Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
From Colson to Haldeman RE: a Becker Poll. Handwritten notes added by unknown. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/14/1972
From Haldeman to Colson, Klein, and Ziegler RE: Answer Desk. Handwritten notes added by unknown. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/17/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: previous memo involving an Answer Desk. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/18/1972
From Haldeman to Colson, Klein, and Ziegler RE: Answer Desk. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/17/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26145099
label
WHSF: Contested, 7-32
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26145099
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 7-32
description
This file contains:
From Colson to Haldeman RE: a Becker Poll. Handwritten notes added by unknown. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/14/1972
From Haldeman to Colson, Klein, and Ziegler RE: Answer Desk. Handwritten notes added by unknown. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/17/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: previous memo involving an Answer Desk. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/18/1972
From Haldeman to Colson, Klein, and Ziegler RE: Answer Desk. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/17/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26145099
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c5467d2b29dc7032
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
7
32
2/14/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: a Becker
Poll. Handwritten notes added by unknown.
2 pgs.
7
32
2/17/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Haldeman to Colson, Klein, and
Ziegler RE: Answer Desk. Handwritten
notes added by unknown. 2 pgs.
7
32
2/18/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: previous
memo involving an Answer Desk. 2 pgs.
7
32
2/17/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Haldeman to Colson, Klein, and
Ziegler RE: Answer Desk. 2 pgs.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Page 1 of 1
file
Colson
File
say: 6.5
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 14, 1972
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) corroborates 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 ORC
in New Hampshire to find out why this kind of difference is showing up.
Per our conversation I talved with
Teeter- he, too, is concerned, thinks
Becues is generally very good and
duat ORC is Showing Some bias our
way- he is going to really dig into
this- -
Lawy
f
February 17, 1972
H
MEMORANDUM FOR :
* CHUCK COLSON
HERB KLEIN
RON ZIEGLER
FROM #
H.R. HALDEMAN
SUBJECT #
Answer Desk
A couple of points to keep in mind in the upcoming months regarding
the press:
1. To the extent that they are not attacking us all out now,
they are simply building up their credibility for & massive
attack later.
2. We need to beef up the operation of our answer desk.
The sttached article from the New York Times giving the
GOP reply to a recent Kennedy speech highlights the pro-
blem here, Ford's reply is 80 oblique that it had to be
explained by his press secretary. Scott's talks about a
point man what is thet? Dele calls Kennedy's talk the
"ususl eacephony of mindless negativism", That's hardly
the language of the man in the street!
We get plenty of statements out, but many of them are simply not
in the simple, direct, language that will cut deep, make an impression
and be carried. We need to do whatever possible to beef up our efforts
in this area.
/Attachment
CC:
Clark MasGregor
Ray Price
Chuck
One possible approach to Labor that you should consider,
for
we can use Meany's attacks and turn them to our advantage. The
situation is comparable to many ways to the Taft campaign in Ohio
when Taft separated the rank and file from their "bosses" and carried
every Labor district in the state despite a mamouth campaign by Labor
leaders. The more the bosses attack, the better it can be skillfully
handled.
COLSON
2
One principle strategy in taking the offensive would be to organize
a labor political organization to spearhead the campaign -- call it
something like "Labor's League for Nixon" and let this organization
carry the attack to Meany and his "arrogant bosses". Whatever
happens, there should be no frontal attack by us against Labor
generally, but a ligitimate organization of Union Members could
carry the fight against the bosses for us.
Also, of course, we can use our poll information, polling rank and file
members and asking if they support specific issues we stand for and
specific accomplishments of this Administration. This is something
you should be giving some thought to now. It might be a good idea to
launch the Labor League some time during the late summer.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 18, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
cwe
SUBJECT:
Answer Desk
In response to your memo of the 17th regarding the "Answer
Desk", Noel Koch is now riding herd on this, recommending
counter-attacks and suggesting replies. The mechanism we
have established is a hell of a lot better than anything we had
in the past in terms of getting the material out. As I think I
have indicated to you, at least 50 percent of the battle, maybe
more, is effective distribution and timing of press releases.
