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: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Talking paper for Ehrlichman's political meeting. 3 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/31/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Floyd McKissick's political party affiliation. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Memo], 7/31/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Dent- EMK scandal. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Memo], 7/31/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Democrats Committee. 2 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/28/1972
From: Jeb S. MaGruder To: Clark MacGregor RE: Democrats Committee.2 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/27/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Wave II Polling information- Chapin's access. 2 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/28/1972
From: Dwight L. Chapin To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Polling Information. Handwritten note attached from L. Higby. 2 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/27/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Independent Polling capability. 2 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/27/1972
From: Tom Benham RE: Private Polling Facility. 3 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/21/1972
From: Robert M . Teeter To: Gordon Strachan RE: Campaign Polling. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/22/1972
From: L. Higby To: Gordon Strachan RE: Campaign polling. Memo from Tom Benham regarding private polling facility attached. 4 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/21/1972
From: L. Higby To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Independent polling. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/20/1972
From: L. Higby RE: Follow-up on campaign polling. Three pages of handwritten notes regarding campaign polling. 4 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/19/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Democratic Convention polldemographic comparison. 3 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/27/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Meeting with John Gavin. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/27/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Wave II campaign surveys- Teeter materials for Chapin. 2 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/27/1972
From: Robert M. Teeter To: Dwight L. Chapin RE: Issue and appearance data from second wave polling. 20 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/25/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26145619
label
WHSF: Contested, 14-6
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26145619
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 14-6
description
This file contains:
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Talking paper for Ehrlichman's political meeting. 3 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/31/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Floyd McKissick's political party affiliation. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Memo], 7/31/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Dent- EMK scandal. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Memo], 7/31/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Democrats Committee. 2 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/28/1972
From: Jeb S. MaGruder To: Clark MacGregor RE: Democrats Committee.2 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/27/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Wave II Polling information- Chapin's access. 2 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/28/1972
From: Dwight L. Chapin To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Polling Information. Handwritten note attached from L. Higby. 2 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/27/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Independent Polling capability. 2 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/27/1972
From: Tom Benham RE: Private Polling Facility. 3 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/21/1972
From: Robert M . Teeter To: Gordon Strachan RE: Campaign Polling. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/22/1972
From: L. Higby To: Gordon Strachan RE: Campaign polling. Memo from Tom Benham regarding private polling facility attached. 4 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/21/1972
From: L. Higby To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Independent polling. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/20/1972
From: L. Higby RE: Follow-up on campaign polling. Three pages of handwritten notes regarding campaign polling. 4 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/19/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Democratic Convention polldemographic comparison. 3 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/27/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Meeting with John Gavin. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/27/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: Wave II campaign surveys- Teeter materials for Chapin. 2 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/27/1972
From: Robert M. Teeter To: Dwight L. Chapin RE: Issue and appearance data from second wave polling. 20 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/25/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26145619
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
b844bf9c426d8b14
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
14
6
7/31/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman
RE: Talking paper for Ehrlichman's political
meeting. 3 pg.
14
6
7/31/1972
Personal
Memo
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman
RE: Floyd McKissick's political party
affiliation. 1 pg.
14
6
7/31/1972
Personal
Memo
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman
RE: Dent- EMK scandal. 1 pg.
14
6
7/28/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman
RE: Democrats Committee. 2 pg.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Page 1 of 4
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
14
6
7/27/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Jeb S. MaGruder To: Clark
MacGregor RE: Democrats Committee.2 pg.
14
6
7/28/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman
RE: Wave II Polling information- Chapin's
access. 2 pg.
14
6
7/27/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Dwight L. Chapin To: H.R. Haldeman
RE: Polling Information. Handwritten note
attached from L. Higby. 2 pg.
14
6
7/27/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman
RE: Independent Polling capability. 2 pg.
14
6
7/21/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Tom Benham RE: Private Polling
Facility. 3 pg.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Page 2 of 4
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
14
6
7/22/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Robert M . Teeter To: Gordon
Strachan RE: Campaign Polling.
14
6
7/21/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: L. Higby To: Gordon Strachan RE:
Campaign polling. Memo from Tom Benham
regarding private polling facility attached. 4
pg.
14
6
7/20/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: L. Higby To: H.R. Haldeman RE:
Independent polling. 1 pg.
14
6
7/19/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: L. Higby RE: Follow-up on campaign
polling. Three pages of handwritten notes
regarding campaign polling. 4 pg.
14
6
7/27/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman
RE: Democratic Convention poll-
demographic comparison. 3 pg.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Page 3 of 4
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
14
6
7/27/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman
RE: Meeting with John Gavin. 1 pg.
14
6
7/27/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman
RE: Wave II campaign surveys- Teeter
materials for Chapin. 2 pg.
14
6
7/25/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Robert M. Teeter To: Dwight L.
Chapin RE: Issue and appearance data from
second wave polling. 20 pg.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Page 4 of 4
Presidential Materials Review Board
Review on Contested Documents
Collection: H. R. Haldeman
Box Number: 239
Folder:
Strachan Chron HRH only July 1972 Part II
Document
Disposition
143
Return
Private/Political Note, Strachan to HRN, 7-31-72
144
Retain
Open
145
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 7-31-72
146
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 7-31-72
147
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 7-28-72
148
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 7-28-72
149
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 7-27-72
150
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachanto HRH, 7-27-72
151
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRN, 7-27-72
152
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRN, 7-27-72
153
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to the Record. 7-26-72
154
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRN. 7-26-72
155
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 7-25-72
156
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 7-25-72
157
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 7-25-72
158
Retain
Open
159
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 7-25-72
160
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRN, 7-24-72
161
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 7-24-72
162
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRN. 7-24-72
163
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 7-24-72
164
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRN. 7-24-72
165
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 7-24-72
166
Retain
Open
Presidential Materials Review Board
Review on Contested Documents
Collection: H. R. Haldeman
Box Number: 239
167
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 7-21-72
168
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 7-22-72
169
Retain
Open
170
Return Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRN, 7-21-72
I
THE WHITE HOUSE
Date: 7/31/72
TO:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
This Talking Paper for Ehrlichman's
Political Meeting at 11:00 a.m.
tomorrow covers the points you
wanted raised from my July 29
Political Matters memorandum.
Timmons has also been asked to
the meeting. He believes the
subject will be the Convention
Rules dispute. You mentioned you
wanted to meet with Ehrlichman
and Timmons on this subject.
TALKING PAPER FOR EHRLICHMAN POLITICAL GROUP
Re: General Matters
1) George Wallace -- Apparently, Ed Harper called Harry
Dent on July 27 to ask him to call Wallace and invite him
to testify at the Platform Hearings. Dent called Mitchell,
who said to wait on the call. Should Wallace be invited
to testify at the Platform Hearings? If so, who should
call him? John Connally? Harry Dent? Congressman Rhodes?
2) Republican National Convention -- Are the Platform
Hearings being arranged for TV coverage? What theme should
be used for the Convention? Should Connally appear?
3) Convention Spokesman -- Herb Klein wants to be the
chief spokesman at the Convention. MacGregor has said no
because most believe it would be inappropriate to have a
White House Staff member as the chief Convention/Campaing
spokesman. Also, Ann Dore had been selected as the "spokes
person" to increase the visibility of women. Should Klein
nevertheless be the spokesman?
4) Campaign Kick-Off -- Has it been definitely decided
that there should not be a September Campaign Kick-Off in
Southern California? Doesn't the poll data indicate we
need some high visibility event to improve the President's
position in San Diego?
- 2 -
5) California - Malek -- There are no Democrats on our
Committee, we have no Democratic organization, and we
apparently still have Nofziger still running the campaign
there. If Malek is not to be the one to review and re-
organize the California situation, who is?
6) Polling Data - Platform - Ehrlichman -- Bob Teeter
is ready to brief Messrs. Ehrlichman, Cole and Harper on
the issue information from Wave II. Would it be useful
to have this briefing on the public's perception of the
issues before we are locked into the Platform?
7) Local Officials for the President -- The Vice
President is concerned that not enough attention is being
paid to involving Mayors, County Executives, and other
local officials in the re-election of the President effort.
Should this activity be run entirely by the Vice President's
staff?
GS
7/31/72
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
July 31, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
According to Bob Brown, Floyd McKissick is unfortunately
a registered Republican.
GS/jb
:
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
July 31, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Dent - BMK Scandal
Harry Dent has heard from two sources (Roland Evans and
a South Carolina attorney) that there is another major
scandal about to break around Teddy Kennedy. According
to the sources, a girl pregnant by Teddy will seek quite
a publicity splash.
GS/jb
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
July 28, 1972
MEMORANDUM FORE
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Democrate Committee
Magruder has been working with Colson on many of the
details relating to the Democrate Committee under John
Connally - office space, legal advice, and personal
matters, Colson and Magruder had been occperating until
July 27. Now a basic disagreement has developed over
the question of who is to handle the advertising for
the Democrats Committee, Magruder has submitted the
attached memorandum to Clark MacGregor. The memorandum
argues that advertising responsibility should remain
in the November Group, with a separate creative unit
established to service Connally and the Democratic
Committee. According to Magruder, Colson has made
arrangements with Jeno Paulucci to use his "in house"
advertising agency based in Minnesota.
Peter Dailey received word of this possible shift of
responsibility from Dwight Chapin on Saturday, July 22,
1972. You had called Chapin on July 22 from Camp David
and told him to talk to Dailey and Magruder on Monday,
July 24. Magruder and Dailey began work on the July 27
memorandum attached.
Dailey came to see me on Wednesday evening, July 26,
to discuss advertising for the Democratic Committee. He
is very concerned that Colson will be involved. Dailey
has worked on two projects with Colson - the response
to the New York Times and the Jeno Paulucei ad. Dailey
believes Colson exhibited "no taste, judgment, or sensi-
tivity on these ads", Dailey is convinced the same will
be characteristic of any Colson-inspired Democrats ad
for the campaign. Dailey believes the positive ads for
the campaign will be easy and productive. Be is concerned
that any negative ads dictated by Colson run the risk of
losing the election.
- 2 -
Magruder and Dailey met with MacGregor this morning.
