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 Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Republican Leadership Conference/March 1-4." 2pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/22/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "White House Budget/Committee for the Re- Election of the President -- Support." 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/16/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Republican Leadership Conference-- March 1-4." 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/10/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "New Hampshire Mock Election." 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/10/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "The Loyal Opposition." 3pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/10/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Campaign Surveys." 2pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/9/1972
From Stachan To Haldeman RE: "Bob Teeter/Campaign Polling." 2pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/8/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Campaign Strategy." 2pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/8/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Presidential Papers and Estate Plan." 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/7/1972
From Hughes To Haldeman RE: "Proposed State Funeral Plan for President Nixon." 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/4/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Vietnam Announcement Pol -- Jan 26-27." 38pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/4/1972
From Higsby To Haldeman RE: "Campaign Polling." 4pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/7/1972
From Stachan To Haldeman RE: "Republican National Convention/Use of Flag Placards." 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/3/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Muskie Press Conference." 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/2/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: Convention Advertising Material." 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/1/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26145577
label
WHSF: Contested, 13-4
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26145577
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 13-4
description
This file contains:
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Republican Leadership Conference/March 1-4." 2pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/22/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "White House Budget/Committee for the Re- Election of the President -- Support." 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/16/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Republican Leadership Conference-- March 1-4." 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/10/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "New Hampshire Mock Election." 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/10/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "The Loyal Opposition." 3pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/10/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Campaign Surveys." 2pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/9/1972
From Stachan To Haldeman RE: "Bob Teeter/Campaign Polling." 2pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/8/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Campaign Strategy." 2pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/8/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Presidential Papers and Estate Plan." 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/7/1972
From Hughes To Haldeman RE: "Proposed State Funeral Plan for President Nixon." 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/4/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Vietnam Announcement Pol -- Jan 26-27." 38pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/4/1972
From Higsby To Haldeman RE: "Campaign Polling." 4pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/7/1972
From Stachan To Haldeman RE: "Republican National Convention/Use of Flag Placards." 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/3/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Muskie Press Conference." 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/2/1972
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: Convention Advertising Material." 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/1/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26145577
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0704213234b4814d
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
13
4
2/22/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Strachan To Haldeman RE:
"Republican Leadership Conference/March
1-4." 2pgs.
13
4
2/16/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "White
House Budget/Committee for the Re-
Election of the President -- Support." 1pg.
13
4
2/10/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Strachan To Haldeman RE:
"Republican Leadership Conference-- March
1-4." 1pg.
13
4
2/10/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "New
Hampshire Mock Election." 1pg.
Friday, May 08, 2015
Page 1 of 4
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
13
4
2/10/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "The
Loyal Opposition." 3pgs.
13
4
2/9/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Campaign
Surveys." 2pgs.
13
4
2/8/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Stachan To Haldeman RE: "Bob
Teeter/Campaign Polling." 2pgs.
13
4
2/8/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Campaign
Strategy." 2pgs.
13
4
2/7/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Strachan To Haldeman RE:
"Presidential Papers and Estate Plan." 1pg.
Friday, May 08, 2015
Page 2 of 4
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
13
4
2/4/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Hughes To Haldeman RE: "Proposed
State Funeral Plan for President Nixon." 1pg.
13
4
2/4/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Vietnam
Announcement Pol -- Jan 26-27." 38pgs.
13
4
2/7/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higsby To Haldeman RE: "Campaign
Polling." 4pgs.
13
4
2/3/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Stachan To Haldeman RE:
"Republican National Convention/Use of
Flag Placards." 1pg.
13
4
2/2/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Strachan To Haldeman RE: "Muskie
Press Conference." 1pg.
Friday, May 08, 2015
Page 3 of 4
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
13
4
2/1/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Strachan To Haldeman RE:
Convention Advertising Material." 1pg.
Friday, May 08, 2015
Page 4 of 4
Presidential Materials Review Board
Review on Contested Documents
Collection: H. R. Haldeman
Box Number: 236
Folder:
Strachan Chron-HRH only February 1972 Book I
Document
Disposition
259
Retain
Open
260
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to H2H, 2/22/72.
261
Retain
Open
262
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 2/16/72.
263
Retain
Open
264
Retain
Open
265
Retain
Close
Invasion of Privacy Memo, Strachan to HRH, 2/14/72.
266
Retain
Open
267
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 2/10/72
268
Retain
Open
269
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 2/10/72.
270
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 2/10/72.
271
Retain
Open
272
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 2/9/72.
273
Retain
Open
274
Return
Private/Political Memo, Grachan to HRH. 2/8/72.
275
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 2/8/72.
276
Return
Private/Personal Memo, Strachan to HRH, 2/7/72.
277
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 2/4/72.
278
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan & Higby to HRH, 2/7/72.
279
Return
Private/Political Memo. Strachan to HRH, 2/3/72
280
Retain
Open
281
Retain
Open
282
Return
Private/Political Memo, Stracnan to HRH, 2/2/72.
Presidential Materials Review Board
Review on Contested Documents
H. R. Haldeman
236
Return Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 2/1/72.
Administratively Confidential
February 22, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Republican Leadership
Conference/March 1-4
llarry Dent called concerning a Republican Leadership
Conference to be held in Washington March 1-4. Discussion
with the Attorney General encouraged Dent to get "the best
Administration spokesmen" at this event which will be the
last mass meeting of delegate types before the Republican
National Convention in August.
Dent has approached Kissinger and Connally and received negative
responses from their offices. Dent also approached John
Scali to be moderator of one of the foreign policy discussions.
Scali said he would be glad to do it, but that he has "been
instructed to keep his head down and maintain low visibility".
Dent asks that you grant an exception to this general rule
that Scali not be an out front spokesman.
Chuck Colson believes that Scali should do this event. Kissinger
has no opinion as to whether Scali should or should not do this
event.
Recommendation:
That John Scali be informed that he should attend this
Republican Leadership Conference.
Approve
Disapprove
Comment
GS:1m
attach
THE WHITE HOUSE
2/16
WASHINGTON
Administratively Confidential
Redu
STATE
sip
February 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
G
SUBJECT:
Republican Leadership
Conference--March 1-4
Harry Dent called concerning a Republican Leadership
Conference to be held in Washington March 1-4. Discussion
with the Attorney General encouraged Dent to get "the best
Administration spokesmen" at this event which will be the
last mass meeting of delegate types before the Republican
National Convention in August.
Dent has approached Kissinger and Connally and received
negative
favorable indications from their offices. Dent also
responses
approached John Scali to be moderator of one of the foreign
policy discussions. Scali said he would be glad to do it,
but that he has "been instructed to keep his head down and
maintain low visibility". Dent asks that you grant an
exception to this general rule that Scali not be an out-
Chuck Colson believes opinion that Scali should do this event. Kissinger
front spokesman.
has asto whether scalishould or
Recommendation:
should not
That John Scali be informed that he should attend this
do this
Republican Leadership Conference.
Approve
Disapprove
sanger
event.
Comment
Administratively Confidential
February 16, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
White House Budget/
Committee for the Re-Election
of the President -- Support
You have Bruce Kehrli's January 29 memorandum regarding the
financial support for the White House by the Committee for the
Re-Election of the President. This memorandum is in your
talking paper drawer indicating that you wanted to cover the
subject personally with the Attorney General.
At your meeting today with the Attorney General and Fred Malek
it might be appropriate to discuss this budget subject
because Fred Malek will serve on the budget committee under
Secretary Stans at 1701.
Another alternative would be to have Malek discuss the
subject directly with the Attorney General.
GS:1m
Administratively Confidential
February 10, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Republican Leadership
Conference--March 1-4
Harry Dent called concerning a Republican Leadership
Conference to be held in Washington March 1-4. Discussion
with the Attorney General encouraged Dent to get "the best
Administration spokesmen" at this event which will be the
last mass meeting of delegate types before the Republican
National Convention in August.
Dent has approached Kissinger and Connally and received some
favorable indications from their offices. Dent also
approached John Scali to be moderator of one of the foreign
policy discussions. Scali said he would be glad to do it,
but that he has "been instructed to keep his head down and
maintain low visibility". Dent asks that you grant an
exception to this general rule that Scali not be an out-
front spokesman.
Chuck Colson believes that Scali should do this event.
Recommendation:
That John Scali be informed that he should attend this
Republican Leadership Conference.
