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:
Copy of a memo from Colson to Haldeman RE: Harris's latest analysis of Democratic candidates. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 12/1/1970
Sheet of notes relaying information on what demographics favor Muskie, Kennedy, or Humphrey within the Democratic Party. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
Notes on various candidates in the 1972 presidential campaign, including polling information from Harris, general strategies, and ways to keep anti-RN Republicans in check. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
An analysis of McGovern's campaign strategies, ways to counter them, and themes for RN to follow during the election season. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], no date
Record of a conversation between Colson and Harris RE: polling numbers on Muskie and Wallace. Handwritten note added by unknown. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 2/28/1972
From Colson to Haldeman presenting the latest polling data from Harris. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/11/1972
From Colson to Strachan RE: Harris's reaction to a "New York Times" article written by a DNC staffer. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/19/1971
From Colson to Haldeman RE: Harris polls comparing RN to various Democratic candidates for the presidency. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/12/1971
From Colson to Haldeman RE: polling data relating to RN's performance as president and the upcoming election. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/4/1971
Record of a conversation between Colson and Harris RE: poll figures from trial heats involving Muskie, Wallace, McCarthy, and RN. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 10/7/1971
From Colson to Haldeman RE: terms used by Harris in his poll reports. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 9/19/1970
Record of a conversation between Harris and Colson RE: Harris's reporting of data and role in the campaign. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 3/16/1971
From Colson to Haldeman presenting highlights from a meeting with Cashen, Lufkin, and Harris. 2 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 10/28/1970
From Colson "for the File" RE: Harris's advice for RN during the election. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/3/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144613
label
WHSF: Contested, 3-65
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144613
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 3-65
description
This file contains:
Copy of a memo from Colson to Haldeman RE: Harris's latest analysis of Democratic candidates. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 12/1/1970
Sheet of notes relaying information on what demographics favor Muskie, Kennedy, or Humphrey within the Democratic Party. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
Notes on various candidates in the 1972 presidential campaign, including polling information from Harris, general strategies, and ways to keep anti-RN Republicans in check. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
An analysis of McGovern's campaign strategies, ways to counter them, and themes for RN to follow during the election season. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], no date
Record of a conversation between Colson and Harris RE: polling numbers on Muskie and Wallace. Handwritten note added by unknown. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 2/28/1972
From Colson to Haldeman presenting the latest polling data from Harris. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/11/1972
From Colson to Strachan RE: Harris's reaction to a "New York Times" article written by a DNC staffer. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/19/1971
From Colson to Haldeman RE: Harris polls comparing RN to various Democratic candidates for the presidency. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/12/1971
From Colson to Haldeman RE: polling data relating to RN's performance as president and the upcoming election. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/4/1971
Record of a conversation between Colson and Harris RE: poll figures from trial heats involving Muskie, Wallace, McCarthy, and RN. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 10/7/1971
From Colson to Haldeman RE: terms used by Harris in his poll reports. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 9/19/1970
Record of a conversation between Harris and Colson RE: Harris's reporting of data and role in the campaign. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 3/16/1971
From Colson to Haldeman presenting highlights from a meeting with Cashen, Lufkin, and Harris. 2 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 10/28/1970
From Colson "for the File" RE: Harris's advice for RN during the election. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/3/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144613
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
b9b9b6e3328781e6
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
3
65
12/1/1970
Campaign
Memo
Copy of a memo from Colson to Haldeman
RE: Harris's latest analysis of Democratic
candidates. 2 pgs.
3
65
>
Campaign
Other Document
Sheet of notes relaying information on what
demographics favor Muskie, Kennedy, or
Humphrey within the Democratic Party. 1 pg.
3
65
Campaign
Other Document
Notes on various candidates in the 1972
presidential campaign, including polling
information from Harris, general strategies,
and ways to keep anti-RN Republicans in
check. 3 pgs.
3
65
Campaign
Report
An analysis of McGovern's campaign
strategies, ways to counter them, and themes
for RN to follow during the election season.
6 pgs.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Page 1 of 3
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
3
65
2/28/1972
Campaign
Other Document
Record of a conversation between Colson
and Harris RE: polling numbers on Muskie
and Wallace. Handwritten note added by
unknown. 2 pgs.
3
65
1/11/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman presenting the
latest polling data from Harris. 4 pgs.
3
65
11/19/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Strachan RE: Harris's
reaction to a "New York Times" article
written by a DNC staffer. 1 pg.
3
65
7/12/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: Harris polls
comparing RN to various Democratic
candidates for the presidency. 2 pgs.
3
65
5/4/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: polling data
relating to RN's performance as president
and the upcoming election. 1 pg.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Page 2 of 3
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
3
65
10/7/1971
Campaign
Other Document
Record of a conversation between Colson
and Harris RE: poll figures from trial heats
involving Muskie, Wallace, McCarthy, and
RN. 3 pgs.
3
65
9/19/1970
White House Staff
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: terms used by
Harris in his poll reports. 1 pg.
3
65
3/16/1971
Campaign
Other Document
Record of a conversation between Harris and
Colson RE: Harris's reporting of data and
role in the campaign. 3 pgs.
3
65
10/28/1970
White House Staff
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman presenting
highlights from a meeting with Cashen,
Lufkin, and Harris. 2 pgs.
3
65
4/3/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson "for the File" RE: Harris's
advice for RN during the election. 4 pgs.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Page 3 of 3
Hamis file pall
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. CONFIDENTIAL
December 1, 1970
By NARS, Date 3/10/82
MEMORANDUM FOR H.R. HALDEMAN
The President asked me yesterday to talk to Dan Lufkin regarding the
latest Harris Poll. I did so. Lufkin talked to Harris, which doesn't
help with this one but keeps some pressure on for the future.
I am convinced that Harris will jab us everytime he can; it is some-
what significant that in yesterday's poll on the impact of the Presi-
dent's campaigning, Harris did not publish a positive/negative break-
down. For the first time he printed all four categories of response.
This is one of the promises, you may remember, that we extracted
from him.
Following my conversation with Lufkin, and at his request, I called
Harris directly last evening. He gave me a very interesting analysis
of the poll.