MacGregor agreed to ask Paulucci and his advertising
man to come to Washington to discuss the entire subject.
Dailey and Magruder also want to meet with Mitchell.
Dailey called me this morning to say that he will want
to see you if Mitchell and MacGregor do not re-establish
an advertising approval process that continues to rely
primarily on you.
Few know what basic decisions have been made regarding
Connally, the Democrate Committee, and its advertising.
You may want to discuss the entire matter with Colson
if you are not fully up-to-date on what Colson is doing
with or without Connally's concurrence.
GS/jb
trackan
Committee for the Re-election of the President
MEMORANDUM
July 27, 1972
CONFIDENTIAL
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 12085. Section 6-102
By Emprise
NASS, Date 1-14-80
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE CLARK MAC GREGOR
FROM:
JEB S. MAGRUDER
SUBJECT:
Democrats Committee
Now that a number of logistical decisions have been made with respect
to the new Democrats Committee (e.g., office space in the Madison
Building, storefront space in the former Wilbur Mills headquarters),
there are some other, more important, areas we should discuss and
consider:
First, with respect to advertising, we have been told that, although
no decision has been made, the new Committee is contemplating the
use of a separate ad agency. Our earlier understanding was that the
Committee for the Re-election of the President would develop such
capabilities, and provide services to other groups such as the Demo-
crats. Committee. We have geared the November Group to that goal.
This arrangement assures a consistent strategy, as well as minimizes
the overhead costs.
We believe that there are several advantages to having the November
Group as an in-house agency for the Democrats:
1. The staff devotes itself full-time to the re-election of the
President. There are no competing commercial accounts.
2. All of the people who work on the account are loyal to the Presi-
dent. Problems of security are minimized.
3.- The top members of the November Group are thoroughly integrated
into the strategy development process of the Committee. They thereby
obtain a much more thorough understanding of how that strategy can
best be translated into creative media.
4. We have recruited a top-quality and an outstanding group of pro-
fessionals. There's little question that with the orientation on
issues already provided, they can provide outstanding work.
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
-2-
5. Legal opinion indicates that all expenditures will come from the
President's $14 million allocation. The problems of controlling
certification are already enormous. Using a second agency would
greatly complicate the problem.
6. It is most important that the Campaign Director and principal
White House staff have the opportunity to exercise maximum control
over both sides of the product (i.e., a definitive advertising for
the President, and the negative advertising about the opposition).
Such control is best maintained working through the existing Novem-
ber Group facilities and using the existing approval process, and
then adding Mr. Connally's approval for the Democrats Committee
advertising.
Some concern has been evidenced over how November Group would handle
this project. A separate creative staff, whose sole responsibility
would be Democrats, would be assigned to the "account." All the
administrative, financial and media control would remain the same.
Similar reasoning applies in the case of direct mail. As you know,
we are currently planning to mail to large numbers of "reachable"
Democrats and Independents. In many cases, we would hope to use
the signatures of locally prominent Democrats who support the Presi-
dent. It would not be productive to have a parallel effort under-
taken by the Democrats, although we should coordinate closely with
them.
Recommendation
That the Democrats Committee utilize the campaign capabilities (es-
pecially advertising and direct mail) of the Re-election Committee,
rather than establishing their own. Decisions on priorities would
be made by you and Mr. Connally. We would follow whatever procedure
you both deemed appropriate to clear copy, etc., with the Democrats
organization.
Approve
Disapprove
Comment
CONFIDENTIAL
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
July 28, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Wave II Polling Information -
Chapin's Access
Chapin's attached memorandum appears to be a stinging
indictment of "your office's" (Higby and Strachan) delay
and intransigence in releasing Wave II polling information
for Chapin's schedule planning. I must take strong excep-
tion with Chapin's statements and offer the following for
your consideration:
1) On Saturday, July 15 at 10:10 p.m., the detailed
Wave II polling information was received by me from Ted
Garrish of Teeter's staff,
2) On Monday, July 17, the assembled material with my
COVER memorandum recommending a Tester oral briefing of
Chapin/Parker (the only thing they received from Wave I
per your instructions) was submitted;
3) On Wednesday, July 19, the oral briefing for Chapin/
Parker was approved per Higby. There were to be no written
materials submitted to Chapin and I was to sit in to assure
adherence to the guidelines (no specific figures);
4) On Wednesday, July 19, Chapin told me he wanted to
be briefed on image material so he could make decisions
regarding the documentaries. Tester and Garrish were
advised to be prepared on image instead of schedule;
5) On Friday, July 21, Ted Garrish briefed Chapin and
Dave Parker for one-half hour on general schedule sugges-
tions. Chapin and Parker asked for the State by Issue
written material. The briefing continued with Chapin and
Moore but on image information,
- 2 -
6) On Friday and Saturday, July 21 and 22, Tester and
Garrish went back to their computer to prepare the State
by Issue information,
7) On Tuesday, July 25, the State by Issue Information
was ready and Chapin and Parker were briefed by Teeter.
He used the materials to talk from and Chapin requested a
copy. I declined, indicating I will have to check with
you, In addition, all agreed there should be a textual
summary as well as a national sheet for comparison purposes;
8) On Wednesday, July 26, Teeter submitted the "Issue
and Appearances Date from Second Wave Polling";
9) On July 27, this material was submitted to you with
my cover memorandum (slightly modified but significantly
improved by a Higby suggestion that Teeter prepare his
subjective recommendations) recommending that Chapin and
Parker receive the information.
So much for the factual description. Two personal obser-
vations should be considered. First, if Chapin really can
obtain the information independently at 1701, there is a
very serious leak situation there which should be plugged
immediately. Second, Chapin has always rankled under his
lack of access to the polling information. He hopes to
blast through the protection system by arguing delay and
intransigence. If you decide to discuss his memorandum
with him, I suggest that you point out to him that we are
all on one team and that there has been no attempt by me
or Higby to deny Chapin the information. We have been
recommending he receive it since it arrived, have been
pushing Teeter hard to prepare the best material for him,
and yet have been protecting the information pursuant to
your explicit instructions.
GS/jb
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date
TO: AS
FROM:
L. HIGBY
Male were that
your meno cover all
Chepine point.
L.
I
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
High Priority
WASHINGTON
July 27, 1972
11:00 a. m.
HIGH PRIORITY
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
DWIGHT L. CHAPIN
D
SUBJECT:
Polling Information
I think an issue should be made of our trying to obtain polling
information from the second wave. Last Saturday a memorandum
was sent over from 1701 to your office which contained the
information we need for proceeding with some schedule planning
and trying to get a good feel as to the situation in various parts
of the country and where we should concentrate. That information
was sorted through and on Monday was put into different form.
On Tuesday we met with Teeter who had some sheets of paper
with him but we were not allowed to get hold of these pieces of
paper. We ended the meeting, hoping to get within the next day
or so a written description of the polling information, or at least
figures so we could interpret them ourselves. Before noon yesterday
the information was delivered from 1701 to your office and so far
it has not shown up here.
We are doing some rough campaign plans so as to spark some
comment from you and give you some materials to work with should
the President want to start talking about the campaign. We can't
get our work done because we can't get the information.
It's a little disconcerting to feel the massive screening process has'
to take place prior to my getting the information. I could get hold of
the information immediately directly from 1701 if I wanted to go that
route. 1701 is a little confused as to what's going on and, needless to say,
I am too.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
July 27, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Independent Polling Capability
Higby and I met with Tom Benham on July 21 to discuss his
proposal for an independent polling capability for key
state and national surveys for exclusive use here at the
White House. Benham's proposal, attached at Tab A, offers
a day-by-day polling capability similar to one of the three
systems 1701 is considering. Teeter's description of the
current plans by 1701 for daily polling is attached at
Tab B.
Benham's proposal would cover more than the requirements
you anticipate. He offers a daily, continuous interview-
ing of set questions for trend purposes with the capability
to substitute any group of questions immediately. Benham's
most balanced alternative with capability in each of the
key states as well as nationally would cost 183,000. This
capability is probably what 1701 should establish, though
Teeter has a resistance to ORC, which he claims is based
on their excessive costs. ORC is, by the way, more expen-
sive than Chilton, which has offered to conduct a national
telephone survey of 1,000 interviews for 7,500 instead of
the 8,000 ORC charges. However, ORC's reliability, confi-
dentiality, and trend information has precluded serious
consideration of Chilton.
To prevent the waste and duplication of establishing two
systems, I propose the following solution:
1) Direct Tester to establish the 1701 daily polling
capability at ORC. The cost may be slightly higher and
Teeter may resist this intrusion on his authority to make
campaign polling decisions, but the advantages of reliability
and security outweigh the negatives,
- 2 -
2) Arrange privately with Benham (without Tester's
knowledge) to have the additional capacity to accommodate
the White House requirements of 10-12 national (sample
based either on 50 states or on the 10 key states) and
individual key state polls. Benham estimates the cost of
this additional capability would be 12,000 to install lines
and then 8,500 per survey. The per survey cost is 500
higher because of additional overtime and staff costs of
producing results in one day,
3) The only duplication of White House and 1701 equip-
ment would be a Xerox Telecopier (commercial alternative
to Dex). ORC and the other vendors have this capability.
This would cost 50 per month to rent, but would permit
the quick transmission of written materials. Kehrli con-
firms the 150 is available,
4) Payment for the 1701 capability would be made in
accordance within the approved budget system. Payment
of the 100,000 cost of the ORC independent polling capa-
bility could be delayed until after November 7. This
would prevent disclosure to anyone at 1701 as well as the
general public due to the campaign spending legislation.
Approve general idea; Strachan work out details
with Teeter and Benham,
Disapprove.
Other.
GS/jb
Opinion Research Corporation
NORTH HARRISON STREET, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540
telephone: 609/924-5900
CHICAGO
LONDON
LOS ANGELES
NEW YORK
SAN FRANCISCO
WASHINGTON, D.C.
THOMAS W. BENHAM
President
MEMORANDUM
July 21, 1972
FROM:
Tom Benham
SUBJECT: Private Polling Facility
Specifications:
1. An on-call polling facility, available during the three-
month period August, September, October 1972.
