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: Gordan Strachan To: Jeb Magruder RE: Teeter's Interim Analysis Report. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/21/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: McGovern's Campaign Strengths. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/21/1972
From: Robert H. Marik To: John N. Mitchell RE: The Democratic Nomination. 12 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/20/1972
From: Patrick Buchanan and Kenneth Khachigian To: John Mitchell and H.R. Haldeman RE: Democratic Nominations. Copy attached. 18 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/12/1972
From: Robert M. Teeter To: John N. Mitchell RE: Wallace Strategy. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/11/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26145719
label
WHSF: Contested, 16-19
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26145719
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 16-19
description
This file contains:
From: Gordan Strachan To: Jeb Magruder RE: Teeter's Interim Analysis Report. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/21/1972
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman RE: McGovern's Campaign Strengths. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/21/1972
From: Robert H. Marik To: John N. Mitchell RE: The Democratic Nomination. 12 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/20/1972
From: Patrick Buchanan and Kenneth Khachigian To: John Mitchell and H.R. Haldeman RE: Democratic Nominations. Copy attached. 18 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/12/1972
From: Robert M. Teeter To: John N. Mitchell RE: Wallace Strategy. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/11/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26145719
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
ed8525dd2d14737f
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
16
19
4/21/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Gordan Strachan To: Jeb Magruder
RE: Teeter's Interim Analysis Report. 2 pgs.
16
19
4/21/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Gordon Strachan To: H.R. Haldeman
RE: McGovern's Campaign Strengths. 1 pg.
16
19
4/20/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Robert H. Marik To: John N. Mitchell
RE: The Democratic Nomination. 12 pgs.
16
19
4/12/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Patrick Buchanan and Kenneth
Khachigian To: John Mitchell and H.R.
Haldeman RE: Democratic Nominations.
Copy attached. 18 pgs.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Page 1 of 2
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
16
19
4/11/1972
Campaign
Memo
From: Robert M. Teeter To: John N.
Mitchell RE: Wallace Strategy. 4 pgs.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Page 2 of 2
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
April 21, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JEB MAGRUDER
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Teeter's Interim
Analysis Report
As we discussed this morning, I reviewed Teeter's Interim
Analysis Report carefully. I spend 1 1/2 hours with Ted
Garrish asking questions regarding the conclusions, format,
and analysis procedure. Besides some very real problems
with the text and methodology, the conclusion of the memo-
randum poses a very serious question regarding the whole
campaign thrust. The conclusion on Page 9 is: "Bemographic
bloc voting is significantly less important than voting
behavior in affecting the election. The only exceptions to
this rule are blacks, young voters in California, and Jewish
voters in New York."
Either the campaign is organized regardless of the results
of the polling data or the polling data is wrong. All the
work by Marik, Finkelstein and Malek's voter blocs have been
aimed at the argument that particular demographic groups will
be decisive in this election. The appeals have been aimed
at blacks, Spanish speaking, blue collar, labor, etc. Now
the conclusion from the polling is that only blacks, young
voters in California and Jewish voters in New York are
important. If that's the case, someone much more capable
than Paul Jones should be in charge of blacks, Ken Rietz
should take all his troops to California, and Garment should
probably spend full time in New York with whatever resources
he needs to capture the Jewish vote.
The real purpose of this long, rather rambling memorandum is
to raise the whole question of Teeter's capability and service
to the campaign. He continues to spend less than one day a
week here in Washington. As you know, Bob has been very inter-
ested in meeting with him to review what are reputed to be the
Key States. True, the meeting has been cancelled from here
twice, but the re-scheduling has been made even more difficult
with Teeter's absence.
- 2 -
There is one final note that you and I should review personally
concerning the usefulness of the issue information developed
by the polls. This concerns a very scholarly attack on the
questionnaire and vendors' reports by Roy Morey within the
Domestic Council.
GS/jb
THE
WASHINGTON WHITE Date: HOUSE 4/21 Roady
TO:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
This analysis of McGovern's
strength is an interesting
addition to Buchanan's strategy
memorandum of April 12. Mitchell
has a copy and Colson has requested
one.
COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
:701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
WAGHINGTON D C 20006
DETERMINED TO BE AN
April 20, 1972
(202) 333 0920
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 120r5, section 8-25-81 6-102
CONFIDENTIAL
By Emp
Date
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
THROUGH:
JEB S. MAGRUDER
FROM:
The Democrati Rid Somination
ROBERT H. MARIK
SUBJECT:
This memorandum expands on the analysis of April 12, by Pat
Buchanan and Ken Khachigian, relating to the Democratic Primaries.
I substantially concur with their projected results in upcoming
primaries. This analysis quantifies the delegate count which
would result from several alternative scenarios.
At present, the delegate count stands at
Muskie
98-1/2
McGovern
100-1/2
Wallace
75
Humphrey
21
Chisholm
8
Mills
1
Uncommitted
151
based on completed selection in New Hampshire (18), Florida (81),
Wisconsin (67), Illinois (160 plus 10 yet to be chosen in caucus),
Arizona (25), Iowa (34 plus 12 to be selected by May 20th), Georgia
(53) and Idaho (17).
SCENARIO I - ("Most probable" outcome): As a starting point, assume
the following scenario in the remaining important primaries (similar
to Buchanan/Khachigian). The estimated delegate counts are based in
part cn the National Observer projections of April 15, 1972.
April 25
Massachusetts - McGovern wins.
Delegates:
McGovern
75
Muskie
27
CONFIDENTIAL
- 2 -
Pennsylvania - Humphrey wins
Delegates:
Humphrey
98
Muskie
60
McGovern
24
Result: Muskie on the ropes; Humphrey climbing; McGovern at high
#####
momentum.
May 2
Ohio - Humphrey wins (based on Pennsylvania showing)
Delegates:
Humphrey
90
Muskie
40
McGovern
23
Indiana - Wallace wins (Crossover voting permitted)
Delegates:
Wallace
45
Humphrey
31
Result: Muskie essentially out of race; Humphrey still in; Wallace
======
in headlines; McGovern building in Nebraska, Oregon and
California.
May 4
Tennessee - Wallace wins (Crossover voting permitted)
Delegates:
Wallace
45
Other
4
North Carolina - Wallace wins
Delegates:
Wallace
46
Sanford
18
Result: Wallace in high gear for West Virginia and Michigan.
======
- May 9
Nebraska McGovern wins (based on superior organization,
and Humphrey time spent in Ohio, West Virginia.)
Delegates:
McCovern
14
Humphrey
10
CONFIDENTIAL
- 3 -
West Virginia - Humphrey wins. A close one. (This is a
toss-up at this point. If Humphrey loses, he will probably
pick up very few more delegates before the convention.