Kennedy, Humphrey and Lindsay all run strong with cortain groups,
badly with others. For example, Kennedy does poorly with older
voters, Humphrey badly with younger voters. Lindsay does well in
the suburbs, Kennedy does not. Kennedy runs very badly in the south
and border states, Humphrey not so bad. Kennedy does well with the
Catholics. In short, each of the three arouse strong support in certain
areas but strong animosity in others.
What distinguishes Muskie and what causes him to run stronger --
is that he does not have the areas of opposition that the other potential
candidates do. In addition to holding the Democratic strength, he also
picks up Republican and Independent votes in the higher income brackets
which the other candidates do not.
Muskie, while he benefits from not having the liabilities of the other
candidates, also inspires no enthusiasm. The underlying poll data
(interviewee impressions) show that his support is very soft. Harris
describes it as "passable;" he is an accommodating candidate, no one
is really excited about him either way.
From this Harris concludes that when the infighting begins Muskie's
soft support will not hold up (Harris gave me some gratuitous political
advice to the effect that we should continue to push Muskie to the loft).
-2-
Harris further concludes that in any two-way race no candidate against
the President could get more than 45-46% of the vote, except Muskie
at this time but Harris does not believe that Muskie's support will
continue at this level.
Harris is doing another analysis which will be released next week,
It shows the President doing as well today as he did in 1968 with
virtually every group and with each geographical area except in the
middle west where the President's support is badly off from the 1968
levels.
Harris believes that the mid-west has been particularly affected by a
recessionary psychology, farmer discontent and the GM strike. He
regards this as a "special situation" and concludes that because of
the basic Republicanism of the mid-west, we will be able to recover
our support there.
The point of his analysis which ho says he will make publicly (I will
believe it when he does) is that the President is in very good shape
when his present support is compared to his 1968 performance except
in the mid-west where he believes that the damage will be repaired.
Charles W. Colson
alaskie
only Democrat
EMK + HH H getting Tradilinia
Denu Strength
Blacks,
lower income
union
dies in
Submbs tolder
Catweics (EMK better than
bad in boldy fates
s
EMK-YOLM9-/1HHH HHH.) H with order-
Lindsay nume wou with Submits,
unner income
young blaws -
Mus kie - muskie is soft- kind of passable -
mus weu with over p 15,000
Musice qets eis . m mg 5
does well with all code going
Emx load with old -
enewing
gets with Inditional
Republican independents
accoun adviting, nuture them insturing
RN does well with 9 coup after group-
about where he was in 68 with
Bolder 8 sales
everywhere else is the same
middle west is down - does
badly against all of them -
Damis
you Hairs Tile
P Says Dve Shent these 4 Years
on what was most
urgent www D'll do ou domestic
Scene what D 've done on
Foregn level -
we haven't done as good a Job
on to Deners Sic side as I
would like but how I can
1
ausconfidence - lets people vote
Democratic without worming dear
this candidate who worries them
withous fear he miqur get e lecteds-
- also Veeps Repuldicans as
home -
make imm priming vote decide cowd tw 65im"
P unioi NOT be studen T
Veepon high Plane -
also should not use due U.P.
Candidate to attack Mc Govem - -
Savage - disagree with
solatimist I'mo
Personalize
t
Banny Goldwater can lead
due vicious arrack 6Poup-
Reagan
Rocvefeller Can Dave him on on Nat
Defense
Gumally finapal athaever -
one 6 moves to canta
Do of X we avaces arc6 as a Pol
who sust shifts, with winds or Do
we have him withoug in as radical
Positions -
RN is candidate for "change "(pround'un Policy forgu
Mc6 is bloud
fundamental issue -
R should Present & Mc6's ground
Kif mc6 goes to the Center -
always fromise tommon - will
do So much morein hext form -
Mc6 looks wring when he talks
Bread d Butter issues - talu Tabe
of personal impact of his economic
proposals- -
/
,
Lacu of real credibility on econom LC
issues - bust doesn't fit him
Draw Mc Govern out on Economic
issues -
hever let him Suck us'into his issues
or his ground- -
This election is stranger than nearly any other in American history.
It is possible for President Nixon to win the popular vote and lose the
electoral vote assuming a minimum 60-40 Nixon victory in the South
and a McGovern lead of 54-46 in the East, 52-48 in the Mid-West and
54-46 in the West. Nixon can achieve 50. 1 percent of the vote and lose
the election. This is a direct reversal of the prevalent situation in the
1930s in FDR's time.
McGovern can win in a five-prong campaign. He can use the theme
that it is a time of deep change in America, a time to end hypocrisy in
high places and a time to end the dominance of the rich and powerful in
this country -- especially the dominance of big business. (When we
recently asked which is more important, to crack down on big corporations
who might evade taxes and cause pollution or to crack down on student,
Vietnam'and militant black protesters, by 58 to 39 percent the public
answered back, crack down on big corporations.)
The five prongs of the McGovern campaign could be:
1. Tax reform with higher taxes for upper income people and
corporations, coupled with lower taxes for lower income people
(favored by an overwhelming 90-6 percent. )
2. Cut defense spending, favored by 59 to 30.
3. Legalize abortion, favored by 48-43. Significantly the following
groups favored legalized abortion up to 4 months of pregnancy:
$15, 000+, 62-33; college educated, 62-33; 18-29 year olds, 64-31;
Independents, 58-34; Jewish, 72-19; 30-49 year olds, 51-42; union
members, 47-43. However, catholics oppose abortion by 54-37 as do
Midwesterners by 48-42. The 54-37 catholic opposition is very close
to the current 54-36 lead of Nixon over McGovern on the vote.
McGovern can claim to be taking a politically courageous stand on
abortion and in the process firm up precisely the swing groups
which can make the difference. McGovern could go further to
show courage in taking an unpopular position by strongly advocating
amnesty for draft evaders who fled the country, opposed nationwide
by 58-33. However, such amnesty is favored by 18-29 voters 55-39;
by Jewish 62-27; and by the college educated 49-46. He could do
the same in an even more effective way by advocating and easing
the penalties for the use of marijuana, opposed nationally 54-40.
2.
However, such an easing of penalties is favored by $15, 000 and over
by 49-46 percent. Independent voters 51-43; 18-29 voters 61-36;
suburban voters 48-45; college educated 57-37; by Jewish 65-32%.
In other words, a grave danger is that by taking what seems to be
a stand designed to lose him votes, McGovern in fact can be firming
up precisely those swing votes which will put him within striking
distance of victory.