2. Reliable survey data, available on short notice.
3. Absolute confidentiality.
4. Professional assistance in question-wording maintenance
of trend data, interpretation, analysis, etc.
5. Flexibility in terms of universe to be polled, subject
matter covered, etc. The basic universe would be a com-
posite of the public in key states (the latest listing:
California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas). On
demand, any one of these states, or subgroups of states,
could be polled instead of the total universe. The
system can also provide continuous interviewing,
every day from 10:00 a .m. to 10:00 p.m., to deliver
steady, moving trend data on key questions.
6. Interviewing will be conducted and supervised at a
central location in ORC's Princeton headquarters.
-
Memorandum
-2-
July 21, 1972
The cost of such a get-up is closely related to the desired capacity, i.e., the
number and length of interviews expected each day. The following table shows
six alternative plans on a thirty-day cost basis. My personal recommendation
is Plan 2.
Plan 1
Plan 2
Plan 3
Plan 4
Plan 5
Plan 6
Number of inter-
views per day
250
250
250
500
500
500
Total interviews
per month
7500
7500
7500
15,000
15,000
15,000
Length of
Five
Ten
Fifteen
Five
Ten
Fifteen
interview
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Interviewing
$ 15,900
$ 24,200
$ 35,000
$ 26,800
$ 45,900
$ 67,400
Sampling
1,500
1,500
1,500
2,500
2,500
2,500
Processing
5,000
9,000
12,000
9,000
16,000
23,000
Secretarial,
Printing, Sup-
plies
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,000
5,400
6,000
Professional
staff
9,750
9,750
9,750
9,750
9,750
9,750
Subtotal
36,150
48,950
63,250
53,050
79,550
108,650
WATS Line Charges
7,200
12,200
17,850
12,450
22,900
35,300
Total
$ 43,350
$ 61,150
$ 81,100
$ 65,500
$102,450
$143,950
3-month cost
$130,050
$183,450
$243,300
$196,500
$307,350
$431,850
Billing: Monthly, in advance.
Memorandum
-3.-
July 21, 1972
The configuration of WATS bands is as follows:
Bands
1
2
3
5
6
7
5 Minute Interview:
250 interviews
1
1
2
0
1
1
500 interviews
2
2
3
0
2
1
10 Minute Interview:
250 interviews
2
2
3
1
1
1
500 interviews
4
4
5
2
2
2
15 Minute Interview:
250 interviews
3
3
4
1
2
2
500 interviews
6
6
8
2
4
3
State
Band Coverage
California
6
Connecticut
6, 5, 3, 2, 1
Illinois
6, 5, 3
Maryland
6, 5, 3, 2, 1
Michigan
6, 5, 3
New Jersey
7
New York
6, 5, 3, 2, part of 1
Ohio
6, 5, 3
Pennsylvania
6, 5, 3, 2, part of 1
Texas
6, 5
Committee for the Re-election of the President
MEMORANDUM
July 22, 1972
DETERMINED TO BT
CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
ADMINISTRATIVE The
E.O. 12065, Sectio
By Emprise NARS, Date 1-14-80
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON C. STRACHAN
FROM:
ROBERT M. TEETER
SUBJECT:
Campaign Polling
This memorandum is in answer to your questions regarding our polling
plans for the period from the convention through the election.
First, we are going to do a third wave of state polls soon after
the Republican convention. They will be done either on the weekend
of August 25-27 or September 1-3. They will consist of very short
personal interviews and sample ballots which will give us hard
ballot data on the priority states, an issue follow-up, a check on
the effect of the two tickets, and a check on McGovern's perception.
Then we intend to establish a daily interviewing capability using
WATS lines that will allow us to do 250-300 interviews each evening
(except sunday) and have the data by noon the following day. I
think the key to the research for the last several weeks of the
campaign is speed and flexibility. This capability will give us
data within 24 hours of interviewing and the flexibility to imple-
ment almost any research design we might want to use. We will be
able to do four or five state surveys each week, local metropolitan
area studies, establish state or national panels similar to 1968,
to do continuous revolving national studies by doing a region each
night, or check special events or issues as the situation may arise.
We have not locked in on any specific research design yet as during
the next two weeks I plan to meet with the several individuals who
will be using the research in the fall and develop a design that
will best suit those needs. My inclination now is to do each of
the priority states on a regular basis with the capability of
dropping off for a day or two to do special studies. However,
regardless of the specific research design this interviewing capa-
bility we have planned will allow us maximum flexibility.
We intend to have this system operational beginning September 25,
although are considering advancing the commencement date to September
15 as the advertising people may need data earlier for buying pur-
poses. It will run from commencement date through the election.
I
-2-
I have not contracted with any specific vendor yet but am con-
sidering ORC, MOR, and the possibility of establishing an in-house
interviewing operation in Washington. Both MOR and ORC have the
in-house capability to do the interviewing and both have additional
lines in their offices which could be used for a short-term period
if we wanted to increase the number of interviews over a specific
day or two. We will develop detailed costs for this project and
make a decision on a vendor by August 15.
We are also considering installing a small computer terminal in
1701 which would allow us to print out the data in Washington and
to assess our entire data bank from all the waves of polling. We
could tie in to both MOR and ORC's computers as they have identical
data processing facilities and very similar software.
Finally should we find rapid shifting of attitudes or voting inten-
tions, we will have the contingency capability of going into any
of our priority states and doing fast personal interview studies
in October. These could be completed by any of our three vendors
in less than a week.
CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
I
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 21, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
L
So there is no misunderstanding, what Bob wants is two reports,
One report should be on the capability of ORC to do private
confidential polling for us on both a selected and national basis.
The second report should be from you on what our current plans
are for doing the day-by-day polling.
What Benham has given us here is an on-call polling facility in
theory, but in fact, an almost daily polling facility, which is far
beyond our needs as they currently stand, or as I envision them.
If the capability of both can be wrapped up in ORC by having the
committee select ORC to handle the day-by-day we're in great
shape, but I think this is something that has to be decided on a
separate issue. I would suggest that in your memo to Bob you
make it clear that this is under consideration and also give him
a reasonable estimate of what the cost will be to do this. Benham's
proposal is interesting in that the total cost he's talking about is
really fairly minimal compared to the entire amount that we are
spending on polling. We may want to consider a revision of it and
pitch to Bob the idea of doing our own polling on a regular basis
with ORC, although, it would probably duplicate a lot of work that
the committee is already going to do.
Make sure you get to Bob the other materials Benham was talking
about. This seems like a very interesting thing. As a matter of
fact, as an addendem to your report or in a separate report you
might want to forward to him the fact that the electoral report
projection system is being set up.
Opinion Research Corporation
NORTH HARRISON STREET, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540
telephone: 609/924-5900
CHICAGO
LONDON
LOS ANGELES
NEW YORK
SAN FRANCISCO
WASHINGTON, D.C.
THOMAS W. BENHAM
President
MEMORANDUM
July 21, 1972
FROM:
Tom Benham
SUBJECT: Private Polling Facility
Specifications:
1. An on-call polling facility, available during the three-
month period August, September, October 1972.
2. Reliable survey data, available on short notice.
3. Absolute confidentiality.
4. Professional assistance in question-wording maintenance
of trend data, interpretation, analysis, etc.
5. Flexibility in terms of universe to be polled, subject
matter covered, etc. The basic universe would be a com-
posite of the public in key states (the latest listing:
California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas). On
demand, any one of these states, or subgroups of states,
could be polled instead of the total universe. The
system can also provide continuous interviewing,
every day from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., to deliver
steady, moving trend data on key questions.
6. Interviewing will be conducted and supervised at a
central location in ORC's Princeton headouarters.
I
Memorandum
-2-
July 21, 1972
The cost of such a get-up is closely related to the desired capacity, i.e., the
number and length of interviews expected each day. The following table shows
six alternative plans on a thirty-day cost basis. My personal recommendation
is Plan 2.
Plan 1
Plan 2
Plan 3
Plan 4
Plan 5
Plan 6
Number of inter-
views per day
250
250
250
500
500
500
Total interviews
per month
7500
7500
7500
15,000
15,000
15,000
Length of
Five
Ten
Fifteen
Five
Ten
Fifteen
interview
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Interviewing
$ 15,900
$ 24,200
$ 35,000
$ 26,800
$ 45,900
$ 67,400
Sampling
1,500
1,500
1,500
2,500
2,500
2,500
Processing
5,000
9,000
12,000
9,000
16,000
23,000
Secretarial,
Printing, Sup-
plies
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,000
5,400
6,000
Professional
staff
9,750
9,750
9,750
9,750
9,750
9,750
Subtotal
36,150
48,950
63,250
53,050
79,550
108,650
WATS Line Charges
7,200
12,200
17,850:
12,450
22,900
35,300
Total
$ 43,350
$ 61,150
$ 81,100
$ 65,500
$102,450
$143,950
3-month cost
$130,050
$183,450
$243,300
$196,500
$307,350
$431,850
Billing: Monthly, in advance.
Memorandum
-3-
July 21, 1972
The configuration of WATS bands is as follows:
Bands
123567
5 Minute Interview:
250 interviews
1
1
2
0
1
1
500 interviews
2
2
3
0
2
1
10 Minute Interview:
250 interviews
2
2
3
1
1
1
500 interviews
4
4
5
2
2
2
15 Minute Interview:
250 interviews
3
3
4
1
2
2
500 interviews
6
6
8
2
4
3
State
Band Coverage
California
6
Connecticut
6, 5, 3, 2, 1
Illinois
6, 5, 3
Maryland
6, 5, 3, 2, 1
Michigan
6, 5, 3
New Jersey
7
New York
6, 5, 3, 2, part of 1
Ohio
6, 5, 3
Pennsylvania
6, 5, 3, 2, part of 1
Texas
6, 5
I
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 20, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
L
SUBJECT:
Independent Polling
Tom Benham is coming down here tomorrow to meet with
Gordon and me and wrap up the loose ends on your questions
regarding independent polling.
As I understand it, there are two general areas that you would
like us to consider with Benham:
1. The program that is going to be used
on doing our telephone follow-up surveys
as part of the overall polling program that
is being conducted at 1701.