Wallace could easily win this one.)
Delegates:
Humphrey
20
Wallace
11
McGovern
4
Result: McGovern in fine shape; Humphrey, Wallace still alive for
======
Maryland and Michigan.
May 16
Maryland Humphrey wins. A close one.* (Wallace could
win, as in West Virginia.)
Delegates:
Humphrey
29
Wallace
24
Michigan . - Humphrey wins. A close one.* (Here too, Wallace
could win.) (Crossover voting permitted)
Delegates:
Humphrey
54
Wallace
44
McGovern
24
Muskie
10
*
Humphrey victories based on assumption that Muskie is very weak,
HHH takes more of the Party's middle ground.
Result: If HHH wins, he is still alive; if not, he's gone. Wallace
======
still a factor, McGovern still climbing.
May 23
Oregon - - McGovern wins, based on good organization and more
time in state than Humphrey.
Delegates:
McGovern
34
Rhode Island Muskie wins. (Although McGovern may take
these away from ESM.)
Delegates:
Muskie
22
Result: McGovern rolling for California.
######
CONFIDENTIAL
- 4 -
June 6
California - McGovern wins. Muskie delegate slate takes
votes from Humphrey.
Delegates:
McCovern 271
New Jersey - Humphrey narrowly beats McGovern.
Delegates:
Humphrey 56
McGovern 53
South Dakota McGovern wins.
Delegates:
McGovern 17
New Mexico - Humphrey wins.
Delegates:
Humphrey 14
Muskie
4
Result: Momentum high for McGovern. Humphrey fighting to keep
======
uncommitted liberal delegates and Muskie delegates from
defecting to McGovern.
June 20
New York - McGovern wins. Many uncommitted delegates also
lean toward him.
Delegates:
McGovern
200
Humphrey
25
Chisholm
25
Uncommitted
28
There will also be numerous delegates selected by state caucus during
the period of the primaries. The estimated totals, by state and by
candidate, for the proceding scenario, are given in Tab A. They show:
McGovern
1009-1/2
Humphrey
640
Muskie
495-1/2
Wallace
333
Other and uncommitted 538
SCENARIO II - (Best case for McGovern): Assume that Muskie is counted
out early, and several state caucuses swing more toward McGovern. The
estimate of totals by state are given in Tab B.
CONFIDENTIAL
- 5 -
The overall totals are:
McGovern
1132-1/2
Humphrey
610
Muskie
412-1/2
Wallace
333
Others and uncommitted
528
SCENARIO III - (Best. case for Humphrey) : Assume that Humphrey does
as strongly as he plausibly can; that Muskie's demise gives him
substantial room to maneuver in the center and right of the Demo-
cratic Party. Specifically assume that Humphrey
1. Defeats Muskie decisively in Pennsylvania and Ohio
2. Wins Indiana
3. Beats McGovern in Nebraska
4. Beats Wallace decisively in West Virginia, Maryland and
Michigan
5. Takes caucus votes away from Muskie in Kansas, Missouri
and the Mountain States.
6. Goes on to beat McGovern in Oregon and California
7. Increases his share of New York delegates, following
a California victory
The totals, then, are as follows: (Detailed in Tab C.)
McGovern
650-1/2
Humphrey
1155
Muskie
394-1/2
Wallace
278
Other and uncommitted
538
SCENARIO IV - (Best case for Wallace): Assume that Wallace beats
Humphrey in each of their confrontations - Indiana, West Virginia,
Maryland, Michigan - and that Humphrey is no longer a factor in
Oregon and California, the totals are as follows: (Detailed in
Tab D.)
McGovern
1035-1/2
Humphrey
558
Muskle
495-1/2
Wallace
389
Other and uncommitted
538
CONFIDENTIAL
- 6 -
SCENARIO V - (Best Case for Muskie): Assume Muskie wins Massachusetts
and Pennsylvania on April 25th, and Ohio on May 2nd. By this time he
has nearly eliminated Humphrey from the race. He wins Nebraska on
May 9, Michigan on May 16, and then goes on to take Oregon and California.
He also takes some delegates from New Jersey and New York. The esti-
mated totals by state are given in Tab E. The overall totals are:
McGovern
632-1/2
Humphrey
434
Muskie
1078-1/2
Wallace
333
Others and uncommitted
538
CONCLUSION
It is hard, if not impossible, to imagine a scenario that gives anyone
1509 committed delegates by the end of the primaries. As Buchanan and
Khachigian have stated, the party regulars and the Unions have not
been doing as well as was expected in electing delegates. They
are being supplanted by liberals. Therefore, after the early
ballots, the convention, if deadlocked, will be more liable to
move left toward compromise than in the past.
In Scenarios I and II, I would judge Humphrey and Muskie to be
too far back and the nomination would go to McGovern or Kennedy.
In Scenario III, Humphrey has a chance. Additional support could
come from Muskie delegates (possibly 200), Jackson delegates (80),
Daley delegates or other uncommitted (possibly 200), and perhaps
some Wallace delegates if he released them (possibly 100). There-
fore, if Hubert were at 950 delegates or more, he might be able to
put together another 500-600 delegates and win, if the party regulars
pulled out all the stops. None of that can happen, however, unless he
wins California. Scenario IV simply showsthat Wallace could take
Humphrey out of the race, and pave the way for a McGovern-Kennedy
nomination. Scenario V shows that if Muskie came alive, he could
have more than 1000 delegates at the convention on the first ballot.
He would most likely become the consensus candidate and obtain the
necessary 400-500 additional delegates from the uncommitted category,
Humphrey, and other candidates. Once again, it would be necessary
for him to take California to get within striking distance.
It seems unlikely that Humphrey will win in California, and even
less likely that Muskie will. Thus, McGovern will go to the convention
as the front-runner. If Kennedy wanted McGovern to get the nomination,
CONFIDENTIAL
- 7 -
George will probably be close enough for Teddy to put him over the
top with an endorsement. If McGovern continues to gain momentum,
as in Scenario II, Teddy may not be able to take the nomination
away from him, even if he desires to do SO. With McGovern's over
1,000 delegates on the first ballot, and Muskie's cause hopeless;
he could probably find 500 more delegates from Muskie and the
uncommitted group. The nature of McGovern's delegates is such that
erosion is unlikely for two or three ballots, even for EMK, if
George wanted to stay in the battle.
As Buchanan/Khachigian said McGovern's the One.
