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 Mr. Mitchell. RE: The President's delay of the Campaign Kick-Off speech until September. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/1/1972
From Robert M. Teeter to John N. Mitchell. RE: The design of the second wave polling and cost estimates. 4 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/11/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Wave II Campaign Surveys. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/19/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: The Campaign Kick-Off Event. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/19/1972
From J. Curtis Herge to Jeb S. Magruder. RE: Proposal for Campaign Kick-Off Event in San Diego and San Clemente (September 14 and 15, 1972). 8 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/18/1972
From Michael Raoul-Duval to Haldeman. RE: San Clemente/San Diego Campaign "Kick-Off." 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/8/1972
From L. Higby to Dwight Chapin and David Parker. RE: Campaign Kick-Off Meeting in San Clemente. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/2/1972
Action Paper regarding the comparison between Nixon's "Campaign Kick-Off Meeting" in San Clemente to Eisenhower's in Gettysburg. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Other Document], 4/25/1972
From Haldeman to Mitchell. RE: The President's plan to deliever his acceptance speech at the Convention Hall in San Diego, so that it may coincide with the Campaign Kick-Off. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/1/1972
From Haldeman to John Mitchell. RE: The President's concern that nothing has been done on arrangements with Manny Garcia. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 4/30/1972
From L. Higby to Dwight Chapin and David Parker. RE: Campaign Kick-Off Meeting in San Clemente. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], no date
Action Paper that makes a point to illustrate the comparisons between Nixon's Campaign Kick-Off Meeting in San Clemente to Eisenhower's meeting in Gettysburg. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 4/25/1972
From Haldeman to John Mitchell. RE: The President's use of Walker's Cay for meetings with high-level people. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 4/30/1972
From Gordon Strachan to unknown receiver. RE: Indecipherable message. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], no date
From Gordon Strachan to Larry. RE: Message which states, "There's another memo on the way which includes Dewal's info." 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], no date
Indecipherable handwritten note. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Other Document], no date
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: John Mitchell forwarded "first draft" proposal for the San Clemente Campaign Kick-Off Meeting. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/4/1972
From J. Curtis Herge to Jeb S. Magruder. RE: Proposal for Major Republican Conference in San Diego in September. 4 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/1/1972
From Haldeman to Mr. Mitchell. RE: President Nixon's decision to deliver his acceptance speech in San Diego at the Convention Hall. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/1/1972
Action Paper regarding the comparison between Nixon's Campaign Kick-Off Meeting and Eisenhower's meeting in Gettysburg. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Other Document], 4/25/1972
From L. Higby to Dwight Chapin and David Parker. RE: Campaign Kick-Off Meeting in San Clemente. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/2/1972
Indecipherable handwritten note. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Other Document], no date
From Herbert L. Porter to Jeb S. Magruder. RE: Participation of the President in the '72 Candidates Conference. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/1/1972
From J. Curtis Herge to John N. Mitchell. RE: Proposal for Major Republican Conference in San Diego in September. 4 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/1/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: RNC Convention-Miami Beach. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 5/18/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: The President's Telephone Call to Harry Dent-May 17. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 5/17/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Maryland and Michigan Primary Returns. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/16/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Meeting with Peter Dailey to discuss campaign advertising. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/16/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Meeting with John Mitchell and Bob Teeter- May 12. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 5/12/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Meeting with John Mitchell and Bob Teeter- April 12 to review campaign strategies. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/11/1972
From Robert M. Teeter to John N. Mitchell. RE: Theme ideas for the President's campaign for re-election. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/12/1972
From Robert H. Marik to John N. Mitchell. RE: Priority Ranking of the States for the Campaign. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/1/1972
From Robert M. Teeter to John N. Mitchell. RE: The Wallace Strategy, and the current analysis of George Wallace on the November election. 5 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/11/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Campaign Poll Analysis and Wave II. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/12/1972
From Robert M. Teeter to John N. Mitchell. RE: Final First Wave/Analysis, and subsequent conclusions. 8 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/11/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Nebraska and West Virginia Primary Results. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/9/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: The March Gallup Surveys. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/9/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Cambridge Opinion Poll. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/8/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Tennessee Primary Returns, and the President's expected win. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/4/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: The RNC Convention, and the discussion of the Miami Beach location. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/4/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Indiana, Ohio, D.C., Primary Returns. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/2/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Whether or not Lillie Lou Rietzke were a contributor to the President's campaign. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/3/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: George Wallace's possible candidacy in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/1/1972
From L. Higby to Gordon Strachan. RE: A summary of the Wallace vote on a state by state basis. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/1/1972
Indecipherable handwritten notes. 2 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Other Document], no date
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: The discussion with John Davies which confirmed that the President's popularity ratings were not conducted on either the April 15-16 or April 24-25 surveys. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/1/1972
From L. Higby to Dwight Chapin and David Parker. RE: Campaign Kick-Off Meeting in San Clemente. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], no date
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26145597
label
WHSF: Contested, 13-14
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26145597
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 13-14
description
This file contains:
From Haldeman to Mr. Mitchell. RE: The President's delay of the Campaign Kick-Off speech until September. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/1/1972
From Robert M. Teeter to John N. Mitchell. RE: The design of the second wave polling and cost estimates. 4 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/11/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Wave II Campaign Surveys. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/19/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: The Campaign Kick-Off Event. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/19/1972
From J. Curtis Herge to Jeb S. Magruder. RE: Proposal for Campaign Kick-Off Event in San Diego and San Clemente (September 14 and 15, 1972). 8 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/18/1972
From Michael Raoul-Duval to Haldeman. RE: San Clemente/San Diego Campaign "Kick-Off." 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/8/1972
From L. Higby to Dwight Chapin and David Parker. RE: Campaign Kick-Off Meeting in San Clemente. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/2/1972
Action Paper regarding the comparison between Nixon's "Campaign Kick-Off Meeting" in San Clemente to Eisenhower's in Gettysburg. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Other Document], 4/25/1972
From Haldeman to Mitchell. RE: The President's plan to deliever his acceptance speech at the Convention Hall in San Diego, so that it may coincide with the Campaign Kick-Off. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/1/1972
From Haldeman to John Mitchell. RE: The President's concern that nothing has been done on arrangements with Manny Garcia. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 4/30/1972
From L. Higby to Dwight Chapin and David Parker. RE: Campaign Kick-Off Meeting in San Clemente. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], no date
Action Paper that makes a point to illustrate the comparisons between Nixon's Campaign Kick-Off Meeting in San Clemente to Eisenhower's meeting in Gettysburg. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 4/25/1972
From Haldeman to John Mitchell. RE: The President's use of Walker's Cay for meetings with high-level people. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 4/30/1972
From Gordon Strachan to unknown receiver. RE: Indecipherable message. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], no date
From Gordon Strachan to Larry. RE: Message which states, "There's another memo on the way which includes Dewal's info." 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], no date
Indecipherable handwritten note. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Other Document], no date
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: John Mitchell forwarded "first draft" proposal for the San Clemente Campaign Kick-Off Meeting. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/4/1972
From J. Curtis Herge to Jeb S. Magruder. RE: Proposal for Major Republican Conference in San Diego in September. 4 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/1/1972
From Haldeman to Mr. Mitchell. RE: President Nixon's decision to deliver his acceptance speech in San Diego at the Convention Hall. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/1/1972
Action Paper regarding the comparison between Nixon's Campaign Kick-Off Meeting and Eisenhower's meeting in Gettysburg. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Other Document], 4/25/1972
From L. Higby to Dwight Chapin and David Parker. RE: Campaign Kick-Off Meeting in San Clemente. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/2/1972
Indecipherable handwritten note. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Other Document], no date
From Herbert L. Porter to Jeb S. Magruder. RE: Participation of the President in the '72 Candidates Conference. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/1/1972
From J. Curtis Herge to John N. Mitchell. RE: Proposal for Major Republican Conference in San Diego in September. 4 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/1/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: RNC Convention-Miami Beach. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 5/18/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: The President's Telephone Call to Harry Dent-May 17. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 5/17/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Maryland and Michigan Primary Returns. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/16/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Meeting with Peter Dailey to discuss campaign advertising. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/16/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Meeting with John Mitchell and Bob Teeter- May 12. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 5/12/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Meeting with John Mitchell and Bob Teeter- April 12 to review campaign strategies. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/11/1972
From Robert M. Teeter to John N. Mitchell. RE: Theme ideas for the President's campaign for re-election. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/12/1972
From Robert H. Marik to John N. Mitchell. RE: Priority Ranking of the States for the Campaign. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/1/1972
From Robert M. Teeter to John N. Mitchell. RE: The Wallace Strategy, and the current analysis of George Wallace on the November election. 5 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/11/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Campaign Poll Analysis and Wave II. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/12/1972
From Robert M. Teeter to John N. Mitchell. RE: Final First Wave/Analysis, and subsequent conclusions. 8 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/11/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Nebraska and West Virginia Primary Results. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/9/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: The March Gallup Surveys. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/9/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Cambridge Opinion Poll. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/8/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Tennessee Primary Returns, and the President's expected win. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/4/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: The RNC Convention, and the discussion of the Miami Beach location. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/4/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Indiana, Ohio, D.C., Primary Returns. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/2/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Whether or not Lillie Lou Rietzke were a contributor to the President's campaign. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/3/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: George Wallace's possible candidacy in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/1/1972
From L. Higby to Gordon Strachan. RE: A summary of the Wallace vote on a state by state basis. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/1/1972
Indecipherable handwritten notes. 2 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Other Document], no date
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: The discussion with John Davies which confirmed that the President's popularity ratings were not conducted on either the April 15-16 or April 24-25 surveys. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 5/1/1972
From L. Higby to Dwight Chapin and David Parker. RE: Campaign Kick-Off Meeting in San Clemente. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], no date
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26145597
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
18fefa647c604394
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
13
14
5/1/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Haldeman to Mr. Mitchell. RE: The
President's delay of the Campaign Kick-Off
speech until September. 1 pg.
13
14
5/11/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Robert M. Teeter to John N. Mitchell.
RE: The design of the second wave polling
and cost estimates. 4 pgs.
13
14
5/19/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
Wave II Campaign Surveys. 1 pg.
13
14
5/19/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
The Campaign Kick-Off Event. 1 pg.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Page 1 of 10
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
13
14
5/18/1972
Campaign
Memo
From J. Curtis Herge to Jeb S. Magruder.
RE: Proposal for Campaign Kick-Off Event
in San Diego and San Clemente (September
14 and 15, 1972). 8 pgs.
13
14
5/8/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Michael Raoul-Duval to Haldeman.
RE: San Clemente/San Diego Campaign
"Kick-Off." 3 pgs.
13
14
5/2/1972
Campaign
Memo
From L. Higby to Dwight Chapin and David
Parker. RE: Campaign Kick-Off Meeting in
San Clemente. 1 pg.
13
14
4/25/1972
Domestic Policy
Other Document
Action Paper regarding the comparison
between Nixon's "Campaign Kick-Off
Meeting" in San Clemente to Eisenhower's in
Gettysburg. 1 pg.
13
14
5/1/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Haldeman to Mitchell. RE: The
President's plan to deliever his acceptance
speech at the Convention Hall in San Diego,
so that it may coincide with the Campaign
Kick-Off. 1 pg.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Page 2 of 10
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
13
14
4/30/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Haldeman to John Mitchell. RE: The
President's concern that nothing has been
done on arrangements with Manny Garcia. 2
pgs.
13
14
Campaign
Memo
From L. Higby to Dwight Chapin and David
Parker. RE: Campaign Kick-Off Meeting in
San Clemente. 1 pg.
13
14
4/25/1972
Campaign
Other Document
Action Paper that makes a point to illustrate
the comparisons between Nixon's Campaign
Kick-Off Meeting in San Clemente to
Eisenhower's meeting in Gettysburg. 1 pg.
13
14
4/30/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Haldeman to John Mitchell. RE: The
President's use of Walker's Cay for meetings
with high-level people. 2 pgs.
13
14
White House Staff
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to unknown receiver.
RE: Indecipherable message. 1 pg.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Page 3 of 10
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
13
14
White House Staff
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Larry. RE:
Message which states, "There's another
memo on the way which includes Dewal's
info." 1 pg.
13
14
White House Staff
Other Document
Indecipherable handwritten note. 1 pg.
13
14
5/4/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
John Mitchell forwarded "first draft"
proposal for the San Clemente Campaign
Kick-Off Meeting. 1 pg.
13
14
5/1/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From J. Curtis Herge to Jeb S. Magruder.
RE: Proposal for Major Republican
Conference in San Diego in September. 4 pgs.
13
14
5/1/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Haldeman to Mr. Mitchell. RE:
President Nixon's decision to deliver his
acceptance speech in San Diego at the
Convention Hall. 1 pg.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Page 4 of 10
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
13
14
4/25/1972
Domestic Policy
Other Document
Action Paper regarding the comparison
between Nixon's Campaign Kick-Off
Meeting and Eisenhower's meeting in
Gettysburg. 1 pg.
13
14
5/2/1972
Campaign
Memo
From L. Higby to Dwight Chapin and David
Parker. RE: Campaign Kick-Off Meeting in
San Clemente. 1 pg.
13
14
White House Staff
Other Document
Indecipherable handwritten note. 1 pg.
13
14
5/1/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Herbert L. Porter to Jeb S. Magruder.
RE: Participation of the President in the '72
Candidates Conference. 2 pgs.
13
14
5/1/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From J. Curtis Herge to John N. Mitchell.
RE: Proposal for Major Republican
Conference in San Diego in September. 4 pgs.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Page 5 of 10
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
13
14
5/18/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
RNC Convention-Miami Beach. 1 pg.
13
14
5/17/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
The President's Telephone Call to Harry
Dent-May 17. 1 pg.