4. Draw out President Nixon and especially Vice President Agnew to
make savage frontal assaults on McGovern, on protesters, amnesty,
marijuana and permissiveness all of which would firm up the
high income, the educated, the suburban, the young and the indepen-
dent vote to go for McGovern. Then he could come in positively on
abortion and defense spending to achieve majority support to go
with these key groups.
5. He could make his bread and butter or pork chop appeal among the
union vote and Catholic voters on the tax reform issue.
The five-prong strategy can be thwarted in these ways:
1. For Nixon to say that he has dared to try drastic changes abroad
in the foreign policy and it has begun to work. He is not afraid of
change at home as the price-wage freeze last August indicated.
And now he wants to have the chance to do at home what he has
done abroad.
2. Put an immediate freeze or crackdown right away on food processers,
prices and profits. The public does not blame farmers for high food
prices, they do blame food processers and the middle man. In
addition, advocate four or five tough tax reform measures that are
patently anti-business. This will thwart McGovern's prong of making
business the whipping post.
3. Point up how defense spending has come down as a percent of the
federal budget. Yet at the same time, point up that this has been done
without decimating the U.S. defense shield and guard.
4. Lay off taking McGovern on the amnesty and marijuana issues.
5. Advocate desegregation in education and in other parts of our
national life but also say that busing is the wrong way to do it because
busing not only will harden the opposition to desegregation but will
also delay other effective steps which can increase the likelihood of
success for racial progress.
3.
6. Openly advocate aid to parochial schools, but leave to others to
use the abortion issue.
7. For union members take the line that in no way will we apologize
for the price-wage freeze. Emphasize that the purpose of that
freeze and the controls programmed to follow was to protect the
pocketbook of the working man by cracking down on excessive
prices SO that wages and salaries would have some buying power.
(Consistently over 80% would rather have price and wage restraint
than to take their chances on unrestrained wages and prices.)
How Nixon Can Win
There are two key sets of groups that can overturn this election:
One, the swing vote made up of independents, the college educated,
suburbanites, the young and the $15, 000+ income group.
This group can be worked on by emphasizing that the President has
changed the outlook in the world in four years from war to peace.
(Note the President's rating on working for peace has gone from
38 to 74% positive among these groups since a year ago July.)
A second approach to this same group is to raise the hope that as
much can be doneinthe next 4 years at home as has been done to pro-
duce a beginning toward peace abroad. Fundamentally, this swing
group can be affected by an appeal that the quality of life can be
improved at home through environmental control, consumer protection,
racial and educational progress and welfare reform. Note: almost
all of the front and center rhetoric of the campaign should be directed
toward these groups.
Two, traditional Democrats make up the second key group. These are
to be found in the South which can be handled essentially quietly simply
by having the Vice President campaign continuously but in a low key
He is enough of a symbol there to do the job. The second strand of
traditional Democrats are the union members. Here the President grust
make a pledge to cut unemployment, but also not depart from the basic
theme that it is better to get prices down to protect the worth of wages
than to allow every man for himself on price and wage increases. A
third Democratic group are Catholics who can be directly but quietly
appealed to on the aid to parochial schools issue, but again not in a front
and center way.
4.
Basic Nixon Theme
The President should advocate over and over again that he stands four-
square for change but change that works. The theme of change that
works can be powerful for it opts the change mood of the country and at
the same time points up the difference between the practical, pragmatic
approach President Nixon makes as opposed to the pie-in-the-sky McGovern's
easy promises.
Specifically the President should say that he has promised to work for
peace and that he has moved toward a formidable means to achieve peace,
but this has not been done through easy promises, but rather by dint of
hard, tough negotiation. What is more, this is only the beginning; there
is much more ahead. For example, there is a long road to go still on
arms control. And we have only begun to take the long positive road to
economic growth and the use of American resources in the world through
expanded trade for peaceful approach and unbounded good for all of the
people of the earth. These beginnings for peace have not been produced
by America giving in nor by America begging, but rather through firm
negotiations always from strength. We have sought out common areas of
agreement with mutual benefit for both ourselves and the communists. But
above all else, underlying all of the moves for peace has been the element
of mutual respect.
Now, the beginnings made abroad are precisely what must be done in
the next four years here at home. First and foremost, the state of the
economy. The President got tough last August with the price-wage freeze
and is being tough again this August with the food processer crack-down.
We have made a start toward recovery of the economy; that is not yet
good enough. There could be unbounded hope for economic growth at
home in the next four years.
The President should advocate tough tax reform, not of the pie-in-the-
sky variety, but change that works. There must be 4 or 5 concrete measures
advocating. Warning should be served on business that it will be rewarded
as an incentive to produce and grow and to expand, but there will be no
incentive for business to fail to share the wealth with all segments of the
American people.
The President should also pledge in the next four years to improve the
quality of life, that we should stop attacking each other and should start
attacking our common problems. These include air and water pollution,
5.
adequate health care within the means of each family, expanded educa-
tional opportunity and progress toward achieving racial equality. A
pledge can be made to dedicate the resources which formerly were used
for war to improve the quality of life. These would be peace dividends
for the American people.
Others may promise the sun and the stars, I'll pledge only to move us
forward. Others may talk of sweeping change, I will pledge only to produce
change that works Others may talk of radical income distribution, I will
pledge only an economy that works for better living standards for all and
keeps open the doors of opportunity for initiative, competence and unstinting
effort toward excellence to be rewarded. Others may talk of easy cuts in
defense spending, I will only pledge arms reduction that also keeps the
peace. Others may talk of telling America to go back home, but I say let us
go out America to help ourselves and all the world find peace and a better
life.
There is a basic morality at stake in this Presidential campaign. I
say the next President must make a moral compact with the American
people to achieve peace in the world and a chance to fight for a better
quality of life at home. There is a call of greatness in that moral compact.
It is not born of ringing words, but of hard won achievements step by step,
piece by piece. But, greatness can never be yours to describe the easy
promise, only the hard won results. The only change that counts is the
change that works.
This election is basic and historic because the American people have
a clear choice: between promise of forward progress that works or those
who would come in with social and political experimentation, founded on
protest, but in fact a retreat from America's role inthe world and founded
on catering to the fashionable fads of the moment at home. I pledge change,
but change rooted in reality, not fantasy, change that changes people's lives
for good, not change that ends up pitting one group against another.
