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 Haldeman to John Mitchell RE: Tom Evans and Campaign Management Training. Handwritten note added by unknown. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/15/1971
From Higby to Haldeman RE: use of political polls. Handwritten note added by Haldeman. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/18/1971
From "A. J. F." to Tom Huston RE: voting ethnic groups in New York in the 1972 campaign. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 1/4/1971
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26145013
label
WHSF: Contested, 6-77
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26145013
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 6-77
description
This file contains:
From Haldeman to John Mitchell RE: Tom Evans and Campaign Management Training. Handwritten note added by unknown. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/15/1971
From Higby to Haldeman RE: use of political polls. Handwritten note added by Haldeman. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/18/1971
From "A. J. F." to Tom Huston RE: voting ethnic groups in New York in the 1972 campaign. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 1/4/1971
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26145013
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a7272940f7ee2404
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
6
77
3/15/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Haldeman to John Mitchell RE: Tom
Evans and Campaign Management Training.
Handwritten note added by unknown. 1 pg.
6
77
1/18/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Haldeman RE: use of
political polls. Handwritten note added by
Haldeman. 1 pg.
6
77
1/4/1971
Campaign
Letter
From "A.J.F." to Tom Huston RE: voting
ethnic groups in New York in the 1972
campaign. 4 pgs.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Page 1 of 1
March 15, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM:
H. R. HALDEMAN
Tom Evans at the RNC has offered to take charge of the Campaign
Management Training project or ginally suggested by Chotiner.
You probably have this project on track already, but for the record
we have no objection.
Rose Woods advises that Jack Mills has offered time and fund raising
help.
She reports that he was with the House Congressional Committee
and raised a "substantial sum in 1968 -- confidential".
GS:kb
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 18, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
L
SUBJECT:
Release of Polls
After discussion with Derge, Colson and Magruder we have all
reached the conclusion that the best way and probably the only
way that we're going to be able to get out our polls on a consistent
basis, without the RNC tag, is to begin using ORC instead of
Chilton when we're interested in releasing polls.
Chilton refuses to release polls in part and, also, will state
who commissioned a poll if asked by the press. Besides, putting
out a poll by Chilton doesn't mean very much since they are not
noted for polling, particularly in the political field.
On the other hand, ORC will put out a poll in toto or in part if
we ask them to do so. They have no problems about disclosing
who paid for the poll and will do mailings to newspapers under
their name should we desire.
With your concurrence we're going to try doing some of our
upcoming telephone polls through ORC to see how satisfactory
this arrangement will be.
Agree
H.
Disagree
January 4, 1971
Tom C. Huston
White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Huston:
Your recent letter raised some excellent questions regarding
national ethnic approaches, polish intransigeance, Jewish
voting potential in New York and the President's election
chances in New York State. I will try to respond to each in
reverse order. You also mentioned the Gardner-Baroni organi-
zational efforts in Gary, I regret I am unfamiliar with this
and will not be able to comment.
It is, of course, possible that the President could carry New
York State in 1972, however I do not consider it probable.
There are a multitude of reasons why the President's chances are
slim in New York State even with Conservative party line support:
1. 30% of the electorate (Jews, Blacks and Puerto Ricans)
is strongly antagonistic to the President. This antagonism is
rooted deeply in 20 years of fear - heightened by the unusually
strong attacks made by the New York City media.
2. James Buckley ran without this ingrained fear and as a
fresh personality. This freshness allowed Buckley to do as well
among the 30% referred to above in a three man race as Nixon was
able to do in a two man race. (Wallace surely was no factor among
this group.)
3. Buckley (and for that matter Rockefeller) was able to
carry Blue Collar areas with large margins. The President is held
responsible for the economic plight in these areas at present and
therefore, would not run as strong. I do believe the President
could carry these areas but not with the 60% or so necessary to
carry the sta te.
4. The Democratic nominee will not be Jewish. Both Rocke-
feller and Buckley ran against Jews and therefore, were relatively
unrestrained in building their coalition. If Muskie is the nominee
then the Eastern European ethnic block, which is substantial, is
going to be more difficult to move. If Kennedy is the nominee,
then the problems are multiplies in the Irish-Catholic community, etc.
5. For Nixon then to move the ethnic groups and Blue Collar
types away from Muskie/Kennedy in New York, He would have to move
further to the right and make race the issue, while obscurring
economics. If he were to take this approach, the price he would
have to pay in the middle-spectrum would probably be fatal in the
state as well as the nation. Therefore, the President in horse-
racing terminology is "boxed in. "
6. The Conservative party has reached its objectives and has
done so convincingly. However, I think it can be shown that the
Conservative party has peaked. Adams, for example, received con-
siderable less votes in 1970 than he did in 1966 and had the election
for Governor been close, he probably would have pulled even less
votes. Rockefeller made the successful move to the right as will,
with the exception of Jacob Javits, all other state Republican can-
didates for the next decade as well. As the Republican party moves
right, the Conservative party will either be absorbed, stand and
endorse all Republican candidates except Javits, or move further to the
right. Any one of these three options will eventually lead to
smaller vote totals and less real influence.