Approve
Disapprove
Comment
GS:1m
Administratively Confidential
February 10, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
New Hampshire Mock Election
The Committee to Re-Elect the President conducted a mock
election at New Hampshire College in Manchester, New
Hampshire today. Sample ballots were given to 150
students (total enrollment 950). The results were:
Nixon
32%
Muskie
28%
McGovern
15%
Ed Cole (local)
6%
Humphrey
3%
Lindsay
3%
McCloskey
3%
Ashbrook
1%
Hartke
1%
Yorty
1%
At the direction of Jeb Magruder and Ken Rietz, Van Shumway
and Tom Sias, the New Hampshire PR Director for the Committee
to Re-Elect the President, are handling publicity in
Washington and New Hampshire respectively.
GS:1m
Administratively Confidential
February 10, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
"The Loyal Opposition"
Bill Monroe of NBC News interviewed Minnesota Governor Anderson;
Senator Bayh; Lawrence O'Brien; Mary Lou Burg (DNC) 1 Robert
Strauss (DNC Treasurer); and Patricia Harris (DNC Chairman
of Credentials Committee) on January 30 between 5 and 6 p.m.
The news summary note is attached at Tab A and the complete
transcript (obtained by the RNC) is attached at Tab B.
The video tape of the program is available upon request.
To summarize:
O'Brien attacked the Administration's PR expenditures,
the political release of $12 B, and $50 M campaign budget
when asked if it would be difficult to beat the President.
O'Brien's policy criticisms focussed on the "veto minded
President"
that blocked a Democratic Congress trying
to bring this nation forward
in important social
areas".
Strauss said it would be difficult forthe Democrats to
contend "with a $50 or $60 million campaign".
Bayh stated that the economy and Vietnam would be the
critical issues within "the whole issue of confidence and
credibility". O'Brien agreed strongly that the credibility
issue acompassed all other issues.
Patricia Harris hit the President for vetoing every bill for
the "benefit of the little man". She was the only one who
would answer Monroe's question on bussing. Her answer
emphasized "quality education" not transporting children,
and that the Democrats would not rely on "phony signals".
Anderson believes that "the number one issue is unemployment".
He also hit the VAT as unfair and regressive. He suggested
closing tax loopholes instead.
O'Brien frequently returned to credibility, "the vetoes
the deficit
(and) the commumications control".
--2-
In response to Monroe's question about why there were so
many Democratic candidates, all responded that it is
because the Democrats have so many good people. Similarly,
all praised the Democratic party on its reform progress
but did not attack the Republicans on lack of reform.
Monroe concluded by saying that the outlook for 1972 was
"a tough hard fought campaign and, probably, in November
a close election.'
GS:1m
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date:
To : HS
From :
L. Higby
By tomorrow
H. necde /page may
plus an indications of what
happyned here.
Get Ns report Also how
did they get this ? C
Administratively Confidential
February 9, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Campaign Surveys
PeNN.
Bob Teeter submitted the attached seven-page summary of
the Presidential poll conducted by MOR. In Teeter's mind
this is the format agreed upon when you and the Attorney
General met with him on January 31. Discussion with Teeter
developed the following points for you to consider:
1) The Attorney General asked for the two pages on
personality, but Teeter wonders whether you also want to
receive them.
Yes, Haldeman receive personality pages
No, exclude personality material
Other
2) The Attorney General has not asked for a Presidential
approval page with full demographics, but you may want
to have that page added.
Yes, Haldeman receive Presidential popularity with
full demographics
No, exclude popularity demographics
Other
3) Peter Dailey and Bob Marik will have direct access
to all of Teeter's poll information except these summary
memoranda and the trial heat results.
4) Jeb Magruder will have access to all of Teeter's
polling information though it will be delivered to the
Attorney General in the first instance.
-2-
5) Iowa, New Jersey, and North Carolina have also been
received. The results are presented in the same format
as the Pennsylvania results. The New Jersey polling
information is attached. Larry has Iowa and North
Carolina, as well as a special New Hampshire follow-up
telephone poll.
6) The schedule for the receipt of the rest of the poll
results is:
Ohio, Indiana, Missouri
February 14
Califormia, New York, Oregon, Virginia
February 21
Texas, Tennessee, Maryland, and National
February 28
7) Upon completion of this first wave, Teeter will begin
projects that you discussed with him on January 31 in
this order -- Presidential travel, the President's image,
and the President's handling of the issues.
8) Ken Cole, on February 9, asked you by memorandum whether
the Domestic Council staff could receive the results of
these campaign polls. He wants only the material dealing
with "domestic policy issues" and would personally limit
the distribution of the results.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Ken Cole receive the issue sections of the National poll
which will be available on February 28. You and the Attorney
General would sign off on the text to be given to Cole.
AGREE
DISAGREE
COMMENT
Administratively Confidential
February 8, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Bob Teeter/Campaign Polling
Three questions remain after your meeting yesterday with the
Attorney General and Bob Teeter. The first concerns the
amount of information you wanted Bob Teeter to discuss with
the Campaign Strategy Group (February 7 attendees: Malek,
Moore, Miller, Flemming, Dent, Magruder, Joanou, Dailey, Kaupinen,
and LaRue). Teeter told the group that the President was in
good shape in all states polled so far except Wisconsin. He
said the President was strong in either two-way, three-way,
or four to five-way trial heats. When asked by Dent if the
Becker poll on New Hampshire (71-14-4) was accurate, Teeter
said yes. Presumably you and the Attorney General authorized
these disclosures.
The second matter concerns the direction of Teeter's work load.
You decided yesterday that Magruder and I should have
tandem responsibility to direct Teeter's efforts. You now
want Teeter to test various Vice Presidential candidates'
strengths in certain states. Presumably you want Magruder,
on behalf of the Attorney General, to be privy to this project.
Thirdly, is there any specific followeup with Teeter from
your meeting with him and the Attorney General yesterday?
GS:1m
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: 2/7
TO:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
Bob Teeter delivered his analysis of the Harris
Domestic Issues Poll of September 1971. A copy
of this memorandum was delivered by Teeter to
the Attorney General on February 4.
I gave Fred Malek a copy of Tetter's analysis
on February 4 because he received a copy of the
Harris Poll at your direction in November. In
light of Malek's new responsibilities, it seemed
appropriate that he receive copies of Teeter's
comments.
Should Ehrlichman and Ken Cole receive copies of
the Teeter analysis and control distribution within
the Domestic Council as they did with the original
Harris it Issues Poll?
Yes
No
Administratively Confidential
February 8, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Campaign Strategy
The Campaign Strategy Group discussed your statement on
"consciously aiding and abetting" the enemy and the public
effect.
Cliff Miller believes that it was a serious mistake; the
timing was bad. Just when we had the Vietnam issue on our
side, the Democrat's will now be able to turn the discussion
to loyalty and not stupidity. Miller believes the matter is
so serious that you may be on the cover of the news magazines
next week. Miller believes Rockefeller should be asked to
come to your defense along with other public officials.
Dick Moore also believes the matter is serious and damaging
but not to the extent Miller does. Moore thinks it would
be valuable for you to respond publicly to your critics.
Harry Dent was very pleased by your statement. He thinks
you should have others in the Administration support you with
similar statements. He believes most Americans still react
favorably to charges of communist sympathizer. Dent believes
Kissinger should support the substance of your charge by
publicly disclosing what he has said in Leadership meetings --
that McGovern et al do damage to our negotiating position
by making counter proposals.
Jeb Magruder thought that worse storms had been weathered
(he cited the Judge Friday and Liddy example) and that we
should all have confidence in the President's ultimately
correct design.
Harry Flemming thought we should say nothing, let the issue
drop, and rely on the fact that the American public neither
knows you nor follows the debate.
Dwight Chapin believes that the purpose of the Today Show
interview was to show you an a quiet, competent posture
What may have been undermined by such a large news item. He
believes there should have been more staffing (Dick Moore,
-2-
Bill Safire, etc.) of your remarks. Chapin also believes
that you will become the Victim of White House and
Washington jealoustes that will begin back stabbing you
and diminishing your power.
Peter Dailey believes that the response by your defenders
should permit only two alternatives -- either the
Democrats are traitors or they are so stupid in undermining
the President's negotiating position that they should be
disqualified from nationallleadership positions.
GS;lm
Administratively Confidential
February 7, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Presidential Papers and
Estate Plan
Simultaneous with the return of my January 27 memorandum
asking for guidance on the Presidential estate plan project,
Hughes sent you the attached memorandum on the Proposed
State Funeral Plan for President Nixon. Rose Woods also
received a copy, but Hughes believes the next action step
is yours.
Concerning the Presidential estate plan, your direction was to
"hold" presumabley after discussing the matter with
Ehrlichman. There must be some excellent reasons for the
delay because the arguments in favor of resolving this
entire matter brfore thee China trip are powerful. Without
belaboring the subject you should know that:
1) of the President or Mrs. Nixon were to die, the
President's papers would be controlled by his immediate
family;
2) If either or both were to die, some of the papers
and memorabilia would have to be sold to pay the federal
estate tax;
3) If any member of the top White House Staff with
personal control of some of the Presidential papers were
to die, while a resident of Maryland, heavy state
death taxes would be levied in addition to causing
federal estate tax problems.