CONFIDENTIAL
Tab A
SCENARIO I
Most Probable Outrome
PROJECTED COUNT or DEMOCRATIC DELEGATES BY STATE
Leaning or Committed to:
Delegate
Others or
States
Votes
Muskie
Humphrey
McGovern
Wallace
Uncommitted
NEW ENGLAND
Maine
20
20
--
-
--
--
Vermont
12
10
--
2
--
--
New Hampshire
18
13-1/2
--
4-1/2
--
--
Massachusetts
102
27
--
75
--
--
Rhode Island
22
22
-
-
--
--
Connecticut
51
19
13
19
--
|
TOTAL
225
111-1/2
13
100-1/2
0
0
MIDDLE ATLANTIC
New York
278
--
25
200
-
53
New Jersey
109
:
56
53
--
--
Pennsylvania
182
60
98
24
--
--
Delaware
13
3
6
4
--
--
Maryland
53
--
29
--
24
--
West Virginia
35
--
20
4
11
--
TOTAL
670
63
234
285
35
53
SOUTH
Virginia
53
20
5
6
--
22
North Carolina
64
--
-
--
46
18
South Carolina
32
--
-
-
--
32
Georgia
53
--
--
4
--
49
Florida
81
--
6
-
75
--
Alabama
37
:
--
--
10
27
Mississippi
25
--
--
-
--
25
Louisiana
44
18
18
--
6
2
Arkansas
27
--
--
--
--
27
Tennessee
49
--
--
-
45
4
Texas
130
20
70
5
15
20
TOTAL
595
58
99
15
197
226
PLAINS
North Dakota
14
-
5
9
--
--
South Dakota
17
--
-
17
--
--
Nebraska
24
-
10
14
--
--
Kansas
35
6
9
20
--
--
Oklahoma
39
12
11
6
10
--
TOTAL
129
18
35
66
10
0
MIDWEST
Kentucky
47
37
--
3
2
5
Ohio
153
40
90
23
--
--
Indiana
76
--
31
--
45
--
Illinois
170
59
-
13
--
98
Michigan
132
10
54
24
44
--
Wisconsin
67
--
13
54
--
--
Minnesota
64
-
38
20
--
6
Iowa
46
14
--
12
--
20
Missouri
73
10
12
20
--
31
TOTAL:
828
170
238
169
91
160
MOUNTAIN
Montana
17
17
--
--
--
--
Wyoming
11
9
--
2
--
--
Colorado
36
10
5
21
--
--
New Mexico
18
4
14
-
--
--
Arizona
25
9
1
6
--
9
Nevada
11
6
--
3
--
2
Utah
19
10
--
9
--
--
Idaho
17
3
1
13
--
--
TOTAL
154
68
21
54
0
11
PACIFIC
California
271
--
--
271
--
--
Oregon
34
--
--
34
--
--
Washington
52
--
--
10
--
42
Alaska
10
-
--
4
--
6
Hawaii
17
-
--
1
16
TOTAL:
384
0
0
320
0
64
OTHER
District of Columbia
15
-
--
--
--
15
Puerto Rico
7
7
--
--
-
:
Virgin Islands
3
--
-
--
--
3
Canal Zone
3
--
-
--
--
3
Guam
3
--
--
--
:
3
TOTAL
31
7
0
P
0
0
24
GRAND TOTAL
3016
495-1/2
640
1009-1/2
333
538
***
---
---
SCENARIO II
Best Case for McGovern
TAB B
PROJECTED CORRE or D' TORATH DELEGATES BY STATE
Leaving or Cor: itted to:
Delegate
Others or
States
Votes
Meskie
Purphasey
McGovern
Vallace
Uncon . Itted
NEW ENGLAND
Naine
20
20
--
-
--
--
Vermont
12
8
--
4
--
I
New Hampshire
18
13-1/2
--
4-1/2
--
--
Massachusetts
102
27
--
75
--
:
Rhode Island
22
--
--
22
--
--
&
Connecticut
51
10
13
28
--
:
TOTAL
225
78-1/2
13
133-1/2
0
0
MIDDLE ATLANTIC
New York
278
--
25
200
--
53
New Jersey
109
--
30
79
--
i
Pennsylvania
182
60
98
24
--
--
Delaware
13
3
6
4
--
--
Maryland
53
--
29
--
24
--
1
West Virginia
35
--
20
4
11
--
TOTAL
670
63
208
311
35
53
SOUTH
Virginia
53
15
5
11
:
22
-
North Carolina
64
-
-
-
46
18
South Carolina
32
--
-
--
-
32
Georgia
53
-
-
4
-
49
Florida
81
--
6
-
75
--
Alabama
37
--
--
--
10
27
Mississippi
25
--
---
--
--
25
Louisiana
44
18
18
-
6
2
Arkansas
27
--
--
--
---
27
Tennessee
49
--
--
--
45
4
Texas
130
20
70
5
15
20
TOTAL
595
53
99
20
197
226
PLAINS
North Dakota
14
--
5
9
--
--
South Dakota
17
---
--
-17
--
--
Nebraska
24
--
10
14
--
--
Kansas
35
6
9
20
--
-
Oklahoma
39
10
11
8
10
--
TOTAL
129
16
35
68
10
0
MIDWEST
* Kentucky
47
30
--
10
2
5
Ohio
153
40
90
23
-
--
Indiana
76
--
31
-
45
--
Illinois
170
59
--
13
---
98
Michigan
132
10
54.
24
44
--
Wisconsin
67
--
13
54
--
--
Minnesota
64
--
38
20
--
6
Iowa
46
14
--
12
--
20
Missouri
73
10
12
32
:
21
TOTAL:
828
163
238
186
91
150
U' TAIN
contana
17
7
-
10
--
--
Lycning
11
5
--
6
--
--
Colorado
36
5
5
26
-
--
New Mexico
18
2
10
6
--
--
Arizona
25
9
1
6
--
9
Nevada
11
3
--
6
--
2
Utah
19
5
--
14
--
--
Idaho
17
3
1
13
--
--
TOTAL
154
39
17
87
0
11
PACTFIC
California
271
--
--
271
--
--
Oregon
34
--
--
34
--
--
Washington
52
--
--
10
--
42
Alaska
10
I.
--
4
--
6
Envail
17
--
--
1
--
16
TOTAL:
384
0
0
320
0
64
OLDER
District of Columbia
15
--
--
--
--
15
Puerto Rico
7
--
--
7
--
--
Virgin Inlands
3
1
--
--
--
3
Canal Zone
3
:
--
:
--
3
Cume
?
:
--
:
--
3
TOTAL
31
0
0
7
0
24
GRAND TOTAL
3016
412-1/2
610
1132-1/2
333
528
*****
***
---
---
States where increased McGovern
delegate strength is assumed,
countred to Scentric I.