13
14
5/16/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
Maryland and Michigan Primary Returns. 1
pg.
13
14
5/16/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
Meeting with Peter Dailey to discuss
campaign advertising. 1 pg.
13
14
5/12/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
Meeting with John Mitchell and Bob Teeter-
May 12. 1 pg.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Page 6 of 10
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
13
14
4/11/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
Meeting with John Mitchell and Bob Teeter-
April 12 to review campaign strategies. 1 pg.
13
14
4/12/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Robert M. Teeter to John N. Mitchell.
RE: Theme ideas for the President's
campaign for re-election. 3 pgs.
13
14
5/1/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Robert H. Marik to John N. Mitchell.
RE: Priority Ranking of the States for the
Campaign. 4 pgs.
13
14
4/11/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Robert M. Teeter to John N. Mitchell.
RE: The Wallace Strategy, and the current
analysis of George Wallace on the November
election. 5 pgs.
13
14
5/12/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
Campaign Poll Analysis and Wave II. 1 pg.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Page 7 of 10
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
13
14
5/11/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Robert M. Teeter to John N. Mitchell.
RE: Final First Wave/Analysis, and
subsequent conclusions. 8 pgs.
13
14
5/9/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
Nebraska and West Virginia Primary Results.
1 pg.
13
14
5/9/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
The March Gallup Surveys. 2 pgs.
13
14
5/8/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
Cambridge Opinion Poll. 1 pg.
13
14
5/4/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
Tennessee Primary Returns, and the
President's expected win. 1 pg.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Page 8 of 10
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
13
14
5/4/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
The RNC Convention, and the discussion of
the Miami Beach location. 1 pg.
13
14
5/2/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
Indiana, Ohio, D.C., Primary Returns. 1 pg.
13
14
5/3/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
Whether or not Lillie Lou Rietzke were a
contributor to the President's campaign. 1 pg.
13
14
5/1/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
George Wallace's possible candidacy in
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. 2
pgs.
13
14
5/1/1972
Campaign
Memo
From L. Higby to Gordon Strachan. RE: A
summary of the Wallace vote on a state by
state basis. 1 pg.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Page 9 of 10
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
13
14
White House Staff
Other Document
Indecipherable handwritten notes. 2 pgs.
13
14
5/1/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:
The discussion with John Davies which
confirmed that the President's popularity
ratings were not conducted on either the
April 15-16 or April 24-25 surveys. 1 pg.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Page 10 of 10
DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD [NIXON PROJECT]
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
TYPE
SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS
DATE
RESTRICTION
N-1
MEMO
STRACHAN D HXH
5/15/72
[DOC#9]
FILE GROUP TITLE
BOX NUMBER
H.R. HALDEMAN
238
FOLDER TITLE
STRACHAN CHRON - HRH ONLY MAY 1972
RESTRICTION CODES
A. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy.
E. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
B. National security classified information.
financial information.
C. Pending or approved claim that release would violate an individual's
F. Release would disclose investigatory information compiled for law
rights.
enforcement purposes.
D. Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted Invasion of privacy
G. Withdrawn and return private and personal material.
or a libel of a living person.
H. Withdrawn and returned non-historical material.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
NA FORM 1421 (4-85)
Presidential Materials Review Board
Review on Contested Documents
Collection: H. R. Haldeman
Box Number: 238
Folder:
Strachan Chron-HRH only May 1972
Document
Disposition
1
Return
Private/Politicalmîm), STRACHAN TD HVH, 5/19/72
2
Return
Private/Politicalfm), STRACHAN TO HRH, 5/19/72
3
Return
Private/Political)Em) STRACHAN D 48+, 5/18/72
4
Retain
Open
5
Return
Private/Politicalmdm), STRACHAN TO HRH, 5/7/72
6
Return
Private/Political{m), STRAC-AN -0 424, 5/16/72
7
Return
STRACHAN TO HRH, 5/16/72
8
Retain
Open
9
Retain
Close
Invasion of PrivacymEmo, STRACHAN TO HRH, 5/15/72
10
Retain
Open
11
Return
Private/Politicalm Em), STRACHAN TO HRA. 5/12/72
12
Return
Private/PoliticalmÊmo) STRACHAN TO HRH, 5/12/72
13
Retain
Open
14
Return
STRACHAN To 1-12:- 5/9/72
15
Return
Private/Political mEmo, STRACHAH TO HRH, 5/9/72
16
Retain
Open
17
Retain
Open
18
Retain
Open
19
Retain
Open
20
Return
Private/PoliticalmEm), STRACHAS TD NPH. 5/8/72
21
Retain
Open
22
Return
Private/Political mimo, STRACHAH is 1124, 5/4/72
23
Return
Private/Politicalm[m], STRACHAN TO Histi, 5/4/72
24
Return
Private/Politicalmťm), STRACHAN TO HRH, 5/2/72
***
Presidential Materials Review Board
Review on Contested Documents
Collection: H. R. Haldeman
Box Number: 238
25
Retain Open
26
Return Private/Political mEmO, STRACHAN TO HRA, 5/3/72
27
Return
Private/Political MEMO, STRACHAN TO HRH, 5/1/72
28
Retain Open
29
Retain Open
30
Return Private/Political MEMO, STRACHAN -) HRH, 5/1/72
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
May 19, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Wave II Campaign Surveys
John Mitchell told Bob Teeter yesterday not to include
Vice Presidential trial heats in the Wave II Campaign
Surveys. This conflicts with an earlier discussion you
had with Mr. Mitchell. He now believes that 1) the
results before the Democratic Convention would serve no
useful purpose; 2) the results would be obtained if
needed by a telephone survey. If you still want to
include these Vice Presidential trial heats on Wave II,
Mr. Mitchell would like to talk to you after the Russia
trip.
GS/jb
H - FU - 6/5
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
May 19, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Campaign Kick-Off Event
Jeb Magruder gave the attached plan on the Campaign Kick-
Off in San Diego and San Clemente to John Mitchell on
May 18. Mitchell discussed the proposal with Governor
Reagan. Reagan enthusiastically supports the idea but
suggests delaying the announcement as long as possible.
Mitchell agrees.
Mike Duval did a preliminary survey for Dwight Chapin,
based on earlier information from 1701. It also is
attached but will be updated after the Russia trip.
GS/jb
F/U - 6/5
Committee for the Re-election of the President
May 18, 1972
MEMORANDUM
DETERMINED TO BE AN
AD VIIVE MARKING
E.0.2.005. Justion 6-102
CONFIDENTIAL
By Emprese
NARS, Date 1-10-80
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
THROUGH:
JEB S. MAGRUDER
FROM:
J. CURTIS HERGE
SUBJECT:
Proposal for Campaign Kick-Off Event
in San Diego and San Clemente
September 14 and 15, 1972
It has been proposed that the President and Mrs. Nixon host a two
day gathering of Republican leaders in San Diego, California, during
the period September 14 and 15, 1972. The purpose of the gathering
would be (1) to provide an opportunity for discussions and meetings
about campaign strategy and plans and (2) to provide an attractive
and suitable forum for the initial campaign address by the President.
In that connection, consideration is being given to a proposal that
the President deliver his formal acceptance speech during this two
day. period in California, rather than at the Convention in Miami.
The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth the points which
should be considered in connection with this proposal and to describe
a proposed agenda.
1. Participants. In addition to the President and
Mrs. Nixon and the candidate for Vice President and his wife, the
following groups of individuals might be invited to the gathering:
Approximate Number of
Group
Individuals in the Group
a. The surrogate candidates
32
b. Members of the Cabinet who
are not surrogate candidates
(Laird, Rogers, Shultz)
3
C. Republican Senators who are
not surrogate candidates
35
d. Republican Governors who are
not surrogate candidates
17
Page Two
e. Republican Congressmen who
are not surrogate candidates
(Not including Congressmen
Ashbrook, McCloskey, Schmitz
and Riegle)
171
f. Officers of the Republican
National Committee
12
g.
National Committeemen and
Committeewomen
100
h. State GOP Chairmen
50
i. State Committee for the Re-
election of the President
Chairmen
50
j.
State Finance Committee to
Re-elect the President
Chairmen
50
k. State Committee for the Re-
election of the President
Executive Directors
50
1. Under Secretaries, Assistant
Secretaries and Agency Heads
70
m. Senior members of the White
House staff
15
n. Senior members of the 1701
staff and voting bloc
coordinators
20
O. Celebrities for the President
10
p. Athletes for the President
10
q. Elected Republican State
Officeholders from California
4
r. Non-incumbent Republican
candidates for Congress from
California
31
S. Republican leaders not listed
above, e.g. Mayor Lugar, Dr.
Arthur Flemming and substantial
contributors
60
Sub-Total
790
Spouses
790
TOTAL
1,580
Page Three
The number of participants could be reduced, if deemed advisable,
by not inviting (a) the Republican Congressmen who are not surrogate
candidates, (b) the Assistant Secretaries, and (c) selected Agency
Heads. This question becomes relevant in connection with cost
considerations and the proposed barbecue (or fish fry) at the
residence in San Clemente. We have been advised that the areas
available for that event are either the golf course, or the area
immediately to the east. Both areas at the residence could handle
"1,000 plus,' but 1,580 might exceed the comfortable limit unless
the areas were combined.
We recommend that consideration continue to be given to inviting all
the listed groups, plus their spouses (a total of approximately
1,580 people), subject to a more definitive determination of the
costs involved and the numbers that can be accommodated at San
Clemente. If reductions are then indicated, consideration would be
given to not inviting, in the order listed, (a) the Republican
Congressmen who are not surrogate candidates (the leadership and
the California Congressmen should nevertheless be invited), (b)
the Assistant Secretaries, and (c) selected Agency Heads.
Approve
Disapprove
Comment
2. Dates. The dates proposed are Thursday, September
14, and Friday, September 15.
It should be noted that there will be the following other activities
in San Diego during that period:
a. The Inland Empire Credit Union will be holding a convention
at the Town and Country Hotel. Expected attendance: 900;
b. The U.S.S. Saratoga Reunion will commence on September 15th
at the Sheraton Inn. Expected attendance: 300;
C. Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company will be holding a
convention at the Hotel Del Cornado from September 7th
through September 14th. Expected attendance: 700;
d. The Humble Oil and Refining Company will be holding
meetings at the Town and Country Hotel from September 10th
through September 14th. The expected attendance is not
known at this time;
Page Four
e. The U.S. Pro Tennis Association will hold a convention
at the Hotel Del Cornado from September 14th through
September 17th. Expected attendance: 400;
f. California Affiliate Representatives, Inc. will be
meeting at the Bi-hia Hotel from September 14th through
September 17th. Expected attendance: 400.
It does not appear that these activities would cause any media or
accommodation conflict. It should be noted, however, that the San
Diego Padres are scheduled to play in Houston on September 14 and
15. Those games may be televised locally in San Diego.
3. Format. As noted, consideration is being given
to a proposal that the President deliver his acceptance speech
during this period. It is our understanding that Messrs. Bryan
and Willkie, as well as a number of other nominees, delivered their
acceptance addresses at a time considerably later than the Convention.
The thought in this instance is that there would be some obvious
advantages in getting some major attention and television coverage
in September when the audiences would be larger than in late August.
An inherent problem is that the three television networks would
have to be convinced that (1) the speech is, in fact, the acceptance
speech and (2) free time should be provided. The networks probably
cannot be convinced that the acceptance speech will be delivered in
California until the conclusion of the Convention in Miami. Even
then, the networks might want to hear, or read the advance text of,
the California speech before deciding if free time should be granted.
A more remote problem is that the networks may decide, after the
Convention, that we have locked ourselves in and, as a consequence,
force us to buy time to have the speech covered.
Mike Duval, at the White House, has presented the following options:
a. If the address is the President's acceptance speech
and it is carried live (video tape) on a national or
selected cities hook-up, it should be held on Thursday,
September 14, 1972, at 7:00 p.m., before a "canned"
audience of about 5,000, including the key participants
suggested above. The place selected should be inside,
e.g. at the Convention Hall, but not in a dinner setting.
In order to create campaign excitement, a rally atmosphere
was suggested.
Page Five
b. If the address were not the President's acceptance
speech and there is only film coverage, it should also
be held on Thursday, September 14, but in Charger
Stadium (capacity 50,000). Admission would be by
ticket and there would be pre-program entertainment
and post-speech fireworks.
In view of the tenuous situation with the television networks, we
recommend that the President deliver his acceptance speech at the
Convention in Miami and that the speech in San Diego be considered
as his initial campaign address. We also recommend that this
address be delivered indoors on Thursday, September 14, 1972, at
7:00 p.m. The program would be developed in a rally type atmos-
phere and the President's address should be preceded with a
procession of celebrities and entertainment. The site selected,
such as the Convention Hall, might accommodate 5,000 people.
Negotiations should be undertaken with one network to buy thirty
minutes of time to broadcast the President's address.
Approve
Disapprove
Comment
The major event on Friday, September 15, 1972, might be to have the
President host a barbecue (or fish fry) at the residence in San
Clemente either on the golf course or the area immediately to the
east. Mike Duval has noted that "both areas at the residence could
easily handle 1,000 plus.'
Mike Duval has recommended that this event be held at noon, or in
mid-afternoon, to permit the participants to fly home that evening.
Our view is that the event should be held from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
as the conclusion of a series of working sessions that would also
be scheduled. (Our proposed agenda for the two days' activities,
including the working sessions, is attached at Tab A.)