The Kalmbach, DeMarco and Mudge Rose plans can be consolidated
and implemented quickly. I strongly urge you and Mr.
Ehrlichman to reconsider the decision to "hold" the
Presidential papers and estate project.
GS:1m
THE WHITE HOUSE
DETERMINED TO BE AN
WASHINGTON
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
February 4, 1972
By NARS, Date 1-8-80
SENSITIVE/EYES ONLY
MEMORANDUM FOR BOB HALDEMAN
SUBJECT:
Proposed State Funeral Plan for President Nixon
As we discussed, the updated plan has been modified to include
several suggestions arising from considerations by you, me and
Rose Woods. She now has the plan.
I think the first step and one that should be initiated immediately
is the procurement of a plot for the President and the First Lady. In
my opinion the one that has been recommended by Mr. Paul Miller as
a result of a visit to Rose Hill Memorial Park is appropriate and we
should move on that soonest. As you may remember, it overlooks
the Milhous plot. I believe that we should recommend that only the
President and the First Lady be buried there. There is more than
ample room for this, yet a Presidential plot should probably have a
little more space than the ordinary one.
If you concur, I would recommend that the President's personal
lawyer on the West Coast, I guess that is Herb Kalmbach, start
moving on this. Mr. Paul Miller, of the Military District of Wash-
ington, is available to assist on a very private basis. Vern Coffey
is also well read in and can provide continuity.
Naturally, I am available to assist in any way that you wish me to.
Um
MAJOR GENERAL JAMES D. HUGHES
Copy to: Rose Woods
(krow
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Administratively Confidential
February 4, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Vietnam Announcement
Poll Jan 26-27
You asked several questions about the popularity and trial heat results
within the various demographic groups (memoranda attached at Tab A).
The questions in your memoranda have been numbered so that Benham's
responses (attached at Tab B) can be quickly compared.
To the extent Benham's memoranda do not answer the questions asked, the
reason is the statistical insignificance of certain demographic group shifts.
The guide to "Statistical Significance of Survey", which is submitted with
the package of detailed demographics, points out that the statistical margin
of error is between 2% and 17% depending on the demographic group (copy
of chart attached at Tab C). For example, when only 54 of the 18-20 year
olds are interviewed the result that 59% approve, the actual results (if
everyone in the statistical universe were interviewed) could be either 76%
or 42% approval. Although on a probability argument the closer the results
approach the statistical limit the more significant the shift, Benham
strongly emphasizes that the chart's percentage figures should be considered
conservatively. Unless the change is outside the statistical percentage, they
should be disregarded.
To compare shifts within demographic groups from one poll to another, the
differences must be even larger to be statistically significant. At Tab D is the
ORC chart on the sampling tolerances for comparing two survey percentages.
To respond to your specific question about the apparent drops in approval by
women, those 50 years and older, and those with an education of 8th grade
or less, discussions with Benham develop these comments:
The drop in approval by women from 52% to 49% between November 21-22
and January 26-27 is not statistically significant. That 3% variation does not
come close to the 8% required when one 500 sample is compared with
another 500 sample.
Concerning the shift of the 50+ age group, the drop from 55% approval on the
November 19-21 survey to 49% on the January 26-27 survey is considerably
below the 8-11% needed when comparing two demographic groups of between
-2-
250 and 500. The 12% drop in this older group between the September
7-8 survey and the January 26-27 survey is significant, especially
since the bulk of the drop occurred between September 7-8 and October
9-10. However, the 61% approval in the Spetember 7-8 poll is really a
unique peak rather than a base against which a drop is to be measured.
The ORC August 21-22 poll had approval at 55%, the ORC July 20-21
at 52% and June 5-6 at 57%. The 61% peak could be attributable to the
President's anti-inflation announcements on August 15, as well as the
identification with older voters by visiting the nursing home in Nashua,
New Hampshire on August 6. Therefore, the constant approval level for
the President among this group is approximately 55% with statistically
insignificant variations from that base of support.
Concerning the drop by those with educational levels of 8th grade or less, again,
the 6% between November 19-21 and January 26-27 is not statistically
significant. Even the drop from 56% to 44% between September 7-8 and
January 26-27 is not significant because the comparison of two groups of 100
interviewees requires a difference of 17%.
When a comparison is made between two demographic groups (men and women)
between two surveys, the results must be considered even more carefully. It
is not possible to conclude that because men rose 6% in approval and women
dropped 3% that there is a net 9% drop which shows a very significant weakness
among women. The reason that this conclusion is invalid is that there is an
overlap for statistical variations of 7% (i. men - 58%=66% or 50%; women -
49%=57% or 41 %). The only conclusion that can be drawn is that more men approve
the President than women. To determine whether this 9% spread between men
and women is a statistical quirk rather than an indication of a trend, another ORC
survey in the next month or so would be required.
As you know, Tom Benham prepared an analysis of five surveys which allowed
the demographic groups to be pooled so that the groups were large enough to
yield statistically significant conclusions. An updated two-page summary that
I prepared in November from this book of tables and conversations with Benham
is attached at Tab E.
One solution to the "statistical significance" problem is the group interview
technique which you used in 1968. When the same people are re-interviewed and
their attitudes toward the President have improved that is significant. Of course,
as the same people are re-interviewed again and again, they become "jaded"
towards questions and their responses become increasingly questionable.
Scylla and Charybdis.
The trial heat comparisons that appear in Benham's analysis at Tab B are his
preliminary comments based on available data. He has gone back through the
-3-
demographic charts and had some more computer runs prepared. These
were mailed on February 3 and should be available for your review on
February 7. Benham will be in Washington on February 7 and would be
available to discuss any of these materials with you.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 31, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR :
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM :
H.R. HALDEMAN
H.
I don't understand some of the breaks on the demographic tab of
the January poll, question 1.
#
I
For example, I don't see how both union families and non-union
families can have dropped three points in the period from September
to January when the overall total has only dropped two points. It
just doesn't average out that way.
#
2
For another example, I don't see how the income split in September
can be right when the total public shows a 56% approval, how can you
have the under $5,000 at 57, the over $15,000 at 61, and the $5 - $15
at 55? It would seem to me that these would have to average out to
more than 56.
G => Benhan 1/31, FU 2/1-
delay to 2/3
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 28, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
Some questions it might be interesting to find the answer to with
regard to the poll today --
On the Trial Heats are the same people voting for us each
time when it is Muskie and Kennedy. We get 52% on both. Also
how similar are the the constituencies between Muskie and Kennedy
with their 36 and 41. It appears that Wallace hurts us more than he
does either Kennedy or Muskie. Where does Wallace hurt us more
south or north or with a particular age group or what? Realistically
the 2% increase over our ORC November poll is statistically insignificant.
I assume you are finding out the shift here.
Received
With regard to question #2. We have to get a four-way break here
rather than just the two-way.
Question #3 doesn't really tell us very much except there has been
a small upsurge in support of Vietnam. Where did it occur.
5
avail
-
Question #4 is very disturbing in that we have dropped a total of
eight points here. It would be interesting to break question #4 against
Question #1 to find out what our supporters are thinking.
avail
With regard to Question #9 it would be interesting to see if the 34%
that don't think we did a good job on the speech are the same 34% who
don't approve us.
7
child
Also, is there anybody who is in the 17% on Question #10 who is not
in the 34% on Question #9.
extry
mile)
8
Who makes up the 46% on Question #11 that we are having problems
with. How many are the same people on Question #9 and how many of
these are the same people who disapprove us?
2
#gaval
-- How many on Question #12 in the 38% are the same people who
disapprove of the President?
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 31, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
L
I don't know if you have seen a copy of this, but these are some
notes Bob did as a result of taking the ORC data with him over
the weekend.
It might be interesting to get Benham's reaction to the things Bob
has noted since he failed to name most of them in his original
analysis. It would also be helpful to have Tom Benham review the
data from the two previous polls.
Also, you should plan on making up one of these cards everytime
wedo one of these telephone polls.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 31, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY L
Bob asked that Benham do, as soon as possible, an analysis
of the shifts involved in the demographics for the last four or
five polls in the trial heat areas. What we would like Benham
to do here is look for something a little more subtle than just
the numbers which will be pretty obvious as soon as you do the
necessary charts and what the reasoning is behind the shifts.