I ask a simple compact: give me your trust; your help and a limitless
world of hope lies ahead. Mistakes have been made and others will be made
in the future. Change that works is not achieved without its failures, but
I will not hesitate to try change that works, but always on a sound base. I
know what it is to hew out progress for peace. I know it is not easy. I ask
for a mandate of change that works. Give me your message. Give me your
trust for another moral compact for four more years.
6.
Caveats:
1.
Do not go after McGovern directly or personally.
2.
Defuse the tax reform and defense issues.
3.
Do not make blatant appeals on what has been done or can be done
for various groups.
4.
Above all, do not defend the status quo.
5.
Do not engage in savage attacks that can be accused of going for the
jugular.
6.
Always indicate an urgent sense that there is so much yet to do and so
little time to do it.
7. Richard Nixon can win with the cleanest campaign in history.
(conversation may not be totally accurate bad connection)
Conversation with Lou Harris, February 28, 1972
C:
yea, I'd be interested in the actual number
H. I told him I'd kill him if he blew anything on this piece. He sure
is
that Wallace is taking from the Democrats
You know what
I think the other guys did ? Did I tell you that ? I think they' re taking
the '68 Wallace vote and when you do that you find that right here the
President comes out with 24% and Muskie 17%. That's when you take
the '72 Wallace vote it's a different vote.
C: Yea, it's moreof a protest.
H. It's an anti-establishment vote Those are the people who don't
like anything about the establishment and let's face it, the President
is the establishment. Here's the
Nixon 42, Muskie 36, Wallace 10,
McCarthy 8
C: So he does take a little away from the President, doesn't he ?
H: Well, no. Muskie has a net loss of two.
C: No, Muskie has a net loss
the President has a net loss of 2, Muskie
has a net loss of 4.
H. Yea, 4 against 2. What it is, God it's a crazy quilt pattern McCarthy,
but he's a crazy candidate, you know. And I'll tell you exactly where it
is. It's in the West that he takesaway from the President. McCarthy
goes 13 percent. Of that, well, if you take it on the two way, the President
is at 49
42, in a two way in the West. It goes down to, oh no, it's
all out of Muskie, 42-27. Let's see, where does he take it from the
President. In the South, it's Wallace. Oddly enough he gets 8 from the
South and some of that's from the President and some from Muskie. The
Mid-West he gets 9 and that's, 3 of that's away from the President. The
East hardly at all, down one. But McCarthy's one of those unorthodox
candidates who doesn't run on party lines. But see among the 15, 000
he only gets 7% there. He cuts 3 off the President. The young, they
really chop up Muskie. He goes from 42 to 29 among the 18-20 year olds.
In the 20-29 he goes from 45 to 35. They're Wallace on one side and
McCarthy and the others just chopped to pieces. It's just fascinating.
But I guess McCarthy always had an appeal once he's a college educated.
He gets 9 percent; the President goes from 50% to 48, but Muskie goes
from 38 to 31; Wallace goes from 7 to 8. A four way race Wallace is
stronger than he is in a 3 way. I think the reason is it just busts party
lines to hell. But, overall the President's 2 percent better. And my
2.
is that it would turn out to be more than that. I think it would be a 10
point.
C: Before it was over it would be.
H: The President wins by 10 points. And, don't count McCarthy out.
He's just crazy enough to do it. Incidentally, on that,a guide very close
to Howard Stein if you want is Alan Greenspan. C:Oh really ?
H: Yea, he's on the board.
C: I guess I did know that. I'd forgotten it, however. That's damn
helpful.
H: You might do some work on that. If you want to keep McCarthy in.
And Alan would play ball I think.
C: Oh sure.
we - FYI
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 11, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Latest Harris Poll
The latest Harris Poll was conducted December 28 through January 4
(ironically I urged this date upon Harris. I obviously did not know
that the bombing was going to be resumed during the week after
Christmas. My preference for the week was based upon the fact
that we had a lot of good year-end stuff, good TV the week before
Christmas and that we had really put the Congress down a point
that was coming through in the media. I was also influenced by the
Time "Man of the Year" Award. In any event, it turned out to be a
very bad call time-wise).
On the trial heats it is Nixon 42, Muskie 42, Wallace 11. In a two way
race, it is Muskie 48, Nixon 45. The Wallace vote, in other words,
takes 2 away from Muskie for every one he takes away from us. Harris
will not publish this information. He gives it to us for our guidance but
agreed with me that it would be better not printed. It should be noted
that all year long it has been the conclusion from the Harris data that
Wallace was hurting Muskie more than us.
Harris will print the Muskie trial heat next week. We had discussed
whether it would be better to wait awhile, but then we should get it out
of the way, hopefully letting the President rise again in the polls the
next time around. My thought was that it would be very bad to have
this come out in February because people look at the publication date,
they don't look at the date the poll was taken.
Against other candidates, our standing is relatively unchanged. It
is Nixon 46, Humphrey 37, Wallace 12 and, in a two way race, Nixon 51,
Humphrey 40. Against Kennedy, it is Nixon 45, Kennedy 39, Wallace 10,
and, in a two way race, Nixon 50, Kennedy 41.
2.
In the case of the Muskie gain, the big shift has taken place in the $15, 000
and over category the white professional upper middle class suburban-
ites. In early November, we were 53-37 over Muskie with this vote.
Now it is 45-42. We only have a slight lead. This once again, has been
all year long the most volatile group. It swings back and forth. Muskie
is the only Democrat who can make inroads with this group and when-
ever he does he surges ahead in the polls. Neither the Kennedy-Humphrey
or any of the others seem to be able to make any dent in this group which
is critical to us and which is growing by leaps and bounds.
There was also a shift with the young people. Undoubtedly it was attri-
butable to the bombing. We lost a little bit of ground in rural areas
which Harris believes could be the bad attitude among small farmers
at the moment.
Harris attributes all of this to the India-Pakistan situation, as to the
handling of which we have a 28 positive and 48 negative rating. This
is very low, particularly in a foreign policy area where we have come
out the strongest in all of the Harris ratings. Significantly all of the
other foreign policy ratings are down as well. Harris' theory is that
when we are affected badly in one foreign policy area it rubs off on all
others. On handling Vietnam it is 40 positive, 54 negative, Working
for peace in the world is now 51 positive, 44 negative. It was in
September 64 positive, 34 negative. In the foreign policy ratings,
there are large "not sures" indicating there has been a real slippage
here.