For our guidance, we would appreciate receiving your recommendation
whether the event should be held at:
a. Noon or mid-afternoon
b. From 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Page Six
4. Cost. It is estimated that, if all the proposed
participants were invited, the two day program would cost approxi-
mately $403,460. That estimate was based upon the following
assumptions:
a. Transportation. It was assumed that charter
aircraft would be utilized to transport the
surrogate candidates; the other members of
the Cabinet; the other Republican Senators;
the other Republican Congressmen; the Under
Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries and Agency
Heads; the 1701 staff members; and, their
spouses between Washington, D.C. and San
Diego. That includes approximately 660
people, which would require five aircraft
at approximately $22,000 each.
$110,000
It was also assumed that we would pay the
cost of coach class, round trip transporta-
tion for the 300 campaign chairmen,
campaign finance chairmen, campaign execu-
tive directors and their spouses, from
their home states to San Diego
88,500
b. Television Time. Thirty minutes of time
for a network broadcast of the President's
address on September 14, 1972, would cost
between $65,000 and $85,000, depending
upon the network and the number of
affiliate feeds.
80,000
C. Rooms. It was assumed that one-half the
participants might arrive in San Diego
on Wednesday evening and that the
balance would arrive on the chartered
aircraft on Thursday morning. It was
also assumed that all the participants
would overnight in San Diego on Thursday
and Friday nights. The assumed room
cost per person per night was $20 for
a single and $25 for a double.
49,500
Page Seven
d. Food. It was assumed that lunch would
be provided on Thursday; and, that break-
fast and lunch would be provided on
Friday. Other food costs would be borne
by the individual participants.
31,600
e. Barbecue. It was assumed that the
barbecue at the residence would cost
approximately $15.00 per person.
23,700
f. Buses. It was assumed that forty-
three charter buses would be required
to bus the participants between San
Diego and San Clemente on Friday,
September 15, 1972. The cost per bus
for the six hour charter would be
approximately $120.
5,160
g. Rally. The cost of the rally on
Thursday, September 14, 1972, was
estimated at $15,000.
15,000
TOTAL
$403,460
It should be noted that the cost of the "Spirit of '76" and the cost
of landscaping at the residence have not been included in the fore-
going estimate.
If it were decided not to invite all the Republican Congressmen, the
Assistant Secretaries, the Agency Heads and their spouses, the total
number of participants would be reduced to approximately 1,120
participants. Accordingly, the cost of the program would be reduced
and would amount to approximately $309,000.
If the concept of the program is approved, it should be noted that
planning should be commenced as promptly as possible. This is par-
ticularly true in connection with chartering the aircraft and buses
and in negotiating for the television time.
cc: Mr. Herbert L. Porter
TAB A
PROPOSED AGENDA
Thursday, September 14, 1972
9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon
Arrival and check-in
12:00 noon - 2:00 p.m.
Luncheon, with address by Gov. Reagan
(Host Governor)
2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Working sessions, with addresses by
Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Stans and Sen. Dole
6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Indoor rally, with celebrities and
entertainment
7:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
Address by the President
7:30 p.m. -
Staff time
Friday, September 15, 1972
7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.
Breakfast buffet
9:30 a.m. - 12:00 noon
Working sessions with addresses by
Gov. Rockefeller, Sen. Goldwater,
Sen. Scott and Cong. Ford
12:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Luncheon, with address by the Vice
Presidential candidate
3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Bus participants to San Clemente
5:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Barbecue (or fish fry) at San Clemente
8:00 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.
Return to San Diego
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DETERMINED TO BE AN
CONFIDENTIAL
May 8, 1972
AUMONISTRATIVE MARKETG
E.O. 12005. Section 0-102
By Emprise
NARS, Date
1-10-80
MEMORANDUM FOR: MR. H. R. HALDEMAN
VIA:
DWIGHT L. CHAPIN
FROM:
MICHAEL RAOUL-DUVAL
RE:
SAN CLEMENTE/SAN DIEGO
CAMPAIGN "KICK-OFF"
The following is a preliminary report on the possibility of a two-
day campaign "kick-off" in San Diego and San Clemente on September
7th (Thursday) and 8th.
1. PROPOSAL AND OPTIONS:
I have discussed the proposal drafted by The Committee with Jeb
Magruder. It essentially recommends that about 700 key political
people, with their spouses, go to San Diego on September 8th for
two days of conferences and entertainment. It proposes that the
President address a black tie dinner the first night and host a bar-
becue at San Clemente the second evening.
BLUNTLE
Since the President is considering making his acceptance speech
in San Diego as a part of the "kick-off", I suggest the following
options for Presidential participation. The principle difference
concerns how the President's speech is staged.
OPTION 1: [Note: Assumes the Thursday night address is the
President's acceptance speech and is carried live (video tape) on a
national or selected cities hook-up. ]
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1972
Helicopter to San Diego from San Clemente.
Do speech at about 7:00 p.m. (local time), before a "canned"
audience of about 5,000 which would include the people involved
in the "kick-off". The place selected should be inside but not a
dinner set-up. in order to create campaign excitement, a raliy
atmosphere might be best.
-2-
FRIDAY. SEPTEMBER 8, 1972
The President hosts a barbecue (or fish fry) either on the
golf course or the area immediately to the east. (See the
attached photo. ) In either case, some landscaping work will
be necessary. In discussing numbers with Jeb, it was felt
Hwe
that the participants could be cut down to the 400-500 range,
exclusive of spouses. Both areas at the residence could easily
only
the
handle 1000 plus.
I would recommend a noon to mid-afternoon affair which would
permit the participants to fly home that evening.
Concerning San Clemente costs, I discussed landscaping
(grass, etc.) with Jack Brennan but we are holding off making
any inquiries until we do the survey. Tents, if requested,
are available from Santa Anna at a cost range of $500-$1100/day
depending on the size.
OPTION 2: [Note: Assumes that Thursday night's address is not
the acceptance speech and that there is no electronic TV coverage -
film only. ]
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1972
Helicopter to San Diego for a night rally in Charger Stadium
or the appropriate site. Ticket the entire stadium - about
50,000. Do it as a rally spectacular with good pre-program
entertainment and post-speech fireworks.
when Dutsi
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1972
Same as Option 1.
2.
FOLLOW-UP ACTION:
A) The Committee (Jon Foust) will make all the arrangements
for the invited Republican leaders and all events other than the
events involved directly in the President's San Diego address
and San Clemente activities.
Approve
Disapprove
C
-3-
B) The Advance Office will do an on-site survey as soon as
we return from the European trip. Until then the site for
the President's San Diego speech will not be locked.
Approve
Disapprove
C) As guidance for the survey:
1. Plan on Option 1:
C
Plan on Option 2:
2. At the residence, use:
Golf course:
C
Alternative Area:
3. Reduce invited leaders to 400-500 range
Approve
Disapprove
Include wives:
Yes
No
DETERMINE BE AN
VNG
ADMINIST
6-102
12000
Date 1-10-80
Emprise
May 2, 1972
CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
5/10
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DWIGHT CHAPIN
DAVID PARKER
FROM:
L. HIGBY
SUBJECT:
Campaign Kick-Off Meeting
in San Clemente
CHES Mirkly
Bob asked me to pass on to you the fact that there is great
and
interest in having some sort of a Campaign kick-off meeting
in San Clemente in September. Basically this would be similar
to what Eisenhower did in Gettysburg and probably run over a
two day period. The idea would be to go out there and set up
tents and have private meetings and group meetings with the big
wheels, opportunities for pictures with candidates, talks with
State Chairmen, National Committeemen, candidate pep talks,
etc.
He has discussed this with John Mitchell and Mitchell leworking
out some of the details and will be getting back to Haldeman with
a plan.
Bob asked that you have someone get a survey of the available
facilities out there. Foorexample, the field on the President's
property needs to be leveled and grass probably planted on it or
something so we can put up a tent out there to accomodate a lot
of people, to see what can be done there and what needs to be
done there to get ready for it.
LH:kb
ACTION PAPER - MITCHELL
After the move to Miami is set, we should make an announcement
that the President wants to have a Campaign Kick-Off Meeting of
all the campaign leaders and key candidates at his home in San Clemente.
This would be something along the lines that Eisenhower did in
Gettysburg. We'll set up tents and work it all out there.
The point, though, is to get the announcement out now so as to show
our interest in California at a time when they may feel we're looking
the other way.
HRH
4/25/72
EYES ONLY
May 1, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR :
MR. MITCHELL
FROM :
H.R. HALDEMAN
The President had a further idea regarding the San Clements
Blick-6ff Meeting.
His thought was that instead of giving the acceptance speech in
Miami at the Convention, he would delay it until September and
give it in San Dicgo at the Convention Hall in conjunction with
the Campaign Kick-Clf.
He would, of course, go to the Convention Hall in Miami the
night he to nominated and speak informally as was suggested
in the television momoranoum, out would say at the time that
he would withhold his formal acceptance address until the
San Clemente Rick-On in September.
As you know, Bryan, Wilkie, and a number of other nominees
have delivered their acceptance address at a time considerably
later than the Convention. We'd have to find out If anybody who
has won an election has done so. There would be some obvious
advantages to this in getting us some major attention and tele-
vision coverage in early September when the audiences will be
bigger and the effect will be more productive to us.
Nothing should be done on this, of course, until Miami is locked,
but then we micht anhounce it so that the Californians know that
this is what's coming. We could do It on the basis that the
President wents to make his acceptance speech in his home state
in September.
HRH:pm
April 30, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JOHN MITCHELL
FROM:
H. R. HALDEMAN
Following up on some of the things we covered on the
phone over the weekend, and some I any not have raised
with you --
Can't we get Ashbrook to pull out now by working through
Lee Kaiescr and Bill Buckley and then tru to build some
party units? This would be a dramatic move OH his part,
06 course, and would make Ashbrook a big man. Can we
work on Parkinson to turn 046 his deal in this regard?
The President is concerned that nothing has been done on
arrangements with llanny Garcia. It was supposed to have
been see up to have someone give him a retainer and
apparently Bebe has talked with the President about the
flact that nathing has been done on this and the President
is very much concerned.
On Ray Tliss, I will wait until you say we should bring
him in to see the President and then we will set something
up on your recommendation.
As I mentioned, the President wants you to consider the
use of Walker's Cay for meetings with high-level people
and select groups. If you want to have a strategy session
with the Roche (ellers and Reagan types or with your state
leaders or something of that sort, this is the piace that
can be used for that purpose. It can acconodate x00 people
at the present time.
2
The President wants us to start some veru basic
planning on the California kick-off deal that
I discussed with you OR the phone. This, in his
mind, would be a two-day operation with a big night
time gatherina oh all the people in the San Diego
Convention Hall for a major speech by the President.
It would be barbecues or picnics at the President's
residence in San Clemente, with maybe the candidates
on one day and the Campaign leadership on the sedond
day. This would also provide the opportunity for the
President to meet with the Campaign wheels from time
to time during the sessions while they are out there.
It should be made a big deal with all the GOP State
Chairmen, National Committeemen, and so forth, and
they should all stay in San Diego for obvious reasons.
The question was raised as to whether we are putting
enough young people in positions of major responsibility
in the Campaign.
HRH:kb
DETERMINED TO BE AN
NISTRO
VIKING
065,
on 6-102
By Emprise
:
Date 1-10 1-1080 so
mins
LU:55
ACTION PAPER - MITCHELL
After the move to Miami is set, we should make an announcement
that the President wants to have a Campaign Kick-Off Meeting of
all the campaign leaders and key candidates at his home in San Clemente.
This would be something along the lines that Eisenhower did in
Gettysburg. We'll set up tents and work it all out there.
The point, though, is to get the announcement out now so as to show
our interest in California at a time when they may feel we're looking
the other way.
HRH
4/25/72
EYES ONLY
May 1, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR :
MR. MITCHELL
FROM :
H.R. HALDEMAN
The President had a further idea regarding the San Clements
Mick-tff Meeting.
His thought was that instead of giving the acceptance speech in
Miami at the Convention, he would delay it until September and
give it in San Diago at the Convention Hall in conjunction with
the Campaign Klck-CH.
He would, of course, go to the Convention Hall in Miami the
right he in nominated and speak informally no was suggested
in the television memorandum, but would say at the time that
he would withhold his formal acceptance address until the
San Clemente Nick-On in September.
As you know, Bryan, Wilkie, and a number of other nominees
have delivered their acceptance address at a time considerably
later than the Convention. We'd have to find out If anybody who
has won an election has done SO. There would be some obvious
advantages to this in getting us some major attention and tole-
vision coverage in early September when the audiences will be
bigger and the effect will be more productive to us.
Nothing should be done on this, of course, until Miami is locked,
but then we michi shhounce it DO that the Culifornians know that
this is whole coming. We could do It on the basis that the
President wents to make his acceptance speech in his home state
in September.
HRH:pm
April 30, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JOHN MITCHELL
FROM:
H. R. HALDEMAN
Following up on some of the things we covered on the
phone over the weekend, and some I any not have raised
with you --
Can't we get Ashbrook to pull out now by working through
Lee Kaieser and sill Buckley and then tru to build some
party units? This would be a dramatic move on his part,
06 course, and would make Ashbrook a big man. Can we
work on Parkinson to turn 066 his deal in this regard?
The President is concerned that nothing has been done on
arrangements with Hanny Garcia. It was supposed to have
been 300 is have someone size him a retainer and
apparently Bebe has talked with the President about the
light the nothing has been done on this and the President
is very much concerned.
On Ray Bliss, I will wait until you say we should bring
him in to see the President and then we will set something
up on your recommendation.
As I mentioned, the President wants you to consider the
use of Casher's cay for meetings with high-level people
and select groups. If you want to have a strategy session
with the Rocke (ellers and Reagan types or with your state
leaders or something of that sort, this is the piace that
can be used for that purpose. It can acconodate xoo people
at the present time.
2
The President wants us to start some veru basic
planning 011 the California bick-066 deal that
I discussed with you on the phone. This, in his
mind, would be a two-dan operation with a big night
time gatherina of are the people in the San Diego
Convention that for a major speech by the President.