2. What arrangements we can make to do
independent and exclusive follow-up surveys
in both key states and nationally for use here
at the White House.
If there are any additional areas you would like us to cover,
please let me know.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 19, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FOLLOW-UP
FROM:
L. HIGBY
Don't forget to follow-up with Gordon Strachan on the follow-up
polls and how ORC can do them. He is supposed to talk to Tom
Benham about this and get a note in to Haldeman.
May / Teeter analyses of the TUAQs.
Cross analysis of me G- % of accordement
like Rim
Decteral Vote analysis WORC
Paenham - will want Key St unfe
not note sample
Per St interviews 4-500 5
Tre Heats- ap -only - o'n - 750-950intrucs
800 O'N
Xeroxes $50 mo.
1968- Bome Halt - data to plane on 600 intereas
Benham to suggest ideas - es. Familiants
ul Me G.
Copobility ready in Zwlcs bil Go.
no pepmt possil. until after nor - Bend
Key St Polls - 10- 12 questionnaire
2-3 days now.
G do cost analysis for H to cover w/MacG
10 G per weel
- Current Interviews - 8-10 minutes
executing Teeter ?s
- w/ Teeta properal
per me. Probessconal time
- Same as w/ Teeter only d is
note sample U. 9 states
- Benham- either Plan zor 4
Benham suggest contenuous study+
10-11 studies suggested
add ?s on short notice
assume set up Teeter Comp
system in being; then
add Tom special capabilites
Calt Tx
Wats cost
500 on interviews -5-min
#23, 390 -
Cut Bagrnd
Each survey 3500
(
$50,000
10 surveys - 35,00
IU weeks - 58,000 phone- - 3500pm
nervey.
20 survey $130,000 10was
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
July 27, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Democratic Convention Poll -
Demographic Comparison
The ORC demographic comparison with statistically significant
shifts arrived this morning. The areas to note are 21-29
year olds, union families, $5-15,000 income levels, Repub-
licans, and the East.
Union Families and the $5-19,000 income types are approxi-
mately the same groups. It is arguable that their significant
drop in disapproval of the President is attributable to
Meany's neutrality, Teamsters' endorsement, and general labor
disaffection with McGovern. The chart of the approval of
the President's handling of Vietnam also confirms that the
President has increased his support among the $5-15,000
income group.
The statistically significant increase in the President's
support among Republicans may be attributable to the selection
of the left-wing candidate by the Democrats. (The Democratic
Convention Poll was conducted before the President announced
Agnew would be on the ticket.)
There has been a statistically significant drop in disapproval
of the President in the East. This is coupled with a signi-
ficant increase in the approval of the President's handling
of Vietnam. It is arguable that the correlation between these
two is attributable to the President's May 8 decision and
address and the trip to Russia.
The increase in conservative support for the President's
handling of Vietnam may well be the result of the mining and
bombing aspect of the May 8 decision.
GS/jb
QUESTION 1
CO YOU APPROVE CR DISAPPROVE CF THE WAY RICHARD NIXON IS
HANDLING HIS JOB AS PRESIDENT
A. 0-JULY 19-20
B. 0-MAY 9-10
C. 0-APRIL 27-29
D. 0-MARCH 18-19
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
NO OPINION
DIF
A
B
C
D
DIF
A
B
C
C
DIF
A
8
C
D
TOTAL PUBLIC
1
58
57
52
54
2- 31
33
35
35
1
11
10
13
11
MEN
0
59
59
54
55
1- 31
32
36
36
1
10
9
10
9
WOMEN
2
57
55
50
53
3- 31
34
34
33
1
12
11
16
14
18-20 YEARS OF AGE
1-
51
52
57
56
4- 36
40
39
36
5
13
8
4
8
21-29 YEARS
6- 48
54
48
52
3- 37
40
42
37
*9
15
6
10
11
30-49 YEARS
2
62
60
52
53
4- 28
32
33
34
2
10
8
15
13
50 YEARS AND OVER
3
60
57
53
55
1
30
29
33
34
4- 10
14
14
11
18-24 YEARS
6-
5C
56
48
53
2
39
37
44
37
4
11
7
8
10
8TH GRADE OR LESS
4
50
46
48
39
3- 36
39
35
44
1-
14
15
17
17
HIGH SCHOOL INCOMPLETE
6
59
53
49
57
8- 26
34
33
31
2
15
13
18
12
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE
3-
6C
63
54
57
1- 29
30
36
33
4
11
7
10
10
SOME COLLEGE
0
61
61
56
62
0
32
32
35
30
0
7
7
9
8
UNION FAMILIES
7
53
46
39
50
x10-
36
46
42
43
3
11
8
19
7
NONUNION FAMILIES
1-
6C
61
56
55
0
29
29
33
31
1
11
10
11
14
WHITE
62
62
0
55
57
28
28
0
33
32
10
10
0
12
11
NONWHITE
29
29
0
31
31
54
54
0
48
51
17
17
0
21
18
PROTESTANT
65
65
0
55
55
26
26
0
32
33
9
9
0
13
12
CATHOLIC
54
54
0
46
56
34
34
0
40
34
12
12
0
14
10
JEWISH
46
46
0
38
58
49
49
0
60
37
5
5
0
2
5
UNDER $5,000 INCOME
6-
49
55
45
43
10
39
29
40
40
4-
12
16
15
17
$5,000 - $15,000
4
6C
56
53
57
*7-
30
37
34
35
3
10
7
13
8
OVER $15,000
4
68
64
56
58
4- 28
32
37
35
0
4
4
7
7
NOW REGISTERED
59
59
o
53
56
32
32
0
34
33
9
9
0
13
11
WILL REGISTER
58
58
0
46
47
25
25
0
46
43
17
17
0
8
10
REGISTERED OR WILL REG
59
59
0
52
54
31
31
0
35
35
10
10
0
13
11
WON'T REGISTER
43
43
0
51
45
33
33
0
31
26
24
24
0
18
29
REPUBLICAN
*7
88
81
79
82
5-
7
12
12
13
2-
5
7
9
5
DEMOCRAT
2- 41
43
41
40
1 48
47
45
47
1
11
10
14
13
INDEPENDENT
4-
62
66
51
61
3
29
26
37
30
1
9
8
12
9
LEAN REPUBLICAN
2
89
87
77
88
1- 10
11
17
8
1-
1
2
6
4
LEAN DEMOCRAT
12-
34
46
34
42
4
52
48
50
50
8
14
6
16
8
OTHER INDEPENDENTS
10-
51
61
49
51
1
22
21
35
25
9
27
18
16
24
CONSERVATIVE
2
73
71
69
75
0
19
19
20
20
2-
8
10
11
5
LIBERAL
8-
37
45
36
37
7
56
49
53
53
1
7
6
11
10
IN BETWEEN
4
60
56
53
55
7- 28
35
35
32
3
12
9
12
13
LEAN CONSERVATIVE
6
67
61
61
55
8- 23
31
31
35
2
10
8
8
10
LEAN LIBERAL
3-
47
50
42
54
0
41
41
49
40
3
12
9
9
6
OTHER INBETWEEN
3
58
55
47
47
9-
22
31
29
27
6
20
14
24
26
NIXON VOTERS
80
80
0
75
76
14
14
0
16
15
6
6
0
9
9
HUMPHREY VOTERS
34
34
0
21
28
55
55
0
64
58
11
11
0
15
14
WALLACE VOTERS
45
45
0
42
48
41
41
0
50
48
14
14
0
8
4
NONVOTERS
48
48
0
47
48
35
35
0
40
39
17
17
0
13
13
EAST
8
60
52
46
56
13-
28
41
47
31
5
12
7
7
13
MIDWEST
7
60
53
52
56
4- 31
35
35
37
3-
9
12
13
7
SOUTH
8-
57
65
58
53
8
32
24
27
33
0
11
11
15
14
WEST
3-53
56
48
48
0
35
35
35
39
3
12
9
17
13
0101
DO YOU APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF THE WAY PRESIDENT NIXON IS
HANDLING THE VIETNAM SITUATION
A. 0-JULY 19-20
B. 0-MAY 9-10
C. 0-APRIL 27-29
C. 0-MARCH 3-5
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
NO OPINION
DIF
A
B
C
D
DIF
A
B
C
D
DIF
A
B
C
D
TOTAL PUBLIC
3
55
52
47
53
3- 35
38
44
36
0
10
10
9
11
MEN
4
61
57
53
60
4- 33
37
41
32
0
6
6
6
8
WOMEN
1
49
48
41
46
1- 38
39
46
40
0
13
13
13
14
18-20 YEARS OF AGE
6
49
43
47
57
12-
41
53
49
34
6
10
4
4
9
21-29 YEARS
9- 38
47
42
47
10
53
43
51
45
1-
9
10
7
8
30-49 YEARS
5
59
54
52
57
6- 30
36
39
34
1
11
10
9
9
50 YEARS AND OVER
4
59
55
45
52
3- 32
35
43
34
1-
9
10
12
14
18-24 YEARS
6- 43
49
42
52
5
50
45
55
40
1
7
6
3
8
8TH GRADE OR LESS
11
52
41
42
51
10-
34
44
46
33
1-
14
15
12
16
HIGH SCHOOL INCOMPLETE
4- 51
55
45
45
1- 36
37
45
44
5 13
8
10
11
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE
3
57
54
49
56
1- 34
35
42
34
2-
9
11
9
10
SOME COLLEGE
4- 56
60
50
57
3
39
36
45
36
1
5
4
5
7
UNION FAMILIES
7
53
46
44
46
7- 38
45
47
42
0
9
9
9
12
NONUNION FAMILIES
0
55
55
48
56
0
35
35
43
33
0
10
10
9
11
WHITE
59
59
0
50
54
31
31
0
41
35
10
10
0
9
11
NONWHITE
22
22
0
25
50
69
69
0
66
41
9
9
0
9
9
PROTESTANT
60
60
0
49
56
32
32
0
39
32
8
8
0
12
12
CATHOLIC
52
52
0
48
55
39
39
0
47
36
9
9
0
5
9
JEWISH
55
55
O
33
35
36
36
0
67
57
9
9
0
0
8
UNDER $5,000 INCOME
5-47
52
33
43
4
43
39
54
41
1
10
9
13
16
$5,000 - $15,000
*8
60
52
49
56
4- 33
37
42
35
4-
7
11
9
9
OVER $15,000
2
6C
58
54
62
4- 34
38
41
29
2
6
4
5
9
NOW REGISTERED
56
56
0
48
54
36
36
0
43
35
8
8
0
9
11
WILL REGISTER
56
56
0
42
53
32
32
o
50
40
12
12
0
8
7
REGISTERED OR WILL REG
56
56
O
47
54
35
35
0
44
36
9
9
0
9
10
WON'T REGISTER
36
36
0
49
48
37
37
0
37
33
27
27
o
14
19
REPUBLICAN
x
12
86
74
65
81
th
9-
8
17
27
16
3-
6
9
8
3
DEMOCRAT
4- 38
42
39
41
2
53
51
50
45
2
9
7
11
14
INCEPENDENT
2- 56
58
47
55
1
34
33
47
37
1
10
9
6
8
LEAN REPUBLICAN
7 83
76
71
82
3- 15
18
23
14
4-
2
6
6
4
LEAN DEMOCRAT
4- 31
35
38
39
11
61
50
57
52
7-
8
15
5
9
OTHER INDEPENDENTS
11- 46
57
39
49
3- 26
29
49
35
*14
28
14
12
16
CONSERVATIVE
4
69
65
65
61
4-
23
27
22
31
0
8
8
13
8
LIBERAL
8- 36
44
34
39
11
61
50
61
50
3-
3
6
5
11
IN BETWEEN
6
58
52
46
57
6- 33
39
45
34
0
9
9
9
9
LEAN CONSERVATIVE
* 11
66
55
54
58
11-
25
36
39
32
0
9
9
7
10
LEAN LIBERAL
2-46
48
37
58
2- 46
48
57
34
4
8
4
6
8
OTHER INBETWEEN
o
49
49
41
50
6- 29
35
44
34
6
22
16
15
16
NIXON VOTERS
76
76
0
63
76
16
16
0
27
18
8
8
o
10
6
HUMPHREY VOTERS
32
32
0
27
33
62
62
0
66
56
6
6
0
7
11
WALLACE VOTERS
49
49
0
39
36
41
41
0
56
47
10
10
0
5
1.7
NONVOTERS
45
45
0
42
49
42
42
0
47
41
13
13
0
11
10
EAST
& 12
58
46
43
52
-12-
32
44
52
30
0
10
10
5
12
MIDWEST
7
56
49
47
53
1- 38
39
44
37
6-
6
12
9
10
SOUTH
8- 53
61
51
57.