G a Benham 2/1
FU 2/2 New aday
2/3 - new runs mailed
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 1, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
Bob has raised again the question of the shifts in the trial heats
and asked that you give this project top priority in getting a report
back in to him. Also, as I think I told you, with regard to his notes
on the January poll, he would like an explanation or at least ORC's
evaluation of an explanation of why some of these figures have changed.
Why are we showing a serious weakness in women, why are people over
fifty dropping, etc. Please get this in as soon as possible.
Is anybody making arrangements of getting our national data to Teeter
or what's the situation here? The same would be true of getting stuff
to the A. G
Bol were ad w/ AG personally 1/31
no, decision not to involve
Teeter after SOTU project
NOTES ON JANUARY POLL
RE:
Approval of the President
In October and November there was a very little difference
between men and women in their approval. However, in the January
poll, approval by men has gone up 6 points, while approval by women
has gone down 3 points. There is now a very substantial 9 point spread
indicating a serious weakness among women.
Why
Age groups have been erratic over the last few months in their
shifts up and down, but over the period from September through October,
November and January, approval by 18-20 year olds is up very substantially,
not much change in the 20s, a recovery from the November drop among
the 30-50 age group, and a serious drop in the 50 and over.
By age group, there's a major drop in the grammar school education,
a recovery of the drop among high school graduates, and a substantial
increase among college people.
By political affiliation, there's a recovery of the drop among
Republicans, no change among Democrats or Independents.
Regionally, there was a drop in the East in October which has
gradually been recovered, a drop in the Mid-West in October which has
2
now turned to a substantial gain, a steady decline in the South, and
a steady decline in the West.
In September the South and West were the two strongest regions, the
Mid-West the weakest, and the East about average. Today, the Mid-
West is the strongest, with the others about average.
Why
7
In summary, there has been a major and continuing drop among
women, among those over 50, and among those with an elementary school
education.
Why
?
HRH
1/31/72
1/29/72
QUESTION 1
69049
JANUARY 26-27, 1972
1026 INTERVIEWS
DO YOU APPROVE 00 DISAPPROVE CH THE WAY RICHARD MIXON IS
HANDLING HIS JCB AS PRESIDENT
O-OST
19-21
T.C.
0-0CT O-DICY 0-180-2022 7-8 ON
PERCENTAGE
BASE
UNWTD WTD
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
OPINION
TOTAL PUBL IC
1026
1135
54
52
52
56
36
33
38
34
10
15
10
10
MEN
511
564
+58
52
52
58
33
34
42
35
9
14
6
7
WOMEN
515
572
49
52
53
54
39
33
33
33
12
15
14
13
16-20 YEARS OF AGE
54
82
++
59
46
55
36
35
37
41
53
6
17
4
11
21-29 YEARS
228
216
1.
54
50
47
53
39
30
41
40
/
14
12
7
30-49 YEARS
408
400
++
58
49
56
56
33
35
35
35
9
16
9
9
50 YEARS AND OVER
335
437
-
49
55
51
61
37
31
37
26
14
14
12
13
8TH GRADE OR LESS
110
261
- 44 51 47 56 39 31 39 30 17 18 14 11
HIGH SCHOOL INCOMPLETE
145
200
47
47
46
47
42
37
39
39
11
16
15
14
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE
364
400
+-
58
52
55
59
34
45
38
33
8
13
7
8
SOME COLLEGE
404
270
+
62
55
57
59
30
33
35
35
3
12.
3
6>
UNION FAMILIES
270
307
?mipose.
44
41
=
47
46
45
48
45
10
14
11
8
NONUNION FAMILIES
756
829
57
56
57
60
32
2.9
33
29
11
15
10
11
WHITE
929
1014
56
hg
56
58
33
32
34
32
11
14
10
10
NONWHITE
95
119
32
24
25
34
58
44
60
52
10
22
15
14
PROTESTANT
536
600
58 56 55 60 31 33 37 30 11 11 8 10
CATHCLIC
281
304
48
48
50
54
42
35
38
36
10
16
12
10
JEWISH
41
44
29
41
24
x
63
55 70 X
8
1
C
X
UNDER $5,000 INCOME
151
237
49
49
43
57,35
36
44
32
16
15
13
11
$5,000 $15,000
559
597
55
5
2
55
36
38
36
10
13
9
9
OVER $15,000
234
207
56
58
60
61
39
33
36
31
5
9
4
8
NOW REGISTERED
827
899
55 53 54 56 35 35 37 34 10 12 9 10
WILL REGISTER
159
185
49 51 48 54 38 29 36 34 13 22 16 12
REGISTERED 02 WILL REGISTER
986
1085
54
53
53
56
36
24
37
34
10
13
10
10
WON'T REGISTER
40
51
48
28
25
60
31
29
59
33
21
43
16
7
REPUBLICAN
340
225
239
+
82
77
82
84
12
12.
12
9
6
11
6
7
DENOCRAT
512
382
466
38
3$
38
39
51
47
49
49
11
15
13
12.
INDEPENDENT
325
326
56
57
57
57
33
31
37
35
11
12
6
S
LEAN REPUBLICAN
115
113
73
79
$3
81
18
12
12.
17
4
9
5
S
LEAN DENOCRAT
130
140
39
36
31
37
49
49
03
51
12
15
a
12
OTHER INDEPENDENTS
127
129
51
B2
59
35
27
2.2
25
30
22
20
16
4
CONSERVATIVE
521
274
282
72
62
69
71
22
23
28
22
6
15
3
17
LIBERAL
365
200
217
44 33 35 29 49 55 58 53 7 12 7 6
IN GETWEEN
489
551
an
49 50 56 57 38 29 34 23 13 15 10 10
LEMI CONSERVATIVE
227
249
54 63 67 65 38 25 25 29 8 12 8 6
LEAN LIBERAL
165
185
47 17 43 47 41 32 46 42 12 21 11 11
OTHER BETWEEN
160
202
43
43
40
47
33
36
39
31
24
10
21
27.
NIXON VOTERS
432
450
77
74
77
76
16
15
18
16
/
11
5
a
BURPHREY VOTERS
216
230
24
2.7
14
29
67
63
65
59
I
10
"
12
WALLACE VOTERS
55
67
39
40
43
56
48
45
89
35
13
15
I
a
NONVOTERS
251
299
48
41
45
14
37
38
42
44
15
21
13
12
EAST
266
230
to 53 Co 47 55 38 39 41 X
9 11 12 G
NIDWEST
239
312
+ 56 51 16 51 34 35 42 x 10 14 12 10
SOUTH
299
356
53 04 59 to 33 20 32 X
14
19
$
13
WEST
172
187
52 51 57 G8 41 36 34 X
7
13
2
"
OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION
0001
Big
urman;
Polling Dates: Jan 26-27, IS
Respondents: 1026
1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Richard Nixon is
handling his job as President?
Polling
DATE
Date
A
D
N.O.
RELS
O-Aug 21-22
56
31
13
N.R
Union
48
39
13
Non-Union
59
28
13
*G-Aug 20-23
51
37
12
9/1
*G-Aug 27-30
49
38
13
9/1
*H-Aug
48
50
2
10/
O-Sep 7-8
56
34
10
N.R
Union
47
45
8
Non-Union
60
29
11
*H-Sep 20-25
51
48
1
10/
0-Oct 9-10
52
38
10
N.H
Union
41
48
11
Non-Union
57
33
10
*G-Oct 8-11
54
35
11
10/
*G-Oct 29-
49
37
14
11,
Nov 1
O-Nov. 19-21
52
33
15
Union
41
45
14
Non-Union
56
29
15
*G-Oct 29-
49
37
14
11/
Nov. 1
*H-Oct 28-
53
46
1
11/
Nov 12
*G-Dec 10-13
49
37
14
12/2
*II-Dec 28-
Jan 4, '72
49
47
4
*G-Jan 7-9
49
39
12
1/2
O-Jan 26-27
54
36
10
*No union/non-union demographics given.
VISTRAM ANNOUNCEMENT POLL
Polling Dates: Jan 26-27, 1972
Respondents: 1026
-2-
2. How would you rate the job President Nixon is doing as
President -- excellent, pretty good, only fair or poor?
Good-
Only Fair-
Polling Date
Excellent
Poor
Not Sure
H-Mar '70
52
45
3
H-Apr '70
52
46
2
H-May '70
51
45
4
H-Jun '70
52
45
3
H-Jul '70
52
46
2
H-Aug '70
48
49
3
H-Sep '70
50
45
5
H-Oct '70
54
44
2
H-Nov '70
47
50
3
H-Jan '71
48
50
2
H-Feb '71
43
54
3
H-Mar '71
41
56
3
H-Apr '71 (early)
46
53
1
H-Apr '71 (late)
47
50
3
H-May '71
47
50
3
H-Jun '71
50
48
2
H-Jul '71
44
53
3
H-Aug '71
48
50
2
H-Sep '71
51
48
1
H-Oct 28-
53
46
1
Nov 12 '71
H-Dec 28-
49
47
4
Jan 4 '72
O-Jan 26-27 '72
53
45
2
VIETNAM ANNOUNCEMENT POLL
Polling Dates: Jan 26-27, 1972
Respondents: 1026
-3-
3. Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Nixon is
handling the Vietnam situation?