It would be burbecues or pienics at the President's
residence in San Clevente, with maybe the candidates
on one day and the Canpaign leadership on the sedond
day. This would also provide the opportunity for the
President to meet with the Campaign ilheels from time
to time during the sessions while then are out there.
It should be made a big deal mith all the GOP State
Chairsen, National Connitteemen, and so forth, and
they should all stay in San Diego for obvious reasons.
The question was raised as to whether we are putting
enough young people in positions of major responsibility
in the Campaign.
HRH:Kb
Mitchell covered
his enthus
a/R Rt +
but delay
announes
long posse as
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Matat
in
Date:
5/13
TO: Lony
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
There's another
memo on the way
which includes
Dawal's info Pr/5/8
and some additional
mitchell- P. input.
will be here by 5/16
maguder says it
:
***
THE WHITE HOUSE
>
L
MS
5/13. 5/13- -no
5
S loubl the go
addition pl
Duvals 5/8
in is there
another new
m they-
L.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date May 4, 1972
TO:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
John Mitchell forwarded "first draft"
proposal for the San Clemente Campaign
Kick-Off Meeting in response to your
May 1st memorandum and April 25th Action
Paper.
Chapin and Parker have not yet sent an
advanceman to survey San Clemente
pursuant to Higby's memorandum of
May 2nd. However, Mike Duval will
probably go this weekend.
You may want to review and comment on
Mitchell's Proposal before Parker
submits the advanceman's survey and
the formal schedule proposal.
Committee for the Re-election of the President
May 1, 1972
MEMORANDUM
DETEM PNFD TO BE
CONFIDENTIAL
EmPruss
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
THROUGH:
JEB S. MAGRUDER
FROM:
Proposal for Major Juro Republican
J. CURTIS HERGE
SUBJECT:
Conference in San Diego in
September
It has been proposed that the President and Mrs. Nixon host
a two day gathering of Republican leaders in San Diego,
California, during the week after Labor Day. The purpose of
the gathering would be (1) to provide an opportunity for
informal discussions and meetings about campaign strategy
and plans, (2) to provide an attractive and suitable forum
for the initial campaign address by the President, and (3)
to placate, if such is necessary, those residents of San
Diego who may be disturbed over the loss of the Republican
National Convention. The purpose of this memorandum is to
set forth the points which should be considered in connection
with this proposal.
1. Participants. In addition to the President and
Mrs. Nixon and the candidate for Vice President and his wife,
the following groups of individuals might be invited to the
gathering:
Approximate Number of
Group
Individuals in the Group
a. The surrogate candidates
32
b. Members of Cabinet who are
not surrogate candidates
(Connally, Laird and Rogers)
3
C. State campaign chairmen
50
2
d. State GOP chairmen
50
e. Republican Senators who are
not surrogate candidates
35
f. Republican Congressmen who
are not surrogate candidates
(Not including Congressmen
Ashbrook, McCloskey, Schmitz
and Riegle)
171
g. Republican Governors who are
not surrogate candidates
17
h. Officers, Executive Committee
and Members of the Republican
National Committee, not
including State Chairmen who
are listed above
112
i. Under Secretaries, Assistant
Secretaries and Agency Heads
70
j. State campaign finance chairmen
50
k. State campaign executive
directors
50
1. Senior members of the White
House staff
15
m. Senior members of the 1701
staff
15
n. Celebrities for the President
10
O. Athletes for the President
10
P. Republican leaders not listed
above, such as Mayor Lugar,
Dr. Arthur Flemming, etc.
10
Sub-Total
700
Spouses
700
TOTAL
1,400
2. Dates. The dates proposed are Thursday, September 7,
and Friday, September 8.
3. Location. It has been proposed that the meeting
be held in San Diego, which would be a convenient locale
for the President. It is known that adequate hotel accommodations
are available and that facilities such as the Civic Center are
available for the proposed dinner.
3
4.
Format. The program might be developed, as
follows:
Thursday, September 7
9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon
Check in
12:00 noon - 2:00 p.m.
Reception and Buffet
2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Working sessions
6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Banquet (Black tie)
7:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
Address by the President
Friday, September 8
9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
Breakfast
10:00
a.m.
-
1:00
p.m.
Working sessions
1:00
p.m.
-
2:00
p.m.
Lunch
2:00
p.m.
-
2:30 p.m.
Address by the Vice President
3:00
p.m.
-
4:30 p.m.
Working sessions
6:30
p.m.
-
8:00
p.m.
Barbecue at the golf course
at San Clemente
8:00 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.
Entertainment and fireworks
display at the golf course
at San Clemente
The tenor of the weekend might be that of the "team" gathering
together to discuss how they are going to win. The working
sessions should be made known to the press to give the weekend
credibility, but emphasis should be placed on the unity of
spirit, the unanimity of support and the anticipated importance
of the President's address Thursday night.
It will be recalled that President Eisenhower held a similar
gathering in Gettysburg after the Republican National Conven-
tion in 1956. That precedent might be referred to when faced
with the question: "Why is this meeting being held in San
Diego." It could be pointed out that the President (who might
arrive in San Clemente several days ahead of time) could not
accommodate 1,400 people in the Western White House, so San
Diego was the natural locale for the meeting.
4
5. Costs. The cost of the program could range
between $115,000 and $163,000.
It was estimated that, with the exception of air travel
and the banquet, the weekend would cost $60 per couple per
day. The banquet would cost approximately $35 per person.
[State dinners cost approximately $40 per person. That
price includes the printing and mailing of invitations. ]
The projected cost could reach the upper end of the scale
if we were to pay for the air travel expenses of the key
participants. If we were to bear that expense, it would be
less expensive to charter an aircraft. A chartered DC-8,
which holds 141 people, would cost $24,000. The round trip
cost per capita on a chartered plane would be $170, as com-
pared with a cost per capita of $310 on a commercial flight.
It appears that two aircraft would be required to transport
the surrogate candidates, the Members of the Cabinet, the
Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Agency Heads and
1701 staff. It is assumed that the White House staff would
travel on the "Spirit of '76."
6. Other activities in San Diego on September 7-8.
a. U.S. Travel Service Convention, Town and Country Hotel,
September 4-9
b. California Police Olympics, Hilton Inn, September 5-9
C. Provident Mutual Life Insurance Convention, Hotel Del
Cornado, September 5-9.
EYES ONLY
I
May 1, 1972
Put
MEMORANDUM FOR :
MR. MITCHELL
5/4
FROM :
H.R. HALDEMAN
The President had a further idea regarding the San Clemente
Mick-6ff Meeting.
His thought was that instead of giving the acceptance speech in
Miami at the Convention, he would delay it until September and
give it in San Diego at the Convention Hall in conjunction with
the Campaign Kick-Off.
He would, of course, go to the Convention Hall in Miami the
night he is nominated and speak informally as was suggested
in the television memorandum, but would say at the time that
he would withhold his formal acceptance address until the
San Clemente Kiek-Off in September.
As you know, Bryan, Wilkie, and a number of other nominees
have delivered their acceptance address at a time considerably
later than the Convention. We'd have to find out If anybody who
has won an election has done so. There would be some obvious
advantages to this in getting us some major attention and tele-
vision coverage in early September when the audiences will be
bigger and the effect will be more productive to us.
Nothing should be done on this, of course, until Miami is locked,
but then we might announce it so that the Californians know that
this is what's coming. We could do it on the basis that the
President wants to make his acceptance speech in his home state
in September.
HRH:pm
ACTION PAPER - MITCHELL
After the movo to Miami is set, we should make an announcement
that the President wants to have a Campaign Kick-Off Meeting of
all the campaign leaders and key candidates at his home in San Clemente.
This would be something along the lines that Eisenhower did in
Gettysburg. We'll set up tents and work it all out there.
The point, though, is to get the announcement out now so as to show
our interest in California at a time when they may feel we're looking
the other way.
MRH:pm
4/25/72
May 2, 1972
DETERMINED TO BE AN
CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
E.O. 12065. Section 0-102
By Emprise NARS, Date 1-10-80
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DWIGHT CHAPIN
DAVID PARKER
FROM:
L. HIGBY
SUBJECT:
Campaign Kick-Off Meeting
in San Clemente
Bob asked me to pass on to you the fact that there is great
Interest in having some sort of a Campaign kick-off meeting
in San Clemente in September. Basically this would be similar
to what Eisenhower did in Gettyaburg and probably run over a
two day period. The idea would be to go out there and set up
tents and have private meetings and group meetings with the big
wheels, opportunities for pictures with candidates, talks with
State Chairmen, National Committeemen, candidate pep talks,
etc.
He has discussed this with John Mitchell and Mitchell isworking
out some of the details and will be getting back to Haldeman with
a plan.
Bob asked that you have someone get a survey of the available
facilities out there. Fourexample, the field on the President's
property needs to be leveled and grass probably planted on it or
something so we can put up a tent out there to accomodate a lot
of people, to see what can be done there and what needs to be
done there to get ready for it.
LH:kb
Cal Party memo - 5am
update
May 1, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE HONORABLE JOIN N. MITCHELL
THROUGH:
JEB S. MAGRUDER
FROM:
HERBERT L. PORTER
SUBJECT:
Participation of the President
in the '72 Candidates Conference
You will recall that there is a difference of opinion over
the proposed participation of the President in the '72
Candidates Conference. The difference of opinion appears
to center on the suggestion that each non-incumbent candi-
date have his picture taken with the President.
I discussed this problem with Bill Timons, who concurs
with us that the President's participation 1s most impor-
tant. Timmons' view is that, if there is reluctance to
have the participants photographed with the President, there
should novertheless be a White House reception for the pcr-
ticipants hosted by the President. Timons believes that
the only alternative is for the President to be in Florida
or Celifornia during the period of the Conference, June 29
through July 2.
Ve would appreciate your recommendation whether:
1. A reception should be held at the White House for
the non-incembent Republican candidates for Congress partici-
pating in the '72 Candidates Conference. The reception should
be hosted by the President and Mrs. Rixon. No tape recorders
or cameras will be permitted. No official photographs will
be taken.
Approve
Disapprove
Comment
, 2
2. If it is decided that the President should not
participate in the '72 Candidates Conference, he should be
advised that it would be politically appropriate for him to
spend the period of June 29 through July 2 in Florida or
California.
Approve
Disapprove
Comment
cc: JSM chron
JSM subject
JSM working
HLP chron
HLP subject
JCH
Committee for the Re-election of the President
May 1, 1972
MEMORANDUM
DETERMINED TO BE AN
MARKING
CONFIDENTIAL
E.0,000.3. Section 0.102
By Emprise
Late
1-10-80
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
THROUGH:
JEB S. MAGRUDER
FROM:
J. CURTIS HERGE
SUBJECT:
Proposal for Major Republican
Conference in San Diego in
September
It has been proposed that the President and Mrs. Nixon host
a two day gathering of Republican leaders in San Diego,
California, during the week after Labor Day. The purpose of
the gathering would be (1) to provide an opportunity for
informal discussions and meetings about campaign strategy
and plans, (2) to provide an attractive and suitable forum
for the initial campaign address by the President, and (3)
to placate, if such is necessary, those residents of San
Diego who may be disturbed over the loss of the Republican
National Convention. The purpose of this memorandum is to
set forth the points which should be considered in connection
with this proposal.
1. Participants. In addition to the President and
Mrs. Nixon and the candidate for Vice President and his wife,
the following groups of individuals might be invited to the
gathering:
Approximate Number of
Group
Individuals in the Group
a. The surrogate candidates
32
b. Members of Cabinet who are
not surrogate candidates
(Connally, Laird and Rogers)
3
C. State campaign chairmen
50
2
d. State GOP chairmen
50
e.
Republican Senators who are
not surrogate candidates
35
f.
Republican Congressmen who
are not surrogate candidates
(Not including Congressmen
Ashbrook, McCloskey, Schmitz
and Riegle)
171
g.
Republican Governors who are
not surrogate candidates
17
h.
Officers, Executive Committee
and Members of the Republican
National Committee, not
including State Chairmen who
are listed above
112
i. Under Secretaries, Assistant
Secretaries and Agency Heads
70
j.
State campaign finance chairmen
50
k. State campaign executive
directors
50
1.
Senior members of the White
House staff
15
m.
Senior members of the 1701
staff
15
n.
Celebrities for the President
10
O. Athletes for the President
10
P. Republican leaders not listed
above, such as Mayor Lugar,
Dr. Arthur Flemming, etc.
10
Sub-Total
700
Spouses
700
TOTAL
1,400
2. Dates. The dates proposed are Thursday, September 7,
and Friday, September 8.
3. Location. It has been proposed that the meeting
be held in San Diego, which would be a convenient locale
for the President. It is known that adequate hotel accommodations
are available and that facilities such as the Civic Center are
available for the proposed dinner.
3
4.
Format. The program might be developed, as
follows:
Thursday, September 7
9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon
Check in
12:00
noon
-
2:00
p.m.
Reception and Buffet
2:00
p.m.
-
5:00
p.m.
Working sessions
6:00
p.m.
-
7:00
p.m.
Banquet (Black tie)
7:00
p.m.
-
7:30
p.m.
Address by the President
Friday, September 8
9:00
a.m.
-
10:00
a.m.
Breakfast
10:00
a.m.
-
1:00
p.m.
Working sessions
1:00
p.m.
-
2:00
p.m.
Lunch
2:00
p.m.
-
2:30 p.m.
Address by the Vice President
3:00
p.m.
-
4:30 p.m.
Working sessions
6:30
p.m.
-
8:00
p.m.
Barbecue at the golf course
at San Clemente
8:00
p.m.
-
9:30
p.m.
