in only 11 counties! Yet, these
11 counties included Alameda (68.2%), Fresno (69.2%), Les Angeles (68.0%),
San Bernardino (66.3%), San Diego (69.9%), San Francisco (62.8%), San
Mateo (63.2%), and Santa Clara (67.2%), Kings (68.4%), San Luis Obispo
(67.8%), and Santa Barbara (68.7%). of these 11 counties, Nixon
gained at least a 2-1 margin over shell in 7, and in none of them was
his margin less than 3-2.
Put another way, in the seven counties which Shell carried,
Republican turnout was an average of 77.7%. In the 12 counties in
which he polled between 40% and 50% of the vote, Republican turnout
was an average of 77.1%. In 17 counties in which Nixon received more
than 60% of the vote, Republican turnout was an average of 74.8%. And
in the 22 counties which Nixon carried by more than 2-1, Republican
turnout was an average of 72.4%, (excluding small Alpine).
Table IV: Blank Ballots for Governor
In assessing the meaning of the June primary results, one further
factor must be taken into consideration: The abnormally high percentage
of persons who went to the polls but left their ballots blank for the
office of Governor. The total vote for all candidates for Overnor,
including Prohibition, write-ins, and "scattering," was 4,104,943.
Yet, the Secretary of State reports that there were 4,479,723 ballots
8.
cast in the election. This means that 374,780 persons, or 8.4% of
the persons who went to the polls, failed to mark their ballots for
governor
The Secretary of State made no tabulation of how many of these
374,780 blank ballots for governor were Republican and how many are
Democratic. However, a spot of several counties which did make
such a breakdown reveals the blank ballots running fairly uniformly
at 5-1 Democratie! This would appear to be a reasonable figure, also,
because the Republicans had a apirited primary contest while the
Democrats di not. Thus the normal expectancy would be for a great
majority of the blank ballots to be Democratic, where no real choice
was offered. Assuming, then, that the 5-1 Democratic rationon the
blank ballots ran true statewide, it would mean that 300,000, or 12.3%
of the Democrats, left their ballots blank, while about 75,000, or 3.7%
of the Republicans who voted did so.
It is hard to draw any important conclusions from the county-by-
county breakdown of the blank ballots, because their distribution was
fairly uniform, ranging from 6.2% for both parties combined in San
Diego, to 14.5% in Sierra. The proportion of blank ballots, however,
was generally higher in the small, rural counties.
TABLE I: THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE BY COUNTIES
Three
Nixon
Shell
Brown
3
Dems.
Nixon
Shell
County
Brown
Demos.
W/I
W/I
x
x
&
%
Alameda
124,990
18,681
1,744
2,286
84.6
12.6
1.2
1.5
Alpine
48
15
-
--
76.1
23.8
-
--
Amador
2,006
561
21
104
74.5
20.8
.8
3.9
Butte
8,991
1,335
691
1,415
72.3
10.7
5.6
11.4
Calaveras
1,608
461
123
717
66.3
19.0
5.1
9.6
Columa
1,600
319
55
86
77.7
15.5
2.7
4.2
Contra
osta
52,357
8,359
1,901
2,993
79.6
12.7
2.9
4.5
Del Norte
1,684
360
122
139
73.1
15.6
5.3
6.0
E1 Dorado
3,589
1,126
51
249
71.6
22.5
1.0
5.0
Fresno
40,289
8,726
996
1,945
77.6
16.8
1.9
3.7
Glenn
2,012
350
203
564
64.3
11.2
6.5
18.0
Humboldt
10,321
1,545
834
2,109
69.7
10.4
5.6
14.2
Imperial
6,059
1,806
252
135
73.4
21.9
3.1
1.6
Inyo
1,881
505
26
75
75.6
20.3
1.0
3.0
Kern
27,549
7,168
1,078
2,124
72.6
18.9
2.8
5.6
Kings
5,148
1,086
141
211
78.2
16.5
2.1
3.2
Lake
2,264
624
74
151
72.7
20.0
2.4
4.9
Lassen
2,370
523
29
49
79.8
17.6
1.0
1.6
Los Angeles
673,534
101,579
6,397
11,461
84.9
12.8
.8
1.4
Madera
5,108
963
152
183
79.7
15.0
2.4
2.9
Marin
15,984
1,975
569
855
82.4
10.2
2.9
4.4
Mariposa
879
172
25
35
79.1
15.5
2.3
2.2
Mendocino
6,385
1,195
363
375
76.8
14.4
4.4
4.5
Merced
8,539
1,372
361
718
77.7
12.5
3.3
6.5
Modoe
1,130
322
23
64
73.4
20.9
1.5
4.2
Mono
320
98
20
32
68.1
20.9
4.3
6.8
Monterey
14,882
2,801
954
1,525
73.8
13.9
4.7
7.6
TABLE I: (Continued)
Brown
3
Dems.
Nixon
Shell
Brown
3 Demos.
Nixon Shell
County
%
%
&
x
Napa
8,987
1,729
196
337
79.9
15.4
1.7
3.0
Nevada
2,706
546
47
209
77.1
15.6
1.3
6.0
Orange
57,891
14,229
1,609
3,867
74.6
18.3
2.1
5.0
lacer
7,916
1,642
132
1,055
73.7
15.3
1.2
9.8
Flumas
2,304
368
25
83
82.9
13.2
.9
3.0
Riverside
28,631
5,970
741
938
78.9
16.5
2.0
2.6
Sacramento
60,230
11,583
683
4,508
78.2
15.0
is
5.9
San enito
1,792
329
83
125
76.9
14.1
3.6
5.4
San Sernardino
49,863
10,100
900 1,465
80.0
16.2
1.4
2.4
San Diego
92,375
18,315
5,910
8,211
74.0
14.7
4.7
6.6
San Francisco
116,849
14,646
374
273
88.4
11.1
-3
.2
San Josquin
24,488
6,546
876
1,527
73.1
19.8
2.6
4.6
San Luis Obispo
9,154
1,733
252
463
78.9
14.9
2.2
4.0
Son Mateo
47,875
6,105
825
1,029
85.7
10.9
1.5
1.8
Santa Barbara
14,870
2,240
549
1,085
79.3
12.0
2.9
5.8
Senta Clara
62,570
10,159
956 1,132
83.6
13.6
1.3
1.5
Santa Cruz
9,984
1,856
735
907
74.1
13.5
5.5
6.7
Shasta
8,595
1,240
242
1,375
75.1
10.8
2.1
12.0
Sierra
411
79
-
-
83.9
16.1
I
I
Siskiyou
5,067
964
185
286
77.9
14.8
2.8
4.4
Solano
17,377
2,749
472
602
82.0
13.0
2.2
2.8
Sonoma
16,168
3,014
378
668
79.9
14.9
1.9
3.3
Stanislaus
16,667
2,773
435
1,253
78.9
13.1
2.1
5.9
Sutter
2,673
818
227
627
60.1
18.6
6.3
14.3
Tehama
3,032
583
136
419
72.7
14.0
3.3
10.0
Trinity
1,471
299
25
125
76.6
15.6
1.3
6.5
TABLE I: (Continued)
Three
Nixon
Shell
Brown
3 Dems.
Nixon
Shell
County
Brown
Demos.