7. I am not at all convinced of the second line myth. How many
voters who voted for James Buckley on Line E would have voted for
Buckley on Line C had there not been a Line E? I suspect virtually
all. Line voting is, I suspect, only important on the two major
party lines and had electors for Richard Nixon been allowed to be
placed on the Conservative party line in 1968 his vote total would
not have risen more than 50,000 if that much. Yet it is a myth that
many people hold to be true and I have no real proof that it is not
SO. Yet the Second-line conceivably could make the difference in a
very close race. I do not now believe the 1972 Presidential New
York State race will be close.
8. Sumarizing this section I would have to say that a con-
servative Republican victory in 1976 is a distinct possibility if
a base for such a development were laid over the next six years.
I do, however find it difficult to perceive a Nixon victory in 1972.
When I stated, in my earlier momo, that Jewish voters in New York
State must be garnered in significant amounts, I was not referring
to a majority of Jewish voters. There are at least four major
types of Jewish voters in the state:
1. Older more Orthodox New York City Jews; 2. Manhattan
New York City Jews; 3. Other New York City Jews; 4. Suburban Jews.
category.
Orthodox Jews tend to be at least as Conservative as the state
as a whole. Within this group, there is a militant group, the
Jewish Defense League (JDL) which is very much for us politically.
However, I feel it would be a major mistake to cater to what I
nicely refer to as a Jewish Nazi organization.
Yet within this Orthodox group the movement which Kevin Phillips
observes elsewhere is also going on. I am enclosing a cartoon
from the Jewish Press, an Orthodox Jewish paper, and an article
from the Sentinel, another Jewish paper which bears out this ob-
servation. I must point out that we have not exploited all that
we can in this group which is fundamentally lower-middle class
and "ghettoized." Race, anti-semitism, soviet Jewry, etc. are
strong issues which can easily be played to.
The second category of Jews mentioned is the one from which the
"Jewish Myth" has developed. I assure you that all Jews are not
Leonard Bernstein. There is nothing that we can do to move this
group. This group geographically is cloistered in Manhattan, and
in mid-town Manhattan at that, and certain older more affluent
sections of the boroughs, but mostly in Manhattan.
The third group is our pivotal group. The average middle-class
Brooklyn, Bronx or Queens Jew has been written off due to myth.
The Republican party and the Conservative party have shared
responsibility in this neglect. With the exception of John Marchi,
who received better than 20% of the Jewish vote, no Conservative-
Republican has made the least effort to appeal to these Jews. What
must be understoood here is that Republican as well as Conservative
is a dirty word to this constituency. (Jacob Javits has never re-
ceived better than 50% of the Jewish vote, again contrary to myth.)
This average group, enormous in voting potential, is concerned with
the same things every other smaller ethnic group is concerned with
but they are more concerned with education, race-social position,
World War II Germany and Israel. The last two are noted with only
slight sarcasm.
The fourth group is an extension of the second and therefore, not
worth going into. I would however, like to suggest that Jews, like
Protestants, are not really an ethnic group and should not be per-
ceived as such. Jews certainly can be categorized seperately from
non-Jews but not without an understanding of sub-categories.
As to the third topic - why Poles seemingly contradict the Phillips
Thesis? - I assume a sociologist would be more helpful than a poli-
tical scientist. May I however, suggest that it may be rooted in
the fact that the Polish community is generally on a lower social
base than the other ethnics and thereby may be moved more similarly
to the Blacks than previously thought. This would be true statewide
and nationwide. Perhaps now with the turbulence in Poland, political
steps could be taken by the President which would attune him with the
Polish community.
We have seen in New York that those of Polish origin tend to allign
more strongly with the Democratic party than any other ethnic group.
They also are more strongly tied to labor than most groups. During
our recent campaign, we noted that the Polish community was greatly
moved by the busing issue, once again proving that the competition
on the bottom of the social structure is stronger than the competi-
tion on top.
As to the movement of ethnics nationally, the first suggestion would
be to have the President more visibly involved with ethnic holidays.
(i.e. attending Polaski Day parades, inviting German-American leaders
to the White House on Steuben Day, pinching Sophia Loren on Columbus
Day, etc.) Secondly, nationwide ethnic groups for Nixon should be
developed as soon as possible and bombard local ethnic radio stations.
On a grander scale the President, in Scammon-Wattenberg terms, must
appear un-black not anti-black. To promote this concept, the Presi-
dent should praise some small Black self-help group while condeming
a militant Black group - say the panthers.
Further, the President should attempt to identify with the life-style
of the new middle-class. The football/baseball games are fine. He
should restress his own background alluding constantly to faith in
the American system and the rewards of hard work. Less Billy Graham --
more Cardinals and local religious leaders. The next appointment to
the Supreme Court, if one becomes available, should go to an Italian-
Irish-German-Catholic-Conservative-border stater-unknown, and accept-
able. The last point is unimportant, since if there were a public
outrage over a McMillan, the President can only look good in his
defense.
Some random thoughts: A. The Connoly appointment is excellent. As
I stated earlier, Texas is very important and this helps. Also, this
is, in fact, the first step towards defusing the economic issue. Two
very important goods for the small price of a Democratic appointment.
I realize there are angry Republicans but
B. The 18 year old vote should not be seen as a major setback
in fact, can be seen as an overall plus. It will hurt in New York,
perhaps a little in California but elsewhere, it should be fine,
particularly in the border states. For all the noise about the
generation gap, young people (1) do not vote and (2) vote very much
like their parents only more SO. (Wallace did better among the
young than among the old.)
For