Entertainment and fireworks
display at the golf course
at San Clemente
The tenor of the weekend might be that of the "team" gathering
together to discuss how they are going to win. The working
sessions should be made known to the press to give the weekend
credibility, but emphasis should be placed on the unity of
spirit, the unanimity of support and the anticipated importance
of the President's address Thursday night.
It will be recalled that President Eisenhower held a similar
gathering in Gettysburg after the Republican National Conven-
tion in 1956. That precedent might be referred to when faced
with the question: "Why is this meeting being held in San
Diego. " It could be pointed out that the President (who might
arrive in San Clemente several days ahead of time) could not
accommodate 1,400 people in the Western White House, so San
Diego was the natural locale for the meeting.
4
5. Costs. The cost of the program could range
between $115,000 and $163,000.
It was estimated that, with the exception of air travel
and the banquet, the weekend would cost $60 per couple per
day. The banquet would cost approximately $35 per person.
[State dinners cost approximately $40 per person. That
price includes the printing and mailing of invitations. ]
The projected cost could reach the upper end of the scale
if we were to pay for the air travel expenses of the key
participants. If we were to bear that expense, it would be
less expensive to charter an aircraft. A chartered DC-8,
which holds 141 people, would cost $24,000. The round trip
cost per capita on a chartered plane would be $170, as com-
pared with a cost per capita of $310 on a commercial flight.
It appears that two aircraft would be required to transport
the surrogate candidates, the Members of the Cabinet, the
Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Agency Heads and
1701 staff. It is assumed that the White House staff would
travel on the "Spirit of '76."
6. Other activities in San Diego on September 7-8.
a. U.S. Travel Service Convention, Town and Country Hotel,
September 4-9
b. California Police Olympics, Hilton Inn, September 5-9
C. Provident Mutual Life Insurance Convention, Hotel Del
Cornado, September 5-9.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
May 18, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
RNC Convention - Miami Beach
Bill Timmons returned today from his first survey trip to
Miami Beach, He mentioned that you asked him after the
8:15 meeting how the convention planning is progressing.
Timmons will need decisions regarding security, convention
logistics, and budgetary matters before he returns to
Miami Beach next Tuesday or Wednesday. The questions is
whether you want to meet with Timmons, Ehrlichman and
possibly Mitchell before the Russia trip. Timmons believes
Mitchell should call any meeting on the convention to re-
affirm the arrangement that Mitchell makes campaign decisions
but you are kept fully informed.
The main question Timmons would have for you and John
Ehrlichman would concern the staffs of the White House,
Domestic Council and NSC. The numbers, privileges, and
responsibilities of each would have to be resolved. Timmons
does not believe he can use most of the rank and file staff
menbers, but ill feelings may result if they are not all
invited.
Timmons does not believe he could have a detailed decision
memorandum on the convention ready for a meeting tomorrow.
He could have a talking paper so that general decisions
would be made. Individual, minor questions would be
answered in memorandum form while you are in Russia.
Recommendation:
That John Mitchell be asked to chair a meeting of you,
Ehrlichman and Timmons on the convention Friday at 4 p.m.
(the President will be meeting with the bi-partisan leaders).
Timmons will prepare the talking paper.
Approve
Disapprove
Comments
GS/jb
F/U-5/19
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
May 17, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
President's Telephone Call
to Harry Dent - May 17
Harry Dent called me to say that the President had just
called him. They reviewed the Michigan and Maryland
election results and discussed the George Wallace situation.
The President told Dent he planned on calling Wallace on
Friday. The President said he thought Humphrey had made
a mistake going to the hospital so quickly. Dent agreed
but suggested that the President go to the hospital
unannounced to visit Wallace on Friday. Dent received
the impression that the President had changed his mind
about calling Wallace and instead would visit him Friday.
At the conclusion of the conversation the President told
Dent to "call Bob and see about setting something up for
him to visit Wallace". Dent called me instead of you
directly.
You may want to cover this with the President when you
talk today.
GS/jb
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
May 16, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Maryland and Michigan
Primary Returns
The President's name is on the Maryland ballot with
Ashbrook and McCloskey. The President's name is on
the Michigan ballot with McCloskey. The President is
expected to win easily.
Eleven Democrats appear on the Maryland ballot, with
Humphrey, Wallace and McGovern the only real contestants.
There are seven Democrats on the Michigan ballot, again
only Wallace, McGovern and Humphrey are contesting.
The Maryland and Michigan polls close at 8 p.m. CBS
and NBC have announced shows on the results at 10:30
this evening. I will be in touch with Magruder and
Shmmway from 8:30 p.m. on.
John Mitchell is not expected to be at the Committee
tonight, and Magruder expects him to watch the results
on T.V.
Harry Dent will prepare a one page summary of the results
for the President. This summary will be on your desk at
7:45 a.m. for you to decide whether it should go to the
President.
GS/jb
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
May 16, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Campaign Advertising
You last met with Peter Dailey to discuss the campaign
advertising on January 12, 1972. In the last four months
Dailey has assembled the campaign advertising staff
(November Group) in New York and Washington. The staff
prepared three presentations for the Campaign Strategy
Group (Chapin, Buchanan, Garment, Magruder, Chotiner, Dent,
LaRue, Moore, Teeter). The final review of the advertising
occurred last night. Firm commitments to suppliers will
be made during the next two weeks.
Peter Dailey is anxious to have you review the materials.
Dailey can give you an abbreviated presentation with his
two top men (Phil Joanou and Bill Taylor) in 45 minutes.
John Mitchell has seen some but not all of the advertising
strategy and materials in informal sessions with Magruder
and Dailey. The next Political Meeting in Ehrlichman's
office with Mitchell, Harlow, MacGregor, and Colson is
scheduled for Thursday at 10 a.m.
RECOMMENDATION
That Dailey present the campaign advertising strategy and
materials at the Thursday, 10 a.m. meeting for final approval.
Agree
Disagree
Comments
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
May 12, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Meeting with John Mitchell
and Bob Teeter - May 12
On April 11 you asked that the meeting with John Mitchell
and Bob Teeter be re-scheduled (memorandum attached at
Tab A). Both could meet with you at 11 a.m. today. In
addition to subjects raised in your two political meetings
this week, you may want to cover Teeter's materials on the
Key States, Wallace candidacy, and campaign theme (memo-
randa attached at Tab B).
Set meeting at 11 a.m. with Mitchell and Teeter.
Magruder and Strachan attend.
Magruder and Strachan do not attend.
Re-schedule meeting.
GS/jb
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 11, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
G
SUBJECT:
Meeting with John Mitchell
and Bob Teeter - April 12
John Mitchell and Bob Teeter could meet with you for one
hour tomorrow, April 12, 1972 at 1 P.M. to review campaign
strategy based on the First Wave survey results. Teeter's
memorandum on the Wallace candidacy is attached for your
review before the meeting.
When Magruder discussed the meeting with Mitchell he asked
who should attend. Magruder indicated no preference and
Mitchell deferred to you. The question is whether Magruder
and I should attend. Magruder and I have had considerable
trouble getting Bob Teeter to respond to anything other than
a direct, personal order from you or Mitchell. If Magruder
and I could attend, our "clout" with Teeter would be increased
and he would be more responsive.
Set meeting at 1 P.M. with Mitchell and Teeter.
Magruder and Strachan attend.
Magruder and Strachan do not attend.
Re-schedule meeting.
Your other suggestion about a political strategy meeting at
Camp David with Ehrlichman, Colson, Mitchell, Magruder, Malek,
you and me has not been mentioned to Magruder.
COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE
E.O. 12060, Section 3-102
By EmPrise
MRS,
Date
1-10
80
1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. NW
April 12, 1972
WASHINGTON. D c. 20006
(202) 333-0920
CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
FROM:
ROBERT M. TEETER
R.M.T.
SUBJECT:
Campaign Theme
by Barrich
As we begin to focus the campaign exclusively on the general elec-
tion and as the President increases his travel schedule, I think
it important that we develop a central theme or idea for the campaign.
It is important that the President's campaign have one central idea ----
a message that everyone knows by election day to which various state-
ments and actions can be tied. It does not necessarily have to be a
slogan, although one could emerge later. The main point is that the
campaign have a central idea or message that the majority of voters
find attractive and would support.
Based on my analysis of our first wave data and the other research
data I have looked at, I am concerned that the President is viewed
as a tactician without an overall strategy or master plan for the
country. This causes voters to interpret many of his positions and
programs as things done for political expediency or to appease
specific special interest groups rather than as part of an overall
plan to move this country toward a perceivable set of goals or
objectives. A majority of voters do not apparently think the
President has such a master plan. No one seems to know how the
President would like to leave the country after eight years "for his
children and grandchildren.
I think it is imperative for the President and for the campaign to
articulate his master plan to the voters and to show how the President
positions and programs fit into the plan. This should become the cam-
paign theme -- the idea that ties everything together.
While this is important for every campaign and every President, I
think it is particularly important for this one. It is a relatively
well-accepted fact that he does not have any great personal appeal
and will not be re-elected on the basis of personality or personal
appeal. Moreover, because of the current issue structure and the
type of problems he has had to deal with, I think we would have
trouble trying to fight the campaign on a series of specific issues.
As an incumbent, the President is always open to the charge that
he should have done more. More importantly, the general attitude
in the country toward government, and politicans is very negative.
If the voters know and understand what the President is trying to
do for the country and how each of his programs are a part of that
plan, it should be easier to gain support for his programs.
Also, the fact that voters are concerned about more issues now than
has been the case in previous campaigns and also because the solu-
tions to many of these problems are complex, it will be difficult
for the President to attract the ticket-splitter on the basis of
specific issues. Rather, he is going to have to appeal to these
swing voters on the basis of a set of well-articulated goals for
the country and further showing that his programs are moving the
country toward these goals, and that he is more capable of leading
the country toward these goals than his opponent.
The essential elements of this theme are what the President believes
to be the destiny of the nation and the element of hope. The
President could do this well. It would be positively received in
the press and it is the type of approach which the public apparently
wants and would favorably receive. The President may find that a
"destiny speech" is the appropriate vehicle to deliver such a theme.
It would allow him to stay on the high road and elevate the level
of the campaign. It would be something he could develop and use
now as President and yet carry into the campaign. It would give
the campaign a common thread with which to tie things together
while giving many of his individual statements and positions a
prospective which they currently lack, yet be general enough so
that the President would not be trapped by events between now and
the election.
By giving the voters the idea that he has a master plan, the President
would 80 a long way in solving the credibility problem. If the
voters could see his various positions in the context of an overall
strategy the President would be less suspect of being political.
This approach gives the administration more breath and depth by tying
things together such as China, Vietnam, welfare reform, bussing,
economic controls, revenue sharing etc. It would also emphasize
the complexity of the job and give us the benefit of being evaluated
on the record as a whole.
While I recognize that the President should not get into a position
of over promising, and also realizing that anything he says must be
believable, I think his basic theme must restore the element of hope.
I believe our data clearly shows that the people have lost hope that
things can and will get better. More recently, there are indications
that the public is looking for someone to restore this feeling of
hope and optimism which has characteristically been the American
attitude.
-3-
I have the feeling that the President has been very close to this
1dea several times when he has talked about the loss of the American
spirit and desire to be number one, but his choice of words has left
him just off the mark. Possibly a slight change of words or emphasis
could make this basic idea catch hold. Also, I have the feeling
that the President has used this approach to defend unpopular posi-
tions in the past, such as the SST. He has left the impression that
we should strive to be number one SO that we will be better than
everyone else, not just for the sake of excellence itself. This is
a subtle difference which has occurred in our society in the past
10-20 years
We have the advantage of time to experiment with this approach over
the next several weeks while the Democrats are involved with the
primaries. The various domestic appearances which the President makes
during the spring and summer present an excellent opportunity to try
to find the combination of words and ideas that catch. Possibly
the President needs a "new" inaugural address to be used on some
occasion when people least expect it, such as during a campus appear-
ance or before ethnics. It may be possible to tie this approach to
the Bicentennial.
CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON C C 20006
DETERMINED TOBRAN
May 1, 1972
(202) 333.0320
ADMINISTRATIV
MANNING
E.O. 12003. To tion 6-102
By
Endress
MARS, Date
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
THROUGH:
JEB S. MAGRUDER
FROM:
ROBERT H. MARIK
SUBJECT:
Priority Ranking of the States for
the Campaign
This memorandum summarizes the decisions made in the strategy
meeting of April 28, regarding current priority ranking of the
states, for the purpose of developing strategy and resource
allocation for the campaign. A brief rationale is presented
with each state or grouping of states.
CATEGORY I - SAFE STATES - (Have supported the President by
large margins in the past. Should be won in 1972.)
1968 Nixon
Farm States
Electoral Votes
Margin (%)
Nebraska
5
+28
Kansas
7
+20
North Dakota
3
+18
Iowa
8
+12
South Dakota *
4
+11
27
*
Would not be safe if George McGovern is on the ticket.
Mountain and
1968 Nixon
Western States
Electoral Votes
Margin (%)
Idaho
4
+26
Wyoming
3
+20
Arizona
6
+20
Utah
4
+19
CONFIDENTIAL
- 2 -
New Mexico
4
+12
Colorado
7
+ 9
Montana
4
+ 9
Nevada *
3
+ 8
35
*Nixon lost Nevada by 2% in 1960. With a Democratic re-
gistration edge of 58%D-35%R-7%I, it is the least "safe"
of these states.
Border States (Recent polls suggest the President has
increased his margin from 1968, particu-
larly if George Wallace does not run.)
1968 Nixon
State
Electoral Votes
Margin (%)
Oklahoma
8
+16
Virginia
12
+10
Florida
17
+10
North Carolina
13
+ 8
Kentucky
9
+ 6
South Carolina
8
+ 6
Tennessee
10
+ 4
77
New England States (Will not be "safe" if Muskie or
Kennedy is on the ticket.)