W/I
W/I
%
x
&
&
Tulare
14,075
3,439
417
880
74.8
18.3
2.2
4.7
Tuolumne
2,578
613
105
117
75.5
18.0
3.1
3.4
Ventura
20,627
3,449
775
1,847
77.3
12.9
2.9
6.9
Yolo
8,082
1,400
151
708
78.2
13.5
1.5
6.8
Tube
2,977
736
187
419
68.9
17.0
4.3
9.7
TABLE II - THE REPUBLICAN VOTE BY COUNTY
Christopher
Nixon
Shell
Nixon
Shell
Vote
Vote
Vote
%
%
Alameda
86,163
75,576
34,173
68.9
31.1
Alpine
58
62
40
67.2
32.8
Amador
1,013
857
690
55.4
44.6
Butte
8,494
7,678
5,194
59.6
40.4
Calaveras
1,150
1,218
717
63.0
37.0
Coluse
1,081
1,046
605
63,4
36.6
Contra Costa
39,936
34,451
16,233
68.0
32.0
Del Norte
1,222
1,347
605
69.0
31.0
E1 Dorado
2,278
1,996
1,754
53.2
46.8
Fresno
21,403
18,927
11,264
62.7
37.3
Glenn
1,808
1,581
1,075
59.5
40.5
Humboldt
8,266
7,232
5,141
58.4
41.8
Imperial
3,984
4,778
1,486
76.3
23.2
Inyo
1,031
1,230
768
61.6
38.4
Kern
16,185
15,126
12,554
54.6
45.4
Kings
2,331
2,185
1,304
62.5
37.3
Lake
2,211
2,052
1,097
65.2
34.8
Lassen
792
857
648
56.9
43.1
Los Angeles
462,131
505,344
246,351
67.2
32.8
Madera
2,101
2,291
1,102
67.5
32.5
Marin
13,707
18,333
7,717
70.4
29.6
Mariposa
670
738
363
67.0
33.0
Mendocino
4,437
4,337
1,871
69.9
30.1
Merced
4,931
4,305
2,672
61.7
38.3
Modoc
562
741
425
63.6
36. 4
-3-
Christopher
Nixon
Shell
Nixon
Shell
Vote
Vote
Vote
%
%
Mono
369
433
254
63.0
37.0
Monterey
15,610
13,717
6,221
68.8
31.2
Napa
7,657
6,338
3,218
66.3
33.7
Nevada
2,163
1,768
2,112
45.6
54.4
Orange
70,252
71,995
46,672
60.7
39.3
Placer
4,594
3,335
3,912
46.0
54.0
Plumas
781
642
747
46.2
53.8
Riverside
23,624
28,768
12,343
70.0
30.0
Sacramento
37,905
28,034
28,054
49.98
50.02
San Benito
1,531
1,426
589
70.8
29.2
San Bernardino
29,811
37,561
16,356
69.7
30.3
San Diego
79,002
95,832
41,932
69.6
30.4
San Francisco
60,793
59,553
19,545
75.1 3
24.7
San Joaquin
18,868
19,009
9,177
67.4
32.6
San Luis Obispo
7,157
6,784
3,836
63.9
36.1
San Mateo
46,698
41,282
17,378
70.4
29.6
Santa Barbara
13,096
15,946
8,427
65,4
34.6
Santa Clara
61,610
54,226
25,203
68.2
31.8
Santa Cruz
11,979
11,015
4,908
69.2
30.8
Shasta
4,068
3,041
3,537
46.2
53.8
Sierra
265
178
293
37.8
62.2
Siskiyou
2,173
2,396
1,510
61.3
38.7
Solano
7,762
6,964
3,250
68.2
31.8
Sonoma
16,653
14,419
7,507
65.8
34.2
Stanialaus
13,116
10,335
8,676
54.5
45.6
-3-
Christopher
Nixon
Shell
Nixon
Shell
Vote
Vote
Vote
%
%
Sutter
2,959
2,596
2,035
56.1
43. 9
Tehama
2,137
2,047
1,873
52.2
47.8
Trinity
526
473
501
48.6
51.4
Tulare
10,610
10,248
6,344
61.8
38.2
Tuolumne
1,843
1,734
706
71.1
28.9
Ventura
13,783
13,550
8,891
60.4
39.6
Yolo
4,079
3,496
3,403
50.7
49.3
Yuba
1,742
1,701
1,283
57.0
43.0
TABLE III - VOTER TURNOUT FOR GOVERNOR BY COUNTIES
Democratic
Democratic
Dem.
Republican
Republican
Rep.
Registration
Vote
%
Registration
Vote
%
Alameda
263,586
147,701
56.0
163,434
111,423
68.2
Alpine
89
63
70.8
133
124
93.2
Amador
3,801
2,692
70.8
1,870
1,568
83,8
Butte
21,241
12,432
58.5
17,904
13,063
73.0
Calaveras
3,517
2,425
69.0
2,386
1,975
82.8
Colusa
3,239
2,060
63.6
2,096
1,688
80.5
Contra Costa
113,558
65,790
57.0
72,225
51,412
71.2
Del Norte
4,275
2,305
53.9
2,486
1,982
79.7
E1 Dorado
8,301
5,015
60.4
5,105
3,793
74.3
Fresno
93,469
51,956
55.6
44,102
30,538
69.2
Glenn
4,630
3,129
67.6
3,323
2,698
81.2
Humboldt
24,549
14,809
60.3
16,201
12,610
77.8
Imperial
13,241
8,252
62.3
8,196
5,337
77.3
Inyo
3,638
2,487
68.4
2,537
2,031
80.1
Kern
71,223
37,919
53.2
39,251
28,052
71.5
Kings
12,733
6,588
51.8
5,151
3,524
68.4
Lake
4,574
3,113
68.1
3,868
3,190
82.5
Lassen
4,580
2,971
65.2
1,988
1,529
76.9
Los Angeles
1,602,931
792,971
49.5
1,116,275
759,530
68.0
Madera
10,570
6,406
60.6
4,551
3,474
76.3
Marin
32,707
19,383
59.3
36,543
26,354
72.1
Mariposa
1,784
1,111
62.3
1,398
1,113
79.6
Mendecino
12,234
8,318
68.0
7,960
6,378
80.1
Merced
19,557
10,990
56.2
9,728
7,121
73.2
-2-
Democratic
Democratic
Dem.
Republican
Republican
Rep.
Registration
Vote
%
Registration
Vote
%
Modoc
2,285
1,539
67.4
1,469
1,189
80.9
Mono
799
470
58.8
857
694
81.0
Monterey
34,707
20,162
58.1
28,068
20,230
72.1
Napa
17,918
11,249
62.8
13,318
9,678
72.7
Nevada
5,827
3,508
60.2
5,121
3,912
76.4
Orange
152,066
77,596
51.0
162,533
119,389
73.5
Placer
16,125
10,745
66.6
9,226
7,387
80.1
Plumas
4,039
2,780
68.8
1,788
1,405
78.6
Riverside
64,888
36,280
55.9
58,984
41,476
70.3
Sacramento
132,672
77,004
58.0
77,431
56,786
73.3
San Benito
3,719
2,320
62.6
2,659
2,062
77.5
San Bernardino
118,942
62,328
52.4
82,170
54,487
66.3
San Diego
232,807
124,811
56.0
199,609
139,603
69.9
San Francisco
220,324
132,142
57.6
127,148
79,877
62.8
San Joaquin
59,178
33,521
56.6
37,443
28,462
76.0
San Luis Obispo
20,843
11,602
55.7
15,919
10,791
67.8
San Mateo
111,309
55,834
50.2
93,767
59,287
63.2
Santa Barbara
36,696
18,744
51.1
35,829
24,629
68.7
Santa Clara
141,098
74,817
53.0
119,869
80,513
67.2
Santa Cruz
22,438
13,482
60.1
22,340
18,284
72.9
Shasta
17,799
11,452
84.3
8,793
6,660
75.7
Sierra
838
490
58.6
564
478
84.8
Siskiyou
9,997
6,502
65.0
5,386
3,995
74.2
Solano
33,605
21,200
63,1
14,689
10,398
70.8
Sonoma
37,072
20,228
54.6
31,246
22,241
71.2
-3-
Democratic
Democratic
Dem.
Republican
Republican
Rep.
Registration
Vote
%
Registration
Vote
%
Stanislaus
38,265
21,128
55.2
25,800
19,174
74.9
Sutter
6,972
4,395
63.0
6,034
4,733
78. *
Tehama
7,200
4,170
57.9
4,719
3,962
84.0
Trinity
3,068
1,920
62.6
1,316
986
74.9
Tulare
34,900
18,811
53.9
23,047
16,700
72.5
Tuolomne
5,169
3,413
66.0
3,115
2,483
79.7
Ventura
47,285
26,698
56.5
31,805
22,795
71.7
Yolo
15,971
10,341
64.7
9,253
7,027
75.9
Yuba
7,137
4,319
60.5
4,064
3,024
74.4
TABLE IV: BLANK BALLOTS FOR GOVERNOR BY COUNTY
Total Vote
Total Ballots
Blank
Percent
County
For Governor
Cast in Primary
Ballots
Blank
Alameda
259,274
281,898
22,624
8.0
Alpine
187
207
20
9.7
Amador
4,270
4,849
579
11.9
Butte
25,502
27,550
2,049
7.4
Calaveras
4,400
4,941
541
10.9
Colusa
3,750
4,220
472
11.2
Contra Costa
117,297
126,732
9,445
7.4
Del Norte
4,294
4,706
412
8.8
El Dorado
8,816
9,698
882
9.1
Fresno
82,559
914481
8,922
9.8
Glenn
5,832
6,423
591
9.2
Humboldt
27,449
29,430
1,981
6.7
Imperial
14,591
16,211
1,620
10.0
Inyo
4,521
4,961
440
8.9
Kern
66,039
72,041
6,002
8.3
Kings
10,118
11,287
1,169
10.4
Lake
6,307
7,005
698
10.0
Lassen
4,500
5,006
506
10.1
Los Angeles
1,554,040
1,710,772
156,732
9.2
Madera
9,895
10,958
1,060
9.7
Marin
45,737
49,683
3,946
7.9
Mariposa
2,224
2,486
262
10.5
Mendocino
14,705
16,034
1,329
8.3
Merced
18,163
20,267
2,104
10.4
Modee
2,728
3,059
331
10.8
Mono
1,164
1,339
175
13.1
Monterey
40,414
43,556
3,142
7.2
Napa
20,937
22,974
2,037
8.9
Nevada
7,424
8,072
648
8.0
TABLE IV: (Continued)
Total Vote
Total Ballots
Blank
Blank
County
For Governor
Cast in Primary
Ballots
Percent
Orange
197,166
212,185
15,019
7.1
Placer
18,138
19,516
1,378
7.1
Plumas
4,185
4,701
516
11.0
Riverside
77,833
84,750
6,917
8.2
Sacramento
134,170
145,440
11,270
7.7
San Benito
4,396
4,815
419
8.7
San Bernardino
117,043
126,739
9,696
7.7
San Diego
264,699
282,173
17,474
6.2
San Francisco
212,033
230,988
18,955
8.2
San Joaquin
62,000
68,910
6,910
10.0
San Luis Obispo
22,416
24,465
2,049
8.4
San Mateo
115,162
123,596
8,434
6.8
Santa Barbara
43,381
46,872
3,491
7.4
Santa Clara
155,430
170,021
14,591
8.6
Santa Crus
29,849
32,142
2,293
7.1
Shasta
18,153
19,573
1,420
7.3
Sierra
970
1,135
165
14.5
Siskiyou
10,504
11,430
926
8.1
Solano
31,607
33,931
2,324
6.8
Sonoma
42,491
46,437
3,946
8.5
Stanislaus
40#377
44,174
3,797
8.6
Sutter
9,141
9,925
784
7.9
Tehama
8,140
8,906
766
8.6
Trinity
2,921
3,292
371
11.3
Tulare
35,541
38,987
3,446
8.8
Tuolumne
5,905
6,626
721
10.9
Venture
49,540
53,083
3,543
6.7
Yolo
17,413
18,963
1,550
8.2
Yuba
7,345
8,102
757
9.3
Harold H. Griffin
7/25/62
Republican vote for Governor in Los Angeles County:
While assembly district breakdowns of the gubernatorial vote
are not released by the Secretary of State, but must be obtained
separately from each county which there is more than one
assembly district, a statewide assembly district resppitulation of
the gubernatorial vote is not attempted here. Instead, this r eport
will deal specifically with the gubernatorial vote broken down by
assembly districts within Los Angeles County alone, itself a large
sampling of the entire state.
