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 John Connally RE: the effective use of the Democrats for Nixon. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/31/1972
Record of a conversation between Colson and Jeno Paulucci RE: the Democrats for Nixon. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 8/3/1972
Record of a conversation between Dick Howard and Al Sindlinger RE: polling information on the election. Handwritten information added by unknown. 5 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 7/28/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144563
label
WHSF: Contested, 3-40
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144563
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 3-40
description
This file contains:
From Colson to John Connally RE: the effective use of the Democrats for Nixon. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/31/1972
Record of a conversation between Colson and Jeno Paulucci RE: the Democrats for Nixon. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 8/3/1972
Record of a conversation between Dick Howard and Al Sindlinger RE: polling information on the election. Handwritten information added by unknown. 5 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 7/28/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144563
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
baf1627796b12204
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
3
40
7/31/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to John Connally RE: the
effective use of the Democrats for Nixon. 1
pg.
3
40
8/3/1972
Campaign
Other Document
Record of a conversation between Colson
and Jeno Paulucci RE: the Democrats for
Nixon. 1 pg.
3
40
7/28/1972
Campaign
Other Document
Record of a conversation between Dick
Howard and Al Sindlinger RE: polling
information on the election. Handwritten
information added by unknown. 5 pgs.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Page 1 of 1
10:00 folder
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 31, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
HONORABLE JOHN CONNALLY
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
One problem we have (really not a problem but an opportunity)
are the Democrats for Nixon groups that are springing up all
over the country. It is a spontaneous thing. We got a call here
Friday that there was a breakfast meeting of Democrats for
Nixon political types in Baltimore on Sunday. Would we send
someone? I decided Don Rodgers was the only person who
could go. He is our in-house labor man and a Bronx Democrat.
The attached is his report to me which you will probably find
fascinating. Also attached is the brochure he talked from for
which there was a real clamor, as you will see. Maybe you
would want to think of something like this that could be distri-
buted. Rodgers' last paragraph, of course, reflects the fact
that he has no idea of what we are doing. He thinks he has
discovered the wheel!
Conversation with Jeno Paulucci, August 3, 1972
P: Brecter
he owns a TV station out of Orlando and he wired me saying,
"I have just wired to Hubert Humphrey as follows saying to Humphrey that
he should take the Vice President candidacy because of the fact that he
should be custodian for the others of us who don't agree withMcGovern. 11
So I wired Humphrey immediately, in fact I got the call while I was enroute
in the airplane and he talked to my secretary and wires him saying saying
I received a copy of Brecter's wire and I am violently opposed NEERMER to
your becoming a lackey to McGovern and that's exactly the way I feel and
C: That would be awful.
P: But I'll tell you something. I have
I talked to your people Lee Vann
and also I had D.J. Leary, who's an advance man for Hubert up the street
there in Washington yesterday afternoon asking about this and he said that
he has advised Hubert not to do it and then I got a call from Dwayne Andreas
a nd Dwayne said, well, gee, if Hubert accepts the Vice Presidency then I
can't help on the Democrats for Nixon and I said, well, yo're not serious
are you? And he said, sure I am. So, I'm very very upset to the extent
that as far as I'm concerned I'll even go stronger against McGovern and
Humphrey if he takes it, because the only way he would take it I know is the
fact that he's going to feel that this is the way thathe's going to pull the Party
together and
C: Gee, it's just the opposite.
P: Yea, well, the dumb son of a bit should have more respect for himself
and his wife than that.
C: Yea, and you know the trouble with
is is that he knows better than anybody,
as he Hubert, knows better than anybody, the Vice President has virtually no
influence on the President. What McGovern would love to do is to use him.
P: That's what I'm saying.
C: And he would use him and get him in here and he wouldn't give him a
P: He'd be a lackey worse than what he was with Lyndon Johnson.
C: Much worse, because he and Johnson were sympatico at least.
P: So I sincerely hope and pray that he doesn't do it, but you know, he's a funny
guy. I told him to his face that he lacked balls and anybody that comes over and
flatters a little bit, he's figuring he's going to be the elder statesman, he might
(Dick Howard)
Conversation with Al Sindlinger, July 28, 1972
H: I'm calling because we've gotten your indication, or at least your
poll. You must have released this to the Washington Post. That's the
only way
only place we can find it.
S: Wait until I tell you what happened. This is really funny. I don't know
which of the candidates is nuts. more nuts. I got a call from
this morning.
well, first of all, the Washington Post called me yesterday
and
I
gave
them.
I understand it got a bad story.
H: Well, it differs a little bit from what I think you told me. At least
the story does.
S: I haven't really heard what the story said.
H: The headline is "Poll Indicates Sympathy for Senator Eagleton" and
the first paragraph which tells the whole thing says
and I must
not have gotten that from you, at least you didn't imply that yesterday.
S: Well, whenI talked to you I wasn't sure yet. I came to that conclusion
after I saw what was happening. What's happening is incredible. Do
you have a few minutes? Get yourself some paper. Now, I'm going to
give you the date and then make a column which will be headed today,
yesterday and the next column will be past week. Now, I'm tabulating
this on a daily basis and went back and did it on a daily basis and I'm
going to do this on a daily basis. This is in response to you have the
copy of the questionnaire don't you? No, I didn't give it to you. This
is the question the last time talked about politics and those within the past
week, what was discussed? The figures, I'm going to start with July 14.