6
35
29
38
32
2
12
10
11
11
WEST
0
51
51
44
48
7-
37
44
43
40
7
12
5
13
12
0109
I
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
July 27, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Meeting with John Gavin
Peter Dailey urges you to meet with John Gavin, the
President of the Screen Actors Guild. Gavin met this
afternoon with George Meany and according to Dailey
has some information that differs from George Shults'
and may be valuable.
If you do not want to meet with Gavin, Dailey believes
he can get John Nitchell to meet with him.
Dailey does not know the President is playing golf with
Meany tomorrow.
Haldeman will see Gavin.
Ask Mitchell to see Gavin.
Other.
GS/jb
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
July 27, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Wave II Campaign Surveys -
Teeter Materials for Chapin
Bob Teeter discussed schedule opportunities based on the
Wave II results with Chapin, Parker, and Walker on July 25.
He did not give any specific trial heat or other figures
to this group.
Teeter prepared the attached summary material for Chapin/
Parker, but will not give them the materials without your
express approval. The materials describe the importance
of each of the issues within the state by media markets.
The ratings (A, B, c, D, E) by state and media market
reflect the President's comparative polling strength
against McGovern in certain media markets.
These Teeter materials coupled with demographic maps
showing areas of high ticket aplitter locations in the
key states will show Chapin/Parker which issues are of
most concern to voters within the states.
Recommendation:
That Chapin/Parker receive copies of the attached materials.
Approve
Disapprove
Comments
GS/jb
!
- 2 -
In addition, Bob Teeter should prepare a memorandum, based
on his analysis of the polling data, which describes his
subjective, political judgement of the best areas within
the states for particular issues, This would include Tester's
recommendations for ideal, hypothetical schedules for the
President and First Family. Also included would be Teeter's
views on the relative advantages of moving a particular locale
from a "D" to a "C" as distinguished from moving an area like
San Diego from a "B" to an "A",
Committee for the Re-election of the President
MEMORANDUM
July 25, 1972
DETERMINED TO BE AN
CONFIDENTIAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
By
Einprese
NARS,
Date
1-14-80
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DWIGHT L. CHAPIN
THROUGH:
GORDON C. STRACHAN
FROM:
ROBERT M. TEETER
Runt
SUBJECT:
Issue and Appearances Data
From Second Wave Polling
Attached are tables summarizing our relative strength, the
importance of various issues and the President's rating. on his
handling of those issues in the states we surveyed in Wave II.
Each state has been given a rating of A thru E with A meaning
the President is in excellent shape in that state, B meaning
we are in moderately good shape, C that the state is very close,
D that we are in fairly poor shape and E that we are in quite
bad shape in that state. In addition each media market has
been given a rating using the same scale.
The figures under the column designated Imp. (importance) are
the percentage of voters in that state or media market which
ranked that particular issue in the top three in terms of
importance in deciding Presidential vote.
The second figures under the column designated RN are the
percentage of voters who give the President a positive rating
on his handling of that issue (top figure) and the percentage
of the voters who rated him negatively (bottom figure).
That is, in the Mobile/Meridian area of Alabama the President is
in excellent shape (A rating), 54% of the voters rank Vietnam as
one of the top three issues in terms of its importance in the
Presidential election, 74% rate the President positively in terms
of his handling of the Vietnam issue and 23% rate him negatively.
A statewide total column is included for each state and a summary
sheet comparing each state to our national data is included.
The circled issues on the following pages are those issues which
are of significantly greater concern to the voters of a specific
area than they are to that state overall.
Using the ticket-splitter data we have available and the attached
information my recommendation for the priority areas to visit and
suggested issues for each of these visits within each of the states
are listed below.
You should remember, however, that Vietnam is, by far, the number
one issue in all of these states and in all of the regions within
the states. For that reason we have included it only when it is
significantly more important to a local area than it is overall.
Had we included it, Vietnam would have been the top priority issue
in all areas of all states. Furthermore this data does not address
itself to the fact that an appearance by the President is a national
event and the list of issues used to formulate this data did not
include anything which would give emphasis to a visit which stressed
a general campaign theme or "mood of the country" speech.
State Priorities
Top Priority
California
New York
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Illinois
Second Priority
Ohio
Michigan
Connecticut
Maryland
Texas
Third Priority
Washington
Oregon
Missouri
Wisconsin
This data used in conjunction with the ticket-splitting maps we
went over this morning should be of assistance to you in scheduling
the President and the First Family. If you have any further questions,
please let me know.
Alabama:
Drugs
Crime
Taxes
Mobile:
Crime
Bussing
California:
Unemployment
Taxes
Inflation
Los Angeles: Unemployment
Inflation
Taxes
San Diego:
Crime
National Defense
Sacramento/
Stockton:
Unemployment
Drugs
San Francisco:
Vietnam
Environment
Connecticut:
Inflation
Unemployment
Taxes
Hartford:
Crime
Inflation
Fairfield
Co.:
Drugs
Crime
Illinois:
Inflation
Drugs
Chicago:
Taxes
Inflation
Rockford/
Davenport:
Inflation
Illinois continued:
Outstate Areas:
Taxes
Inflation
NOTE: While there is no particular concern of population we
need some effort in the outstate areas and a tour of
them by someone woule be useful.
New Jersey:
Taxes
Unemployment
Inflation
Northern
New Jersey:
Taxes
Inflation
Ohio:
Unemployment
Inflation
Drugs
Cleveland:
Unemployment
Inflation
Taxes
Cincinnati:
Inflation
Drugs
General Unrest
Toledo:
Crime
Environment
Oregon:
Taxes
Inflation
Environment
Portland:
Taxes
Inflation
Environment
Pennsylvania:
Taxes
Drugs
Pittsburgh:
Taxes
Environment
Unemployment
Drugs
Philadelphia: Unemployment
Taxes
I
Maryland:
Crime
Drugs
Inflation
Baltimore
Co.:
Drugs
Crime
Washington
Suburbs
(Mainly
Montgomery
Co.):
Inflation
Crime
Environment
Michigan:
Taxes
Unemployment
Drugs
Bussing
Detroit
Suburbs:
Bussing
Taxes
Crime
General Unrest
Flint:
Taxes
Crime
Unemployment
Race
Grand Rapids: Unemployment
Inflation
Drugs
Bussing
Missouri:
Unemployment
Taxes
Inflation
St. Louis:
Unemployment
Crime
Inflation
Kansas City: Inflation
Taxes
Texas:
Drugs
Inflation
Taxes
Houston:
Drugs
Inflation
Dallas:
Drugs
Crime
Taxes
Austin:
Environment
Bussing
Crime
Wisconsin:
Taxes
Inflation
Unemployment
Milwaukee &
S.E.:
Taxes
Inflation
Unemployment
NATIONAL STUDY RATING: A
A
A
B
A
A
B
C
E
.B
National*
A
C
Alabama
Calif
B
A
D
Conn
Illinois
Maryland
Michigan
Missouri
N.
****
Ohio
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
Dregon
Pa
Texas
RN
Wisconsi:
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
KN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
KN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
AER.
Imp.
all
Vietnam
65
76
60
64
54
60
63
67
50
57
51
53
56
54
62
58
56
67
57
56
49
60
59
51
67
22
63
5:
30
39
35
35
32
42
37
41
32
39
39
32
35
Inflation
47
56
24
45
33
41
31
47
32
48
25
43
28
30
45
31
37
47
31
40
32
29
47
23
53
32
4:
46
41
53
56
52
51
55
53
59
52
56
52
46
5:
Drugs
53
68
39
53
25
51
27
56
33
57
27
54
20
24
58
47
29
52
27
53
29
34
55
34
61
6:
36
28
43
42
42
40
43
38
44
16
44
41
43
37
3.