1968 Nixon
State
Electoral Votes
Margin (%)
Vermont
3
+ 9
New Hampshire
4
+ 8
Maine *
4
-12
11
* Lost in 1968 with Muskie on the ticket; won in 1960,
against a New Englander, JFK, by 14%.
CONFIDENTIAL
- 3 -
*1968 Nixon
Midwest States
Electoral Votes
Margin (%)
Indiana
13
+12
Total "safe" states: 24 (163 electoral votes)
CATEGORY II - WALLACE STATES - (States won by Wallace in 1968.
The President may win some, even with Wallace in
the race; if Wallace is out, they should be rela-
tively safe.)
1968 Nixon
State
Electoral Votes
Margin (%)
Arkansas
6
+ 8 (Nixon Second)
Louisiana
10
+20 (Nixon Third)
Mississippi
7
+40 (Nixon Third)
Alabama
9
+47 (Nixon Third)
Georgia
12
+12 (Nixon Second)
44
CATEGORY JII - PRIORITY STATES - (Close election expected; intensive
campaign must be run including maximum organizational
effort within the states. These will undoubtedly
be Democratic target states).
Top Priority - (Maximum allocation of resources and focus of
management attention. "Must win" states.)
Nixon Margin (%)
State
Electoral Votes
1960
1968
California
45
+0.2
+3
Illinois
26
-0.3
+3
Texas
26
-2
-1
Ohio
25
+6
+2
New Jersey
17
-1
+2
139
Second Priority - (High allocation of resources and management
attention.)
Nixon Margin (%)
State
Electoral Votes
1960
1968
New York +
41
-6
-5
Pennsylvania *
27
-2
-4
Maryland
*
10
-8
-2
CONFIDENTIAL
- 4 -
Nixon Margin (%)
State
Electoral Votes
1960
1968
Michigan
*
21
-2
-7
Connecticut *
8
-8
-5
Washington
9
+3
-2
116
Third Priority - (Lower allocation of resources and management
attention.)
Nixon Margin (%)
State
Electoral Votes
1960
1968
Missouri **
12
-0.5
+1
Wisconsin **
11
+4
+4
Oregon
6
+6
+6
West Virginia *
6
-6
-9
Alaska
3
+2
+3
Delaware
3
-2
+4
41
x Although past electoral behavior would indicate an uphill
battle for the President, recent polls suggest he has a good
chance at this time to carry these states. Ultimate strategy
will depend on the Democratic nominec. These states must be
watched closely during the campaign, to be sure that they
are treated as target states only so long as they remain
winnable.
**States with the most apparent erosion since 1968.
CATEGORY IV - PROBABLE LOSS STATES
1968 Nixon
State
Electoral Votes
Margin (%)
Massachusetts
14
-30
Minnesota
10
-12
Hawaii
4
-21
Rhode Island
4
-32
District of Columbia
3
-64
35
COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
DEPARTMENTS
1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
April 11, 1972
WASHINGTON D C 20006
(202) 333 0920
E.O. 12030. 103
By Emprise NAMS, Date 1-10-80
CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
FROM:
ROBERT M. TEETER
savial
SUBJECT:
Wallace Strategy
This memorandum will outline the current impact of George Wallace
on the November election and various campaign implications of his
candidacy at this time.
Ballot Effect of the Wallace Vote
In our national study, George Wallace obtains approximately 11%
of the vote. As expected there is great geographical variance in
his strength. In those states where we have conducted campaign
polls, the Wallace vote ranges from 24% in Tennessee to 5% in
New Hampshire. Our 1968 experience would indicate that the
Wallace vote might range up to 40% in the deep south -- Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia. Attachment A shows the vote
in those states where we have polled.
The effect of a Wallace candidacy on the President's vote varies
greatly depending on the Democratic nominee. Against Humphrey or
Kennedy, a Wallace candidacy hurts the President's chances in
several crucial northern states. On the other hand, it is to the
President's advantage to have Wallace on the ballot where Muskie
is the candidate. In the border states, the President defeats all
potential Democratic candidates by such large margins that a
Wallace candidacy has no effect. 1/ The following table shows the
effect of the Wallace candidacy:
1/
A state was put in "Helps" or "Hurts" category depending upon
the change in the President's margin from the two way to the
three way ballots. A state was categorized as "No difference"
if the margin remained the same or if the President won or
lost the state by 10% or more.
-2-
MUSKIE
HUMPHREY
KENNEDY
HELPS: Indiana +4/+8
Wisconsin 0/+2
Iowa +8/+9
Missouri -10/-8
New Hampshire +7/+10
New Jersey +8/+11
Ohio +6/+8
Oregon +1/+3
Pennsylvania -6/-4
Texas -2/-1
Wisconsin -12/-9
HURTS: California -5/-6
Maryland +4/+1
California -5/-7
New York +1/-1
Missouri -2/-3
Kentucky +9/+8
New York +9/+7
Maryland -1/-2
Oregon +11/+7
Missouri -2/-6
Pennsylvania +6/+3
New Jersey +8/+7
Texas +9/+6
New York +2/+1
North Carolina +14/+9
Ohio +10/+7
Pennsylvania +6/+3
Tennessee +15/+9
Texas +1/0
NO DIFFERENCE:
Florida +21/+17
California +7/+7
Florida +15/+10
Iowa +8/+10
Florida +22/+17
Indiana +8/+8
Kentucky +15/+15
Indiana +15/+14
New Hampshire +22/+20
Maryland -1/-1
Iowa +18/+21
Oregon +4/+4
N. Carolina +19/+12
Kentucky +16/+16
Virginia +25/+18
Tennessee +14/+11
New Hamp. +24/+23
Wisconsin -11/-11
Virginia +15/+15
New Jersey +18/+16
N. Carolina +25/+17
Ohio +13/+10
Tennessee +17/+11
Virginia +23/+17
Our research shows that the farther to the left the Democratic candi-
date is perceived from the President the more negative effect of a
Wallace candidacy. Therefore, if the Democratic nominee moves to a
central position on the liberal-conservative spectrum, a Wallace
candidacy should be to our advantage and vice versa. It appears
that if McGovern is the nomince, the effect of a Wallace candidacy
would be similar to Kennedy and Humphrey rather than like Muskie.
Approximately 50% of the Wallace vote is hard core voting for him
on all ballots, while the other half switch to and from Wallace
depending on the particular candidate choices offered.
-3-
Profile of Wallace Voters
The demographic voter profile of the Wallace voter varies con-
siderably by region. In California, Wallace voters are primarily
in the $7,000 to $15,000 income bracket, have less education, are
more Protestant and are slightly more non-union than other voters.
A high percentage are male. In terms of voting behavior, Wallace
draws slightly more Republicans than Democrats.
In New York, Wallace voters are more likely to be Democrats,
Catholics and union members. A much higher percentage of men
support Wallace than do women.
Wallace voters in Florida are highly Democratic, and have sub-
stantially lower education than other voters. Wallace also draws
heavily from voters who are Protestant and non-union. The support
from men and women is more even in Florida than in other states
although slightly more men than women support Wallace.
In terms of issues, Wallace voters rank the issues in approximately
the same importance as other voters; however, Wallace voters display
more intensity of feeling about all issues.
Nationally, bussing remains the least important of all issues
tested, although Wallace voters are more opposed to bussing than
Nixon or Muskie voters. The most important issues are crime, drugs,
and taxes, and Vietnam. The tax issue is more important for Wallace
voters than other voters. A majority of Wallace voters disagree
that the President's economic policies will benefit the working
man, compared to lesser percentages of Nixon and Muskie voters who
disagree. Wallace voters generally perceive the President's handling
of issues more favorably than Muskie voters but substantially less
favorably than Nixon voters.
Other Third Party Candidates
Our research shows that our chances for winning every state are
substantially improved with the addition of other Democratic third
party candidates such as Shirley Chisholm and Eugene McCarthy on
the ballot. This conclusion was confirmed by an independent
California study showing a similar result in increasing the President's
margin with addition of Benjamin Spock to the ballot.
Alternatively a conservative Republican third party candidate would
undoubtedly be a detriment to the President's voting strength.
Campaign Implications
In the border states, the President's large margins preclude any
negative effect of a Wallace candidacy. The effect in the deep
south, however, is uncertain and consideration should be given to
conducting additional secret ballots in Alabama, Mississippi,
Georgia and Louisiana to determine whether the President would be
-4-
able to win these states with and without a Wallace candidacy.
A recent poll conducted in Louisiana shows a slight edge for Nixon
over Wallace. This finding should be verified and studied in
other deep south states.
Our research also indicates that the Wallace voters do considerable
switching and a careful program should be developed to identify
concentrations of Wallace vote in critical states. The issues
that appeal to Wallace voters (crime, drugs, and taxes) are ones
which will need emphasis to all voters. Therefore, our success in
dealing with the Wallace voters will depend largely on our ability
to identify these voters and reach them with our message. Similar
to ticket-splitters, Wallace voters should be easier to convert
than traditional straight Democratic party voters. Direct mail
and canvassing programs should first be directed at the heaviest
Wallace precincts from 1968. This effort should be coordinated
with an identical effort directed at high ticket-splitting precincts.
The decision as to whether we want Wallace on or off the ballot
should be delayed until the Democratic candidate is chosen and
his perceived position on the liberal-conservative spectrum is
determined. The closer the Democratic candidate is perceived to
the President, the more help a Wallace candidacy will be. As of
now, it appears that a Wallace candidacy in November would be a
detriment against either Humphrey or Kennedy. There are indica-
tions, however, that this situation may change as a result of the
primaries and further campaigning. At this time, it seems most
appropriate to us to keep our options available rather than making
any firm decision.
If possible, we should begin to take whatever steps are necessary
to have Shirley Chisholm, Eugene McCarthy and Benjamin Spock on
the ballot in all critical states. Chisholm appears to be our
best choice of these potential candidates. Consideration should
be given to funding the candidacy of one of these persons to per-
mit their filing as a third party candidate in as many states as
possible. Similarly, we must make every effort to prevent a con-
servative third party candidate being used against us.
CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
ATTACHMENT A
AGAINST M/K/H
Wallace %
Dev. from U.S.
Tennessee
24%
+13
North Carolina
20
+ 9
Florida
20
+ 9
Virginia
17
+ 6
Texas
12
+ 1
Missouri
12
+ 1
Kentucky
11
0
Indiana
11
0
Maryland
8
- 3
Iowa
8
- 3
New Jersey
8
- 3
Ohio
8
- 3
Pennsylvania
8
- 3
Wisconsin
7
- 4
Oregon
7
- 4
California
6
- 5
Illinois
6
- 5
New York
5
- 6
New Hampshire
5
- 6
COMPIDENTIAL
May 12, 1072
MEMORANDING FOR:
It. R. SALDEMAN
PROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
Campaign Poll Analysis
and Wave II
30, Weeter submitted his Final First Wave Analysis to you
and John Mitchell today. It is attached at Tab A. The
conclusions and recommendations are specific and surprising.
You may want to use this memorandum as a talking paper at
one of the regular political meetings, either with or without
Weeter present.
meter also asked Mitchell for authority to conduct the
second series of polls in mid-June. The cost is approxi-
mately $250,000. Teeter is soliciting suggestions from
the Campaign and White House Staffs. The final question-
maire will be submitted to you and Mitchell for final
approval on June 1. Teeter's memoranda are at Tab B.
GS/jb
Committee for the Re-election of the President
MEMORANDUM
May 11, 1972
CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
17013, Suction0-100
By Emprise
MAPS,
1-10-80
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
FROM:
ROBERT M. TEETER
SUBJECT:
Final First Wave Analysis
During the past several weeks we have analyzed the first wave
polling results utilizing a number of the most advanced statistical
techniques available. This analysis has enabled us to identify
the most important independent variables which influence presi-
dential vote and to develop a very sophisticated analysis package
which can be run and interpreted rapidly on all of our subsequent
polling.
While it is not necessary to have knowledge of these techniques in
order to use the results, I would be happy to go over them in more
detail with you anytime.
Our conclusions from this analysis are:
1. Past party voting behavior is the single most important factor
which affects the presidential vote. The classification of voters
into behavioral Republicans, Democrats, or Ticket-splitters accounts
for almost three times as much of the variance why people vote for
or against the President as is explained by any other variable.
This appears to be particularly true in Wisconsin, Indiana, and
California.
2. The next most important factors affecting the Presidential
vote are the voters' perceptions of the President's trust and his
issue handling ability. Trust is best defined by the following
variables --- honesty, open minded, and just. Seemingly, these
personality traits are related to perceptions of credibility. To
a lesser degree the presidential vote is related to perceptions of
competence -- experienced, trained, and informed.
Most voters have a general perception of how well the President
handles issues and problems overall and that appears to be more
important to voting than is their perception of his handling of
any one or two issues. This overall issue handling ability seems
to be perceived by the voters as a single personality dimension
similar in many ways to the dimensions of trust, computence, etc.
-2-
The only individual issues which appear to have any significant
independent effect on voting are Vietnam, inflation, and general
unrest. Vietnam and inflation were also, fortunately, the issues
that the President was seen as handling well, and his ability to
handle the general unrest problem was rated about equally to that
of his opponents:
Those issues on which the President is rated relatively poorly --
crime, drugs, and unemployment --- do not appear to affect presidential
voting to any major degree. This is particularly true of crime and
unemployment. Apparently the President is seen as having done a
good job on those problems that the voters think have gotten better
overall, while he is seen as having done a poor job on those pro-
blems which have become worse during the last few years. There
also appears to be little believability that the President will
make much difference in the crime or drug problems.