Polling Date
Approve
Disapprove
N.O.
G-Feb 19-21, 1971
41
46
13
O-Mar 6-7, 1971
41
47
12
0-Apr 1, 1971
32
46
22
0-Apr 5-6, 1971
42
46
12
O-Apr 8, 1971
48
40
12
0-Apr 12-13, 1971
48
40
12
O-Apr 22, 1971
40
45
15
O-May 1-2, 1971
48
41
11
O-May 6-7, 1971
46
38
16
O-Jun 5-6, 1971
48
43
9
O-Jun 21, 1971
46
41
13
O-Aug 21-22, 1971
47
40
13
G-Sep 3-16, 1971
42
H-Sep, 1971
44
54
2
O-Nov 19-21, 1971
50
39
11
Union
46
44
10
Non-Union
53
36
11
H-Dec 28-
40
54
6
Jan 4, '72
O-Jan 26-27, '72
54
38
8
VIETNAM ANNOUNCEMENT POLL
Polling Dates: Jan 26-27, 1972
Respondents: 1026
-1-
4. Do you approve or disapprove with the way President Nixon
is dealing with the economic conditions in this country?
Polling Date
A
D
N.O.
H-Feb 19-21, 1971
37
48
15
O-Aug 21-22, 1971
59-
31
10
Union
48
38
14
Non-union
63
28
9
O-Sep 7-8, 1971
56
32
.12
Union
49
41
10
Non-Union
60
28
12
0-Oct 9-10, 1971
57
35
8
Union
47
46
7
Non-Union
62
30
8
O-Nov 19-21, 1971
48
39
13
Union
41
51
8
Non-Union
51
34
15
O-Jan 26-27, 1972
46
45
9
5. Did you see President Nixon's television speech on the
Vietnam peace negotiations Tuesday evening?
Polling Date
Yes
No
D.K.
O-Jan 26-27, 1972
60
40
0
If "no" or "don't know" on question #5 then question #6 is asked:
6. Did you hear or read anything about President Nixon's speech
on the Vietnam peace negotiations Tuesday evening?
Polling Date
Yes
No
D.K.
O-Jan 26-27, 1972
17
23
0
VIETNAM ANHOUNCEMENT POLL
Polling Dates: Jan 26-27, 1972
Respondents:
1026
-5-
If "yes" to either question #5 or question #6 then ask questions
#7 through #11:
7. In general, how do you rate your reaction to what President
Nixon said in his speach on Vietnam peace negotiations?
Polling Dates & Events
Awareness
Reaction
VF
SF
SU
VU
K.O.
State of Union
O-Jan 25-28, 1971
68
26
47
14
6
12
Annual Foreign Policy Report
O-May 1-3, 1971
36
17
40
20
11
7
Press Conference on
Foreign Policy
O-May 6-7, 1971
55
20
39
18
14
9
Calley Case
O-Apr 1, 1971
96
Report on Vietnam
O-Apr 8, 1971
69
25
38
16
13
8
0-Apr 12-13, 1971
74
20
42
18
10
10
Vietnam Veterans Demonstration
O-Apr 22, 1971
77
Press Conference of Apr 29
O-May 1-2, 1971
61
24
39
18
9
10
Press Conference of Jun 1
O-Jun 5-6, 1971
44
21
37
19
12
11
Pentagon Papers
O-Jun 21, 1971
51
China Announcement
O-Jul 20-21, 1971
85
33
35
12
10
10
Economic Announcement
G-Aug 18, 1971
91
46
22
6
5
12
(2)
Await
Economic Announcement
82
27
46
13
9
5
O-Aug 21-22, 1971
89
17
49
16
11
7
Union
80
32
45
11
8
4
Non-Union
Violnam Announcement
77
29
44
16
8
3
VIETNAM ANNOUNCEMENT POLL
-6-
Polling Dates: Jan 26-27, 1972
Respondents: 1026
8. After President Nixon's speech on the Vietnam peace
negotiations Tuesday evening, what do you feel are the chances
of settling the Vietnam war by negotiation - excellent, good,
fair, or poor?
Polling Date
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
D.K.
O-Jan 26-27, 1972
5
20
36
34
5
9. President Nixon has often been criticized in recent months
for his handling of the Vietnam war. Do you feel the President,
in his speech, adequately answered his critics regarding
Vietnam negotiation, or not?
Polling Date
Yes
No
N.O.
O-Jan 26-27, 1972
56
34
10
Democrats
45
43
12
Republicans
75
16
9
Independents
57
35
8
10. Do you agree or disagree with President Nixon's decision
to make public the details of the secret peace negotiations
in Paris?
Polling Date
Yes
No
N.O.
O-Jan 26-27, 1972
76
17
7
11. Do you agree with President Nixon's statement on T.V.
that he has "gone the extra mile" in trying to settle Victnam
at the negotiating table, or do you feel he should be making
a stronger effort than he has?
Polling Date
Agree
Disagree
N.O.
O-Jan 26-27, 1972
50
46
5
Polling Dates: Jan 26-27, 1972
-7-
Respondents: 1026
Ask everybody:
12. In his State of the Union Address last Thursday, the
President announced an increase in defense spending to prevent
the United States from falling behind Russia in defense
capability. Do you support the President's stand in this
area, or do you think we should not increase defense spending?
Support Pres. -
Polling Date
Should Increase
Should Not
N.O.
O-Jan 26-27, 1972
51
38
11
13. In his State of the Union Speech, the President said that
"soaring property tax rates now threaten both our communities
and schools.' He said he would make a recommendation this
year for releaving this burden and providing federal financing
for our schools. Do you agree or disagree with the President
that property taxes are now a major threat and must be reduced
by federal action?
Polling Date
Agree
Disagree
N.O.
O-Jan 26-27, 1972
75
17
8
14. There has been some criticism of the President's new
budget because it proposes another deficit. Which do you feel
is more important -- a balanced budget for the government, or
a program to stimulate the economy even if it means a large
deficit in the federal budget?
Polling Date
Yes
No
D.K.
O-Jan 26-27, 1972
36
47
17
VIETRAM ANNOUNCEMENT POLL
-8-
Polling Dates: Jan 26-27, 1972
Respondents: 1026
15. There is currently a constitutional amendment pending in
Congress that would prohibit any child from being assigned
to a school on the basis of race. If this amendment were passed,
it would overturn recent court decisions that have resulted in
compulsory bussing of students. Do you favor or oppose such a
constitutional amendment?
Polling Date
Favor
Oppose
N.O.
O-Jan 26-27, 1972
66
27
7
TREAT HEATS
VILTNAM ANNOUNCEMENT POLL
Polling Dates: Jan 26-27,
1971
Respondents: 1026
Poll
Dates
MUSKIE
KENNEDY
HHH
NcGOV
LINDSAY
G - June
39-41-12-8
42-41-10-7
42-39-12-7
4-7
H - July
40-42-13-5
44-36-13-7
G - Aug.
42-36-11-11
43-38-10-9
43-37-11-9
45-30-12-1
20-23
H - Aug.
47-45-8
48-37-11-4
45-36-12-7
48-33-13-6
48-33-13-
24-27
43-41-12-4
G.- - Sep
3-16
41-37-10-12
42-40-9-9
42-38-11-9
45-29-15-1
H - Sep. 24
50-40-10
Oct. 1
47-35-11-7
45-38-11-6
45-36-12-7
50-31-11-
G -- Oct.
8-11
43-35-13-9
0 - Nov.
45-39-16
47-42-11
51-38-11
19-21
40-33-16-11
41-39-12-8
43-34-14-9
G - Nov.
44-41-10-5
44-41-10-5
47-37-12-4
49-33-12-6
19-22
H - Oct. 28-
43-39-11-7
45-37-11-7
45-36-12-7
Nov. 12
H - Nov.
43-39-11-7
45-36-12-7
49-31-12-8
49-31-12-1
1-12
H - Dec. 28
42-42-11-5
50-41-9
,
51-40-9
Jan. 4
45-48-7
45-39-10-6
46-37-12-5
G - Dec. 10
13
44-41
44-41
1972
G - Jan. 79
47-37
O -- Jan.