Harris does not believe, with the exception of the young voter, that the
bombings caused the problem; he argues that it was India-Pakistan.
Personally I disagree with him although he supports his case by pointing
out that on handling Vietnam we did not show the same deterioration we,
did in all other areas. Harris believes that people got concerned over
India-Pakistan, that maybe it would upset our initiatives with China and
Russia and the general idea of achieving peace in the world. This is
where he feels we were hurt. Also, the college educated, higher income
groups would be much more sensitive to the sophisticated issues involved
in the India-Pakistan controversy.
Just for purposes of comparison, in the over $15,000 group the President
beats Kennedy 57-32 and Humphrey 56-29. It is in this area that the
entire difference with our standing, vis a vis, Muskie, can be found.
3.
Also this is a group which does turn out to vote and which, as I pointed
out, is an increasing share of the electorate. Hence, it can be critically
important and there is a good lesson from all of this. That is, that
Muskie is the one Democrat who can seriously penetrate this group.
On the positive-negative rating, we have dropped from 53-46 to 49-47.
Harris will not feature this in a column but will bury it in statistics
in a column relating to something else. It should be noted that this is
not really much of a decline. All of the published Harris poll data of
recent weeks has related to a combination of two polls. One taken the
last week in October and one taken in the second week in November.
We suffered a precipitous decline in between the two polls and rather
than show us up one week and down the next, Harris, at my suggestion,
combined the poll data. Hence, the 53-47 was really a lot better than
where we actually were in mid-November. In the November poll, if
that were broken out separately, we actually had about a 49-47 rating
or just what we had in the latest poll.
There was some bright news on the economy. In all categories he showed
significant improvement. For example, on the key question "Are the
Nixon economic policies keeping the economy healthy", in July WC
were 22 positive, 73 negative. In November, 34 positive, 60 negative
and now in the latest January poll, 38 positive and 56 negative still
not good but the trend is coming up very well. In terms of keeping
unemployment down we now get a 26 positive, 66 negative (in July it
was 16 positive, 77 negative). For the first time in two years, a majority
do not think that prices are rising more rapidly than before. In response
to the question "Is the country in a recession ?", today 49 percent say
yes, 33 no, In November, it was 56 yes, 27 no. In August it was
62 yes, 24 no; In March it was 65 yes and 21 no. Again, the figures
aren't good, but the trend is excellent. A majority feel now that there
will not be a recession next year by a 35-31 score. This is a complete
reversal of the response received to the same question last summer.
The key question politically on the economy is "Are the Nixon economic
policies doing more good than harm?" The reply to that is now 48 doing
more good than harm, 27 doing more harm than good. Once again, a
complete reversal from the position last summer.
Of passing interest, people by a 66 to 20 margin favor keeping controls
for another year. Harris honestly believes that Muskie's rise in the polls
4.
is a temporary "blip". The fact that he appears to have a lot of momentum
(and in Harris' opinion does have a lot of momentum) has been getting a
lot of publicity and doing very well in terms of his public image contrasted
with an unsettling period in foreign affairs for us has brought him even
with us again, but Harris does not feel it will last because on the issues
and on handling the key issues we turn out much better.
Harris believes the following to be most significant:
Which candidates do you believe can do a better job with respect to the
following issues ?
Nixon
Muskie
Wallace
None
Not Sure
Working for peace
39
34
8
3
16
Keeping the economy healthy
38
32
8
3
19
End to Vietnam fastest
36
30
11
4
19
Trust most personally as the
man in the White House
36
33
9
4
18
Keep down taxes and spending
35
29
10
6
20
Race and civil rights
30
31
14
3
19
Solving problems of the poor
30
35
10
4
21
Crime - law and order
31
30
18
3
18
Air and water pollution
31
36
8
4
21
Health and education
34
34
9
2
21
NOTE: The foregoing was dictated by Mr. Colson over the telephone. It
is very rough and rambling but at least gives the raw data of the latest
Harris sample.
November 19, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Attached article in New York magazine
Lou Harris is incensed over the New York magazine article suggesting
that he wrote a confidential report for Larry O'Brien. New York is
printing a retraction.
The report in question was written by a staff member at the DNC and
was a poll summary and analysis based on the Harris and Gallup polls.
Harris was unaware of its existence until he read the article in New
York. He has asked for, however, and been assured that he will
receive a copy of it which he will immediately pass on to us. He
insisted on a copy to be sure that no one was, in fact, using his name --
so the article has had a beneficial effect in that we will be getting a
look at the Democrats strategy plan.
CC: Mort Allin
DETERMINED
TAL
AN
MARKING
6-102
July 12, 1971
Date 3/10/82
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Harris Polls
Full
You have copies of the Harris polls on Kennedy for this week.
Next week will be the Muskie trial heats, based on the same field
survey of June 9-15. The figures are identical to May. In a 3-way
race, the President trails Muskie, 42-40, Wallace gets 13, 5
undecided. But in a 2-way race, it's 46-46, 8 undecided. Harris
intends to play this as "the President has closed the gap on Muskie's
earlier lead" -- at least that's the way he's described it to me.
Harris points out that there is an enormous contrast between
Muskie and Kennedy. The President still does well in the South,
40% to Wallace's 27 to Muskie's 26. But, in the West, Muskie
beats us 51-43, in the Mid-West 49-41 and in the East 48-35.
Harris believes that the difference turns on the vote in suburbs
and among independents. Interestingly, we do better against Muskie
on the raw data than when the unlikely voters are eliminated (the
opposite is true with Kennedy). This again illustrates that Muskie
does best with high income, better educated suburbanites. In the
$15, 000 per year and over category, the President beats Kennedy
52-36, but loses to Muskie 54-41. With the independent vote,
however, the President beats Muskie 44-37 (on the last poll in May,
Muskie won the independent vote 45-36 but he has offset this loss by
increasing his lead in the suburbs.
Harris attributes Muskie's strength to the fact that he is bland,
has a neutral image and does not really come across as a partisan
Democrat. The lack of controversy with respect to Muskie is at
this time his great strength, but will in due course tend to wear thin.