This part of it we have nailed down beautifully.
The other part of the problem is what our people say. You are
quite correct that we need to sharpen up the rhetoric considerably.
I have had some extensive talks with Koch, Karalekas and Hallett
to this end and I think all understand the need for hitting it sharply
and directly and in language that people understand.
I might point out with the specific article that you cited from the
New York Times that the important objective here is to get our
answer out on the record fast and to hit back hard. If you look at
that article again, you will see that the headline is superb, "Kennedy
Criticized for Attack on Nixon" and that the first paragraph sums
it all up, "Republicans struck back today at Kennedy ". Specifically
what is said is important, but the key is how the press plays the
attack. In this specific instance, the Dole language, while obviously
Greek to the man on the street, nonetheless was sufficiently novel
to at least get into print. If Dole had called him a political oppor-
tunist or one of our other usual phrases, I'll wager you two to one
that it wouldn't have been printed. The fact that it was printed gave
2.
rise to the first paragraph of the article which is what we want.
Also, with respect to your comment that the Ford reply was so
oblique that it had to be explained by his press secretrary, that's
what we hoped would happen. The reference was to Chappaquiddick,
but it was a little subtle which it had to be. It, nonetheless, suggested
Chappaquiddick and caused the press to call Ford's office to ask if
that is what he meant. Rather than criticizing that, I think it really
was a good technique for building up the Ford statement.
In any event, your point is well taken. We will do our best to sharpen
up the rhetoric and now that we do have a machinery that gets the stuff
delivered to the press in a way that they will use it, I think we will
see more and more of our stuff getting into print.
Your other point about the press getting ready for a massive attack is
absolutely accurate. I think they are lining up their forces as the
Soviets have on the Chinese border. Fifty divisions is about the
right estimate and we are going to have to really be on our toes. As
we are set up now, Noel is the go-between for the Members of Congress,
the Committee and our writers. Karalekas and Hallett crank most of
the stuff out, although Koch does do some writing himself and we hope
as time goes on to be able to draw more and more upon Buchanan and
Khachigian as their time permits. I think we are well set up for it and
we are alert to the problem.
February 17, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR I
* CHUCK COLSON
HERB KLEIN
RON ZIEGLER
FROM I
H.R. HALDEMAN
SUBJECT $
Answer Desk
A couple of points to keep in mind in the upcoming months regarding
the press:
1. To the extent that they are not attacking us all out now,
they are simply building up their credibility for a massive
attack later.
2. We need to beef up the operation of our answer desk.
The sttached article from the New York Times giving the
GOP reply to a recent Kennedy speach highlights the pro-
blem here. Ford's reply is so oblique that is had to be
explained by his press secretary. Scott's talks about a
point man what is that? Date calls Kennady's talk the
"ususl eacophony of mindless negativism". That's hardly
the language of the man in the street!
We get plenty of statements out, but many of them are simply not
in the simple, direct, language that will cut deep, make on impression
and be carried. We need to do whatever possible to beef up our efforts
in this orea.
Attachment
60:
Clark MacGregor
Ray Price
Chuck
One possible approach to Labor that you should consider,
we can use Meany's attacks and turn them to our advantage. The
situation is comparable to many ways to the Taft campaign in Ohio
when Taft separated the rank and file from their "bosses" and carried
every Labor district in the state despite a mamouth campaign by Labor
leaders. The more the bosses attack, the better it can be skillfully
handled.
COLSON
2
One principle strategy in taking the offensive would be to organize
a labor political organization to spearhead the campaign -- call it
something like "Labor's League for Nixon" and let this organization
carry the attack to Meany and his "arrogant bosses". Whatever
happens, there should be no frontal attack by us against Labor
generally, but a ligitimate organization of Union Members could
carry the fight against the bosses for us.
Also, of course, we can use our poll information, polling rank and file
members and asking if they support specific issues we stand for and
specific accomplishments of this Administration. This is something
you should be giving some thought to now. It might be a good idea to
launch the Labor League some time during the late summer.