In Los Angeles County there are 1,116,275 registered Republicans.
of this number, 505,344 turned out to vote for Nixon in the June
primary: 246,351 cast ballots for Shell; 6,204 voted for Gale:
and 2,040 cast ballots tabulated as "scattering". This latter figure
included write-in votes for Brown. By percentages, this means that
Nixon polled 45.27% of the registered Republicans; Shell polled 22.07%;
Gale polled .55%; and .18% were "scattering." The total Republican
turnout for Governor was thus 68.08% in Los Angeles County.
In the accompanying table, the Nixon and Shell vote is given
in terms of percentage of the Republicans registered, so that both
the Nixon-Shell margin and percentage of Republican turnout itself
can at once be assessed. The percentage given in the "combined Nixon-
Shell" column ignores the votes cast for Gale and the "scattering,"
as these categories are not only statistically unimportant but are
spread fairly evenly throughout the county.
2.
Republican Turnout
The average Nixon and Shell combined vote for the county was
67.34%. Of the 31 Assembly districts in the County, nine had combined
Nixon-Shell turnouts of more than 67%, while 22 districts had combined
Nixon-Shell turnouts of less than 67%.
In Los Angeles County there are 10 assembly districts which
either have a distinct Republican complexion, or else are marginal
districts which have Republican incumbents. These districts are:
39, 43, 46, 47, 49, 54, 56, 57, 60, and 64. of the nine districts
which had Nixon-Shell turnouts of more than 67%, EIGHT of them were among
the 10 Republican districts in the County. of the 22 districts which
had turnouts of less than 67%, 20 of them were Democratic districts,
and only two were Republican. The districts which had the lowest
Republican turnouts in the county were those two districts which are
most heavily Democratic: The 53rd district had a Nixon-Shell turnout
of 50.2%, and the 55th district has a turnout of 53.1%. Both districts
are heavily Negro.
Thus it seems clear that Republican turnout definitely tends to
be highest where there are the greatest numbers and concentrations of
Republicans, and turnout is lowest where there are the fewest Republicans,
both nums*ically and proportionately.
Nixon Margin Over Shell
There were 16 districts in which Nixon's margin over Shell
exceeded 2-1, while there were 15 in which Nixon's margin was less
than 2-1. Although there were some exceptions to this generalization,
it can be said that Nixon's margin tended to be greatest in the higher
socio-economic and more heavily Republican areas, while his margin
tended to be the lowest in the lower socio-economic areas.
3.
of the 16 which gave Nixon margins of 2-1 or better, seven
were the higher-income, Republican assembly districts. Of the 15
which gave him margins of less than 2-1, only three were Republican
districts, and one of these three gave him a margin just below 2-1.
Effect of the Nixon Mailings
Prior to the primary, there were 13 assembly districts which
received no mailings, even county central committee cards with Nixon's
name included. There were 10 assembly districts in which there were
mailings including Nixon's name (either Nixon exclusively or a county
central committee card with Nixon's name included) which reached between
50% and 66 2/3% of the Registered Republicans. There were eight
assembly districts in which the mailings including Nixon's name (the
total of the Nixon mailings and the County Committee mailings with
Nixon's name included) reached 100% of the registered Republicans.
Pitting these figures against the percentage of registered
Republicans in each district who voted for Nixon, the following results
are obtained: In the 13 districts where there were no Nixon mailings,
the average Nixon turnout was 41.8% of the registered vote. In the 10
districts which had Nixon mailings of one type or another reaching 50% to
66 2/3% of the Republicans, the average Nixon turnout was 43.4% of the
registered Republicans. In those eight districts in which 100% of the
Republicans were reached with Nixon mailings, the average turnout for
Nixon was 44.7% of the registered Republicans.
Thus there appears to be a correlation of some sort between the
mailings and the percentage turnout for Nixon. However, when head-on
comparisons are made between apparently similar districts, the results
are conflicting.
30
4.
u
For example, the 67th A. D. (55% Nixon mailing) and the 68th
A. D. (0% mailing) both comprise the 17th Congressional District
and appear fairly similar in complexion. Yet the Nixon turnout in
the 6/6 was only 36.8%, while the turnout in the 68th was 39.2%.
19
The 55th and 53rd A.D.'s are both heavily Negro and comprise the
21st Congressional District. The 55th received no mailings, but
the 53rd was 100% saturated with Nixon mailings. Yet, turnout
was 32.7% in the 55th and 32.8% in the 53rd.
33
38
On the other hand, the 45th and 58th Districts are adjoining
areas of similar complexion, and received mailings of 100% and 50%
respectively. Nixon turnout was 45.4% in the 45th, and 41.0% in the
50
49
58th. The 46th District (0% mailing) and the 57th District (100%
mailing) both comprise the Republican 28th Congressional. Nixon
turnout in the 46th was 41.7% and in the 57th was 44.9%. The
heavily Republican 47th District received a Nixon mailing of 50%,
while its counterpart 43rd 53 District received a mailing of 100%.
Turnout for Nixon in the 47th was 48.5%, and in the 43rd, 49.5%.
However, despite some discrepancies and exeeptions to the rule,
it does appear from the 31 district averages discussed above that
the mailings probably influence between 1% and 3% of the registered
vote, as the overall averages should cancel out any disparities in
socio-economic status and other variables which exist between the
different districts.
SPUBLICAN VOTE FOR GOVERNOR IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
67
Rey
45
22
Combined 40
Assembly
Republican
Nixon
Shell
Nixon % of
Shell x of
Wixon-Shell
Instrict
Registration
Vote
Vote
Registration
Registration
X of Reg.
38
27,512
11,093
6,381
40.3
23.2
63.5 mail 32
39
46,104
21,465
9,750
46.5
21.1
67.7
42
40
18,196
8,101
2,838
44.5
15.6
60.1
29
41
27,981
11,449
6,609
40.9
23.6
64.5
37
42
26,391
10,748
6,049
40.7
22.9
63.6
50
34
43
55,430
27,464
10,715
49.5
19.3
68.8
53
44
39,334
17,341
8,289
44.1
21.1
65.2
36
45
27,303
12,408
6,371
45.4
23.3
68.7
100
33
46
50,726
21,185
13,318
41.7
26.2
68.0
50
47
70,161
34,040
14,634
48.5
20.8
69.4 50 61)
48
32,195
14,851
6,365
46.1
19.8
65.9
34
49
57,687
27,070
12,691
46.9
21.9
68.8
54
50
23,485
9,938
5,653
42.3
24.1
66.4
4-
34
51
25,477
11,464
5,469
45.0
21.5
66.5
31
52
28,894
11,840
6,198
41.0
21.5
62.5
33
53
13,044
4,286
2,278
32.8
17.4
50.2
100
19
54
65,735
$1,903
15,673
48.5
23.8
7263 150 62
55
10,166
3,327
2,074
32.7
20.4
53.1
16
56
42,572
18,592
7,995
43.7
18.8
62.5
39
57
50,551
22,720
11,564
44.9
22.9
67.8
100
99
58
28,064
11,507
6,722
41.0
23.9
64.9
36
59
36,940
16,994
6,548
46.0
17.7
63.7
55
35
60
62,395
29,206
11,799
46.8
18.9
65.7
67
53)
61
30,665
13,572
6,058
44.3
19.8
64.1
45
30
62
34,338
13,707
8,598
39.9
25.0
64.9
yo
63
36,791
16,863
7,440
45.8
20.2
66.0
38
64
44,836
18,589
11,665
41.4
26.0
67.4
45
65
32,588
14,320
6,072
43.9
18.6
62.5
33
66
29,461
13,144
6,444
44.6
21.9
66.5
39
67
23,006
8,466
5,369
36.8
23.3
60.1
30
68
18,247
7,159
4,267
39.2
23.4
62.6
-
26
MAILINGS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY WHICH INCLUDED NIXON
A.D.