SCENARIO III
TAB C
Dest Case for Humphrey
PROJECTED CUUNT or DEMOCRATIC DELEGATES BY STATE
Leaning or Committed to:
Delegate
Others or
States
Votes
Muskie
Humphroy
McCovern
Wallace
Unco: litted
NEW ENCLAND
Maine
20
20
--
--
--
--
Vermont
12
10
--
2
--
--
New Rengabire
18
13-1/2
--
4-1/2
--
--
Massachusetts
102
27
--
75
--
--
Rhode Island
22
22
--
--
--
-
Connecticut
51
19
13
19
--
--
TOTAL
225
111-1/2
13
100-1/2
0
0
MIDDLE ATLANTIC
*
New York
278
--
75
150
--
53
New Jersey
109
--
56
53
--
--
Pennsylvania
182
30
128
24
--
--
Delaware
13
3
6
4
-
--
;
Maryland
53
--
39
--
14
--
West Virginia
35
--
25
4
6
--
i
TOTAL
670
33
329
235
20
53
SOUTH
Virginia
53
20
5
6
--
22
North Carolina
64
--
--
--
46
18
I
South Carolina
32
--
-
--
--
32
Georgia
53
--
--
4
--
:
49
Florida
81
--
6
--
75
--
Alabama
37
--
--
-
10
27
Mississippi
25
--
--
--
--
25
Louisiana
44
18
18
--
6
2
Arkansas
27
--
--
--
--
27
Tennessee
49
--
--
--
45
4
Texas
130
20
70
5
15
20
TOTAL
595
58
99
15
197
2261
PLAINS
North Dakota
14
--
5
9
--
--
South Dakota
17
--
-
17
--
--
*Nebraska
24
-
14
10
--
--
*Kansas
35
-
15
20
--
-
Oklahoma
39
12
11
6
10
--
TOTAL
129
12
45
62
10
0
MIDWEST
Kentucky
47
37
--
3
2
5
*Ohio
153
--
130
23
--
--
*Indiana
76
--
56
--
20
-
Illinois
170
59
--
13
--
98
*Michigon
132
10
69
24
29
--
Wisconsin
67
--
13
54
--
--
Minnesota
64
-
38
20
--
6
Iowa
46
14
--
12
--
20
Missouri
73
10
12
20
--
31
TOTAL:
828
130
318
169
51
160
MOUNTAIN
*Nontana
17
7
10
--
--
--
*Lyoming
11
4
5
2
--
-
*Colorado
36
5
10
21
--
--
New Mexico
18
4
14
--
--
--
Arizona
25
9
1
6
--
9
Nevada
11
6
--
3
--
2
*Utah
19
5
5
9
--
--
Idaho
17
3
1
13
--
--
TOTAL
154
43
46
54
0
11
PACIFIC
California
271
-
271
--
--
--
*Oregon
34
--
34
-
--
--
Washington
52
--
-
10
--
42
Alaska
10
--
--
4
--
.
6
Hawaii
17
-
--
1
1
16
TOTAL:
384
0
305
15
0
64
OTHER
District of Celumbia
15
--
--
--
--
15
Puerto kico
7
7
--
--
--
--
Virgin Jelands
3
--
--
-
--
3
Canal Zone
3
-
--
--
--
3
Gums
3
--
--
:
--
3
TOTAL
3)
7
0
0
0
24
GRAND TOTAL
301(
394-1/2
1155
650-1/2
278
538
----
SEPARAM
---
---
THEM
States where increased
Humphrey delegate strength
is assume. AS compared to
Scenario I (Tab A).
SCENARIO IV
Best Case for Wallace
TAB D
PROJECTED COUNT or DESPERATIC DELEGATES BY STATE
Leaning or Cormitted to:
Delegate
Others or
States
Votes
Muskie
Humphrey
McGovern
Wallace
Uncommitted
NEW EXCLAND
Maine
20
20
--
--
--
--
Vermont
12
10
--
2
--
--
New Hampshire
18
13-1/2
--
4-1/2
--
--
Massachesetts
102
27
---
15
-
-
Rhode Island
22
22
--
--
--
--
Connecticut
51
19
13
19
:
I
TOTAL
225
111-1/2
13
100-1/2
0
0
:
MIDDLE ATLANTIC
New York
278
--
25
200
--
53
New Jersey
109
--
30
79
--
--
Pennsylvania
182
60
98
24
--
--
Delaware
13
3
6
4
--
:
Maryland
53
--
19
--
34
ser am
West Virginia
35
--
10
4
21
--
i
TOTAL
670
63
188
311
55
53
SOUTH
Virginia
53
20
5
6
--
22
North Carolina
64
--
--
--
46
18
Scuth Carolina
32
--
--
--
-
32
Georgia
53
--
--
4
--
49
Florida
81
--
6
--
75
--
Alabama
-37
--
--
-
10
27
Mississippi
25
--
--
-
--
25
Louisians
44
18
18
--
6
2
Arkansas
27
--
--
--
--
27
Tennessee
49
--
--
--
45
4
Texas
130
20
70
5
15
20
TOTAL
595
58
99
15
197
226
PLAINS
North Dakota
14
:
5
9
-
--
South Dakota
17
--
--
17
--
--
Nebraska
24
I
10
14
--
--
Kansas
35
6
9
20
--
--
Oklahoma
39
12
11
6
10
--
TOTAL
129
18
35
66
10
0
MIDUEST
Kentucky
47
37
--
3
2
5
Ohio
153
40
90
23
--
--
Indiana
76
--
15
--
61
--
Illinois
170
59
-
13
--
98
Michigan
132
-10
34
24
64
--
Wisconsin
67
--
13
54
--
--
Minnesota
64
-
38
20
--
6
Iowa
46
14
--
12
-
20
Missouri
73
10
12
20
--
31
TOTAL:
828
170
202
169
127
160
MOUNTAIN
-
Montana
17
17
--
--
--
--
Wyoning
11
9
--
2
--
--
Colorade
36
10
5
21
--
--
New Mexico
18
4
14
--
--
--
Arizona
25
9
1
6
--
9
Nevada
11
6
--
3
--
2
Dech
19
10
--
9
I
--
Idaho
17
3
1
13
-
--
TOTAL
154
68
21
54
0
11
PACIFIC
Culifornia
271
--
--
271
--
--
Oregon
34
--
--
34
--
--
Washington
52
--
--
10
--
42
Alaska
10
--
--
4
--
6
Hawaii
17
--
--
1
--
16
TOTAL:
384
0
0
320
0
64
OTHER
District of Columbia
15
--
--
--
--
15
Puerto Rico
7
7
--
--
---
--
Virgin Islands
3
--
--
--
--
3
Canal Zone
3
--
--
I
--
3
Guam
3
:
:
:
--
3
TOTAL
31
7
0
0
0
24
GRAND TOTAL
3016
495-1/2
558
1035-1/2
389
538
CUTY
-------
*******
States where increased
Wallace delegate strength
is assure d, as compared to
Scenario I (Tab A). .
