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 Becker (bcc: Herb DeSimone) re: engaging Becker Research Corporation. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 3/30/1972
From Colson to Haldeman re: Becker New Hampshire poll, Teeter evaluation of same. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/14/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144647
label
WHSF: Contested, 4-6
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144647
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 4-6
description
This file contains:
From Colson to John Becker (bcc: Herb DeSimone) re: engaging Becker Research Corporation. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 3/30/1972
From Colson to Haldeman re: Becker New Hampshire poll, Teeter evaluation of same. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/14/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144647
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
dfde2903e0405ec5
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
4
6
3/30/1972
Campaign
Letter
Letter from Colson to John Becker (bcc:
Herb DeSimone) re: engaging Becker
Research Corporation. 1 pg.
4
6
2/14/1972
Campaign
Memo
Memo from Colson to Haldeman re: Becker
New Hampshire poll, Teeter evaluation of
same. 2 pgs.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Page 1 of 1
February 14, 1972
Complete
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Becker Poll
Because of your comments to me regarding Teeter's evaluation
of the Becker poll, I called Becker and, in fact, have talked to
him twice since our meeting. The conclusions from my conver-
sations are as follows:
1.
Becker did not tell Teeter that this was an unscientific sampling
made up of two polls, one of intended Democratic voters and one
of intended Republican voters or that he had warned the Globe
that this cast any doubt upon the trial heat data. You will recall
that this is what Teeter had apparently indicated to you.
2. In this year's primary in particular, about as many New Hamp-
shirites will vote in the Democratic primary as in the Republican.
The two turnouts should be about equal.
3. The original sample constructed by Becker was a normal state-
wide sample. The questioning technique, however, did reject
non-primary voters, but Becker does not feel that this affects
the validity of the poll as a representative statewide sample, and
that including non-primary voters would not change the overall result.
4. Most important, Becker feels that his screening afterwards (his
comparing the composition of his respondents with the actual demo-
graphic and political data in New Hampshire) cooroborates that his
polling sample was representative.
In short, he believes his poll is accurate and I am afraid that Teeter did
not correctly understand it when they talked or that the report had some-
how been garbled.
2.
Attached, if you want to review it, are my conversations with Becker along
with a post-poll analysis comparing the composition of his poll respondents
with the actual composition of the state. He points out in this context that
previous trial heats in New Hampshire resulted in a very similar breakout.
The only reason that I pursue this is that I am very concerned over the
fact that our vendors show us much better than Harris, Gallup, Becker,
to name three. I fervently hope our vendors are correct and that the
other three are in error. On the other hand, this disparity should raise
some questions, not the least of which is whether our vendors might be
giving a little bias on our side in an effort to keep us happy and keep our
accounts. It would be disastrous to us if we were not getting honest poll
data or if our vendors were not using good poll techniques.
I would, believe me, rather give them the benefit of the doubt, but I would
also want to be doubly sure early in the game, while there is time to do
something about it, that we aren't being put in the position of kidding
ourselves.
For what it is worth, from the contact I have with people around the
country, I tend to think that we are stronger than we have ever been and
my gut instinct, therefore, is that our vendors are right. I don't feel
comfortable relying on that, however, either. There is just a little
warning signal here and I think for a modest investment of some analytical
time we could very easily compare, for example, Becker and ORCK
in New Hampshire to find out why this kind of difference is showing up.
March 30, 1972
Dear Johns
I couldn't agree more with your opinion that Becker is a better
qualified firm for Herb DeSimone and John Chaffee than Tully
Plesser. I can think of at least 15 reasons. I have been mean-
ing to talk to Herb everyday but just haven't been able to but I
will do so this week.
I am sure that Herb will be glad to meet with you.
We will look into the Howell situation and I will be back in touch
with you as soon as possible when we learn something.
Best personal regards.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Colson
Special Counsel to the President
Mr. John F. Becker, President
Becker Research Corporation
120 Boylston Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
bec: Herb DeSimone: Tully Plesser is totally unreliable.-- Lindsay's
man, and we wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot
pole. Becker is solidly in our corner and, what's
more, does commercial polling with the results
published in Rhode Island. It is always nice to
have a little in with a pollster who is running
published polls plus the fact that Becker is really
good.
CW C