56
62
Crime
53
48
20
25
52
37
50
31
24
25
45
30
51
43
20
50
24
49
50
25
53
36
35
43
47
45
48
52
47
27
24
16
5:
52
48
46
49
45
4:
50
63
Unemployment
45
42
28
49
21
54
31
45
19
30
33
49
34
32
39
47
23
45
47
23
53
4"
43
33
52
53
49
45
52
49
35
31
30
57
51
50
52
44
5:
46
54
Taxes
26
44
25
44
34
48
28
48
34
42
48
44
29
32
53
53
51
51
49.
57
45
33
36
26
50
39
39
36
44
27
57
46
4:
59
49
57
54
42
5:
Race
60
60
59
23
16
57
21
54
13
17
62
21
53
16
60
51
59
61
56
18
59
61
31
36
38
38
44
36
44
16
37
14
10
44
16
11
39
33
42
39
3(
81
Foreign Policy
81
78
11
17
79
16
78
18
10
81
9
80
13
80
74
82
72
83
80
8t
11
20
15
21
17
17
13
20
14
13
13
17
11
18
16
16
23
15
18
1:
Environment
60
70
21
51
18
58
16
56
17
60
13
63
13
64
50
59
64
60
59
61
40
10
26
36
42
37
33
15
46
33
13
17
15
12
16
43
38
31
38
39
3-
Ceneral Unrest
57
65
15
48
12
53
11
52
60
9
19
57
58
43
55
48
53
57
60
33
9
41
47
37
41
13
11
30
39
49
13
14
11
13
49
11
42
46
45
41
39
Welfare
52
65
13
53
13
47
9
52
12
55
14
50
57
42
54
45
55
55
39
13
32
44
46
42
47
15
15
13
15
41
11
12
17
50
41
52
44
50
44
42
45
Health Care
69
80
63
7
64
9
68
9
68
8
69
70
60
67
62
72
70
21
8
10
16
28
29
28
9
S
30
27
8
10
32
33
30
32
9
10
7
74
26
27
24
73
Nat'l. Defense
82
74
16
75
13
77
80
13
8
80
16
22
80
70
80
73
18
13
17
13
19
17
14
13
14
13
81
20
78
23
21
16
16
85
23
17
21
17
19
14
46
Bussing
43
52
50
49
56
7
19
46
17
4
3
4
51
48
52
47
40
53
40
6
51
4
4
2
4
54
10
47
42
38
4
60
48
45
41
44
42
42
50
35
* June 16-26, 1972; 1,016 Interviews
** Because the National study was conducted by phone the scales are slightly different than the states. No questions ranking the issues by importance were asked.
OVERALL RATING:
A
June 13-26, 1972
804 Interviews
ALABAMA
A
A
Mobile/
A
A
A
Huntsville/
A
A
Meridian
Montgomery
Dothan
Columbus, Ga.
Chattanooga
Birmingham
Total
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
74
75
53
77
49
75
50
81
44
50
76
Vietnam
54
48
55
23
22
38
21
22
19
22
50
62
47
58
Inflation
27
24
55
14
22
26
58
27
24
56
48
32
43
38
42
41
41
59
78
70
71
62
70
35
41
46
44
41
39
68
Drugs
34
36
18
23
27
35
26
28
51
67
53
56
56
69
62
Crime
43
34
32
36
24
29
31
47
30
40
42
41
28
35
59
63
51
69
57
68
63
Unemployment
20
14
13
23
24
18
19
38
33
43
29
39
28
33
41
63
49
50
60
55
Taxes
16
33
30
20
18
28
26
54
55
33
45
48
38
44
41
45
60
49
58
62
66
60
Race
30
26
33
23
13
22
23
52
32
40
40
34
31
35
74
84
68
77
84
5
5
7
11
85
11
81
Foreign Policy
14
16
23
8
13
17
9
13
13
4
66
Environment
10
72
4
70
16
63
11
71
12
70
10
70
30
22
17
33
26
25
25
55
68
60
65
66
68
General Unrest
7
12
8
8
12
9
65
9
40
23
32
31
29
29
30
58
73
47
60
Welfare
11
16
8
10
15
64
12
68
13
65
38
23
45
35
33
29
32
80
80
62
73
Health Care
7
11
4
8
8
84
82
11
8
80
15
14
30
23
14
15
16
77
80
77
83
80
87
Nat'l. Defense
11
10
17
10
20
16
16
82
19
13
11
10
15
9
13
27
59
10
36
12
31
43
Bussing
28
17
41
14
15
48
17
71
37
57
67
55
47
53
ISSUES:
ADI SPECIAL EMPHASIS ISSUES
Vietnam
Drugs
Mobile/Meridian:
Crime
Crime
Race
Taxes
Bussing
Inflation
Montgomery:
Taxes
Dothan:
Vietnam
Race
Columbus, Ga.:
Drugs
Crime
Environment
Huntsville/
Chattanooga:
Drugs
Crime
Foreign Policy
OVERALL RATING: 8
CALIFORNIA
June 12-17, 1972
1,000 Interviews
A
D
B
A
Santa Barb/
A
A
D
E
Sacramento/
B
San Diego
Los Angeles
Santa Muria
Salinas/Montry
Fresno
San Francisco
Chico/Redding
Stockton
Total
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Inp.
KN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
2
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
EN
Vietnam
53
64
58
52
70
67
70
49
42
50
57
61
47
54
60
35
61
54
55
54
30
33
30
49
44
38
39
55
47
18
42
30
52
58
45
36
Inflation
32
45
45
51
30
27
24
25
27
18
28
42
42
48
62
62
53
53
63
54
Drugs
23
20
70
55
33
46
38
34
24
30
24
15
27
59
53
42
26
20
30
39
55
48
53
36
43
58
57
Crime
33
18
45
42
45
47
44
52
38
40
21
18
24
17
15
20
53
23
52
45
45
47
47
45
43
56
47
Unemployment
18
29
45
45
55
39
32
42
45
42
50
36
30
18
29
54
47
30
55
52
45
58
59
56
52
47
46
Taxes
27
28
58
42
48
39
35
39
44
52
51
33
36
18
30
12
32
29
39
52
48
57
56
58
53
61
62
Race
10
11
64
61
70
51
62
55
59
38
36
12
12
15
14
30
16
13
36
36
24
44
32
42
38
81
79
Foreign Policy
14
20
91
85
88
71
68
79
78
19
20
27
15
12
15
15
17
18
9
15
9
25
24
17
20
53
14
48
Environment
23
15
61
49
21
67
15
70
25
50
42
12
56
14
55
21
53
39
27
30
46
38
42
46
19
34
General Unrest
15
52
12
52
12
45
9
67
17
41
63
9
35
14
50
15
4S
44
45
48
30
56
56
47
49
Welfare
16
59
14
53
15-
67
18
58
15
61
8
51
12
32
8
48
13
53
39
43
33
36
39
46
59
50
44
Health Care
13
66
10
66
0
70
3
73
21
64
11
58
12
50
13
61
10
63
33
29
27
27
33
37
38
38
32
Nat'1. Defense
32
70
20
76
30
76
18
88
27
79
21
70
15
56
14
80
22
74
28
22
24
9
18
27
38
18
23
5
47.
Bussing
3
54
0
52
0
70
3
48
4
46
3
38
8
59
4
52
48
41
42
21
42
47
47
38
42
ISSUES:
ADI SPECIAL EMPHASIS ISSUES
Vietnam
Unemployment
San Diego:
Crime
Taxes
National Defense
Inflation
National Defense
Santa Barbara/
Santa Marin:
Unemployment
National Defense
Foreign Policy
Salinas/
Monterey:
Taxes
Drugs
Welfare
San Francisco:
Vietnam
Chico/Redding:
Unemployment
Race
Crime
Sacramento/
Stockton:
Unemployment
Drugs
OVERALL RATING: A
CONNECTICUT
June 11-20, 1972
615 Interviews
A
A
A
A
New York
Hartford
Providence
Total
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
73
60
75
64
Vietnam
54
60
48
57
27
40
21
35
45
39
52
41
Inflation
25
36
32
33
52
60
45
56
55
49
52
51
Drugs
30
24
17
25
38
46
34
42
55
44
54
48
Crime
30
31
20
24
41
51
38
47
45
40
50
42
Unemployment
26
34
32
33
49
57
38
53
48
42
52
44
Taxes
27
25
27
25
46
55
38
51
57
57
59
57
Race
12
18
11
16
36
39
34
38
85
77
75
79
Foreign Policy
20
16
20
17
8
18
11
15
61
58
52
58
Environment
14
20
20
18
32
37
34
36
59
50
57
53
General Unrest
13
9
18
12
33
46
29
41
48
46
52
47
Welfare
14
11
11
13
46
48
38
46
66
65
54
64
Health Care
8
6
6
7
24
30
32
28
80
72
79
75
Nat'l. Defense
17
14
23
16
13
22
11
19
50
51
45
50
Bussing
5
3
5
3
39
38
39
38
ISSUES:
ADI SPECIAL EMPHASIS ISSUES
Vietnam
Inflation
New York:
Drugs
Unemployment
Drugs
Hartford:
Crime
Taxes
Providence: National Defense
General Unrest
June 13-23, 1972
OVERALL RATING: A
ILLINOIS
800 Interviews
A
A
Rockford/
D
Paducah/
A
A
Davenport
St. Louis
Springfield
Chicago
Total
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Vietnam
65
72
63
56
51
74
59
59
60
63
26
40
24
39
35
Inflation
40
63
23
31
28
57
31
44
31
47
36
67
41
55
52
Drugs
20
69
30
54
38
64
26
52
27
56
26
41
33
47
42
Crime
23
63
29
47
20
59
24
50
25
52
35
51
35
49
45
Unemployment
25
72
35
39
24
60
29
44
28
49
28
60
38
54
49
Taxes
36
64
24
44
41
61
32
42
34
48
36
53
37
57
51
Race
13
74
29
49
19
62
21
50
21
54
26
50
35
48
44
Foreign Policy
24
90
10
67
13
84
16
75
16
78
10
31
11
24
21
Environment
14
79
14
54
11
70
16
49
16
56
21
44
26
49
42
General Unrest
13
67
15
43
15
64
10
48
11
52
33
53
33
51
47
Welfare
4
78
13
46
12
66
8
53
9
52
21
50
28
46
41
Health Care
6
83
3
54
.6
81
10
64
9
68
15
40
15
35
30
Nat'l Defense
15
90
7
73
17
87
11
73
13
77
8
26
10
25
21
Bussing
3
54
5
37
4
53
3
49
4
49
40
57
43
49
48
ISSUES:
ADI SPECIAL EMPHASIS ISSUES
Vietnam
Taxes
Rockford/Davenport:
Vietnam
Inflation
Inflation
Unemployment
Foreign Policy
Drugs
St. Louis:
Unemployment
Race
Paducah/Springfield: Taxes
Drugs
OVERALL RATING: B
MARYLAND
June 13-23, 1972
600 Interviews
B
A
A
B
Baltimore
Salisbury
Washington
Total
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Vietnam
47
66
58
58
55
70
51
67
33
42
29
32
Inflation
25
49
16
67
45
44
32
48
50
33
54
51
Drugs
40
52
50
74
22
62
33
57
45
26
34
40
Crime
40
44
16
53
36
61
37
50
55
47
37
48
Unemployment
22
53
12
75
19
52
21
54
46
20
46
45
Taxes
28
45
20
54
28
53
28
48
54
46
44
49
Race
21
60
20
75
14
63
17
62
30
25
34
36
Foreign Policy
11
77
12
83
11
86
10
81
19
17
12
17
Environment
14
60
12
92
24
55
17
60
36
8
43
37
General Unrest
9
59
8
67
10
62
9
60
30
29
35
37
Welfare
15
54
20
58
8
57
12
55
44
38
40
42
Health Care
10
70
12
75
7
65
9
68
27
25
31
29
76
83
85
80
National Defense
11
16
15
13
20
13
12
17
50
58
62
53
56
Bussing
7
16
7
7
39
38
43
40
ISSUES:
ADI SPECIAL EMPHASIS ISSUES
Vietnam
Crime
Baltimore:
Drugs
Drugs
Inflation
Salisbury:
Vietnam
Taxes
Drugs
Welfare
Bussing
Washington:
Inflation
Environment
OVERALL RATING: C
MICHIGAN
June 13-30, 1972
800 Interviews
B
B
C
A
D
A
Flint-Sag.