SCENARIO V
TAB E
Best Case for Muskie
PROJECTED COUNT OF DEMOCRATIC DELEGATES BY STATE
Leaning or Comm itted to:
Delegate
Others or
States
Votes
Mushie
Hurg-brey
McGovern
Wallace
Uncor nitted
NEW ENCLAND
Keine
20
20
--
--
--
---
Vermont
12
10
I
2
:
--
New Hampshire
18
13-1/2
I
4-1/2
:
--
Massachusetts
102
70
--
32
--
-
Rhode Island
22
22
--
--
--
--
Connecticut
51
19
13
19
--
--
TOTAL
225
154-1/2
13
57-1/2
0
0
MIDDLE ATLANTIC
New York
278
50
--
175
--
53
New Jersey
109
30
26
53
:
--
Pennsylvania
182
98
60
24
--
--
,
Delaware
13
3
6
4
--
--
Maryland
53
--
29
--
24
--
i
West Virginia
35
--
20
4
11
--
TOTAL
670
181
141
260
35
53
SOUTH
Virginia
53
20
5
6
--
22
North Carolina
64
--
I
--
46
18
South Carolina
32
--
I
I
--
32
Georgia
53
---
--
4
:
49
Florida
81
--
6
--
75
--
Alabana
37
--
--
--
10
27
Mississippi
25
--
-
--
-
25
Louisiana
44
18
18
--
6
2
Arkansas
27
--
--
--
--
27
Tennessee
49
--
--
--
45
4
Texas
130
20
70
5
15
20
TOTAL
595
58
99
15
197
226
PLAINS
North Dakota
14
--
5
9
:
:
South Dakota
17
:
--
17
--
:
Nebraska
24
14
1
10
I
--
Kansas
35
15
I
20
:
--
Oklahoma
39
12
11
6
10
--
TOTAL
129
41
16
62
10
0
MIDWEST
Kentucky
47
37.
-
3
2
5
Ohio
153
90
40
23
--
--
Indiana
76
--
31
:
45
:
Illinois
170
59
13
:
98
Michigan
132
54
10
24
44
--
Wisconsin
67
--
13
54
--
I
Minnesota
64
-
38
20
--
6
Iowa
46
14
--
12
--
20
Missouri
73
10
12
20
--
31
TOTAL:
828
264
144
169
91
160
-
MOUNTAIN
Montana
17
17
--
--
--
I
Wyoming
11
9
--
2
--
--
Colorado
36
10
5
21
--
:
New Mexico
18
4
14
--
--
--
Arizona
25
9
1
6
I
9
Nevada
11
6
--
3
I
2
Utah
19
10
1
9
--
--
Idaho
17
3
J
13
--
:
TOTAL
154
68
21
54
0
11
PACIFIC
California
271
271
--
--
I
--
Oregon
34
34
I
I
--
I
Washington
52
--
--
10
:
42
Alaska
10
--
I
4
:
6
Howaii
17
:
---
1
:
16
TOTAL:
384
305
0
15
0
64
OTHER
District of Columbia
15
I
--
I
--
15
Puerto Rico
7
7
--
--
:
--
Virgin Islands
3
--
--
:
--
3
Canal Zone
3
--
I
--
--
3
Custo
3
;
:
:
--
3
TOTAL
31
7
0
0
0
24
GRAND TOTAL
3016
1078-1/2
434
632-1/2
333
538
Mt./X
===
States where increased Muskie
delegate strength is assumed,
as compared to Scenar 10 t (Tab A).
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 12, 1972
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM TO:
JOHN MITCHELL
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
PAT BUCHANAN/KEN KHACHIGIAN
Our primary objective, to prevent Senator Muskie from sweeping the
early primaries, locking up the convention in April, and uniting the
Democratic Party behind him for the fall, has been achieved. The
likelihood -- great three months ago -- that the Democratic Convention
could become a dignified coronation ceremony for a centrist candidate
who could lead a united party into the election -- is now remote.
The purpose of this memo is to suggest new goals -- and to elicit
advice from the campaign leadership on how to proceed -- and against
whom. Had we our druthers, we would at this point choose as
opponents McGovern, Humphrey, Muskie and Kennedy in that order.
Here is the way the primaries shape up at present, in both our judgment
and that of the more respected politicians about, in the media and
Democratic Party.
WISCONSIN -- April 4: The Wisconsin returns made McGovern a
credible candidate and whipped up a Goldwaterlike enthusiasm for him
throughout the country, from which he will benefit from now until July.
He has inherited the media enthusiasm Big Ed retained with the Cape
St. Elizabeth Show 18 months ago. Humphrey lost a golden opportunity
to assume the mantle of front-runner; he was injured in terms of
November; he lost the publicity and momentum that went to McGovern
and could have been his. But he is still very viable. Muskie was
crippled, but not killed. Wallace was strengthened for the merry month
of May, which we anticipate he will dominate.
MASSACHUSETTS & PENNSYLVANIA -- April 25: Both states have
personality as well as delegate contests. HHH, McGovern, Muskie
and Wallace are on the ballot in both. However, Humphrey is
concentrating on Pennsylvania to the exclusion of Massachusetts;
-2-
and McGovern is focusing upon Massachusetts with only targeted
districts in Pennsylvania. Muskie, who is in danger of being whipsawed
in the two primaries, seems to have opted to make his major effort in
Pennsylvania. The 182 delegates in Pa., compared to 102 in Mass. is
clearly one reason. Another is that Muskie seems to believe now that
he stands a better chance of becoming the Regulars' candidate acceptable
to the Left, than the Left's candidate acceptable to the Regulars.
At this point Humphrey looks like the winner in Pennsylvania, which will
give him a leg up in Ohio a week later. And Muskie who two months ago
was a 4-1 favorite in Massachusetts could conceivably lose both
primaries on April 25. If he does, he has another bullet hole in him --
though he may still not be completely dead.
INDIANA, OHIO, ALABAMA, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - - May 2:
In D. C. Walter Fauntroy is favorite son, about whom no more need be
said. Alabama is inconsequential. In Indiana, all the major candidates
seem to be abandoning this primary to George Wallace, and at this point
Wallace will win the Indiana Primary and the headlines that go with it
setting himself up for Michigan, and other good things to come. Muskie
has just about pulled up stakes; Hubert is focusing on Ohio, and McGovern
is simply not a statewide winner give this one to Wallace.
Ohio, however, is another story. The winner of Pennsylvania a week
before we believe HHH will take it for the first primary win in his
political lifetime -- will have the whip hand here. Muskie will contest
this with all he has; if he loses here as well as Pennsylvania, it becomes
difficult to see how he can last another month, till California. McGovern
is here as everywhere -- targeting on delegates, to pick up a few
even if he loses the primary by a major margin. It's HHH or Muskie in
Ohio. We pick Humphrey here as well.