52-36-12
52-41-7
58-33-9
26-27
46-32-13-9
45-37-12-6
50-30-12-8
February 3, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
TOM BENHAM
SUBJECT:
Vietnam Announcement Poll
January 26-27, 1972
Question #1: "I don't see how both union families and non-union
families can have dropped three points in the period
from September to January when the overall total
has only dropped two points. It just doesn't average
out that way. 11
Answer #1: There are two factors. It is computer rounding
basically. The difference between a total drop
and the average of the subgroup drop is only one
percent. The computer rounds out all numbers
and forces the total to 100 percent. The various
weights applied to the population also affect the
subgroup slightly. As a metter of fact, none of
the differences from September to January are
significant for the size of sample. There are
only three points for union families and three
points for non-union families.
Question #2: "I don't see how the income split in September can
be right. When the total public shows a 56% approval,
how can you have the under $5,000 at 57, the over
$15, 000 at 61, and the $5-$15 at 55? It would seem
to me that these would have to average out to more
than 56. 11
Answer #2: Well, aside from computer rounding, another factor
is that there are eight percent who don't disclose
their income. These are left out of those three
breaks but included in the total. That eight percent
voted 56 percent approval, 32 percent disapprove
and 12 percent no opinion. This group along with
2
the $5, 000-$15, 000 income category is well
over half the sample SO the two things together
tend to bring the average down. In other words,
you've got the figures grouped with 55 percent.
Question #3: "On the trial heats are the same people voting
for us each time when it is Muskic and Kennedy.
We get 52 percent on both. Also how similar are
the constituencies between Muskie and Kennedy
with their 36 and 41. It "appears that Wallace hurts
us more than he does either Kennedy or Muskie --
where does Wallace hurt us more -- South or North
or with a particular age group or what? Realistically
the two percent increase over our ORC November
poll is statistically insignificant. I assume you are
finding out the shift here. 11
Answer #3: We cross-broke the two runs, the Nixon/Muskic/
Kennedy versus Nixon/Kennedy undecided. Now,
taking the voters who voted for Nixon against
Muskie -- when Kennedy is the opponent 82 percent
vote for Nixon, 16 percent for Kennedy and two un-
decided. Those who voted for Muskie when it is a
Nixon/Kennedy race, 17 percent vote for Nixon,
77 percent for Kennedy and six percent are undecided.
or the undecided in the Nixon/Muskie race we have
26 percent for Nixon, 36 percent for Kennedy and
38 percent undecided. So there is a cross-over. In
other words, some of the Muskie voters refused to
vote for Kennedy and some of the Nixon voters leave
him to vote when Kennedy is the opponent instead of
Muskie. If you look at the same data in the opposite
direction take the Nixon/Kennedy race versus
Nixon/Muskic, on those who vote for Nixon against
Kennedy, 82 percent vote for Nixon against Muskie
but twelve percent switch OVCT to Muskie, six percent
go to undecided. Among those who vote for Kennedy
against Nixon, 22 percent go now to Nixon, 68 percent
stay to Muskie, ten percent undecided. The undecided
in the Nixon/Kennedy race go ten percent Nixon, twenty
percent Muskie, 62 percent undecided. So it actually
balances out, though in both cases there are some
Democrats who will vote for the one candidate but not
3
for the other. There are some Republicans who
will desert Nixon for one candidate but not for the
other SO it comes to the same 52 percent but there
is a little-difference.
Now, when you compare the background data on it
too, you can see that there is a slight difference.
President Nixon gets 52 percent of the vote against
both Muskie and Kennedy. They are not the same
types. When running against Muskie, President
Nixon draws better among voters in the 18-20 year
old and non-white and Catholics than when he runs
against Kennedy. When Kennedy is the candidate,
he does better among those groups. Those are the only
significant shifts -- youth, non-whites and Catholics.
Question #4: There has been a small upsurge in support of the
President's Vietnam policies which groups did
it occur in?
Answer #4: All the significant categories are youth, those who
attended college, Republicans and Conservatives.
Among 18-20 year olds, even though it is a small
sample, you have a change from 38 percent to 54
percent. Among the 21-29 age group moved from
43 percent up to 56 percent. Those who attended
college went for 53 percent in November to 62 per-
cent in January - - Republicans 67 percent up to
79 percent Republican leaners from 63 percent to
82 - Conservatives from 57 percent to 70 percent.
Obviously the President's handling of Vietnam,
pulling troops out and his firmness of the whole
thing is having a significant effect.
Question #5: "Question #4 (Do you approve or disapprove the
way President Nixon is dealing with the economic
conditions in this country ?) is very disturbing in that
we have dropped a total of eight points here. It would
be interesting to break question #4 against Question #1
(Presidential popularity) to find out what our supporters
are thinking. 11
4
Answer #5:
This cross-break of the President's handling of the
economic conditions against Presidential popularity
appears as a matter of course on the detailed demo-
graphic charts. However, Benham had these comments.
Relatively few critics of President Nixon's overall
performance approve of his handling of economic
conditions. On the other hand, criticism of the
Administration's efforts in the economic area does
not necessarily carry over to the overall evaluation.
Thirty percent who disapprove of President Nixon's
handling of economic conditions approve of his overall
performance in office; with the economy there is a
relationship, but it is not one to one.
Question #6: It would be interesting to see of the 34 percent who
don't think we did a good job with the speech are the
same 34 percent who don't approve of us.
Answer #6: Among those who approve of Nixon's handling his job
as President, 74 percent say he adequately answers
his critics, 18 percent said no. On the disapprove of
Nixon's bandling of his job as President, 28 percent
say he adequately answered, 60 percent say no. There
is therefore a relationship but conclusions would be
speculative.
Question #7: "Is there anybody who is in the 17 percent on Question
#10 (Do you agree or disagree with President Nixon's
decision to make public the details of the secret peace
negotiations in Paris? who is not in the 34 percent on
Question #9 (President Nixon has often been criticized
in recent months for his handling of the Vietnam war.
Do you feel the President, in his speech, adequately
answered his critics regarding Vietnam negotiation,
or not
Answer #7: There are few people (read down on the chart on the
next page) among those who say that Nixon adequately
answered his critics, 62 percent of the total agree with
his decision to disclose details and 28 percent do not.
Among those who say be did not adequately answer,
33 percent agree and 57 percent disagree.
5
Decision to Disclose
Details
Agree
Disagree
No Opinion
President Nixon
adequately answered
his critics.
62
33
51
He did not.
28
57
38
No opinion.
10
10
11
(Read figures down)
Question # 8: "Who makes up the 46 percent on Question #11 (Do
you agree with President Nixon's statement on T.V.
that he has 'gone the extra mile' in trying to settle
Vietnam at the negotiating table, or do you feel hc
should be making a stronger effort than he has ?) that
we are having problems with. How many are the
same people on Question #9 (President Nixon has often
been criticized in recent months for his handling of the
Victnam war. Do you feel the President, in his speech,
adequately answered his critics regarding Vietnam
negotiation, or not?) and how many of these are the same
people who disapprove us?
Answer #8:
Opinion is divided regarding President Nixon's effort
to settle the Vietnam situation. Fifty percent say he
has gone the extra mile while 46 percent feel he should
be making a greater effort. The critical point of view
cuts across all of the demographical lines but is strongest
among voters age 18-20, non-white and the Democratic
leaners. Critics of President Nixon's overall perfor-
mance in the handling of Vietnam and the economy also
stand out in their criticisms. 76 percent of those who
say that President Nixon did not adequately answer his
critics in his Victnam speech say that he should be
making a stronger effort to settle the Vietnam situation.
Should Make
Gone
Stronger
Extra Mile
Effort
No Opinion
President Nixon
adequately answered
his critics.
71
26
3
He did not.
19
76
5
(Read figure
6
Question #9: "How many on question #12 (In his State of the Union
Address last Thursday, the President announced an
increase in defense spending to prevent the United
States from falling behind Russia in defense capability.
Do you support the President's stand in this area, or
do you think we should not increase defense spending?)
are in the 38 percent of the same people who disapprove
of the President?"
Answer #9:
The reaction to President Nixon's announcement regarding
an increase in Defense spending to keep pace with Russia
militarily is somewhat divided. 51 percent support the
President and 38 percent do not. Those who approve of
President Nixon's performance in office are far more
likely to support the President on his Defense stand than
to oppose him -- sixty percent versus 31 percent. Critics
of the Administration divide pretty evenly -- 38 percent
support the Administration and 48 percent do not.
Support the
Do not increase
President's stand
Defense Spending
N.O.
Approve President Nixon's
performance
60
31
9
Disapprove
38
48
14
N.O.