Grand Rapids
Traverse
Marquette
C
Detroit
Lansing
Bay City
Kala./Chicago
City
Green Bay
Total
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Vietnam
52
53
50
59
60
58
48
65
68
51
74
67
53
56
46
38
37
34
43
33
42
Inflation
24
41
43
50
17
55
26
50
27
27
33
41
25
43
58
50
41
48
68
29
55
Drugs
30
49
19
74
19
53
26
61
25
59
10
74
27
54
49
26
41
33
35
26
43
Crime
27
44
29
48
29
42
23
48
6
43
20
52
25
45
54
52
54
48
51
48
52
Unemployment
33
41
22
58
26
53
28
53
41
27
33
63
31
45
57
42
41
45
65
33
52
Taxes
34
39
45
53
43
43
23
47
44
41
24
52
34
42
60
47
54
52
54
48
57
Race
21
50
31
58
23
61
19
55
7
46
10
67
21
53
47
42
34
40
49
30
44
Foreign Policy
9
80
6
91
7
82
8
77
11
70
17
89
9
80
19
9
11
17
24
11
17
Environment
11
63
6
75
17
56
20
68
7
59
21
44
13
63
34
25
39
28
35
44
33
General Unrest
23
56
6
73
13
55
18
59
7
41
3
70
19
57
43
27
42
37
51
26
41
Welfare
10
47
23
76
6
51
23
53
22
38
10
63
14
50
50
24
44
42
54
37
47
Health Care
9
65
0
72
9
77
7
77
5
70
0
85
8
69
18
16
16
19
22
15
28
Nat Defense
7
80
0
84
7
77
13
85
4
68
7
89
8
80
18
16
18
11
24
11
17
Bussing
23
43
6
66
13
45
18
53
7
43
3
49
19
46
55
31
47
42
51
56
51
ISSUES:
ADI SPECIAL EMPHASIS ISSUES
Vietnam
Taxes
Lansing:
Taxes
Unemployment
Inflation
Drugs
Race
Inflation
Welfare
Crime
Flint-Saginaw-Bay City:
Vietnam
Taxes
Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo/
Chicago:
Welfare
Environment
National Defense
Traverse City:
Vietnam
Taxes
Unemployment
Welfare
Marquette-Green Bay:
Vietnam
Inflation
Environment
Foreign Policy
OVERALL RATING: E
MISSOURI
June 13-24, 1972
800 Interviews
C
A
D
E
Paducah/
Columbia/
St. Joseph/
E
St. Louis
Springfield
Quincy
Kansas City
Total
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
56
64
Vietnam
70
64
55
62
56
51
50
54
44
32
28
34
37
40
47
Inflation
57
29
44
45
27
29
33
30
59
49
42
54
53
58
57
22
54
Drugs
26
59
32
23
58
24
39
35
40
38
38
47
Crime
52
35
52
25
22
56
29
51
30
52
43
48
43
47
39
55
Unemployment
41
30
26
59
55
31
49
34
60
43
39
44
49
50
51
Taxes
22
46
62
32
55
33
53
32
49
46
34
44
45
50
64
Race
68
20
12
13
68
60
16
16
49
30
30
30
37
79
74
Foreign Policy
13
87
84
10
17
80
12
13
20
21
12
11
17
58
69
Environment
12
68
67
7
64
15
15
13
40
27
31
30
33
52
61
General Unrest
12
16
14
68
59
13
58
13
46
35
32
38
39
54
Welfare
56
14
68
57
17
16
12
57
15
46
40
32
42
41
64
70
Health Care
8
77
7
16
76
12
70
9
33
24
21
22
27
Nat'l. Defense
85
72
12
86
78
10
17
16
80
13
13
22
13
18
16
47
50
Bussing
7
58
55
9
2
4
6
51
50
43
37
41
45
Paducah/Springfield also includes Spring./Paducah-Cape Girardeau-
Harrisburg/Joplin-Pittsburg/Memphis
ISSUES:
ADI SPECIAL EMPHASIS ISSUES
Vietnam
Unemployment
St. Louis:
Unemployment
Taxes
Crime
Inflation
Crime
Paducah/Springfield/
Harrisburg/Joplin/Memphis:
Taxes
Columbia/Quincy:
Drugs
Health Care
OVERALL RATING: B
NEW JERSEY
June 11-20, 1972
823 Interviews
C
B
B
Philadelphia
New York City
Total
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
56
56
56
Vietnam
60
58
58
40
41
41
42
35
37
Inflation
27
33
31
50
62
59
47
47
47
Drugs
24
31
29
42
44
44
46
42
43
Crime
18
21
20
46
54
52
43
37
32
39
Unemployment
33
32
52
58
57
36
36
Taxes
36
33
35
33
57
59
59
51
51
Race
16
51
15
16
43
45
44
72
75
74
Foreign Policy
12
12
13
23
19
20
54
49
50
Environment
13
14
15
38
45
43
40
44
43
General Unrest
13
10
11
50
49
49
48
40
42
Welfare
15
14
15
46
54
52
57
62
60
Health Care
12
7
9
35
32
33
67
71
Nat 1. Defense
70
16
13
14
25
22
23
45
49
48
Bussing
3
4
4
43
40
41
ISSUES:
Vietnam
Taxes
Unemployment
Inflation
Drugs
OVERALL RATING: A
OHIO
June 13-27, 1972
800 Interviews
A
B
A
A
A
A
Columbus
Cleveland
Youngstown/
A
Toledo/Lima
Dayton
Cincinnati
Parkersburg
Akron Canton
Pittsburgh
Total
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
75
60
69
57
72
53
63
67
70
56
67
Vietnam
49
61
58
24
39
31
27
36
28
32
25
59
42
44
38
50
29
57
Inflation
33
38
33
45
32
47
40
56
50
42
60
53
52
58
32
53
29
50
30
58
24
50
51
48
29
52
Drugs
31
38
48
48
39
45
44
44
32
51
Crime
21
48
26
55
29
53
27
46
25
50
27
50
45
50
45
44
51
47
48
21
54
45
44
37
51
31
61
37
37
31
55
Unemployment
35
47
43
56
48
38
61
42
51
25
61
18
55
21
52
31
60
29
41
24
41
Taxes
26
50
39
44
48
37
57
55
49
Race
17
65
16
61
13
65
14
65
14
54
17
48
14
59
35
39
34
33
44
48
39
Foreign Policy
15
80
16
88
15
90
13
81
15
80
13
70
14
82
14
13
10
17
16
27
16
Environment
24
70
11
68
10
66
11
59
14
51
8
56
13
59
28
33
32
37
44
38
38
General Unrest
13
69
11
50
19
63
13
57
14
49
7
55
13
55
31
49
35
36
47
44
42
Welfare
15
51
13
55
9
57
18
55
13
52
12
53
13
54
48
44
43
44
44
44
44
Health Care
10
69
4
69
6
77
4
64
10
67
8
55
8
67
28
28
21
31
32
42
30
National Defense
19
85
9
79
13
83
15
77
14
80
12
83
13
80
13
20
17
19
17
14
17
Bussing
6
55
4
48
4
62
1
50
3
50
5
53
4
52
43
51
37
44
45
44
44
ISSUES:
ADI SPECIAL EMPHASIS ISSUES
Vietnam
Unemployment
Toledo/Lima:
Crime
Inflation
Environment
Drugs
National Defense
Crime
Dayton:
Vietnam
Unemployment
Inflation
-
Cincinnati:
Inflation
General Unrest
Columbus/Parkersburg:
Taxes
Welfare
Youngstown/Pittsburgh:
Vietnam
Drugs
OVERALL RATING: C
OREGON
June 12-17, 1972
600 Interviews
E
D
C
Eugene
Portland
Total
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Vietnam
60
52
50
56
49
57
48
39
39
Inflation
30
38
30
41
31
40
63
53
56
Drugs
20
50
28
52
27
53
46
40
41
Crime
18
50
25
48
24
49
45
46
46
Unemployment
17
49
24
44
23
45
49
50
50
Taxes
50
39
32
39
39
39
58
56
57
Race
7
55
10
61
10
61
43
31
33
Foreign Policy
12
69
13
72
13
72
28
21
23
Environment
24
57
16
62
17
64
41
31
31
General Unrest
12
50
15
46
14
48
48
47
46
Welfare
16
43
13
45
15
45
57
48
50
Health Care
8
66
10
58
10
62
30
35
32
Nat'l Defense
12
74
15
71
14
73
23
21
21
Bussing
2
49
2
45
2
47
40
43
42
ISSUES:
ADI SPECIAL EMPHASIS ISSUES