County CC
% of Reg.
Nixon
% of Reg.
Total x
With Nixon
Republicans
Cards
Republicans
Covered
38
-
-
-
-
-
39
-
-
-
-
-
40
-
-
--
-
-
41
-
--
-
-
-
42
-
--
9,459
50%
50%
43
39,672
100%
--
-
100%
44
--
--
--
-
--
45
-
--
20,014
100%
100%
46
34,552
100%
-
--
100%
47
-
--
25,073
50%
50%
48
--
--
13,659
55%
55%
49
9,919
25%
29,757
75%
100%
50
-
--
6,914
55%
55%
51
-
-
-
-
-
52
--
--
--
--
-
53
-
-
11,482
100%
100%
54
50,438
100%
25,219
50%
150%
55
--
--
--
-
--
56
--
-
--
--
--
57
17,355
50%
17,356
50%
100%
58
-
-
10,311
50%
50%
59
-
-
15,267
55%
55%
60
--
--
29,918
66.6%
66/6%
61
9,719
43%
1,069
5%
48%
62
-
--
--
--
--
63
13,509
50%
13,510
50%
100%
64
-
--
15,060
50%
50%
65
11,131
45%
13,605
55%
100%
66
-
--
-
--
--
67
-
-
9,240
55%
55%
68
-
-
--
--
-
Do
Divide State into fifths
Los augeles - 2
Outer Socald -/ Orange 4 S Diego -/4 SB-Rev
-1+
SF Bay area /+ ala 4 4+ SF 4 SC 4 4- -
Outer NoCaly /- - Sacto-Fres 1/4
Harold H. Griffin
June 22, 1962
Analysis of the Democratic vote in the June Primary:
It is the normal occurrence for the primary vote for
Governor in both parties to be between 50,000 to 100,000 votes
greater than that for Lieutenant Governor, and for there to be
a slight drop-off in vote all the way down the ticket excepting
those cases where there are hotly contested primaries. For
example, in 1958, the total vote for Governor, counting votes
cross filed for Brown as well as those for Knowland, on the
Republican side was 1,664,000. The Total Republican vote for
Lieutenant Governor was 1,609,000, and the vote for the hotly
contested Attorney General spot was 1,550,000. On the Democratic
side the total vote count for Governor, including Knowland's
crossfiled vote, was 2,288,000. The total Democratic vote for
Lieutemant Governor was 2,199,000, and the total Democratic vote
for Attorney General was 2,157,000, all totals including cross-
filed Republicans.
This trend held true for the Republican vote in the 1962
primary. The total Republican vote for Governor was 1,977,000,
for Lieutenant Governor 1,808,000, for Secretary of State 1,682,00,
for Treasurer 1,535,000, for Controller 1,386,000, and for the hotly
contested Attorney General post, 1,629,000.
However, the Democratic vote was distinguished by one extremely
significant deviation from this trend. The total vote cast for
Governor was 2,067,000, while the total vote cast for Lieutenant
Governor was 2,076,000; The total vote for Secretary of State was
1,850,000, Treasurer was 1,658,000, Controller was 1,783,000, and
Attorney General was 1,764,000.
2.
The surprising fact that the total vote cast for Governor on
the Democratic side was even less than that cast for Lieutenant
Governor almost certainly indicates that in addition to the protest
vote cast for Brownis three unknown Democratic opponents, at least
100,000 Democrats either left their ballots blank or wrote in the
name of a Republican candidate. While this may tend to oast some
doubt upon the rather extravagant estimates of Nixon's Democratic
write-in vote which ranged up to 300,000 (based on the 10 per precinct
estimate of Benjamin Hite's assistant), it remains an extremely
optimistic sign that Governor Brown's showing in the primary was the
weakest by far of the Democratic ticket of Constitutional officers.
In other words, while the vote drop-off appeared to be fairly normal
for all other offices, the vote for Governor on the Democratic side
clearly showed extreme weakness at the top of the ticket.
Harold H. Griffin
6/11/62
Analysis of Republican Gubernatorial Primary Vote
In the June 5, 1962 gubernatorial primary, final unofficial
returns show: Nixon 1,287,599
Shell
671,247
Gale
19,050
Translated into percentages, Nixon received 65.0%, Shell 33.9%, and
Gale 1.0%. By comparison, Brown received 1,732,099 and his three
Democratic opponents a combined total of 335,723. Brown thus received
83.8% of his party's vote and his opponents 16.2%. There have been
authoritative reports, as yet officially unconfirmed, of write-in voted
for Nixon and Shell on the Democratic ballots which may total in the
neighborhood of 100,000 to 200,000.
Thus, the primary results of June 5 indicate reason for cautious
optimism about Nixon's chances in the November election against Brown.
Taking statewide registration figures into account, Nixon must gain
90% of the Republican vote and at least 20% of the Democratic vote to
win. If a minimum of 75% of the ballots cast for Shell go to Nixon
in November and this is not an unreasonable expectation Nixon will
receive alightly more than the necessary 90%. If more than 75% of the
Shell supporters go for Nixon, his percentage could go as high as 95%.
On the other side, Nixon will possibly receive at least a majority of
the 16.2% cast against Brown in June, and will unquestionably receive
all of the write-ins cast for him on the Democratic side, as well as
a portion of those cast for Shell. Therefore it is fully possible
that Nixon may receive as much as 22% to 25% of the Democratic vote
in November especially when it is considered that a certain portion
of those who voted for Brown in June may switch their preference when
Brown's name appears beside that of the Republican candidate.
2.
These projections clearly indicate the possibility of a
Nixon victory by something in the neighborhood of 250,000 votes.
It will be meaningful to review the June results in light of
both statewide and county registration totals. The accompanying
table displays the votes of Nixon and Shell county by county, and
gives these results in terms of percentage of Republican registration.
For the purposes of this analysis, the Gale vote is ignored, as it
is too insignificant to make a statistical difference. Thus, by
giving the Nixon and Shell votes as percentage of party registration,
and totalling the Nixon and Shell percentages to give an approximation
of total Republican turnout, county by county, one can see at once
not only the relative strength of Nixon and Shell in the various areas
of the state, but can also BROOSS to some degree the strength of
Republican precinct organization in those areas. It must be remembered,
however, that heated primary fights for legislative offices in certain
areas may have contributed to higher turnouts, as well as precinct
organization.
Republican registration in California totalled 2,833,889 for the
June primary. Nixon's vote in terms of this figure was 45.4% and
Shell's was 23.6%. Gale received .7%. Thus total Republican turnout
was approximately 69.7%. Democratic registration was 3,996,964, and
Brown's percentage was 43.3% His Democratic opponents received 8.4%,
for a total Democratic turnout of 51.7%. Taking into account Nixon
ans Shell write-ins, the Democratic turnout was somewhat more than this
figure.
One of the interesting things revealed by the primary results
is the correlation between high versus low voter turnout and the Nixon-
3.
Shell vote. There were 17 counties in the state which had a voter
turnout on the Republican side of less than 70%. These were:
Alameda, Contra Costa, FresnqKings, Marin, Los Angeles,
San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo,
San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Crus,
Solano, *** Sonoma, and Tehama.
In every case except that of Tehama these counties were those which
went most strongly for Nixon. On the other hand, there were 25
counties which had a Republican turnout of more than 75%. Ten of
these 25 were the counties which went most strongly for Shell, and
twelve of them were strong Nixon counties. In the other three, the
Nixon-Shell vote was about average for the state. The 25 counties
with more than 75% turnout were:
Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn,
Humboldt, Inyo, Lake, Lassen, Imperial, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono,
Monterey, Nevada, Merced, Placer, Riverside, San Joaquin, Shasta,
Sutter, Twolumne, *** Yuba, and Trinity.
Twenty counties went for Nixon by at least 2-1. These were
the following:
Alpine, Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Imperial, Los Angeles,
Marin, Madera, Mendocino, MontereySan Benito, San Bernardino,
San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara,
Santa Cruz, Solano, and Tuolumne.
Although it is impossible to generalize Nixon's areas of heaviest
support, it can be said that he was especially strong on the Bay
Peninsula, the East Bay, *** all along the California coast, and in
Southern California generally.