68. 8; past week 73. 8. July 15 64. 2; past week 71. 6. July 16 46. 1; past week
67. 4; July 17 37. 8; past week 63. 3; July 18 37. 5; past week 60. 8; July
19 31. 6; past web 58. 5; July 20 26. 5; past week 56. 9. Now that's still
pretty high.
H: What's the question again exactly worded? WXX
S: When was the last time you recall having any conversation or discussion
with anyone at home or away from home where you talked about politics
or anything about the current election campaign? Then, if the
and
we coded today, yesterday (which we combined) and, 3 to 7 days ago,
a week to a month ago, over a month ago, never and don't know.
Now among those people who have replied today or yesterday or within
the past seven days, what was discussed? Anything else? Now when
2.
anything conses up like Agnew or Connally or the Eagleton thing now,
we asked them was this discussion of a positive nature or a negative
nature.
H: Now, thenumbers you are giving me are the answers yes.
S: July 21 25. 2; past week 47. 4. July 22 9.8; past week 44. 5. July 23
27. 2; past week 41. 7. July 24 36. 5; past week 46. 9. July 25 52. 4;
past week 56. 9. July 26 68. 6; past week 79. 5. And 66. 7 was about
Eagleton which is about 91 million. July 27 73. 7; past week 82. 5 --
68. 7 was about Eagleton which is about 94 million. And yesterday's
interviewing (68. 7) about 60% is sympathy and about 30% is very
negative. But when I read you some other figures you will see what
is happening. So that is what I gave the Washington Post yesterday.
H: Okay, that's sympathy vote for Eagleton. How are you getting the
negative reaction towards McGovern and then how do you get in that
line that you told me yesterday that the President's position is being
favorably looked upon?
S: Now, I should have sent you these forms, but I forgot it. This e
are the five dimensions, now. The first dimension is the
self, who would you want most elected President if the election were
going to be held today? The response to that was
this was july 14
through 26. And the total sample is 4103.
McGovern 28. 6
Nixon 49. 5
Other 2% (almost all Wallace)
Dont'know 10. 2
No Opinion 9.7
Who do you think most other people want as their President?
(Dimension #2)
McGovern 24. 3
Nixon 50. 9
Other H 0
Dont' know 18. 8
No Opinion 5.9
Dimension #3: Who do you think will actually be elected in November
McGovern 25. 2
Nixon 55. 3
Don't know 16. 1
No opinion 3. 4
3.
Now based on yesterday's interviewing by itself and this sample size
is too small to draw any conclusions from.
(Dimension #3)
Nixon la comes up to about 73 on males and about 63 on females and
McGovern is going to be about 19 or 20.
H: And that basically is what you gave to the Washington Post.
S: I didn't give them the figures.
H: Well, the very kindly left out the postive response for the President.
S: That's interesting because I made that point. I made that point.
H: Well, it's very strong sympathy for Eagleton and a negative reaction
towards McGovern but they very carefully word it so that there is nd hing
positive for the President bout it, which I guess is okay.
S: Well, it doesn't affect the public though. Now here the 4th Dimension:
and this is based on the plan to vote X and I don't have thepercentages
but I have the projected numbers. This is cross tabulation of 1) the
76, 404//////////frst dimension by those who plan to vote.
McGovern 41. 5
Nixon 55. 3
Don't know 2.4
No opinon 0. 9
5th Dimension -- Plan to vote and who self plans to vote for ?
The difference betwene this are people who are saying I want Nixon
to be elected, but I don't plan to vote for him or I won't vote for a
Republican.
McGonver 44. 5
Nixon 52. 1
Don'know 2.5
No Opinion 0.9
Now those two dimensions are going to shift radically.
H: Welal, that helps explain a little more than the Washington Post
explained it.
S: They left off all the positive aspects?
4.
H: That's interesting watchi g that reaction, especially the amount
people are talking about now.
S: I got this call from Bennett this morning on the Washington Post story
and he wanted some clarification which I repeated. Bennett is Eagleton's
assistant in Washington. So he transmitted it to Eagleton and I understand
he was at a press conference and I said, you know, you're not a client
so, for God's sakes, don't quote me. Eagleton, the ass, not only quotes
me, but gives out our tèephone number and we've got all our incoming
lines all jammed up.
H: Is that right? Well, he's coming on very strong stating that he's
going to hold.
S: Well, I think he should stay inthere for your sake.
H: We do too. We're on the same track again.
S: Just a little strategy. Eagleton called me this morning and wanted to
know what bxex I thought he should do. I said, well, fight it out and I
don't want anyone else on there. I don't want Wilbur Mills on there.
H: Okay, I wanted to get that.
S: I had lunch with Wilbur last Thursday and he. I told you what he
said
H: Yes
S: I told Colson and he is so goddamned mad that he can't eventhink
straight. This would be the choice.
H: Well, so maybe he will hold on.
S: You see, the thing that is going to help him is Anderson yesterday.
That was below the belt and people recognize that. And he's got a
minority group of insane and drunks that would elect any President.
H: That's well put. Okay, I have to get this all down now so I can
explain it. Pretty clear.
S: One more second. The purpose of the 5 dimensions -- the first one
is to get the overall popularity of everybody. The second one is to
measure the influence of word of mouth. The third one is to say, how
does it look? And the fourth is a cross tab of the 1st question by plan to
vote so we can see who those people are that would like to have the
President elected but won't vote for him. Now, historically the forth
5.
dimension has been the most accurate. We were off 167, 000 votes
four years ago.
H: Good, Al, I've got a lot of stuff here. Let me get it down so we can
explain it. Thanks very much for your time.