46
42
12
(Read figures across)
STATISTICAL CIGNIFICANCE OF SURVEY RESULTS
Approximate Scapling Tolerances for a Survey
Nu: ber of
Percentage at or Near These Levels
1968
Voting
Stub
Interviews
10%
20%
30%
40%
Partic-
Item
(Unneighted)
or 90%
or 80%
or 70%
or 60%
50%
ipatic-
public
1,026
2%
3°
4%
4%
4%
67.8
511
3%
4%
5%
5%
5%
69.8
515
3%
4%
5%
5%
5%
66.0
20 years of age
54
10%
13%
15%
16%
17%
33.3
- 29 years
228
5%
6%
7%
8%
8%
57.1
49 years
408
4%
5%
6%
6%
6%
70.0
years and over
335
4%
5%
6%
7%
7%
71.3
grade or less
110
7%
9%
11%
11%
12%
54.5
school incomplete
145
6%
8%
9%
10%
10%
61.3
school graduate
364
4%
5%
6%
6%
6%
72.5
college
404
4%
5%
6%
6%
6%
81.2
families
270
4%
6%
7%
7%
7%
munion families
756
3%
4%
4%
4%
4%
929
2%
3%
4%
4%
4%
69.1
nwhite
95
8%
10%
12%
12%
13%
56.2
otestant
536
3%
4%
5%
5%
5%
tholic
281
4%
6%
7%
7%
7%
$5,000 income
151
6%
8%
9%
10%
10%
56.01
$,000 - $15,000
559
3%
4%
5%
5%
5%
72.0
$15,000
234
5%
6%
7%
8%
8%
84.1
registered
827
3%
3%
4%
4%
4%
91.2
111 register
159
6%
8%
9%
10%
10%
gistered or
will register
986
2%
3%
4%
4%
4%
register
40
12%
15%
18%
19%
19%
The 18 - 20 years of age category includes only persons 18 to 20 years old in Georgia and
(entucky, 19 and 20 years old in Maska, and 20 years old in Hawaii. The other age group
are extrapolations from census data.
Data for these income groups are "primary family" income.
Approximite Sampling Tolerances for a Survey
1968
Percentage at or Near These Levels
Number of
Voting
Stub
Interviews
10%
20%
30%
40%
Partic-
Item
(Unveighted)
or 90%
or 80%
or 70%
or 60%
50%
ipation
blicon
225
5%
7%
7%
8%
8%
382
4%
5%
6%
6%
6%
spendent
325
4%
5%
6%
7%
7%
Republican
115
7%
9%
10%
11%
11%
Democrat
130
6%
9%
10%
11%
11%
ther Independents
127
7%
9%
10%
11%
11%
servative
274
4%
6%
7%
7%
7%
200
5%
7%
8%
8%
9%
between
489
3%
4%
5%
5%
6%
Conservative
227
5%
7%
7%
8%
8%
Liberal
165
6%
8%
9%
9%
10%
in-between
160
6%
8%
9%
9%
10%
voters
432
4%
5%
5%
6%
6%
voters
216
5%
7%
8%
8%
8%
voters
55
10%
13%
15%
16%
17%
voters
251
5%
6%
7%
8%
8%
266
5%
6%
7%
7%
8%
71.0*
289
4%
6%
7%
7%
7%
71.0
299
4%
6%
6%
7%
7%
60.1
172
6%
7%
9%
9%
9%
71.0
Nixon on TV
622
3%
4%
5%
5%
5%
or read about
198
5%
7%
8%
9%
9%
heard or read about
820
3%
3%
4%
4%
4%
not see, hear or read
206
5%
7%
8%
8%
9%
rove Nixon handling
578
3%
4%
5%
5%
5%
approve Nixon hand-
job
352
4%
5%
6%
6%
7%
opinion
96
8%
10%
11%
12%
13%
rove Nixon on Vietnam
575
3%
4%
5%
5%
5%
approve Nixon on Victnam
376
4%
5%
6%
6%
6%
opinion
75
8%
11%
13%
14%
14%
Nixon on economy
487
3%
4:
5%
5%
6%
approve Nixon on economy
453
3%
5%
5%
6%
6%
opinion
86
8%
11%
12%
13%
13%
data sh only the average voting participation for East, Midwest, and West
mblned (71.0%). * Voting participal data for the South are computed separately.
In the coses wir. enbgreume do not add to the total, it is because resp nts
refused to answer the question or intervi could not determine accurate :: 1v.
Sampling Tolerances When Comparing Two Samples
Lible H
Tolerances are also involved in the comparison of results from different sub
groups of a sample and in the comparison of results been "P ase different samples
Approximate Sampling Telerances for Differences
A difference, in other words, must be of . : inc. : cortain 11 "
Survey Percents 1.1 or Near These Levels
statistically significant. Table 11 is a gaide to the screptions crances applicable
1011
2019
3052
4001
to such comparisons.
provide
7011
or 60%
50%
2000
:,,
4%
4%
4%
When to use Table II
1,500
2'
312
408
$
1," )
311
I'd
5%
5'.0
- )
31:
..
5'1
5%
5%
Use this table when you need an approximate guide to staristic significance of a
50
:
5%
6%
6%
6%
difference between two survey percentages, The question yes usually with to answer
20
5':
747
841
8%
8%
is: "Is the difference in percentages great enough to place some confidence in
711
1617
11%
12%
13%
the result?"
100
311
416
4%
até
4%
3:,.
...
5%
5%
5%
790
3%
4%
5%
5%
5%
At ORC the term "statistically significant" is used to refer to 2
50
5':
6%
6%
6%
difference larger than that shown in the table. That is, the researcher
20)
5%
7'-
8%
8%
8%
can be reasonably confident (at least 95 times out of 100) that it is
a true difference and not due to chance alone.
100
3%
10%
1272
12%
13%
1.000
45
4%
5%
5%
6%
79
4%
5%
5%
6%
6%
Avoid using the table as a statistical "crutch"
511
5%
6%
7%
7%
200
5':
760
8',0
8%
9%
109
30
10%
12%
13%
13%
The subject matter importance of differences cannot be measured by this TYPS of
statistical test. The statistical test is always auxiliary to the main questions: "Is
-5)
3
5%
6%
6%
6%
the result important?" and, "what does it mean?"
500
of
6%
6%
7%
7%
250
5'i
756
8%
9%
9%
1()
SC
10%
12%
13%
13%
Very small and perhaps unimportant differences will be "statisti-
500
5%
6%
7%
806
8%
cally significant" if the samples are very large.
250
5%
856
8%
9%
9%
100
6%
11%
13%
14%
1-1%
Differences which are perhaps very important because of their nature
;
and
250
7%
8%
10%
11%
11%
and magnitude may not be "statistically significant" if the samples
100
90
12%
13%
14%
14%
are small.
100
1077
14%
16%
17%
17%
(95 in 100 Confidence Level)
PRINTED IN U.S.A. 9
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Administratively Confidential
February 4, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
ORC Analysis of Demographic
Changes in Approval of the
President
ORC compared four surveys between March and May 1971 when the
President's approval was approximately 50% with five surveys
between June and August when the President's approval moved
to 56%. ORC is currently working on the data from the September,
October, November and January surveys to update these conclusions.
However, Benham believes that thses observations are still valid
and therefore deserve your attention:
1) The President is weakest among educated youth.
This group not only hasn't "come around", it is not
even increasing its support with the rest of the
public. Benham believes Vietnam and the draft are
still issues among this group even though they are
not immediate threats and constantly on the front
page of the nation's newspapers. The low level of
the President's popularity among the college educated
youth is attributable to disagreement on all issues.
The President cannot rely on the Peking trip to bring
them around because of these other issues. Benham
believes that the President is particularly weak in
the Ecology and Consumerism areas. These generally
weak areas are most pronounced amoug youth and women
respectively.
2) Benham believes there will be a 50% youth turnout
to vote because that was the percentage of first time
21-24 year old voters in 1968. Benham notes that
since the President has a 47.5% approval rating and
will get Republican and Independent youth support,
he is not in as bad a position with the young voter
as the media portrays.
3) In terms of increasing his popularity the President
is doing better outside the South than in the South
because his approval rate (593) was already high in
the South. Similarly, the upward move in the Midwest
is attributable to our very low starting point (47-548).
The improven int in the Midwest is general, while in the
-2-
East it is concentrated in older persons, independents,
and conservatives.
4) Benham believes that the best voting bloc for
the President to go after is the Catholics because
"that is where the ducks are" (25% of U.S. population
is Catholic). Although they are traditionally Demo-
cratic they can be pursued on two basic issues --
abortion and aid to parochial schools. Muskie and
other moderate-liberal Democrats are trapped on
both of these issues.