Shell carried seven counties: Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento,
Shasta, Sierrs, and Trinity. In addition, he polled a substantial
vote in Amador, Butte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Kern, Lassen,
Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba. In all of these counties
Nixon's margin was less than 3-2. Shell's strength was thus concentrated
almost solely in the San Joaquin Vally and Mountain Counties.
4.
However, it cannot be said that these areas went for Shell as a
bloo, because Nixon also received strong support from some of the
San Joaquin Valley and Mountain Counties.
It has been speculated that the strong Shell support in
certain of the Valley and Mountain Counties was due to the editorial
policies of the Sacramento Bee and the other McClatchy news organs.
However, Nixons strong support in Fresno, Kings, San Joaquin, and
Madera counties might tend to belie this theses. It is more probable
that Shell's support in the Valley and Mountain counties is due to
the strong appeals he made to agricultural interests in these counties
during the campaign, as it was no secret that he was an outspoken
advocate of the farmer. It is fully possible that Shell's strength
is thus due far more to agricultural issues than to any "Birch
revolt" of anti-Nixon sentiment. A review of voting results in the
supposedly conservative communities of Los Angeles County, such as
Arcadia,and Pasadena, reveals that Nixon gained some of his strongest
support from these areas. Yet these are the "hotbeds of Birehism. "
A recommendation as to the future conduct of the Gubernatorial
campaign could be made to the effect that Nixon could gain far more
by sharpening his position regarding agriculture than by attempting
to placate right-wing elements of the party.
REPUBLICAN VOTE AS PERCENTAGE OF REGISTRATION
Republican
Nixon
Shell
Nixon
Shell
Total
County
Registration
Vote
Vote
Percent
Percent
Percent
Alameda
163,434
73,758
33,894
45.1
20.7
65.8
Alpine
133
82
40
61.6
30.0
91.6
Amador
1,870
827
656
44.2
35.2
79.4
Butte
17,904
7,825
5,565
43.7
31.0
74.7
Calaveras
2,386
1,239
724
51.9
30.3
82.2
Colusa
2,096
1,052
608
50.2
29.0
79.2
Contra Costa
72,225
33,969
16,417
47.0
22.7
69.7
Del Norte
2,486
1,429
709
57.5
28.5
86.0
El Dorado
5,105
1,997
1,765
39.1
34.5
73.6
Fresno
44,102
19,166
11,571
43.4
26.2
69.6
Glenn
3,323
1,679
1,265
50.5
38.0
88.5
Humboldt
16,201
7,372
5,795
45.5
35.7
81.2
Imperial
8,196
4,686
1,559
57.2
19.0
76.2
Inyo
2,537
1,161
746
45.7
29.4
75.1
Kern
39,251
15,274
12,802
38.9
32.6
71.5
Kings
5,151
2,203
1,108
42.7
21.5
64.2
Lake
3,866
2,069
1,145
53.5
29.6
83.1
Lassen
1,988
882
681
44.3
34.2
78.5
Los Angeles
1,116,275
518,446
255,956
46.4
22.9
69.3
Madera
4,551
2,290
1,116
50.3
24.5
74.8
Marin
36,543
17,762
7,610
48.6
20.8
69.4
Mariposa
1,398
660
363
47.2
26.0
73.2
Mendocino
7,960
4,449
1,899
55.8
23.8
79.6
Merced
9,278
4,311
2,694
46.4
29.0
75.4
Modoe
1,469
743
422
50.5
28.7
79.2
Mono
857
433
254
50.5
29.6
80.1
Monterey
28,068
14,637
6,507
52.1
23.2
75.3
Republican
Nixon
Shell
Nixon
Shell
Total
County
Registration
Vote
Vote
Percent
Percent
Percent
Nape
13,318
6,434
3,312
48.3
24.8
73.1
Nevada
5,121
1,769
2,121
34.5
41.4
75.9
Orange
162,533
71,751
46,723
44.1
28.7
72.8
Placer
9,226
3,344
3,930
36.2
42.1
78.3
Plumas
1,788
600
710
33.5
39.7
73.2
Riverside
58,984
27,936
16,385
48.7
27.7
76.4
Sacramento
77,431
27,268
27,462
35.2
35.4
70.6
San Benito
2,659
1,374
605
51.6
22.7
74.3
San Bernardino
82,170
38,057
17,016
46.3
20.7
67.0
San Diego
199,609
91,908
41,908
46.0
20.9
66.9
San Francisco
127,149
57,308
18,978
45.0
14.1
59.1
San Joaquin
37,443
19,092
9,121
50.9
24.3
75.2
San Luis Obispo
15,919
6,792
3,871
42.6
24.3
66.9
San Mateo
93,767
40,392
17,092
43.0
18.2
61.2
Santa Barbara
35,829
15,918
8,489
44.4
23.7
68.1
Santa Clara
119,869
54,324
25,416
45.5
21.2
66.7
Santa Cruz
22,340
10,721
4,907
47.9
21.9
69.8
Shasta
8,793
3,090
3,732
35.1
42.4
77.5
Sierra
564
138
263
24.4
46,6
71.0
Siskiyou
5,386
2,408
1,534
44.7
28.4
73.1
Solano
14,689
6,720
3,189
45.7
21.7
67.4
Sonoma
31,245
14,182
7,374
45.4
23.6
69.0
Stanislaus
25,600
10,074
8,585
39.3
33.5
72.8
Sutter
6,034
2,611
2,169
43.2
35.8
79.0
Tehama
4,719
1,549
1,390
32.8
29.4
62.2
Trinity
1,316
489
586
37.1
44.5
81.6
Tulare
23,047
10,285
6,459
44.6
28.0
72.6
Republican
Nixon
Shell
Nixon
Shell
Total
County
Registration
Vote
Vote
Percent
Percent
Percent
Tuolumne
3,116
1,744
709
55.9
22.7
78.6
Ventura
31,805
13,576
8,972
42.7
28.2
70.9
Yolo
9,253
3,536
2,981
38.2
32.2
70.4
Yuba
4,064
1,758
1,387
43.2
34.1
77.3
Harold H. Griffin
6/12/62
Some Further Reflections on the Primary Results:
The Shell vote in the June primary can be only partially
explained by the "conservative protest" theory. Nixon scored
some of his greatest gains in exactly those areas which Shell
claimed as his conservative strongholds. The counties of San
Diego, San Mateo, Marin, and Los Angeles, which are generally
conceded to contain Republicans of the strongest right-wing
tendencies all went for Nixon by more than 2-1, well over the
state average. Even Orange County gave Nixon a better than 3-2
vote. Some of the most conservative communities in Los Angeles
County also went heavily for Nixon by better than 2-1.
Shell clearly had a base of conservative support which probably
accounted for an average of about 25% of the vote across the state.
The crusial question 1s: How can the Shell vote in the San Joaquin
Valley and mountain counties which gave him 40% or more of the vote
in 19 California counties be explained?
The thests that the McClatchy newspapers and radio stations have
built up a reservoir of anti-Nixon sentiment over the past 1
years
which expressed itself in a disproportionate turnout for Shell at
first seems plausible. However, of the 19 counties which gave Shell
at least 40% of the Republican vote, Nixon carried 7 against Kennedy
in 1960 and just barely missed in 4 more. In all of these counties
the Republicans faced registration deficits of varying defrees.
For example, Shell ran strongly in El Dorado County, which went for
Kennedy in 1960 by only 100 votes, despite a Democratic registration
edge of 8833 to 5293. Shell ran strongy in Stanislaus County, yet
Nixon lost the county by less than 100 votes out of 60,000 in 1960,
2.
against a registration edge for the Democrats of 42,000 to 26,000.
Shell ran strongly in Tehama County, yet Nixon captured the county
in 1960 a sainst a registration deficit of 7479 to 4957. Shell
captured close to 45% of the vote in Yuba county, yet Nixon captured
the county in 1960 against a serious registration deficit of 7756
to 3962.
It seems clear that the Shell vote in these areas cannot be
explained by the existence of a reservoir of anti-Nixon sentiment,
however caused, in these areas, because if such a reservoir were to
exist Nixon could hardly have run as strongly in these areas in 1960
as the results show that he did.
It It appears that the Shell vote must be explained by factors
peculiar to the 1962 primary campaign. while it is possible that
Shell's organization may have been stronger in some of these areas--
and this is reinforced by the extremely large turnouts of Republican
voters in some of Shell's strongest counties in the Valley and
mountain areas--it is also apparent from a review of Shell's press
clippings during the campaign that he made a special effort to campaign
in the Valley and mountain areas, and that he made strong appeals to
agricultural and mining interests in these districts. The disproportionst
Shell vote in these areas can probably best be explained by the
importance of agricultural issues and Shell's stands on them, rather
than by interpreting his support as largely anti-Nixon.
Haldaman
Harold H. Griffin
August 27, 1962
Media Distribution, and the Primary Vote:
He have just received from Hixson & Jorgensen, Inc., Advertising,
a summary of T. V. spots, radio shows, billboard coverage, and
telethon coverage during the June primary.