The risk to him is that he will become boring and uninspiring.
2.
Lou's close friend, Howard Stein, tells him that there is at least
a 50/50 chance that McCarthy will enter the Presidential race as
a fourth party candidate. As a result, Harris has done a 4-way
poll showing the President at 37, Muskie 35, Wallace 12 and
McCarthy 10.
By way of incidental intelligence, Lou says that the Kennedy people
believe that Humphrey is absolutely dead as a result of the Kennedy/
Johnson papers, that Muskie has been badly hurt but, that Kennedy
has not been affected. I have to assume from this that they feel
there is no ruboff from JFK to Teddy.
On the subject of the New York Times controversy, Harris believes
we should layoff the issue as far as the press issue is concerned;
as he puts it we have come out very well, that the real thrust has
been against the Democrats and Kennedy and Johnson. He is in
the field right now determining what the partisan fallout has been.
Based on what he said I can pretty well surmise what he will come
up with.
He advises that we should be careful not to appear to gloat over the
Democrats' problems, especially LBJ, nor should we on the other
hand appear overly concerned about the recent revelations. We
should stay above the battle; he believes that the Pentagon Papers
controversy will continue while the press issue fades and that our
job is to keep the focus on the Democrats. Harris does not believe
that the press issue is a gut issue, that it doesn't really affect people
or motivate them. The feeling that they have been duped and deceived,
however, is a strong emotional point that will endure.
Havis
14
EYES ONLY
May 4, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Harris Poll
The Lou Harris seduction is now complete: I will fill you in on the
details at your convenience. There are certain things which I have
agreed to do, relatively painless.
Lou has agreed to act as a consultant, give us figures in advance,
discuss results and releases with us.
He told me that he was not completely satisfied with the poll results
which he got on April 12-15 which showed the President at 46% posi-
tive, 53% negative, 1% not sure. He, therefore, ordered his people
in the field to poll again between the 18th and 25th of April. They
came up with a 47% positive, 50% negative, 3% not sure. This will
contrast with the March figures (not heretofore published) of 41%
positive, 56% negative and 3% undecided, and is the best result we
have had since January (48-50-2) and the same as November(47-50-3).
I have the complete results of the latest survey including the trial
heats (copy attached). As you will see, we still fair badly against
Muskie but well against McGovern and Humphrey. Harris suggests
that we study those groups in which Muskie does significantly better
than either McGovern or Humphrey in order to counter him in those
areas (for example, higher income and professional groups). He
also feels that the Muskie strength is not enduring and that it results
from his being relatively non-controversial in the public eye, a
condition that he feels will not last.
We discussed the forthcoming release of these figures and at least
based on what Harris said, it will be written as a rather bullish report
of the President regaining personal popularity.
I would like to fill you in on the other specifics.
Conversation with Lou Harris, October 7, 1971
H: Some pairing results.
C: Marvelous. This is on September 20 to 24.
H: No this is another one. This is one that's part of our other,
the thing I put on. This is the 19th through 27. This was on
C: Where did I get that ?
H: That the other one. I did another one for my regular column and
this is part of our dome stic thing. That I put on. Incidentially I got
a call from those guys the other day, Harper's assistant, Morey,
who said that I should be sure that Ken Cole gets these results first
and only Ken Cole and I said Chuck Colson not, and he said, well,
there are matters of protocol. And I said what if the President asked
for these. And he said, Oh God, give em to him. A little bit of
bureaucracy there.
C: Oh yes, we have our problems
H; Well, I don't know when I will surface these, but at any rate, it's
really striking. First, Nixon, ennedy and Wallace. It's closer,
Nixon 45, Kennedy 38, Wallace 11.
C: Not much though. That was 45 - 36.
H: Next is Nixon, Muskie, Wallace. This is a real socker. Nixon 47,
Muskie 35, Wallace 11. Muskie's really starting to collapse.
C: That is absolutely wild, fascinating. Paul McCracken called me
yesterday afternoon he from had his had friend a call Sindlinger. I don't know Sindlinger,
is he any good?
H: Well, frankly we can buy him if we want to. I just have such an
aversion to telephone surveys and Sindlinger's gone to DLJ and said
I'd love to have Harris buy me and we could do it. I'd be interested in
your views about it.
C: Well I'm going to find out a little more about it.
H: They use the Council of Economic Advisers a lot, I wonder if
Sindlinger does.
C: No, not at all. Haven'et used them at all period. In fact I asked
Paul do you use him and he said no, we subscribe to his service, that's
all. NX You said Muskie was going down like a ton of bricks.
H; Well, this would indicate that.
2.
H: Apparently themore exposure you get to campaigning the less we
create. He looks like Romney. And then Nixon Lindsay
(BREAK)
C: In a two way race, it is 50 Nixon, Muskie 40, 10 undecided.?
Holy smockers. You know, when you public that, it is a bombshell
because it shows Kennedy giving us a tighter race than Muskie.
H: That's right. Kennedy finishes coming up and Muskie's come down.
C: Well actually in the last
H: It really puts Kennedy up as strong Kennedy. There's no question
about it.
C: I've always felt he was, as you know.
H: My theory now that if its this early though that he surfaces and
stays there it's, he's going to be awful vulnerable. In other words,
he's only strong when someone else is a front runner. This is my
theory.
C: Of course, I happen to have as one of my fondest hopes in life the
Kennedy Nixon race only because I know we will beat him and I'm
positive we will beat him and I have been, was in the 52 campaign in
Massachusetts, 58, the 60 national and 62 Massachusetts. I've never
been on a winning side of a Kennedy election and Goddammit I'm going
to be. I won't fulfill my life's dreams until
H: A full cycle. But this is rather interesting isn't it. Nixon-Lindsey,
50-31-11 and 8. Nixon Jackson, Nixon 54 Jackson 24, Wallace 13, not
sure 9. Jackson just hasn't surfaced, and I'm not sure he ever will.
Scoop, an old friend of mine, I'd say is kind of invisible. I think it's
his personality.
C: What about
H: McCarthy, I didn't get, Humphrey in this one. McCarthy, Nixon 56,
McCarthy 26, Wallace 10. McCarthy shows nothing but he'd be a spoiler.
C: You know for a trial heat for an incumbent at this juncture, this really
is strong.