WALLACE MONTH
TENNESSEE -- May 4: Everybody's abandoning this one to Wallace,
who should sweep it -- along with 40-45 of the delegates.
NORTH CAROLINA May 6: Everyone is abandoning North Carolina
as well -- everyone that is expect Terry Sanford. We give North
Carolina to George Wallace also. (If Sanford should upset Wallace
here, highly unlikely, he will be Tom Wicker's "New South" here for
next month.)
-3-
NEBRASKA & WEST VIRGINIA -- May 9: West Virginia will feature
a head-on between Wallace and Hubert Humphrey, the only two
candidates on the popular ballot. If Humphrey whips Wallace he will
get immense favorable publicity -- good both in Maryland and Michigan.
He will look more and more to the Regulars as the Regular to support
all the way. If Wallace beats Humphrey here, it will be a humiliation
for Hubert, and the Democratic Party nationally -- exposing just how
far away the national leadership of the Party has gotten from its base.
Wallace's momentum for North Carolina and Tennessee will be working
in his favor here. (Anyway to help Mr. Wallace here would help in
November.)
Nebraska -- everyone is on the ballot. It is a McGovern target state;
he could do well here. We have no real reading.
MARYLAND & MICHIGAN -- May 16: If Humphrey has defeated Muskie
in both Pennsylvania and Ohio -- then both these states shape up as
Humphrey versus Wallace contests, and either man could win both of
them, or one of them.
Maryland has 53 delegates and Michigan 132. The latter is the major
northern industrial state most suited to a Wallace campaign, as bussing
is "the" issue.
Yet, there is no way to predict the outcome here -- as much will depend
on what has gone before. If Wallace and Humphrey do as we predict
in the previous primaries, then the Maryland and Michigan contests
should be showdowns between the two, with McGovern picking up his
customary handful of delegates in both. Muskie has formal UAW
support, but if he loses Pennsylvania and Ohio, and does not win
Massachusetts, that UAW endorsement will be more an embarrassment
to Woodcock than an advantage to Big Ed.
Note: Cross-over voting is allowed in Michigan. Again, our people
should go for Wallace and McGovern.
OREGON & RHODE ISLAND -- May 16: Rhode Island with 22 delegates
is Muskie country; and if Big Ed is still alive, if not well, these
delegates should be his. Oregon, with 34 delegates, is symbolically
important -- giventhe nature of the state, and the media attention it
invariably receives. Everyone is on the ballot in Oregon -- including
Teddy. In the wake of Wisconsin, some have already conceded Oregon
to McGovern; but whether he carries the state will depend greatly
on how well he does in the intervening six weeks between now and then.
-4-
Jackson's support is not strong in Oregon; and it is difficult to see
how he can last until then. More likely, this will be a McGovern,
Humphrey and Muskie contest again, depending on whether or not
Muskie is still alive.
Muskie's polls which showed him leading in Oregon are now as out of
date as all his other polls. No projections here -- but this is central
to McGovern's planning.
CALIFORNIA, NEW MEXICO, SOUTH DAKOTA & NEW JERSEY -- June 6:
Despite Wallace's challenge, South Dakota's 17 have to go to McGovern.
New Mexico's eighteen -- who knows likely a split between Humphrey
and Muskie, and perhaps Wallace, who says he may work the state.
New Jersey is one of the two crucial primaries of the day -- though it
will be overshadowed by California, which is Big Casino. In Jersey
there are 109 delegates; Muskie had the upper hand here, but appears
to have lost it as both former Governor Hughes and Senator Williams
are backing away from him. This redounds to Humphrey's benefit.
He is probably the favorite here, with McGovern again targeting on
districts where he can pick up delegates. (Wallace has not decided yet
on a major push here, though he has two weeks left to file.)
California is where it is at for the Democrats, with 271 votes winner
take all. This is nearly a fifth of what is needed for nomination. This
prize, the possibility of seizing it for bargaining leverage and prestige,
is what may keep a bedraggled Ed Muskie in the race.
Wallace could not get on the ballot; McCarthy will not campaign and
Jackson will have pulled out by then -- in our estimate. This leaves it
between Humphrey and George McGovern. If Muskie stays in and has
any appreciable support, then what he draws from Humphrey could well
give the Golden State to George McGovern. McGovern has organization
here, enthusiasm, and money; and it could pay off.
Further, he is the lone candidate on the Left for the balance of the
primaries and thus the more "centrists" left in the primaries
Jackson, HHH, Muskie or Wallace the merrier for George McGovern.
NEW YORK June 20: New York's 278 delegates is the largest, but
this will be split up considerably by the time it gets to Miami. New York
does not have a statewide vote; moreover, the delegate slates do not
have the candidates' names appended. So you vote for delegate, John
Jones, and that is that. Candidates tend to get popular figures pledged to
-5-
them to run for delegate; strong grass roots effort is essential here;
so McGovern should do extremely well in the Empire State, probably
more delegates than anyone else, but not more than 100.
THE NON-PRIMARY STATES
Several points need to be made.
A)
Regular Democrats are not doing as well as they have in the
past.
B)
A lot of liberals are getting into the convention who weren't
there in 1968.
C)
Unions are not doing as well.
D)
There are sizable numbers of "undecided" delegates winning
and we do not know precisely to whom they will go.
E)
McGovern is doing extremely well in non-primary states,
maximizing his potential -- when George is winning them in Georgia,
and Virginia, and picking off two-thirds of the Kansas delegation, it
means they have a Goldwater type operation going, and going well.
THE SCENARIOS
SCOOP JACKSON -- No way we can see him winning the nomination,
and no reason for his continuing much further. Wallace has eclipsed
him on the party's social conservative right. We predict Jackson will
either be out after Ohio or after Oregon -- the longer he stays in,
however, the better for us, as he draws votes that would otherwise be
Humphrey's or Muskie's -- and so he aids George McGovern.
HUBERT HUMPHREY Victory for Hubert lies in knocking Muskie
out of the race in Pennsylvania and Ohio, in taking West Virginia and
Michigan and Maryland from George Wallace, and winning California.
Humphrey, in our view, is the odds-on favorite to become the Last
Best Hope of the party Regulars against the McGovern insurgert S. By
and large, he does not contest any more major primary races with
McGovern, directly, head-on -- before the decisive California primary.
His competition in Pennsylvania and Ohio is Muskie, and if he takes
Muskie out of the play there he contests Wallace in West Virginia,
Maryland and Michigan.
