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:
From Colson to Haldeman RE: Lou Harris's polling data on Ted Kennedy. Handwritten note added by unknown. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/25/1971
Copy of a memo from Colson to Haldeman RE: Lou Harris's polling data on Ted Kennedy. Handwritten note added by unknown. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/25/1971
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144557
label
WHSF: Contested, 3-37
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144557
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 3-37
description
This file contains:
From Colson to Haldeman RE: Lou Harris's polling data on Ted Kennedy. Handwritten note added by unknown. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/25/1971
Copy of a memo from Colson to Haldeman RE: Lou Harris's polling data on Ted Kennedy. Handwritten note added by unknown. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/25/1971
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144557
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c995e02981186070
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
3
37
6/25/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: Lou Harris's
polling data on Ted Kennedy. Handwritten
note added by unknown. 4 pgs.
3
37
6/25/1971
Campaign
Memo
Copy of a memo from Colson to Haldeman
RE: Lou Harris's polling data on Ted
Kennedy. Handwritten note added by
unknown. 4 pgs.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Page 1 of 1
9:3
document
with
June 25, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Lou Harris Poll
Lou Harris has done an indepth analysis of Ted Kennedy which
will be the subject of several Harris columns over the next
several weeks. The analysis is based on an indepth survey of
1614 eligible voters conducted between June 9 and 15.
It is Harris' considered judgment that Ted Kennedy, if nomin-
ated, will lose the election in a most divisive campaign. Harris
says there is a very unusual phenomenon with respect to the
Kennedy candidacy poll that doesn't occur with any other
Democrat; he arouses bitter hostility or ardent support but
rarely any lukewarm reactions.
Eight statements were presented to interviewees. Both answers
and then indepth comments were analyzed. Therefore, part of
the following is statistical and part of it is Harris' editorial analysis
of the comments.
On the strong side, Kennedy comes out 68-20 positive on the
question of whether he is a good senator who works hard. Harris
feels that he would be hard to attack on the issues or on his record
in the Senate.
A second positive point is that he is considered by a 51-34 rating "one
of the few politicians willing to take courageous stands on issues that
are before the country". Harris points out that this is a two edged
sword. People may admire his courage in opposing the Washington
police during May Day, for example, but still vote against him.
2.
It does not mean they agree with him. The breakdown of this
category goes as follows:
Catholics
60-26
Blacks
77-8
Young
52-34
College Educated 41-47 (a surprise)
Independents
47-40
In the next category, Harris asked a loaded, but highly significant,
question: "One day, he should run for President, but he's not ready
for it now. If The public agreed 58-29. The interpretation is that he
is considered a Presidential candidate but is also considered immature
and not ready for the Presidency now.
And the most important question of all: "Does he have the personality
and leadership qualities a President should have 34% say yes,
51 say no. Significantly, he is weakest on this in the West (27 yes,
62 no), among college educated (23-64) and among Independents (28-56).
Among youth he is 36-48 (a real surprise). In the East 38-46; Mid-West
38-47; South 31-52; among Catholics 43-42 and among WASP's 26-59.
Harris believes from analysing the comments and the raw numbers that
this is where Kennedy may be fatally vulnerable. A majority of the
people do not believe that he has the necessary qualities of leadership
to be President. (A very strong contrast can be drawn with the President).
In response to the question as to whether he has gotten where he is
because of his name, 57 agree and 35 disagree.
On the question of whether he is in the same league as his brothers,
48 agree 37 disagree.
In response to the question, "Although he denies it, he is really trying
to get the nomination", 44 agree 31 disagree.
Now, the shocker: "Because of what happened at Chappaquiddick, he
does not deserve the Presidency". 33 agree, 51 disagree. The breakdown
is:
Catholics
21-65
Blacks
12-69
WASP's
43-31
Republicans
50-34
Independents
32-51
Union Members
29-57
Democrats
26-60
This is, of course, a loaded question deliberately designed to find
out the "hard core" of people who would vote against Kennedy because
of Chappaquiddick. In other words, this question tells that one out of
three people and most importantly one in four Democrats believe
Chappaquiddick alone disqualifies him. On men and women, the
break is about the same except women over 50 seemed to be much
stronger on this issue.
Harris' analysis of Kennedy's candidacy obviously should be discounted
because he is trying so desperately to please us. He is convinced
today that Kennedy cannot be elected, that in a two-way race right
now, we would beat him (those figures have not yet been collated)
and that in the heat of a campaign his candidacy would generate bitter
antagonisms and divide the country, which would cause him to lose
ground.