Generally spesking, the radio shows, T. : spots, and telethon
coverage was fairly uniform throughout the statelm 50 of California's
58 counties received 5 or more T. V. spots, ranging up to 66 in the
Los Angeles area; 50 counties also received 10 or more radio shows
of 5 to 15 minutes each; and 46 counties were exposed to at least
1 3/4 hours of the telethon on May 29th. Billboard coverage was
more erratic, with 24 counties having one or no billboards placed
in them, and Los ingeles having 233 large billboards and 443 small ones.
There does not seem to be much correlation between media distribution
and the voting results of the primary. To be specific, there were 12
counties in which there was no teaethon coverage reported:
Imperial, Inyo, Mendocino, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo,
Santa Grus, Mono, Modoe, Lassen, Lake, and Alpine.
of these 12, there is found all 8 counties which received no radio
coverage:
Imperial, Inyo, San Luis Obispo, Mono, Modoe, Lassen, Lake,
and Alpine.
And also among these 12, are found all 8 counties which received no
T. V. spots:
Imperial, Inyo, Mendocino, Mono, Modoo, Lassen, Lake, and Alpine.
In seven of these counties there were no billboards:
San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Mono, Modoe, Lessen, Lake, and Alpine.
In only one of these counties (Monterey) did Nixon appear as many as
two times, and in four he appeared only once (Imperial, Mendocino,
2.
San Luis Obispo, Mone). In the remaining seven Nixon made no
public appearances.
Thus it appears clear that the above-named 12 counties in which
there was no telethon coverage can by all standards be termed the
"Low-media" counties during the June, 1962, primary.
Voting in the "Low-Media" Counties:
Nixon's average margin over Shell throughout the state was
just under 2-1. Yet, of the "low-media" counties, 11 of the 12
posted a margin for Nixon of greater than 2-1, excepting only Lassen.
Judging by Nixon's Democratic write in vote, his statewide write-ân
average on the Democratic ticket was 1.7%, while his write-in vote
was greater than 2% in eight of the 12 "low-media" counties. The
highest margin for Nixon over Shell of any county was posted b: Imperial,
one of these 12 counties, although Imperial was one of the five of these
counties which had billboard coverage.
Voting by Geographical aress:
Virtually all of the large-population, metropolitan counties
were saturated by all media, and it is not believed that any comparison
between voting patterns among them on the basis of slight variances
in saturation would be either accurate or meaningful. Furthermore,
in the San Joaquin Valley the coverage by all media was fairly unhform
and high throughout, while in the middle coast region coverage was
uniform and low. In the Northern Mountain area, the Northern Coastal
area, the Sacramento Valley, and the Mother Lode area, there occur
counties with disparities between some or all media which provide the
basis for comparison between the media distribution and the voting
results.
3.
The Northern Coastal and Mountain Counties:
The following table represents both media distribution and
voting results in the ten northern coastal and mountain counties:
Radio, TV
Number of
Nixon Dem.
Nixon % of
County
& Telethon
Billboards
rite-in
Rep. Vote
Lassen
No
0
1.0%
56.9%
Modoe
No
0
1.5%
63.6%
Mendocino
No
4
4.4%
69.9%
Trinity
Yes
0
1.3%
48.6%
lumas
Yes
0
.9%
46.2%
Siskiyou
Yes
0
2.8%
61.3%
Shasta
Yes
1
2.1%
46.2%
Tohama
Yes
3
3.3%
52.3%
Humboldt
Yes
7
5.6%
58.4%
Del Norte
Yes
4
5.3%
69.0%
1.
There does not seem to be a correlation between the Nixon-Shell
vote and telethon coverage. or the three counties which had no tele-
thon coverage, Nixon carried all three, and gained his highest margin
in Mendocino of all ten counties. of the seven which had teleAhon
coverage, Shell carried three.
2. There may be some correlation between the Nixon-Shell vote and
billboards, as all four counties which had three or more billboards
went for Nixon, while three of the six counties which had one or less
went for Shell. Nixon's two highest margins were in Del Norte and
Mendocino, which both had good billboard coverage.
3. There appears to be a slight correlation between telethom coverage
and Nixon Democratic write-in, as Nixon's write-in was generally higher
where therews telethon exposure.
4.
4. However, there appears to be a much better correlation between
billboard coverage and the Nixon Democratic write-in vote. Right
down the line, Nixon's write-in was greates t where there was the
best billboard coverage. It was highest in Humboldt (7 billboards),
with 5.6% It was sedond highest in Del Norte (4 billboards) with
5.3% third in Mendocino (4 billboards) with 4.4%; and fourth in
Tehama (3 billboards) with 3.3%. In all of the counties remaining
in which there was one or less billboard, Nixon's write-in was less
than 3% and ranged down to 19%.
The Secramento Valley:
The trends are unclear in the Sasramento Valley. of the nine
counties which can be classified in this area (Lake, Glenn, Coluse,
Solano, Yolo, Tuba, Napa, Sutter, Butte), only Lake had no radio,
TV, or telethon coverage. Lake county posted a very high 65.2% for
Nixon against Shell, and an average write-in of 2.4%. The only two
counties of these nine which had no billboards were again Lake, and
Glenn. Glenn posted a 59.5% for Nixon against Shell, and a 6.5% write-
in vote for Nixon, the highest of all nine counties. However, the
second highest write-in of these counties was Sutter, (6.3%) with two billboards
for its 33,000 population, and third was Butte (5.6%) with seven
billboards for its 82,000 population.
The Mother Lode:
All seven Mother Lode Counties (El Dorado, Nevada, Placer,
Tuolumne, Mariposa, Calaveras, Amador) were exposed to radio shows,
TV spots, and telethom in equal amounts. However, in Amader there
was four billboards for only a 10,000 population, in Placer two
billboards for 57,000 population, in Nevada one billboard for 20,000,
5.
and in Maripose, one billboard for 5,000 persons. Shell captured
both Nevada and Placer-two of the counties which had billboards,
and Nixon carried all counties which didn't have any billboards.
Nixon's write-in on the Democratic side was highest in Calaveras (5.1%)
which had no billboards, and lowest in Amador (.8%) which was most
thoroug ly saturated with billboards. However, it is worth noting
that Nixon's high 5.1% write-in in Calaveras might be due to the
fact that he make three public appearances in this county. In four
of these counties he made no appearances, and in two of them he
appeared only once. Nixon's highest vote against Shell of these
counties(71.1%) and his second-highest write-in vote (3.1%) came
in Tuelumne, which had no billboards and no appearances.
Farrington
Harold H. Griffin
August 27, 1962
Media Distribution, and the Primary Vote:
We have just received from Hixson & Jorgensen, Inc., Advertising,
a summary of T. V. spots, radio shows, billboard coverage, and
telethon coverage during the June primary.
Generally speaking, the radio shows, T. V spots, and telethon
coverage was fairly uniform throughout the stateles 50 of California's
58 counties received 5 or more T. V. spots, ranging up to 66 in the
Los Angeles area; 50 counties also received 10 or more radio shows
of 5 to 15 minutes each; and 46 counties were exposed to at least
1 3/4 hours of the telethon on May 29th. Billboard coverage was
more erratic, with 24 counties having one or no billboards placed
in them, and Los Angeles having 233 large billboards and 443 small ones.
There does not seen to be much correlation between media distribution
and the voting results of the primary. To be specific, there were 12
counties in which there was no takethon coverage reported:
Imperial, Inyo, Mendocino, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo,
Santa Grus, Mono, Modoc, Lassen, Lake, and Alpine.
of these 12, there is found all 8 counties which received no radio
coverage:
Imperial, Inyo, San Luis Obispo, Mono, Modoe, Lassen, Lake,
and Alpine.
And also among these 12, are found all 8 counties which received no
T.V. spots:
Imperial, Inyo, Mendocino, Mono, Modoc, Lassen, Lake, and Alpine.
In seven of these counties there were no billboards:
San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Mono, Modoc, Lassen, Lake, and Alpine.
In only one of these counties (Monterey) did Nixon appear as many as
two times, and in four he appeared only once (Imperial, Mendocino,
2.
San Luis Obispo, Mono). In the remaining seven Nixon made no
public appearances.
Thus it appears clear that the above-named 12 counties in which
there was no telethon coverage can by all standards be termed the
"Low-media" counties during the June, 1962, primary.
Voting in the "Low-Media" Counties:
Nixon's average margin over Shell throughout the state was
just under 2-1. Yet, of the "low-media" counties, 11 of the 12
posted a margin for Nixon of greater than 2-1, excepting only Lassen.
Judging by Nixon's Democratic write in vote, his statewide write-in
average on the Democratic ticket was 1.7%, which his write-in vote
was greater than 2% in eight of the 12 "low-media" counties. The
highest margin for Nixon over Shell of any county was posted b: Imperial,
one of these 12 counties, although Imperial was one of the five of these
counties which had billboard coverage.