H: That's why the 19, god knows what will happen in '72 but I would say
that we can't forsee, but I would say this talk tonight, the assurance
people need that the President's right on track economically followed
by improvement, what everybody thinks will happen. And then in
November, if you can come in on Vietnam, because the first look I'm
3.
working on now, you can get me at home. I'm working on the domestic
thing. Vietnam is still their, the people are still holding their breath.
Not that they' re not sympathetic, they don't think he's on the right track,
but until it happens, you know until we get the hell out, somehow you
know the boys home, that's what it really comes to.
you
C: Lou, will/be able to publish these the week after, your approval
poll goes the week after this coming week
H: Yea, approval. I've got this leadershp thing, I've got to make a speech
in Houston the 25th and I wanted to use it but I'd like it to be in the column
that mom ning. So this will probably be the first week in Novemer. It's
ridiculous.
C: Well, it's a good story anytime it goes. Lou, one thing, break these
down a little bit the way you've done others so that, and bring them with
you when you come down next week cause we might run through them with
the President.
H: You think I should plan on that? What I may do is stay over night
Wednesday night.
September 19, 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR H. R. HALDEMAN
I talked this morning with Dan Lufkin, who had no idea the way
in which Harris broke down the positive and negative ratings
on his polls. He agreed with me completely that "only fair"
would mean to some people a positive answer and to others a
negative answer. To put all of the "only fairs" in the negative
column will always distort a Harris poll. Lufken told me he
would get into it immediately to see if perhaps the adjectives
could not be changed to "very good, good, poor, very poor".
The break there would be a very logical positive negative break.
I'm sure be will encounter resistance from Harris; on the other
hand he owns him. I will report back to you when I hear from
Lufkin, which he said would be some day next week.
Charles W. Colson
Ticular - Sept 25
File way
March 16, 1971
HARRIS:
To be frank about it, I would like to really make
data talk in terms about what could be done with
it politically.
CWC
What I'm saying is that if you were working for - let's
say you were working for us through the Republican
National Committee - I wouldn't give a damn if you
were doing work or studies for Democratic Senator
, but if you were
HARRIS
Mondale of Minnesota er something
CWC
Yeh, but if you were on Muskie's payroll or Humphrey's
or Kennedy's or somebody who is likely to be running
against us, then there would be a real problem because
in order for your data to be of value to us you would
have to be working pretty closely with us - in order
for you to work closely with us, we'd have to tell
you what our problems are and you'd have to tell
us what your analysis is and that would require
HARRIS
a conflict - I agree, I agree. I hear Gallup is not
interested in giving such interpretation. but I may be
wrong.
CWC
Well interpretation is what's really helpful.
HARRIS
I agree, I agree.
any of our clients
the information we feel is sound is the ability of
the Harris organization to read the data to tell us what
we should do about it - it's useful. I've always felt
over the years that is what people pay money for. You
know, whether`it is the telephone company or whatever -
Well, let me do this - let me think about it - I probably
will talk to somebody like Dan Lufkin and Bill
Donaldson about this too, okay? It would be another
world for us, really, from what we've been. But hell
if Gallup is going to do it maybe we ought to do it too.
CWC
How would this affect your syndicate?
- 2 -
HARRIS
No prohibition in the contract with the Chicago
Tribune or New York News.
CWC
How long has the Tribune contracted for?
HARRIS
Why just automatically renewed for two more years -
last December, I guess, so
CWC
Well you wouldn't have any consent on that score
HARRIS
Well I might call up Wally Kerr (???) , you know
Wally? He is the President of Tribune Corporation
in Chicago now and ask his advice on it - I know
he'd want to do it - you know I wouldn't mention who
but I would want to find out who - you know that's
my business but it's just the general principle -
I have a feeling that - about
5 years ago I think there was more awareness of this -
part of that was a possible conflict - I think part of
that was where I came from and where I had been -
I had been working for Kennedy and all that - but then
somehow the lines have blurred for our whole field
-
the group we own there
CWC
The question I would raise - I think which is the one
you'd have to cope with-is a very real one and that is
take the poll on "does the President inspire confidence"
I don't remember seeing that one before but that's
HARRIS
yeh, we sent it
CWC
But not too often - that's a question that
HARRIS
yeh, we ask it all the time - yeh, if you go back and check
your
doesn't necessarily
polled out but it's been
in a whole lot of other ratings.
CWC
Yeh, but you see that one was the future this time and
the lowest figure
-
negative the answer
would have
a slight decline. Well then somebody
says "J.C. this sonofabitch Harris - you know he is
working with us
and that sort of thing.
HARRIS
I'll tell you what I tell all ourclients, We will not, when
Cap Weinberger over at the FTC called and he said
"do you do testimonials?" and I said "not at all" - you know,
some 80% of these people's customers are
- 3 -
HARRIS
I will not do that and never have.
CWC
But what I'm talking about Lou is the situation where
consider that one led with the most negative possible
interpretation insofar as the President is concerned.
It probably just as easily could have been the other
way around.
HARRIS
Yes, it could have been.
CWC
Somebody let's say we set up a contract deal -
somebody here would say, well, "the sonofabitch
he went of his way.
HARRIS
Let me tell you ---all work with Kennedy when he was
President when I did this - but I tell you I used to get
my ears stretched before he died that year in '63
I can remember three or four cases he called up
himself and just blasted my ears off - "what are
you really doing to me here", you know. I'd say
"Mr. President, that's it". "I can't help that,
that's the way the facts are. " Well, you don't have
to write it that way, he'd say. He's complained.
And I can see that sort of thing, you know.
CWC
The problem I can see is a different one. The problem
I can see is when we're - you don't have the full
confidence factor going when it looks like something is
loaded.
HARRIS
Oh, I see.
CWC
That makes it harder to get
HARRIS
people to use these things
CWC
yeh. You see, it's not the data - if the polls show -
if people went down in the polls - so we went down -
that's not the point - It's the way in which sometimes
data can be presented. I can see problems arising
in that -
HARRIS
yet the credibility of the column depends on the
degree to which you did have balance - I've always
maintained that is the essential conflict - you know,
if you print good things about your clie nt they all
say, what the hell he's on the payroll.
Herris Pall
October 20, 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR H.R. HALDEMAN
Henry Cashen and I met this morning with Lufkin and Harris. It was
a two hour session with no holds barred. Harris is an arrogrant egotist
of the first order. I took a rather tough line. These two ingredients
made for a very interesting and, at times, stormy session.