Teddy's strength is in the East and upper mid-West. He is very weak
in the South and West. He is strong among Catholics and union members
(71% of union members are Catholics and it should be noted). So there
is considerable overlap. Harris believes that the religion issue is still
latently there; that it is different than 1960, but is still very much a
factor.
Harris says that Muskie is dropping somewhat and his basic support
is very soft. Humphrey was coming on strong, but Harris' personal
opinion is that the revelation of the Kennedy-Johnson papers will kill
him and that the next poll will reflect this.
One very surprising conclusion is that Kennedy is not as strong with
the young as had been expected and Harris urges that we do not give
up on the youth particularly if the war ends well before the next election.
Harris tells me that the gossip among his Democratic friends is that
it's now a Muskie-Kennedy race, but Jackson is getting no grass roots
appeal and that the McGoverns and Bayhs are out of it. He also says
that McGovern is clearly a Kennedy "front" and that without any question,
Kennedy's people are maneuvering him for the race. Harris feels that
the liberal left will give Kennedy an edge over Muskie, particularly in
view of the nature of the delegates to the convention.
4.
At the moment, in Harris' opinion, Muskie is a more viable opponent
than Kennedy, although Harris feels that if the economic issue shows
any upturn at all we'll beat either one of them. He believes that if
the economic upturn does not take place, we would still beat Kennedy,
for the reasons that the negatives are so strong that he simply cannot
command a majority.
As an aside, Harris believes that the economy has in fact turned up
but that the public today is more negative on the economy than it has
been in the last 18 months. He points out that historically, public
confidence in the economy lage behind the actual recovery by 6 months.
He said that this is precisely what happened in Englind. The economy
had recovered and Wilson timed the election for the economic recovery.
Theppublic attitudes hadn't yet caught up with the facts. If the election
had been 2 months later Harris believes Wilson would have been
re-elected (he may be just justifying his and Gallup's failure to call
It right).
One final point, Harris offers the advise that in a campaign against
Teddy, we should project a moderate, calm Nixon against the flaiming,
hot, devisive Teddy. Teddy should be made to appear strident and
immature, lacking in leadership qualities. This is where we must
exploit his vulnerability, but not slash back at him. We must rise
above him. Harris believewthat the doubters will swing to us in large
numbers near the end of the campaign, that the doubtful vote rarely
goes in large numbers to a candidate who engenders the kind of
strong negatives that Kennedy does. Against Muskie we would have
a very different situation. His blandness makes it difficult to draw
the kind of contrast we could draw with Kennedy.
I know you don't trust Harris; nor do L. I do think he is a better pollster
than some of us give him credit for, however, and I am also firmely
convinced that he wants desperately to weasel his way in with us and
that he honestly, for whatever motive, wants to see us re-elected.
President's File
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
P
June 25, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Lou Harris Poll
Lou Harris has done an indepth analysis of Ted Kennedy which
will be the subject of several Harris columns over the next
several weeks. The analysis is based on an indepth survey of
1614 eligible voters conducted between June 9 and 15.
It is Harris' considered judgment that Ted Kennedy, if nomin-
ated, will lose the election in a most divisive campaign. Harris
says there is a very unusual phenomenon with respect to the
-
Kennedy candidacy poll that doesn't occur with any other
Democrat; he arouses bitter hostility or ardent support but
rarely any lukewarm reactions.
Eight statements were presented to interviewees. Both answers
and then indepth comments were analyzed. Therefore, part of
the following is statistical and part of it is Hàrris' editorial analysis
of the comments.
On the strong side, Kennedy comes out 68-20 positive on the
question of whether he is a good senator who works hard. Harris
feels that he would be hard to attack on the issues or on his record
in the Senate.
A second positive point is that he is considered by a 51-34 rating "one
of the few politicians willing to take courageous stands on issues that
are before the country". Harris points out, that this is a two edged
sword. People may admire his courage in opposing the Washington
police during May Day, for example, but still vote against him.
2.
It does not mean they agree with him. The breakdown of this
category goes as follows:
Catholics
60-26
Blacks
77-8
Young
52-34
College Educated
41-47 (a surprise)
Independents
47-40
In the next category, Harris asked a loaded, but highly significant,
question: "One day, he should run for President, but he's not ready
for it now. 11 The public agreed 58-29. The interpretation is that he
is considered a Presidential candidate but is also considered immature
and not ready for the Presidency now.