Voting by Geographical areas:
Virtually all of the large-population, metropolitan counties
were saturated by all media, and it is not believed that any comparison
between voting patterns among them on the basis of slight variances
in saturation would be either accurate or meaningful. Furthermore,
in the San Joaquin Valley the coverage by all media was fairly unifterm
and high throughout, while in the middle coast region coverage was
uniform and low. In the Northern Mountain area, the Northern Coastal
area, the Secramento Valley, and the Mother Lode area, there occur
counties with disparities between some or all media which provide the
basis for comparison between the media distribution and the voting
results.
3.
The Northern Coastal and Mountain Counties:
The following table represents both media distribution and
voting results in the ten northern coastal and mountain counties:
Radio, TV
Number of
Nixon Dem.
Nixon % of
County
& Telethon
Billboards
rite-in
Rep. Vote
Lassen
No
0
1.0%
56.9%
Modoe
No
0
1.5%
63.6%
Mendocino
No
4
4.4%
69.9%
Trinity
Yes
0
1.3%
48.6%
Plumas
Yes
0
.9%
46.2%
Siskiyou
Yes
0
2.8%
61.3%
Shasta
Yes
1
2.1%
46.2%
Tohama
Yes
3
3.3%
52.3%
Humboldt
Yes
7
5.6%
58.4%
Del Norte
Yes
4
5.3%
69.0%
1.
There does not seem to be a correlation between the Nixon-Shell
vote and telethon coverage. of the three counties which had no tele-
thon coverage, Nixon carried all three, and gained his highest margin
in Mendocino of all ten counties. of the seven which had telethon
coverage, Shell carried three.
2. There may be some correlation between the Nixon-Shell vote and
billboards, as all four counties which had three or more billboards
went for Nixon, while three of the six counties which had one or less
went for Shell. Nixon's two highest margins were in Del Norte and
Mendocino, which both had good billboard coverage.
3. There appears to be a slight correlation between telethon coverage
and Nixon Democratic write-in, as Nixon's write-in was generally higher
where therewas telethon exposure.
4.
4. However, there appears to be a much better correlation between
billboard coverage and the Nixon Democratic write-in vote. Right
down the line, Nixon's write-in was greates t where there was the
best billboard coverage. It was highest in Humboldt (7 billboards),
with 5.6%. It was second highest in Del Norte (4 billboards) with
5.3%; third in Mendocino (4 billboards) with 4.4%; and fourth in
Tehama (3 billboards) with 3.3%. In all of the counties remaining
in which where was one or less billboard, Nixon's write-in was less
than 3% and ranged down to 19%.
The Sacramento Valley:
The trends are unclear in the Sasramento Valley. of the nine
counties which can be classified in this area (Lake, Glenn, Colusa,
Solano, Yolo, Yuba, Napa, Sutter, Butte), only Lake had no radio,
TV, or telethon coverage. Lake county posted a very high 65.2% for
Nixon against Shell, and an average write-in of 2.4%. The only two
counties of these nine which had no billboards were again Lake, and
Glenn. Glenn posted a 59.5% for Nixon against Shell, and a 6.5% write-
in vote for Nixon, the highest of all nine counties. However, the
(6.3%)
second highest write-in of these counties was Sutter, with two billboards
for its 33,000 population, and third was Butte (5.6%) with seven
billboards for its 82,000 population.
The Mother Lode:
All seven Mother Lode Counties (El Dorado, Nevada, Placer,
Tuolumne, Mariposs, Calaveras, Amador) were exposed to radio shows,
TV spots, and telethon in equal amounts. However, in Amador there
was four billboards for only a 10,000 population, in Placer two
billboards for 57,000 population, in Nevada one billboard for 20,000,
5.
and in Maripose, one billboard for 5,000 persons. Shell captured
both Nevada and Placer—two of the counties which had billboards,
and Nixon carried all counties which didn't have any billboards.
Nixon's write-in on the Democratic side was highest in Calaveras (5.1%
which had no billboards, and lowest in Amador (.8%) which was most
thoroug ly saturated with billboards. However, it is worth noting
that Nixon's high 5.1% write-in in Calaveras might be due to the
fact that he made three public appearances in this county. In four
of these counties he made no appearances, and in two of them he
appeared only once. Nixon's highest vote against Shell of these
counties(71.1$) and his second-highest write-in vote (3.1%) came
in Tuelumne, which had no billboards and no appearances.
3.
more than 4% of the vote in 12 counties, which were mostly small and
rural but included San Diego (4.7%). Nixon's best counties were
Glenn (6.5%) and Sutter (6.3%). Nixon gained more votes than Shell
in only two counties: San Francisco (.3% to .2%), and Imperial (3.1%
to 1.6%).
The counties which tended to go most strongly for Nixon by write-
in were the same counties in which Shell received the highest percentages,
and generally, Nixon was also strong Shell was strong. For
example, Glenn and Sutter were the first and second best counties,
respectively, for both Nixon and Shell. In Glenn, Shell received 18.0%
to Nixon's 6.5%, and in Sutter, Shell received 14.3% to Nixon's 6.3%.
Table II: The Republican Vote
On the Republican side, the vote for Governor was:
Nixon
1,285,151
(65.4%)
Shell
656,542
33.4%
Gale
17,369
0.88%)
Brown Write-In
5,236
( 0.27%)
TOTAL VOTE
1,964,298 (100%)
Nixon Vote: Nixon outpolled Shell by greater than a 2-1 margin in
22 counties:
Alameda
Riverside
Alpine
San Benito
Contra Costa
San Bernordino
Del Norte
San Diego
Imperial
San Francisco
Los Angeles
San Joaquin
Madera
San Mateo
Marin
Santa Clara
Mariposa
Santa Crus
Mendocine
Solano
Monterey
Tuolumne
All geographical areas are represented. However, on balance, it can
be said that Nixon was strongest in Southern California and the San
Francisco Bay Area. It is probably significant that of the ten
- & JORGENSEN, INC., Advertising
10
Analysis of Mediu DistriBution for the Primaries INS
The attached is-m analysis, by quanty and com, of the amount of
expesure they had to the-mivertising.
We used our outdeer coverage as the basis for splecting the true
as Outdeer is the one media that carr be most directly tied down
to a given pattern.
Under Outdoor, we list the number of 24 sheet penels in each city
or tewn. These figures 4a brackets show the number of 7 sheets
in each town. We also had a Tri-Vision wait and a painted hulletin
net shown OR the analysis.
Television spots are listed as the total number of spots to penetrate
that area. In all cases, the TV spots cover more than one county
due to the nature of this medium.
The listings under Radio are for the 5, 10 and 15 minute radie shows.
These are listed as a total number rather than a bronkdren of each
show's duration: Due to the nature of this medium, the severage
was quite extensive and covers any counties.
The Telethon coverage is shown by the number of hours each market
was covered.
Nowspaper coverage was limited to annowhosphat ads of the Telethen,
August 6, 196
NIXON FOR GOVERNOR
Media Distribution - Primaries
COUNTY
OUTDOOR
TV SPOTS
RADIO
TELETHON
NEWSPAPERS
Alameda - 908.209
Alameda
1
San Francisco - 26
San Francisco - 10
San Francisca - 4 hrs.
Yes
Borkeley
5
,
Yes
Hayward
3
-
E
Yes
Oakland
19
1
8
Yes
4
&
*
San Leandro
Yes
Amader - 9,390
Jackson District
4
Sacraments-Stociten - 10 Sacramento-Stoekton- 15 Speramento-Stackten-3 hrs
Butte - 82,030
Chico
3
Chieo-Redding - 12
Chico-Redding - 15
Chico-Redding - 4 hrs
Yes
Gridley
1
Oroville
1
"
:
$
Paradise
1
1
Durham
1
=
3
Calaveras - 10,289
Angels Camp
Sacramento-Stocktqu-10
Sacramento-Stoekton-15 Sacramento-Stockton-3 hrs.
Colusa - 12.075
Coluse
I
Chico-Redding - 12
Chico-Redding - 15
Chies-Redding - 4 hrs.
Contre Costs - 409 03
Antioch
1
San Francisco - 26
San Francisco
10
San Francisco . 4 hrs
Concord
Yes
EI Cerrito
2
:
Pittsburg
1
Yes
Richmond
4
Yes
San Pablo
I
I
:
Page 2
COUNTY
OUTBOOR
1V SPOTS
RADIO
TELETHON
Centra Costa (contd)
She Iden
1
San Francisco - -. 26
San Francisco - 10
Sex Francisco - 4 hrs.
N. Richard
1
=
"
E1 Sobrante
1
"
Del Morte - 17,771
Crescent City
2
Exreke - 5
Erreké - 15
Euroka - 4 hrs.
Klamath
1
"
.
Smith Fiver
1
⑉
E1 Divade = 29,390
Placerville
Sucremento Steckter - to Secremento StudEton 15 - 3 hrs.
Fresno - 365,945
Cealinga
2
Freeze - 15
Fréens - IS
Fredne - 4 hrs.