3. Demographic bloc voting is significantly less important than
past party voting behavior, and less important than perceptions of
the candidates trust, competence, and issue handling ability. Once
party behevior is taken into account there is little difference in
the vote for various demographic groups. In other words, differences
in the rate that various demographic groups support Nixon can be
explained almost entirely by party preferences rather than member-
ship in any particular demographic group. The factors having some
but small effect on the vote are age, income, and education. Gen-
erally speaking, voters who are older, have higher incomes, and
have more education seem to have a greater propensity to vote for
the President, primarily because of their propensity to vote Repub-
lican more than as a result of their demographic group. Eloc voting
against the President is evident only with a limited number of
groups -- blacks, young voters (18 to 25 year olds especially in
California), and Jewish voters in New York. All appear to oppose
the President to a greater degree than would be predicted by their
past voting behavior or party preference.
It appears to be possible to improve the vote for the President in
several demographic groups where he is weak. We have made these
conclusions from our analysis of the data from the individual voting
blocs:
A. Older voters (60 years and over) are the single
most important group in the election. In Missouri
and Oregon, the President is especially weak. Taxes,
inflation, and the economy are the important issues.
B. The President is running very poorly with young voters
(18 to 24). Heavy turnout and registration by this
group could be devastating. The percentage of Repub-
lican support among youth is very small. Victnam and
the economy are the issues. We have special weakness
in California and Wisconsin.
-3-
C. The vote for Nixon among blacks varies greatly. The
President is running well with this group in the south,
the border states, and New Jersey and New York. There
is a severe credibility problem and racial appeals to
this group are unlikely to work. Pocketbook issues will
be important.
D. Spanish-Americans are supporting the President to a
greater degree than expected. The support appears to
be flexible. We could expect to improve our support
with this group by at least 15% in California.
E. Ethnic support in Philadelphia is very weak and seems to
be causing our poor showing there.
4. The importance of each of the vote determining factors varies
considerably from state to state. Generally, the relative importance
of these factors in affecting the vote is listed below:
Party
Nixon Trust
Comparative Issue Handling Ability
Age
Opponents Competence
Income
Religion
Education
After party, the voters' perceptions of Nixon trust and comparative
issue handling ability are the factors which have the greatest
influence on the President's vote.
The factors in the individual state studies are shown in Attachment
A. Attachment B graphically shows the importance of these factors.
5. While the President was in relatively good shape against any of
his potential opponents in January, there was a relatively small
undecided vote for that point in time and there appears to be some
limits on the President's potential vote. There are relatively
large groups of voters who vote for the President on all of the
sample ballots and who vote against the President regardless of
who his opponent is on all the sample ballots. This indicates to
me that once the Democratic nominee is selected the undecided vote
may be very small. This, along with the probability that the Demo-
cratic candidate will increase his support and that the ratio will
get closer during September and October, means that we should attempt
to build as large a lead as possible between now and the national
conventions on the theory that we will lose ground after the con-
ventions. Moreover, every point we can gain between now and the
conventions will come with less effort and at less cost than those
percentage points needed during the fall campaign.
-4-
6. There does not appear to be any definite ideological basis for
voting on any of the ballots. That is, very few people if any are
voting for the President because they feel he is particularly con-
servative or liberal, or that people are voting against the President
because they feel he is too conservative or too liberal.
7. The Vicc-President's approval rating is somewhat lower than the
President's in almost all of the states but follows up and down
about in line with the President's. I cannot identify any particular
segment of voters with whom the Vice-President is either adding or
subtracting from the ticket.
8. The net effect of a Wallace third party candidacy was very
small in January and has undoubtedly changed since then. We should
defer any hard conclusions as to whether we want him on or off the
ballot until after the second wave of polling, but my inclination
at this point is that we would do better without him on the ballot.
9. There is no question but that we have a very realistic chance
to carry any or all of the big states -- New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, and California and we should
continue to make a maximum effort in those states. California
appears to me to be the one state where we may not be doing as
well as we might be at this time and where there are indications
of future problems. Voters in California seem to have a more fixed
perception of the President. That is, of course, logical in that
California voters probably know him better than those in any other
state.
Recommendations
Based on our analysis, we make the following recommendations:
1. A ticket-splitter analysis should be done in each of the priority
states by precinct or ward and township. For the rest of the country,
the analysis should be done by county. This is undoubtedly the most
efficient way to locate ticket-splitters and to develop priority
areas for both our organizational and communications efforts. More-
over, it will allow us to identify Democratic areas which have some
propensity to split their ticket, and from these areas we may be
able to cause ticket-splitting in favor of the President.
2. With apparently small undecided vote, a strong organizational
effort will be critical. I would recommend putting a dispropor-
tionate share of our resources into organizational personnel to
assure that this effort is maximized. I also think our organiza-
tional effort should be structured so that we have the flexibility
to concentrate our people in a few states late in the campaign,
even to the degree of assigning one to each county or congressional
district for the top priority states in late September and October.
-5-
Special organizational effort should be made to improve the
President's voting strength in Philadelphia (especially with ethnics),
New York City (outside Manhattan), Buffalo, Los Angeles (Orange
County), Baltimore suburbs, Montgomery County (Maryland), Mid-Texas
(Austin), rural Missouri, and Kenosha/Racine Wisconsin.
3. As indicated before, I think the development of an overall
theme or idea for the campaign is imperative and that this should
be done before the Democratic convention and should center around
the President's hopes and aspirations for our country. To be effec-
tive it must be positive and give people the hope that many of our
problems can and vill improve.
4. As the President's overall issue handling ability is more impor-
tant to determining vote than his handling of any individual issue,
those issues on which he is perceived as handling well should be
emphasized and those he is seen as handling poorly should only be
used if we have an impressive story to tell or if the appeal is
designed for some particular group.
5. We should emphasize the following personal attributes in our
media programs:
Trust - Just
Honest
Open Minded
Competence -- Experienced
Trained
Informed
Competent
It is possible to use the President's ability to handle issues in
communicating the above attributes. No special effort needs to be
directed to make the President appear ---- warm, relaxed, and having
a sense of humor. To the extent that it is possible to convey
these characteristics, we should do so, but not at the expense of
the trust and competence variables.
6. Special efforts should be implemented to maximize the President's
strength with specific voting blocs.
A. A campaign directed at older Americans through the
voting bloc group, should be given top priority. Maximum
available resources should be allocated into this program.
A massive turnout drive should be implemented, and a
supportive direct mail effort should be considered.
Because of the current high level of registration, no
special effort in this regard needs to be made to register
older voters. Special emphasis should be made to improve
our level of support with older Americans in the follow-
ing priorities:
-6-
Missouri (Primarily Rural)
Oregon
Texas
Wisconsin
Maryland
Indiana
California
Pennsylvania
New York
Taxes and inflation should be given emphasis.
B. All registration drives among young voters should be
stopped. Our primary objective with this group should
be low turnout and persuasion of Democrats and swing
voters to vote for the President. Areas for special
emphasis to improve support among young voters should
be:
Wisconsin
California
Maryland
Pennsylvania
New York
Primary issue emphasis should be made on Vietnam, jobs
for youth, and pollution.
In meeting our objective of converting Democrats and
independents, we must be careful not to direct our young
voter campaign solely at our own voters. To keep turnout
at a minimum we should attempt to keep the marijuana
referenda now proposed for California and Michigan off
the ballot if possible.
C. The Jewish vote bloc should implement a program to
improve the President's strength with this voter group
in New York state. Careful consideration should be
given to the question of parochial schools with this
group. Our data indicates support of aid to parochial
schools may be a negative with Jewish voters.
D. In order to carry several critical northern states we
will need to carry a greater percentage of blacks than
we did in 1968. Because of our credibility problems,
we must be careful in making any racial appeals so that
our efforts are not counterproductive.
CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
MARKET OPINION RESEARCH
ATTACHMENT A
CALIFORNIA
NEW JERSUY
OHIO
TEXAS
NEW YORK
PENNSYLVANIA
WISCONSIN
INDIANA
Party Type
01%
Party Type
7%
Opp. Issue
11%
Nixon Trust
10%
Age
12%
Opp.-
Party Type
29%
Party Type
14%
Competence
9%
Cpp. Trust
4
Nixon Trust
6
Party Type
6
Party Type
8
Party Type
7
Age
8
Party Type
7
Opp. Issue
11
Age
4
Opp.
Education
5
Nixon Issue
8
Nixon Issue
7
Income
3
Competence
6
Income
7
Income
9
Income
4
Age
4
Age
7
Nixon Trust
5
Opp. Issue
3
Age
5
Age
5
Nixon Trust
4
Nixen
Opp.
Nixon
Opp. Issue
4
Religion
2
Strength
3
Opp. Issue
4
Strength
3
Strength
5
Opp. Issue
2
Nixon Issue
4
Income
4
Nixon Trust
2
Nixon
Income
4
Nixon Issue
3
Opp. Issue
3
Education
2
Age
4
Competionce
3
Education
4
Opp. Trust
1
Religion
3
Religion
2
Income
2
Nixon
Religion
2
Sex
3
Nixon
Competence
1
Nixon
Nixon Issue
2
Opp.
Religion
2
Competence
2
Education
1
Strength
1
Nixon Trust
2
Competence
1
Opp. Trust
1
Sex
2
Opp.
Sex
2
Nixon
Education
1
Nixon Issue
2
Nixon Trust
1
Strength
2
Nixon Trust
1
Competence
1
Education
1
Opp. Trust
1
Nixon Issue
1
Education
2
Income
1
Opp. Trust
1
Nixon Issue
1
Opp.
Nixon
Nixon
Competence
1
Nixon
Opp.
Competence
1
Nixon
Nixon
Strength
1
Religion
*
Competence
1
Competence
2
Competence
*
Competence
1
Nixon
Nixon
Opp.
Sex
*
Strength
1
Opp.
Opp.
Strength
*
Opp.
Opp.
Competence
1
Strength
*
Strength
1
Competence
*
Competence
1
Nixon
Opp. Trust
1
Opp.
Religion
1
Strength
*
Sex
*
Opp. Issue
1
Strength
*
Nixon
Education
*
Opp.
Strength
*
Opp.
Opp.
Strength
*
Opp.
Religion
1
Opp. Trust
*
Sex
*
Strength
*
Strength
*
Competence
*
Sex
*
Sex
*
*
Less than 1%
Numbers following each factor indicate percentage of influence on the presidential vote.
ATTACHMENT B
NIXON - MUSKIE
Rep.
.9
T-S, Dem. ,Marg.
.4
Nixon Trust
Nixon Trust
Dem.
Hi
Lo
.6
.2
.1
T-S, Marg.
Dems.
T-S,Marg.
.8
.4
.4
Muskie
Muskie
Muskie
Muskie
Muskie
Muskie
Comp.
Comp.
Trust
Trust
Trust
Trust
Lo
Hi
Lo
Hi
Lo
Hi
.9
.6
.5
.2
.5
.1
Muskie
Muskie
Nixon
Nixon
Issue
Issue
Issue
Issue
Lo
Ili
Hi
Lo
.9
.5
.6
.3
Muskie
Muskie
Issue
Issue
Lo
Hi
.5
.2
Prot.
Other
Religions
.7
.5
Numbers under boxes indicate probability of voting for Nixon. The
higher the number, the greater the probability of voting for Nixon.
:
Committee for the Re-election of the President
MEMORANDUM
May 11, 1972
DETERMINED TO BE AN
APUINISTRATIVE MARKING
CONFIDENTIAL
*E.C. 10035. Section C-103
By Emprise
be
1-10
it
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
FROM:
ROBERT M. TEETER
SUBJECT:
Second Wave Polling
The purpose of this memorandum is to recommend the design of our
second wave polling and to get your approval of the basic design
so I can begin to work with the vendors on questionnaire design
and specific cost estimates.
Purpose
The purpose of this wave of polling will be to update our polling
information in the priority states after all the major Presidential
Primaries are over and after perception of the potential Democratic
candidates is better defined. The Primaries and national events
have undoubtedly changed public opinion in several important areas
since January, and we need current polling data to recvaluate our
position in each of the priority states, to further define our
national campaign plan, and to develop individual state campaign
plans.
This set of polls will allow us to identify changes in the various
candidates ballot strength or perception or in the basic issue
structure since January. It will also allow US to begin to develop
some trend lines on both the candidates and issues for the campaign.
Some of the major areas I think should be covered on this wave are:
Secret ballot measurement of the President VS. Humphrey,
McGovern, and Kennedy with and without Wallace
Ballot effect of various potential Vice-Presidential
candidates
Perception of the major candidates
Familiarity/Amount of knowledge of the candidates
Approval rating/Why
Personal perception data
Measurement of core pro and anti Nixon vote
--2-
National issue structure
Rating of intensity of issue concern
Rating of candidates ability to handle major issues
Perception of whether a problem has gotten better or
worse under the Nixon administration
Attitudes toward specific national problems
Tax reform/VAT
National defense
Status and attitudes toward police
Attitudes toward Congress
Attitudes toward trade unions/George Meany
Attitudes toward Phase II
Marijuana/Drugs
Farm problems
Women's issues
This data would all be tabulated and analyzed by past voting behavior,
by current voting intention, by degree of commitment for or against
the President, by geographic regions, and hy the various demographic
groups. These are essentially the same breaks that we used in Wave
I and would allow us to identify any specific changes in the Presi-
dent's strength since January. The data from this wave would also
be run by Area 01 Dominate influence (AD1) which would allow the
advertising people to use the data more effectively by relating it
to the major media markets.
Design
I think we should divide the states to be polled into two groups
on this wave and do a fairly long interview designed to get in-depth
data on the candidates and issues only in the top priority states
and do a much shorter (and less expensive) interview designed to get
the basic head-to-head and issue data in the other states.