-6-
Clearly, once Muskie is eliminated if he is -- Humphrey's approach
in California is to paint George McGovern to the Regulars as the death-
knell of the Democratic Party they have known. Even should Hubert
lose California narrowly, he will likely carry New Jersey and pull some
delegates out of New York.
Our problem with HHH is that he has never won a contested Democratic
Presidential primary.
ED MUSKIE It is truly ten minutes to midnight for Big Ed. If he
loses both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania on April 25 which he
could it is hard to see how he can regain his momentum to become
the Candidate of the Party Regulars. McGovern has already locked up
the Left.
Muskie's chance to rehabilitate himself comes April 25 in Pennsylvania,
and then a week later in Ohio. If he wins the first, he can conceivably
win the second, and become himself the Candidate of the Regulars --
the last man who can prevent a McGovern nomination. The problem for
the Regulars is that unless they settle on a single candidate before
California, they are going to lose California -- to McGovern. From
our standpoint, then, it would be good to have Muskie win something,
good to have him and Jackson stay around for the California primary.
Muskie is today in a position not dissimilar from RN in 1968 had RN
not swept the primaries. Had Miami come down to a three-way contest
between RR, NR and RN then as soon as it appeared, the left or right
candidate would win RN in the center would become the beneficiary
of the opposite wing's support. In other words, had Nixon not won on
the first ballot, he could still have won on a later ballot, by getting the
panicked Rockefeller support, should Reagan rise, and the panicked
Reagan support should Rockefeller approach the nomination.
Ed's second chance lies in the fact that he is more acceptable to the
Left than Humphrey and to the Regulars than McGovern.
Absenting only Teddy Kennedy, he still has the best chance of uniting
the Democratic Party today.
One final note: Muskie could come alive and well if he should two weeks
from now win both Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. That could bring
him to life in an instant and though highly unlikely, it is not altogether
outside the realm of possibility.
-7-
GEORGE MCGOVERN -- McGovern has these assets going for him:
A)
He is maximizing his support in the non-primary states, with
a hustling team maximizing his support and winning him, nickel and
dime, delegates in some of the damndest places.
B)
Even in the primary states where he is very nearly conceding
defeat, such as New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan -- he will be picking
up small pockets of delegates.
C)
He has momentum after Wisconsin; he has generated tremendous
enthusiasm on the Left; he has convinced the True Believers that they
can take over the party; and their challenge now has a "credibility"it
has never previously had.
D)
He is targeting well. The states he says he can win -- he can
conceivably win, i. e., Massachusetts, Nebraska, Oregon, South
Dakota, California and New York.
E)
He will go to Miami with support in every section of the country
if not damn near every state.
D)
The convention he goes to will be mor e liberal and conscience
oriented than any previous convention since the GOP in 1964. If
Kennedy stays out and the convention goes more than two ballots, a
lot of delegates are going to vote their hearts instead of their heads
and the Democratic Party could wind up with this fellow as nominee.
McGovern's problems are apparent; he is of course anathema to
conservative Democrats; but also, after Massachusetts, he is going
to have a dry spell in terms of publicity for a few weeks -- and this
could hurt him if Humphrey is dominating the news and building
momentum with headline victories.
GEORGE WALLACE As someone put it, if Wallace were nominated,
the Democratic Party would self-destruct on his way to the rostrum.
There is no scenario for a Wallace nomination. However, he could take
300 delegates into the convention; his delegates will be challenged;
anything is likely to happen; there is no way now to predict what he will
do or what will be done to him -- the Democrats themselves will have
to decide that.
-8-
OUR NEXT GOAL
What we need now is a decision on whom we want to run against. We
believe that McGovern is our candidate for dozens of reasons. He
could be painted as a left-radical candidate, the Goldwater of the
Democratic Party; and at this point in time we would inundate him.
The Wallace Democrats, South and North, as well as the Daley and
Meany Democrats, would have to take hemlock to support a fellow
whose major plant is to chop 32 billion out of defense. Also, he is
weak with the blacks, and would have to cater to that vote -- to his
great disadvantage. Humphrey can take the blacks for granted in a
contest with the President.
If we want McGovern -- and we believe we should -- then what we want
is a showdown in Miami between the Regulars and the Left -- between
Humphrey and McGovern with McGovern winning. And if McGovern
loses that showdown -- then by all means, we want Humphrey. The
Left would never take him again; he would guarantee a horror show in
Miami Beach and a walkout of the Left following.
Muskie is our third choice -- the reason being that Muskie, despite his
weaknesses is still a potentially unifying candidate for the Democrats,
after a Humphrey-McGovern deadlock.
EDWARD MOORE KENNEDY
Evans-Novak, in a column that looks to have come from the horses
mouth, say that Kennedy would accept a genuine draft. He is in the
catbird's seat today. Tough there will be pressure on him to endorse
McGovern -- if McGovern carries Massachusetts two weeks from today --
he can sit back and observe until July.
If the convention deadlocks on the first ballot, and if there is a deep
division within the Democratic Party -- he is the major unifying
figure on the national scene today. Though he would be unacceptable
to the South, in a national election, he would bring to his candidacy all
the McGovern support, plus the Kennedy charisma, plus the support
of the Meanys and Daleys. A Democratic Party deeply divided, thirsting
for unity and victory, would welcome a Kennedy.
For this reason, we do not believe our strategy should be to flush
Kennedy out. As Kennedy is elevated, McGovern recedes -- and
We Want McGovern.
-9-
Just as it would have been foolish for LBJ -- who wanted Goldwater
in April -- to flush out and elevate the more formidable RN -- so it
is foolish for us we believe to flush out and elevate EMK when he
is far stronger and mor dangerous than McGovern. We should elevate
and assist McGovern in every way conceivable.
Nor can we surface Kennedy -- if he doesn't want to be surfaced. If
we indicate we are apprehensive about his candidacy, that makes his
candidacy more likely.
Right now, Kennedy is still in the background. There is a liberal media
love affair going on with George McGovern; they will help George against
Humphrey and we should help him as well. Every notch we move
Kennedy up, we move McGovern down a peg. What we should do is
begin publicly to take George McGovern seriously, and any pressure
we could place upon EMK to endorse McGovern as the leader of the
Left should be exerted. We might even attack McGovern to elevate
him -- also, to get the record on him into the media.
McGovern has a long shot at the nomination, a very long shot. But if
he wins, we win. Let's let him have his run at the nomination, and
assist him in every way we can. Today, he gets 5 percent of a
Democratic vote nationally; and RN swamps him in the polls -- and
people do not yet know what a wild man he is. McGovern's The One.