Vietnam
Taxes
Eugene:
Vietnam
Inflation
Taxes
Drugs
Environment
Crime
I
OVERALL RATING: B
PENNSYLVANIA
June 13-27, 1972
800 Interviews
A
A
A
B
Harrisburg/
Wilkes-Barre-
Johnstown/
Pittsburgh/
York Lancaster/
D
Scranton/
B
Altoona/Erie
Youngstown
Lebanon/Hagerstown
Philadelphia
Binghamton
Total
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
RN
79
65
69
48
70
59
Vietnam
49
60
65
62
46
60
21
34
27
51
28
39
60
39
61
44
60
47
Inflation
29
29
19
29
25
29
38
60
37
55
40
52
73
49
65
51
68
55
Drugs
32
32
4:
30
46
34
25
47
32
48
32
43
54
46
61
46
62
50
Crime
29
17
27
26
23
24
44
53
36
52
38
49
62
41
63
42
64
47
Unemployment
19
33
13
36
39
31
37
58
36
56
36
52
54
41
60
39
57
44
Taxes
32
41
36
31
41
36
43
58
38
59
43
54
75
56
66
46
85
56
Race
14
14
10
18
10
16
21
43
31
53
15
42
94
85
89
79
83
83
Foreign Policy
15
11
14
8
15
11
6
14
9
20
17
15
76
51
63
59
89
60
Environment
10
21
17
12
12
15
22
47
34
39
11
38
67
49
60
50
62
53
General Unrest
20
10
11
10
8
11
30
48
37
49
34
45
59
50
61
54
77
55
Welfare
15
7
19
11
4
11
41
48
38
45
23
44
83
67
78
70
87
72
Health Care
12
7
7
10
12
9
14
30
18
29
11
26
90
81
85
77
89
81
Nat'l. Defense
26
15
9
9
14
13
6
18
11
21
11
17
71
44
58
54
77
54
Bussing
3
4
2
4
2
4
22
51
38
44
21
42
ISSUES:
ADI SPECIAL EMPHASIS ISSUES
Vietnam
Taxes
Johnstown/Altoona/Erie:
Crime
Drugs
National Defense
Unemployment
General Unrest
Inflation
Pittsburgh/Youngstown:
Taxes
Environment
Harrisburg/York/Lancaster/
Lebanon/Hagerstown:
Vietnam
Drugs
Welfare
Philadelphia:
Unemployment
Wilkes-Barre-Scranton/
Binghamton:
Drugs
Unemployment
Taxes
OVERALL LATING: A
TEXAS
June 12-17, 1972
1,000 Interviews
A
A
A
A
B
E
D
Beaumont/
Shreveport/
A
A
Dallas/
Ddesea/
A
A
Abilene/
A
A
A
Corsus Christi
Houston
I't Arthur
Texarkans
Austin
Waco/Temple
Ft. Motth
Midland
San Antonio
E1 Paso
Sweetwater
Lubbock
Amarille
Total
Imp.
N
Thp.
RN
Imp,
RN
Imp.
AN
Teep.
RN
Jrp.
KN
Inp.
RN
Imp.
KS
Imp.
RN
It.p.
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp.
XN
Imp.
as
Imp.
HN
34
49
58
57
82
64
58
67
47
61
48
75
53
61
57
72
27
62
11
67
64
38
78
50
72
51
67
Vietnam
55
66
40
18
31
33
39
24
39
28
28
36
21
28
32
38
21
Inflation
26
50
27
58
-28
64
67
14
42
25
56
26
47
36
49
27
38
22
61
61
25
61
25
53
28
53
79
48
42
33
33
58
43
53
51
52
36
38
42
46
38
38
34
60
30
55
22
72
17
61
33
50
64
48
58
21
54
10
62
17
67
30
42
69
47
58
Drugs
34
61
62
38
45
28
39
44
34
42
45
28
01
29
53
37
21
38
23
47
24
55
19
69
28
61
25
39
29
58
24
50
22
58
20
48
3
61
Crime
30
51
20
47
25
53
62
50
45
28
39
58
41
44
42
41
36
44
53
45
28
21
24
51
Unemployment
21
52
26
58
6
64
25
47
24
59
14
44
32
42
24
52
12
61
17
57
15
69
23
53
16
49
48
36
36
33
38
50
56
34
36
40
31
44
34
22
52
27
67
61
69
30
53
64
Taxes
36
47
21
50
55
62
50
58
35
20
11
26
27
51
34
58
27
57
66
46
33
36
28
44
34
53
50
28
36
47
42
42
3
45
16
51
18
70
20
69
25
58
23
50
16
67
9
56
25
51
10
59
25
64
24
68
20
58
18
59
Race
55
47
30
31
42
47
31
44
49
31
33
31
42
39
59
85
22
76
12
85
22
86
24
92
20
69
16
84
Foreign Policy
24
81
16
17
10
83
12
67
15
83
15
86
18
80
38
23
15
11
8
28
15
19
13
7
31
14
8
18
34
69
68
45
67
15
48
3
79
7
6
67
28
64
15
56
12
61
75
Environment
3
8
34
6
14
6
69
12
59
66
50
21
31
36
39
37
28
32
45
31
24
25
39
38
58
50
59
52
61
74
69
General Intest
3
13
52
58
12
69
8
47
53
12
12
13
23
12
23
11
15
6
13
57
59
46
39
31
53
47
39
44
40
38
39
24
25
41.
31
46
64
50
47
66
39
56
52
58
50
72
55
Welfare
6
11
9
61
9
19
16
11
9
14
7
9
12
6
12
69
50
39
25
44
50
32
56
44
38
39
46
28
42
Health Care
17
66
13
59
9
70
6
92
72
64
75
75
68
72
67
78
28
83
70
9
3
10
6
11
13
3
6
10
34
38
27
6
22
31
21
22
32
17
31
21
14
27
52
74
88
81
83
78
81
75
83
3
79
25
72
78
17
86
78
Nat'1. Defense
21
18
33
31
28
22
19
25
21
19
20
45
23
12
17
17
19
15
25
14
10
28
19
8
19
31
41
45
58
15
42
61
47
47
53
7
15
15
4
9
3
12
3
10
47
Bussing
10
6
9
3
66
55
55
42
53
39
49
50
46
38
42
46
42
50
ISSUES:
ADI SPECIAL EMPHASIS ISSUES
Viscoam
Drugs
Corpus Christi:
Inflation
San Antonio:
Vietman
Inflation
Taxes
Inflation
Taxes
Unexployment
Unesployment
Unemployment
Health Care
Rece
Beaumont/Pt. Arthur:
Vietnam
E1 Paso:
Taxes
National Defensa
Environment
Bussing
General Unrest
Shroveport/Texarkans:
Victors
Abilene/Sweetwater:
Victorm
National Defense
Inflation
Taxes
Austin:
Victnam
Race
Environment
National Defense
Race
Foreign Policy
Lubbock:
Drugs
Welfare
Crime
.
Bussing
Race
Waco/Temple:
Race
Amarillo:
Drugs
.
Taxes
4
Dallas/Ft. Worth:
Bussing
Health Care
Odessa/Midland:
Drugs
Taxes
National Defense
Foreign Policy
General Unrest
June 13-20, 1972
OVERALL RATING: D
WISCONSIN
600 Interviews
B
E
E
Green Bay/
A
Madison/
Chicago/
Wausau
D
Minneapolis
Rockford
Milwaukee
Rhinelander
Total
Imp.
RN
Imp
RN
Imp
RN
Imp.
RN
Imp
RN
Vietnam
55
59
61
61
63
53
58
69
63
59
33
37
45
31
39
Inflation
31
52
37
47
31
45
31
55
32
49
46
53
55
45
51
Drugs
19
65
21
59
12
59
18
71
16
63
27
36
38
28
34
Crime
23
59
13
64
15
50
18
59
16
56
40
34
47
40
42
Unemployment
19
56
29
47
36
38
25
58
30
47
42
52
60
41
51
Taxes
56
37
36
43
45
39
43
50
46
42
60
55
61
48
57
Race
8
67
10
76
14
64
8
76
11
69
28
24
35
23
30
Foreign Policy
13
82
11
87
15
84
18
90
16
86
15
12
14
10
13
Environment
11
67
19
71
18
57
14
73
16
65
31
28
41
27
34
General Unrest
10
61
15
58
9
58
12
63
11
60
38
40
41
35
39
Welfare
18
49
16
52
18
47
15
56
17
50
49
45
53
43
49
Health Care
9
75
2
76
6
69
8
82
7
74
21
24
28
17
24
Nat'l Defense
17
86
20
86
12
82
19
88
16
85
12
13
17
11
14
Bussing
6
62
4
67
3
52
2
68
4
60
29
29
42
29
35
Minneapolis also includes Minneapolis/St. Paul-
La Crosse/Eau Claire-Dubuque
ISSUES:
ADI SPECIAL EMPHASIS ISSUES
Vietnam
Taxes
Minneapolis:
Taxes
Inflation
Crime
Unemployment
Welfare
Madison/Rockford:
Inflation
Drugs
Chicago/Milwaukee:
Unemployment