5) Although the old people have increased their support
of the President by 7%, they are historically a very
volatile group (this conclusion of volatility of the
older voter is born out in the comparison of results
in the main body of this memorandum). The biggest
issue for the older voter is inflation.
Benham discussed the televised appearances of the President
and their relationship to Gallup approval ratings. He decided
that: the "conversation with TV networks" format seems to
improve ratings. On July 1, 1970, the President held a
conversation with the three TV networks and the next Callup
poll (July 10-12) showed a jump of 6 percentage points to
61% approval. The effect of the conversations seemed to
wear off as the July 31 - Augsut 2 poll was back at 55%.
Also, at the time of the conversation with four TV networks
on January 4, 1971 the approval rating was 52% and a Gallup
poll taken on January 10 showed an increase to 56%. The
next Gallup poll (February 19-21) showed a drop to the 51%
level. It has remained close to 50% since then.
There is a large binder containing the detailed demographics with
cross breaks on all the population subgroups. Commentary is
also included. To summarize, specific groups with interesting
changes in their standing include:
Largest increase in approval - High School
Incomplete
40-51
Next largest increase in approval -
Non-white
25-35
Only drop in approval - Under 30
(18-20) 48-46
(21-29) 51-49
-3-
Benham also offered some general comments unrelated to specific
poll results. He believes many people are "watching and
waiting" for the economic conditions to give them a clear
indication of what to expect in the way of jobs, salaries,
and prices. There is no event currently crystallizing
opinion; therefore, public opinion is in a slack, neutral
posture. The unions can't afford to go against public
opinion in the President's fight against inflation because
if unions did walk off the boards or resist, the public
would demand legislation. In the ecology area people are
worried about air and water pollution, not solid waste.
Muskie is in desperate shape because the President is
dominating the news and he is out front too early. Youth
are alienated from society in general -- not just Vietnam.
Kennedy will have a very rough time with Chappiquiddick
because the media will push it in the scramble for stories.
Benham is not too worried about the Conservatives or the
businessmen deserting the President because they have no
place to go. He believes the theme for the Campaign
should emphasize the professionalism of this President.
ok
February 7, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
By H
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
L. HIGBY
SUBJECT:
Campaign Polling
A review of the Campaign polling situation indicates two main
weaknesses. First, you and the Attorney General are not
receiving polling information in a simple usable form. Second,
those individuals on the White House staff and at the Campaign
Committee, who could implement directives developed from the
polling information, are not receiving guidance.
The reasons the polling information is not in usable form are as
follows:
1. First, each of the three vendors has a slightly
different format for presentation of the statistical
backup. Their comments are not standardised
around a format that will answer quickly the questions common
to all states being surveyed.
2. When these non-standardised results are summarised
by Bob Tester, the format he presents to you and the
Attorney General make it difficult to quickly assimilate
the information.
3. Teeter doesn't spend enough time on it.
At the December 7 meeting that you, Larry and I had with Bob Teeter,
the discussion focused on the general outlines of the Campaign polling
plans. You gave general approval to these plans and granted access
to Teeter to our accumulated polling information. At that meeting,
2
Bob Teeter committed to certain deadlines for polling results which
he was unable to make for a variety of reasons. It is true that there
were some start-up problems incurred with some of the vendors.
However, those problems have now ironed themselves out according
to Tom Benham at ORC. Now the problem is one of giving Bob Teeter
specific instructions and deadlines as to how and when you want to
receive the results.
Teeter's methodology would not have to be radically changed in order
for the results to be presented to you in a usable form. His current
memoranda are disjointed, non-standardized and verbose. To solve
these problems I suggest that four basic documents be presented as
the results of each state arriver5 :
1. One-page summary cover sheet which would
give the state, polling dates, thumbnail sketch of
the current political situation as indicated by the
poll, the President's approval, a brief issue summary,
and trial heat position vis-a-vis the three major
contenders. It would serve as the quick summary
cover and the rest of the materials would serve as
increasingly complex backup.
2. Tester's analysis of the results and his strategy
suggestions based on those results.
3. Teeter's recommendation of which material
should be given to whom from the data. The type
of material that Teeter might prepare here would
No that the President's approval for handling both
the economy and Vietnam are much higher in
New Hampshire where the people are more conserva-
tive on the war and less troubled by unemployment.
Issues of concern to those in New Hampshire (possibly
pollution) would be noted so that those White House
staff charged with substantive responsibility could
3
direct the federal government's effort toward this
particular issue. Fred Malek, for example, through
his control of the Grantsmanship Program, could
direct an ecology project into New Hampshire. Florida
material might also include a view that different people
are blamed for school bussing in certain parts of the
state, i.e., voters in the Northern Panhandle of Florida
may in fact blame the "pointy head bureaucrats" that
Wallace talks about, whereas in Miami the courts
might be viewed as the institution primarily responsible.
In any event, this material should receive very limited
distribution. Agreement should be signed off on by you
and the Attorney General prior to distribution.
4. The individual vendor's analysis of the results and
the backup demographics with the details similar to
those we receive from Opinion Research Corporation.
Each of these three documents should remain within
the exclusive control of you, the Attorney General and
Bob Teeter.
Certain individuals should obviously receive various parts of the
information and perhaps separate reports should be made for each
of them. This, however, may be clumsy and perhaps one general
report is better.
There are also certain peculiar examples where one individual should
receive a certain piece of polling information. The example which
comes to mind is Harry Dent's responsibility recently to go to South
Carolina and negotiate Jim Holshouser out of the Senate race and
stabilise the Republican party situation in that state. Had polling
information been available for that state, Dent should have applied to
you and the Attorney General for clearance to have trial heat results
which would accomplish the goal established by the Attorney General.
This system would work if Jeb Magruder and Gordon Strachan were
given tandem responsibility for directing Bob Teeter's efforts. They
tried this for the first two weeks in January but were defeated for
several reasons. First, Teeter became inundated with work in having
all the fourteen first-wave polling results arrive almost himultaneously.
4
Therefore, he could not function effectively no matter who was
asking him questions. Second, a series of basically non-campaign
Presidential requests of Teeter's polling information were funneled
through me to Teeter. He used these projects (which in total would
comprise three full work-days) as an excuse to the Attorney General
for non-delivery of results. The nature of these projects were
disclosed to Magruder recently to convince him that Teeter's claims
of overwork by the White House were unfounded. He agreed that they
were no excuse. Nonetheless, Magruder and Strachan should be given
authority to determine priorities for Teeter and jointly control his
workload. Other members of the White House staff and Campaign staff
should not have access to Teeter. This will insure project completion
within an acceptable time frame. Reports would still come first only
to the Attorney General and Haldeman. They could be reviewed and
distributed as you and the Attorney General felt appropriate.
If you agree with this approach, Magruder will get the Attorney General's
concurrence and this system will be initiated.
Agree
Disagree
Other
LH:kb
Administratively Confidential
February 3, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Republican National
Convention/Use of Flag
Placards
Jeb Magruder called to report that the Republican National
Committee will use the BBD&O recommended comner of the flag
for the RNC Convention materials. Magruder advised the
Attorney General that you strenuously opposed any use of
the flag or part thereof, but the Attorney General decided
not to overrule the RNC, Don Kendall, who volunteered
BBD&O, on this matter.
GS:1m
Administratively Confidential
February 2, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Muskie Press Conference
You have a copy of Muskie's speech and all wires as of
12:30 p.m.
His press conference has 15 reporters and 40 supporters.
He announced his Citizens Committee - Senator Pastore,
Governor Scott, Leonard Woodcock, Ester Peterson (LBJ
Consumer Adviser), and Myrlie Evers (Medger's widow), etc.
The foreign speech was billed as an ecology statement in
all schedules that were obtained in advance. Buchanan
believes Clark Clifford convinced Muskie to change the
ecology subject and follow Clifford's line expressed in
the New York Times Op Ed piece recently. Muskie did this
and patched (note different type throughout text) this
speech together.
Colson is having Noel Koch prepare statements for our
supporters on the Hill. He is trying to get Buchanan
to draft a tough speech for a major spokesman.
GS:1m
February 1, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Convention Advertising Material
The Attorney General has directed Jeb Magruder to get your views
on the idea of using the corner of the flag on the convention advertising
and convention materials before proceeding.
Magruder has already been told that you think the cut-out of the flag
corner is a bad idea. He would like to know what your views are on
using the whole flag on the convention materials. He points out that
many of the materials will end up on the floor so in effect, people will
be stepping on the Glag, etc.
He would like your view as soon as possible this morning since he is
scheduled to meet with the advertising people today.
I assume you are 100% opposed to either the whole flag or portions of
the flag being used on the advertising and will so instruct him unless
you indicate otherwise below.
GS:LH:kb