We were able, with Lufkin's assistance, to extract the following commit-
ments:
1. The latest poll data will be released Monday showing a significant
increase for the President. (I promised there would be no premature
leak by us.) The late September polling brought him up from 48 posi-
tive, 49 negative (August) to 50 positive, 45 negative. In the poll
completed last week, it is 54 positive, 44 negative. This is the highest
approval rating and the lowest negative since February. Harris
assures us that we will make this point. (Particularly significant
is that the President went up 9 points in the Handling of the Economy
and 7 points in his Handling of the War. The economy one surprised
Harris.)
2. Harris has agreed to consider releasing the polls on a regularly
schedule basis rather than simply when they go down (We don't have
a commitment on this point, but I think we proved our contention to
both Harris and Lufkin; and Lufkin promises me that he will get it
straightened out.)
3. Henceforth, Harris will publish the results of the four categories:
Excellent, Pretty good, Only fair, Poor. As you will see from the
attached analysis of his late September poll, this will show that the
vast majority fall under the only fair and good category. He will
still use a Postive/Negative breakdown, but at least giving the four
categories will help show the vast majority are fair to good.
4. On his next several polls he will use the phrase "Not so Good"
interchangeably with "Only Fair,' asking the question the same ways with
the same people, to see if this affects the positive/negative breakdown.
-2-
Lufkin, much to Harris' dismay, has agreed to review the future
figures with us.
In conclusion, I think we have made sbme limited progress, witness,
the favorable release next week one week before the election, which I
am convinced Harris would not have let out but for the pressures. I
don't think Harris, however, will ever show us as favorably as Gallup.
We went into the techniques very thoroughly and he is always going to
get a higher negative rating the way he conducts the poll. My thought is that
we should see how it goes for a few months and, if the situation does not
improve, we might consider approaching the problem from the standpoint
of the Chicago Tribune, which syndicates the poll. The Tribume, which
is certainly friendly to us, could either insist that Harris shape up or
terminate their contract.
Another thought, which I hinted at with Lufkin; we might think about
drying up some of his commercial accounts. This is 90% of his
business. His political polling is done to keep him in the news and
thereby help his commercial business. It is a severe conflict because
his public releases must always be sensational in order to get him the
publicity that he needs to foster his commercial business.
He was very disturbed by the Thimmesch column and more of this
is also bound to damage his credibility publicly as well as to keep him
honest.
As a footnote, the attached is very significant in the fact that such a high
percentage of people feel that the President is doing as good as he can
do. This relates to my analysis of the Broder article; to wit, many
people have concluded that the Presidency is an impossible job and
this prevalent feeling is a problem to us in how effectively our leadership
comes through.
Harris, by the way, told me that 27% is high and should be taken as a
danger signal because it was the one category that increased the fastest
(to a high of 352) during Johnson's decline. Harris said that it reflected
the feeling that while Johnson was trying to do his best, he really
wasn't able to lead as President. I question that conclusion along with
most things Harris says but it is an interesting observation.
Charles W. Colson
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
EYES ONLY
April 3, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR THE FILE
SUBJECT: Random Thoughts from Lou Harris
Harris believes that the President needs, between now
and the election, to continually create "straw men". Meany
affords us the best opportunity, but we've got to work at creating
others -- deliberate enemies. The President is against those who
plunged us into Vietnam but now want to sell out America's honor.
The President is against those retailers who over-charge consumers.
The middle man example in the food price issue is a perfect illustra-
tion. If there isn't a natural villain, create one so that the President
can be the defender of the public interest against natural enemies.
Harris believes that the President should be forceful but not
strident; that whenever he is strident, the President brings out the
hostility of a latent anti-Nixon feeling which still exists with a large
body of people, but that when he is deliberate, quiet, rational, forceful,
he does not engender this latent hostility.
2.
Harris believes that we should downplay the campaign through-
out the year, make it as boring as possible. Harris believes that a
bland campaign will help us in that we will benefit greatly from a low
turnout. Also, people react better to the President if he does not
polarize on gut issues. This does not mean that we should not address
the issues; we should defuse as many as possible, but not arouse the
passions of the electorate with a very divisive issue that might bring
out our opponents (as with anti-labor legislation, for example).
Harris believes the key to our success is in avoiding having the
American electorate act emotionally or precipitously with respect to the
President's candidacy. He points out that as his pollsters question people,
they get a better response after the questioning than at the outset. More
people favor the President's re-election after they have been walked
through the issues than when they are first confronted with the question
cold, "Do you favor the President as against Candidate X?"
One of the President's strong points is that people think he is
trying hard. He is beginning to develop a characteristic of sincerity,
that he is really working at solving the problems. Harris advises that
we should articulate everything we do rationally, calmly, quietly, and
forcefully. Make people think, make people thoughtful. Do not provoke
instant emotional reactions. The President's style has come through very
3.
well as being deliberate. We should not let him go swinging or
overreacting. If our opponent becomes strident, we should take it
in stride. The more irresponsible the opposition becomes, the
more the President is helped in being looked at as a solid, steady,
strong and deliberate statesman. Be the "solid brick in the middle"
Harris suggests. Ask people to think of the issues seriously.
In this same vein, we should turn the lack of so-called charisma
into an asset, arguing that no one has the right to use the office of
Presidency for the development of a personality cult, that personal
promotion is not the measure of one's success as President. One
cannot run the country through charm, rather through ability. Nixon's
style is to be serious and dedicated, that that is more important than
personal image.
Harris believes that Nixon's image is now being sharpened
as a rational, thoughtful, deliberate leader, all of which can be
destroyed if there is a spontaneous reaction or a sharp galvanizing of
the opposition in the months ahead. Harris believes that if people
are asked calmly and quietly to think through the choice for President,
that the President cannot be beaten by any of the present Democratic
Presidential candidates. If on the other hand, the election turns into
4.
a heated, highly controversial, emotionally charged campaign,
we will simply bring out enough anti votes to defeat us; there are just
more of them than us and if we galvanize them, we (not the Democratic
candidates) can beat ourselves. The key at the moment is to maintain
the tone that we have presently achieved and to hold it throughout the
election year.
we
Charles W. Colson