Fresno
9
"
"
"
E
Kintysburg
1
"
di
"
Reedley
1
"
-
"
Huron-Five Points
1
8
8
"
Riverdale
1
"
8
8
Glenn - 17,245
Or Land
Chice-Redding - 12
Chico-Moding - 15
Chice-Redding - 4 hrs.
Willows
"
"
:
Yes
Humbeldt - 104,892
Eureka
2
Eureka - 5
Eureka - 15
Enreka - 4 hrs.
Yes
Ferndale
r
"
"
W
Fortuna
2
If
"
90
Pepperwood
1
"
"
Gurberville
1
8
"
-
Page 3
COUNTY
OUTDOOR
TV SPOTS
Imperial - 72,105
Brawley
3
Calexice
2
E1 Centre
s
Imperial
1
Selton City
1
Iaye - 11,684
Bishop
1
Bigpine
1
Independence
1
Lone Pine
I
Olancha
1
Kers = 291,984
Bakersfield
8
Bakersfield - 17
Bakersfield - 15
Bakersfield - 4 hrs.
Yes
:
"
"
Ridgecrest
2
=
"
$
Shafter
3
1
2
:
to
Taft
:
-
:
Tehachapi
1
8
Wasco
1
.
#
#
2
M
#
"
Majave
Kings - 49,954
Heaford
2
Fresne - 15
Fresze - 15
Fresne - 4 hrs
Yes
1
R
"
8
Avenal
Los Angeles - 6,038,771
Alhambra
3 (2)
Los Angeles - 66
Les Angeles - 17
Les Angeles - 3K hrs.
Yes
E
"
8
Arcadia
(2)
"
W
N
Artesia
2
5
R
W
Amusa
(1)
Baldwin Park
$0.
"
2
Page 4.
CRENTY
OUTDON
TV.
Los Ange les (Contd.)
Roll
(1)
Les Augo - "
Los Angeles - 17
Las Angeles % hrs.
Hellflatter
1
-
or
8
Bell Gardens
1 (3)
Burboak
2 (20)
Yes
Compton
6 (13)
Covine
(1)
Calver City
5 (11)
The
I
3 (1)
Engle Back Area
(13)
East Les Angeles
7 (10)
East Whittier
E1 State
4 (5)
Cardine
2 (5)
Glendale
4 (8)
Yes
Cleadera
(1)
Martherne
6
Hermosa Beach
Yes
Highland Park
(b)
Hustington Park
2 (2)
Yes
Inglaweed
6 (4)
You
La Crescenta
(1)
Lancaster
3
La Puente
1
Lamidale
(3)
Lemits
(4)
Long Beach
(22)
Yes
Les Ange les
83 (196)
Yes
Lymnod
3 (1)
Mankattan Beach
Yes
Maywood
I (1)
La Miruda
1
Hearovin
Yes
Montebelle
1 (2)
Mentersy Park
(2)
Mentrese
(3)
Nerwalk
2 (1)
Page 5
I
THE
ILSUE
MAIL
I
(woutd.)
Pulmisle
3
Les Angeles "
1. Angeles - 17
1 # I 5.
$
7
Rivers
2
3
(3) at (1) (M)
I
4
@
Name
1
Yes = Yes =
Formando Valley
IS (21)
Gabriel
5
Marial
" Springs
1
Musica
5
Yes
Date
=
See
I
to City
@ 88 a E 8 ar a @a
1
1
Terrance
M
Yes
Whittier
6
Yes
Padre
1
Yes
Wilmington
3
Yes
Mist Canyon
Castaic
1
Goram
1
Littlgreek
1
Punrblesson
1
Most Les Angeles
4
Hostwood
1
(10)
Vedice
1
Insiadale
Businques
1 (3)
Northeast L.A.
(5)
E1 Serrene Arda
(3)
Inviadale
(2)
Carry
(2)
Mentelair
(2)
I
!
40,448
+ Freque - M
:- - IS
Freens - 4 -
Yes
146,000
Instruction
.
5
5
*
Yes
,
5,064
District 1
Proche B
= 15
France - 4 hrs.
Madesian -51,689
Willits
1
a
Calpella
1
Hopland
1
Fort Brogg
1
Marsua 90,446
I 3
2
Stankten - 3 ins.
Marced
5
::
Yes
Dos Pains
3
B
Musters. - 190,251
Costroville
1
Sulimas -.T
Salines:- 15
Salimas
2
- 65,090
Teps
1
Sep Execution - =
Sep Francisco - Sm Franchson -
it
-
shoul
TASK
1
29 Paims Carona Riverside Lime Blythe Limit - - -
: - 88° 38. 88% 18..38 38
i
ITEM I I
..............
-
#
to
11,400
Li =
11
200,191
Falm Springs
171
!!
K
$...
3....
MAY I THE 1
I
M
!
I
LIMITO
Secrements (coutd.)
Carmishnel
Incrumento
no
Del Past Neights
Folson
Neggistreed
Morth Righlands
North Sucrements
Teanche Cordova
17
South Superiments
San Regits - 15,396
Hellister
Salines 7
Salison If
Sen Permandine - 563,591
Barstow
2
Les Angelist - "
5
Celton
1 (2)
8
Fextana
1 (2)
Needles
2
Outario
(3)
Redlands
1 (1)
San Burnardine
10 (13)
Victorville
2
Baker
1
Daggett
1
Lemred
1
Trena-Argus
1
Yerme
1
Big Bear
1
Ora Grande
1
Cajon Junction
1
San Diess - 1,033,011
Chula-Vista
1
Sex Diago - =
Sex Riego = IS
Sex Biogo - are.
E1 Cajes
2
Excendide
1
La Mesa
2
Page ,
COUNTY
12
RADIO
I
San Diego (contd.)
National City
2
San Mago - so
San Biogo - 15
San Biogs - 2% hrs.
Yes
Occauside
#
Yes
San Diego
20
-
"
Yes
Vista
I
Jacamba
1
9
Note: Les Departs also covers the shire, both radio e TV.
Sen Francisco - 740,316
San Francisco
31
Sale Fransisco - 26
Sex Francisco - 10
for Francisco - 4 hrs.
Yes
San Luis Obispe - 81,044
Atascaders
Salinas-Say Luis Chispe -
E1 Pase de Robles
&
7 spots
Grover City
-
Merro Bay
-
San Luis Obispe
E
Sex Jenguin - 249,989
Ledi
1
Saturmate - 10
Secraments - 15
Secrements - 3 hrs.
Yes
Steckten
6
-
.
B
Yes
Clements
2
B
-
#
Escales
2
-
&
or
Ripen
1
-
"
$
San Nates - 444,367
Baly City
1
Sam Francisco - 26
Sam Francisco - 10
San Francisco - 4 hrs.
Reduped City
1
a
or
8
Yes
San Nates
6
a
w
Yes
!
- 160,962
Corporteria
Santa - 15
-
M
Senta - 1-8/4 los.
Condelope
#
5
a
w
R
Embern
Maria
=
Renta Class - 648,315
Cupartise
See Francisco - to
.
Gitrey
1
Salisas - 7
- :
I
Mountain View
Sea Frankisco - 24
Fale Alts
2
11
Sex Jose
14
Surryvale
- 84,219
Nateonville
2
Salines - T
Salines - is
Should - 59,468
Adderson
1
Chice-Redding - 12
- =
Chien-Relding - 4 hrs.
Redding
,
Yes
Signature - 2,247
Surraments - 10
thise-Redding - IS
inc. " 0
Siskiyes - 32,005
Yreka City
Chice-Redding - 12
Chice-Radding - 15
Chica-Redding - 4 hrs.
Yes
Selame - 134,597
Menicie
10 - 15 - 1. $
Dixes
"
Fairfield
Rie Vista
$
Vasaville
#
F
Vallejo
3
San Francisco - 26
- - n
San Frabelabe 4 Mrs.
You
Sex
Page 11
NEW
I
- - 147,375
Cloverdale
1
for Francisco - n
1
Petalum
1
- 26
Francisco
-
The
Senta Book
1
Schurtspel
1
1
Cetati.
1
Stanialam 157,294
Cases
4
-
Medicate
$
Yes
Turlook
$
Yes
Patternen
2
Housen
Butter - 23,200
Tube City
the
Chico-Redding - 15
Live Oak
1
Marysville
1
Tohana - 25,$05
Certing
1
Chies-Redding - If
Chice-Redding - 15
Chice-Modding - 4 m.
Yes
Red Bluff:
1
-
"
Yes
Les Malimas
1
Trinity - 9,706
Chice-Redding - 12
Chice-Redding - 15
- 4 hrs.
Inlure - 168,403
Harliment
1
Fresne - 15
Frome - 15
Freege - 4 hrs.
Lindsay
1
-
Tulare
2
8
#
Yes
I
im
Inlens (contd.)
Visalis
Woodlife
I
- 14,404
I are ,
Chrismer
E1 Rie
Fillaure
Mainers
Hearpark
Ojai
Orward
Pert Hussome
Senta Paxis
Thousand Other
Venture
Yele - 65,727
Woodland
1
Yula - 33,859
Marysville
Wheatland
1