The states I recommend we do in June are:
Long Interview
California
Texas
Illinois
Ohio
New Jersey
New York
-3-
Short Interview
Alabama
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Michigan
Connecticut
Washington
Wisconsin
Missouri
Oregon
West Virginia
Indiana
While Indiana and Alabama are not on our list of priorities, I
think we ought to check Indiana because of various state problems
and we should survey Alabana to ascertain the President's voting
strength in one of the deep south states. Alabama was selected
simply on the basis that we can conduct the study on a shared cost
basis with Red Blount.
Timing
The appropriate schedule of this wave would be:
Approval of basic design
May 15
Development of questionnaire and final design
May 16-25
Proliminary approval of questionnaire and
signing of contracts with vendors
May 30
Final approval of questionnaire
June 8
Interviewing
June 15-30
Preliminary reports
July 5
Final reports
July 15
Cost
The approximate cost of this wave would be $250,000. This cost
estimate does not, however, take into consideration any shared cost
studies with individual states which I will negotiate as soon as
this project is approved. I now anticipate the shared cost arrange-
ments in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Texas, and
possibly Washington, and Oregon.
The final cost would be determined after the questionnaire and design
is finalized and will be submitted to you for approval.
Reco: mendation: That you approve the second wave of polling, the
list of states to be polled, and the schedule. The questionnaire and
exact cost estimated will be submitted for your approval by May 30.
Approve
Disapprove
Comment
Committee for the Re-election of the President
MEMORANDUM
May 11, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
MR. KENNETH R. COLE, JR.
MR. CHARLES W. COLSON
MR. PETER 11. DAILEY
MR. BARRY S. DENT
MR. PETER M. FLANIGAN
MR. HARRY S. FLEMMING
MR. LLONARD GARMENT
MR. ALLAN G. KAUPINEN
MR. FRED C. LA RUE
MR. JEB S. MAGRUDER
MR. FREDERIC V. MALEK
MR. CLIFFORD A. MILLER
DR. ROBERT H. MARIK
MR. ROBERT C. MARDIAN
MR. DONALD M. MOSIMAN
MR. HERBERT L. PORTER
MR. RAYMOND K. PRICE, JR.
MR. GORDON C. STRACHAN
NR. GLATION K. YEUTTER
FROM:
ROBERT M. TEETER
SUBJECT:
Wave II Polling
We plan to do a second wave of polling in late June with results
being available in early or mid July. It will consist of personal
interview studies in several of the priority states and a national
oversample similar to the first wave.
If there are any specific areas or subjects you would like to have
covered, I would like to have this information from you by Wednesday,
May 17.
This group of polls will be somewhat shorter and more limited in
scope than the January vove and while it will probably not be possible
to include everything everyone would like to have included, we will
make every attempt to get the data that would be of use to you.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
May 9, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Nebraska end West Virginia
Primary Returns
The President's name is on the Nebraska ballot with
Ashbrook and McCloskey. The President is expected to
win easily. The President's name does not appear on
the West Virginia ballot.
All Democrate appear on the Nebraska ballot, only
Humphrey and Wallace appear on the West Virginia ballot.
The Nebraska polls close at 9 p.m. The West Virginia
polls close at 7:30 p.m. CBS has announced a show on
the results. NBC and ABC have not announced shows.
I will be in touch with Magruder and Shumway from
8:30 p.m. on.
John Mitchell is not expected to be at the Committee
tonight, and Magruder expects him to watch the results
on T.V.
Harry Dent will prepare a one page summary of the results
for the President. This summary will be on your desk at
7:45 a.m. for you to decide whether it should go to the
President.
GS/jb
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
May 9, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Gallup Surveys
The March Gallup Opinion Index contains the detailed demo-
graphics on the President's popularity from the Mar. 3-5,
1972 poll. The chart comparing the three previous Gallup
surveys is included. The demographics for the Feb. 4-7
Gallup trial heats are also included.
The "satisfaction index" -- on housing, jobs, the future,
etc. -- is most interesting. Ohe question is: "On the
whole, would you say you are satisfied or dissatisfied
with the future facing you and your family?" The results
are 58% satisfied, 30% dissatisfied and 12% don't know.
Satisfaction in the housing, job, education and standard
of living indices was even higher.
The point about the "future" question is that it seems to
highlight the basic optimism that remains in the electorate.
The press has been emphasizing the high degree of alienation.
This emphasizes the importance of the President continuing
to be upbeat about that which is good in the country as
opposed to those who think the country is ruined.
Interesting demographics are: Catholics tend to be more
satisfied than Protestants, whites much more so than non-
whites, among all age groups there is broad uniformity,
with the young as satisfied as other groups.
On the other hand, people are widely dissatisfied with the
way the nation is being governed -- 37% satisfied to 54%
dissatisfied and 9% no opinion. The strange aspect is that
people 18-20 years old are more satisfied with the way the
nation is governed than all other age groups.
- 2 -
What this may mean is the degree to which people are "fed-up"
with government -- -- an issue on which the President has always
been ahead of others (and on which we can stay ahead if we
continue to hammer away at it). Thus, while people are confi-
dent about the future, they still don't like the way things are
governed. Obviously, this relates to the amount of government
intrusion in their lives -- taxes, the bureaucracy, busing,
etc. In the face of this there seems to be an attitude that
they are satisfied with the future, in spite of the way the
nation is governed.
This would suggest the President continue his battle against
big and inefficient government. It should be pointed out
that in the campaign all the Democrats who presently complain
about taxes and big government are the very people who have
endorsed during their political careers just such policies.
A concomitant tack should be taken that the nation has much
to be optimistic about -- that we can regain the nation's
greatness by rejecting those who constantly preach self-hate
and those who claim that "we have lost our way."
Finally, of continued interest is that the President is still
doing quite well with farmers in trial heats with Democrats.
In each case he does better among farmers than he does
nationally. Butz may be more than partially responsible for
this.
An analysis of the New York Times surveys by Ken Khachigian
of Buchanan's staff 16 also attached.
GS/jb
Atts.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
May 8, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Cambridge Opinion Poll
Connecticut Governor Meskill sent the President this
Cambridge Opinion (Tully Plesser) survey which shows
the President behind Muskie but ahead of Humphrey and
Kennedy.
Polling Dates
Muskie
Humphrey
Kennedy
CO-12/10-12/71
43-47-5-5
46-42-6-6
47-40-6-7
Teeter has a copy of the poll.
A letter for the President's signature acknowledging receipt
of the "information" is attached.
att.
GS/jb
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
May 4, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Tennessee Primary Returns
The President's name is on the Tennessee ballot with Ashbrook
and McCloskey. The President is expected to win easily.
All Democrats and a busing referendum also appear on the
ballot.
The Tennessee polls close between 4 and 9 p.m. CBS, NBC,
and ABC have not announced shows on the results. I will
be in touch with Magruder and Shumway from 8:30 p.m. on.
John Mitchell is not expected to be at the Committee tonight,
and Magruder expects him to watch the results on T.V.
Harry Dent will prepare a one page summary of the results
for the President. This summary will be on your desk at
7:45 a.m. for you to decide whether it should go to the
President.
GS/jb
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
May 4, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
RNC Convention
Bill Timmons met with John Mitchell and Jeb Magruder on
May 3rd to discuss the Miami Beach site and the RNC
meeting this weekend.
To have the RNC focus on matters besides the site of the
convention, Mitchell and Timmons suggest releasing the
names of several convention appointments. The suggested
appointments are:
1) Congressman Ford -- Permanent Chairman
2) Governor Reagan -- Temporary Chairman
3) Anne Armstrong
-- Secretary of the Convention
4) H. Allen Smith
-- Parliamentarian at Convention
Next week when Senator Scott returns from China, Mitchell
plans on announcing that Scott will serve as the President's
"Floor Manager" at the convention.
Timmons will proceed with these appointments and announcements
on Mitchell's authority unless Timmons hears otherwise from
you.
Timmons will go to Miami Beach this weekend to conduct a
survey. Timmons is working on the convention on the basis
of 75% of his time for Mitchell and 25% of his time on
Congressional Relations. You have an April 20, 1972 talking
paper (copy attached) to cover this with MacGregor.
GS/jb
Att - talking paper
F/U - May 8
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
May 2, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Indiana, Ohio, D.C.
Primary Returns
The President's name is on the Ohio and Indiana ballots.
In D.C. there is no slate as the original one was suc-
cessfully challenged and the delegates will be chosen
by the D.C. Republican Committee. The President is
expected to winneasily in Ohio and Indiana.
The Indiana polls close at 6 and 7 p.m., while the D.C.
polls close at 8 p.m. Ohio is having real trouble with
their four sheet complex ballot, and a late wire indicated
Ohio's polls would not close until 11:59 p.m. CBS and
NBC have announced shows on the results beginning at
10:30 p.m. ABC has not announced election shows. I will
be in touch with Magruder and Shumway from 7:30 p.m. on.
John Mitchell is not expected to be at the Committee
tonight, and Magruder expects him to watch the results
on T.V.
For New Hampshire, Florida, Wisconsin, Massachusetts and
Pennsylvania, Harry Dent has prepared a one page summary
of the results for the President. This summary has been
delivered to the President at 7:30 a.m. the next morning.
RECOMMENDATION
That Dent be asked to prepare his analysis of the Indiana,
Ohio, and D.C. Primaries for the President.
Agree
Disagree
Comment
GS/jb
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DATE: May 3, 1972
TO:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
Your wife asked whether Lillie Lou Rietzke
were a contributor to the President's
campaign, and if so whether she ever
received a thank you letter. Hugh Sloan
reviewed the '68, '70, and '72 records
to confirm that Mrs. Rietzke did not
contribute. In fact, Mrs. Rietzke is
known in fundraising circles as one who
frequently claims to have contributed,
complains she did not receive a thank
you note, and seeks to embarrass the
recordkeeper instead of contributing.
However, her telegram is an interesting
human story and the couple will receive
a special White House tour while they
are in Washington.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
May 1, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
George Wallace - Georgia,
Alabama, Mississippi, Texas
You asked for a status report on George Wallace's possible
candidacy in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas.
Georgia
The American Independent Party (AIP) must hold a nominating
convention by May 9, 1972 for Wallace to appear on the AIP
ballot on November 7, 1972. If the AIP holds the convention,
it must then obtain 98,000 signatures by June 14, 1972.
Georgia sources say this "would be tough" to do.
Tomorrow, discreet checks will be made to determine whether
AIP convention planning is underway.
If the AIP does not hold a convention, Wallace may whn as
an "Independent" but again would require 98,000 signatures
by June 14th. There is no indication these signatures are
now being collected, but again discreet checks will be made
on May 2nd.
Alabama
AIP is a recognized party in Alabama. The AIP has until
September 8th to certify their Presidential candidate. So,
Wallace could easily run in Alabama on the AIP ticket with
him decision made as late as September 8th.
Mississippi
The AIP is not a recognized party in Mississippi. However,
Wallace could run as an "Independent". Wallace would only
need 10,000 signatures on a petition by September 28th.
This could be done easily.
- 2 -
Texas
AIP has lost its status as a recognized party. For AIP to
place Wallace on the ballot in November, it must obtain
23,000 signatures between May 6th and June 30th. However,
the 23,000 signatures cannot include the names of anyone
who voted in the May 6th Texas primary.
The Texas election board believes Wallace "would have a
tough road" to get on the ballot for two reasons. One is
the requirement that none of the 23,000 can have voted in
the primary. The other reason is that Wallace has publicly
stated in Texas that his followers should work within the
Texas Democratic Party.
GS/jb
F/U - May 5
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 1, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
L
SUBJECT:
Wallace Vote
Bob asked that you put together a summary of the Wallace vote
situation on a state by state basis SO we can trace at what point
in time Wallace loses the option of running as a third party
candidate on the ballot in each state. He would like you to update
this on the same basis you update the Democratic and Republican
primary sheets.
Obviously, in many states the decision will be being contested
in the courts. Those states should indicate the date that the
state actually closes out and whether or not the opportunity is
being contested.
:
Sedam
Ga; ala; miss; TX
5/1
cwk an cipdate meno
The AIP must hold Concertion
- know 5/2 if plans
by may 9 1972,
of hold convention need
98,000ACQ ey Je 14.
"would be torigh
can run as "Ind" if gets 98,000
by Ie 14.
ala
AIP recoy pol party
Until Sep 8 to certify
their candiel
H runas "indep " must
fite 300 sigs ey5/2,
miss
AIP not a party, must
proceed as Indep;
needs petition u/
10,000 stgs by sept 28
- "no pare
Tx - A IP lost status as party led
no Gov land last time
To re - - estal must get 23,000
sigs bet 5/6 + 6/30,
-But if voted in primary
(may 6-Gor) - can't
orgn Petition.
- - Ele Bel- - "would
1
Beef Wallard in TX
have tough read"
pullicly unged
his sciporters to
wall Per TX Demparty
2 To be one of 23, 000
can't have voted
in primary
-
3
But AIP peopleproceding
on assump that
trying to nominate
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
May 1, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Gallup Surveys
Discussion with John Davies today confirmed that Gallup did
not conduct Presidential popularity questions on either the
April 15-16 or April 24-25 surveys. Davies says that Presi-
dential popularity is not conducted when trial heat questions
are because the results would be "biased".
Preliminary results from the Gallup "candidates image" study
should be available late next week from Davies.
The Gallup release for Thursday, May 4th will describe the
Democratic contenders' standings among a nationwide sample
of Democrats. Davies would not give me the exact figures,
but he told me that "Humphrey is the clear leader, with
Kennedy up there". McGovern remains "very low" nationally.
Gallup may release the results of their poll among Democratic
County Chairmen next week. As was expected, Humphrey is
"way ahead".
GS/jb
F/U - 5/4