And the most important question of all: "Does he have the personality
and leadership qualities a President should have ?" 34% say yes,
51 say no. Significantly, he is weakest on this in the West (27 yes,
62 no), among college educated (23-64) and among Independents (28-56).
Among youth he is 36-48 (a real surprise). In the East 38-46; Mid-West
38-47; South 31-52; among Catholics 43-42 and among WASP's 26-59.
Harris believes from analyzing the comments and the raw numbers that
this is where Kennedy may be fatally vulnerable. A majority of the
people do not believe that he has the necessary qualities of leadership
to be President. (A very strong contrast can be drawn with the President).
In response to the question as to whether he has gotten where he is
because of his name, 57 agree and 35 disagree.
On the question of whether he is in the same league as his brothers,
48 agree 37 disagree.
In response to the question, "Although he denies it, he is really trying
to get the nomination", 44 agree 31 disagree.
Now, the shocker: "Because of what happened at Chappaquiddick, he
does not deserve the Presidency". 33 agree, 51 disagree. The breakdown
is:
Catholics
21-65
Blacks
12-69
WASP's
43-31
Republicans
50-34
Independents
32-51
Union Members
29-57
Demociats
26-60
3.
This is, of course, a loaded question deliberately designed to find
out the "hard core" of people who would vote against Kennedy because
of Chappaquiddick. In other words, this question tells that one out of
three people and most importantly one in four Democrats believe
Chappaquiddick alone disqualifies him. On men and women, the
break is about the same except women over 50 seemed to be much
stronger on this issue.
Harris' analysis of Kennedy's candidacy obviously should be discounted
because he is trying so desperately to please us. He is convinced
today that Kennedy cannot be elected, that in a two-way race right
now, we would beat him (those figures have not yet been collated)
and that in the heat of a campaign his candidacy would generate bitter
antagonisms and divide the country, which would cause him to lose
ground.
Teddy's strength is in the East and upper mid-West. He is very weak
in the South and West. He is strong among Catholics and union members
(71% of union members are Catholics and it should be noted). So there
is considerable overlap. Harris believes that the religion issue is still
latently there; that it is different than 1960, but is still very much a
factor.
Harris says that Muskie is dropping somewhat and his basic support
is very soft. Humphrey was coming on strong, but Harris' personal
opinion is that the revelation of the Kennedy-Johnson papers will kill
him and that the next poll will reflect this.
One very surprising conclusion is that Kennedy is not as strong with
the young as had been expected and Harris urges that we do not give
up on the youth particularly if the war ends well before the next election.
Harris tells me that the gossip among his Democratic friends is that
it's now a Muskie-Kennedy race, but Jackson is getting no grass roots
appeal and that the McGoverns and Bayhs are out of it. He also says
that McGovern is clearly a Kennedy "front" and that without any question,
Kennedy's people are maneuvering him for the race. Harris feels that
the liberal left will give Kennedy an edge over Muskie, particularly in
view of the nature of the delegates to the convention.
4.
At the moment, in Harrial
opinion, Muskie is a more viable opponent
than Kennedy, although Harris feels that if the economic issue shows
any upturn at all we'll either one of them. He believes that if
the economic upturn does not take place, we would still beat Kennedy,
for the reasons that the
gatives are so strong that he simply cannot
command a majority.
As an aside, Harris believe
es that the economy has in fact turned up
but that the public today is
more negative on the economy than it has
been in the last 18 months
He points out that historically, public
confidence in the economy
lags behind the actual recovery by 6 months.
He said that this in precienly
what happened in England. The economy
had
recovered
and
Wilson
'imed the election for the economic recovery.
The public attitudes hadny
yet caught up with the facts. If the election
had been 2 months later
rris believes Wilson would have been
re-elected (he may be
justifying his and Gallup's failure to call
it right).
One final point, Harris fillers the advise that in a campaign against
Teddy, we should project
moderate, calm Nixon against the flaming,
hot, divisive Teddy.
should be made to appear strident and
immature, lacking in
rship qualities. This is where we must
exploit his vulnerability
not slash back at him. We must rise
above him. Harris believ
that the doubters will swing to us in large
numbers near the and of
campaign, that the doubtful vote rarely
goes in large numbers
candidate who engenders the kind of
strong negatives that
dy does. Against Muskie we would have
a very different situation.
His blandness makes it difficult to draw
the kind of contrast We
id draw with Kennedy.
I know you don't trust
s; nor do I. I do think he is a better pollster
than some of US give his
edit for, however, and I am also firmely
convinced that he wants
perately to weasel his way in with us and
that he honestly. for
er motive, wants to see us re-elected.