THE WHITE HOUSE
DETERMINED TO BE AN
WASHINGTON
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 12065, Section 8-25-81 6-102
Omp
NARS,
Date
April 12, 1972
By
GONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM TO:
JOHN MITCHELL
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
PAT BUCHANAN/KEN KHACHIGIAN
Our primary objective, to prevent Senator Muskie from sweeping the
early primaries, locking up the convention in April, and uniting the
Democratic Party behind him for the fall, has been achieved. The
likelihood -- great three months ago -- that the Democratic Convention
could become a dignified coronation ceremony for a centrist candidate
who could lead a united party into the election -- is now remote.
The purpose of this memo is to suggest new goals -- and to elicit
advice from the campaign leadership on how to proceed - - and against
whom. Had we our druthers, we would at this point choose as
opponents McGovern, Humphrey, Muskie and Kennedy in that order.
Here is the way the primaries shape up at present, in both our judgment
and that of the more respected politicians about, in the media and
Democratic Party.
WISCONSIN April 4: The Wisconsin returns made McGovern a
credible candidate and whipped up a Goldwaterlike enthusiasm for him
throughout the country, from which he will benefit from now until July.
He has inherited the media enthusiasm Big Ed retained with the Cape
St. Elizabeth Show 18 months ago. Humphrey lost a golden opportunity
to assume the mantle of front-runner; he was injured in terms of
November; he lost the publicity and momentum that went to McGovern
and could have been his. But he is still very viable. Muskie was
crippled, but not killed. Wallace was strengthened for the merry month
of May, which we anticipate he will dominate.
MASSACHUSETTS & PENNSYLVANIA -- April 25: Both states have
personality as well as delegate contests. HHH, McGovern, Muskie
and Wallace are on the ballot in both. However, Humphrey is
concentrating on Pennsylvania .to the exclusion of Massachusetts;
-2-
and McGovern is focusing upon Massachusetts with only targeted
districts in Pennsylvania. Muskie, who is in danger of being whipsawed
in the two primaries, seems to have opted to make his major effort in
Pennsylvania. The 182 delegates in Pa., compared to 102 in Mass. is
clearly one reason. Another is that Muskie seems to believe now that
he stands a better chance of becoming the Regulars' candidate acceptable
to the Left, than the Left's candidate acceptable to the Regulars.
At this point Humphrey looks like the winner in Pennsylvania, which will
give him a leg up in Ohio a week later. And Muskie who two months ago
was a 4-1 favorite in Massachusetts could conceivably lose both
primaries on April 25. If he does, he has another bullet hole in him --
though he may still not be completely dead.
INDIANA, OHIO, ALABAMA, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA May 2:
In D. C. Walter Fauntroy is favorite son, about whom no more need be
said. Alabama is inconsequential. In Indiana, all the major candidates
seem to be abandoning this primary to George Wallace, and at this point
Wallace will win the Indiana Primary and the headlines that go with it
setting himself up for Michigan, and other good things to come. Muskie
has just about pulled up stakes; Hubert is focusing on Ohio, and McGovern
is simply not a statewide winner give this one to Wallace.
Ohio, however, is another story. The winner of Pennsylvania a week
before we believe HHH will take it for the first primary win in his
political lifetime -- will have the whip hand here. Muskie will contest
this with all he has; if he loses here as well as Pennsylvania, it becomes
difficult to see how he can last another month, till California. McGovern
is here as everywhere targeting on delegates, to pick up a few
even if he loses the primary by a major margin. It's HHH or Muskie in
Ohio. We pick Humphrey here as well.
WALLACE MONTH
TENNESSEE May 4: Everybody's abandoning this one to Wallace,
who should sweep it along with 40-45 of the delegates.
NORTH CAROLINA -- May 6: Everyone is abandoning North Carolina
as well everyone that is expect Terry Sanford. We give North
Carolina to George Wallace also. (If Sanford should upset Wallace
here, highly unlikely, he will be Tom Wicker's "New South" here for
next month.)
-3-
NEBRASKA & WEST VIRGINIA -- May 9: West Virginia will feature
a head-on between Wallace and Hubert Humphrey, the only two
candidates on the popular ballot. If Humphrey whips Wallace he will
get immense favorable publicity -- good both in Maryland and Michigan.
He will look more and more to the Regulars as the Regular to support
all the way. If Wallace beats Humphrey here, it will be a humiliation
for Hubert, and the Democratic Party nationally -- exposing just how
far away the national leadership of the Party has gotten from its base.
Wallace's momentum for North Carolina and Tennessee will be working
in his favor here. (Anyway to help Mr. Wallace here would help in
November.)
Nebraska -- everyone is on the ballot. It is a McGovern target state;
he could do well here. We have no real reading.
MARYLAND & MICHIGAN -- May 16: If Humphrey has defeated Muskie
in both Pennsylvania and Ohio -- then both these states shape up as
Humphrey versus Wallace contests, and either man could win both of
them, or one of them.
Maryland has 53 delegates and Michigan 132. The latter is the major
northern industrial state most suited to a Wallace campaign, as bussing
is "the" issue.
Yet, there is no way to predict the outcome here -- as much will depend
on what has gone before. If Wallace and Humphrey do as we predict
in the previous primaries, then the Maryland and Michigan contests
should be showdowns between the two, with McGovern picking up his
customary handful of delegates in both. Muskie has formal UAW
support, but if he loses Pennsylvania and Ohio, and does not win
Massachusetts, that UAW endorsement will be more an embarrassment
to Woodcock than an advantage to Big Ed.
Note: Cross-over voting is allowed in Michigan. Again, our people
should go for Wallace and McGovern.
OREGON & RHODE ISLAND -- May 16: Rhode Island with 22 delegates
is Muskie country; and if Big Ed is still alive, if not well, these
delegates should be his. Oregon, with 34 delegates, is symbolically
important -- giventhe nature of the state, and the media attention it
invariably receives. Everyone is on the ballot in Oregon -- including
Teddy. In the wake of Wisconsin, some have already conceded Oregon
to McGovern; but whether he carries the state will depend greatly
on how well he does in the intervening six weeks between now and then.
-4-
Jackson's support is not strong in Oregon; and it is difficult to see
how he can last until then. More likely, this will be a McGovern,
Humphrey and Muskie contest again, depending on whether or not
Muskie is still alive.
Muskie's polls which showed him leading in Oregon are now as out of
date as all his other polls. No projections here but this is central
to McGovern's planning.
CALIFORNIA, NEW MEXICO, SOUTH DAKOTA & NEW JERSEY June 6:
Despite Wallace's challenge, South Dakota's 17 have to go to McGovern.
New Mexico's eighteen -- who knows -- likely a split between Humphrey
and Muskie, and perhaps Wallace, who says he may work the state.
New Jersey is one of the two crucial primaries of the day though it
will be overshadowed by California, which is Big Casino. In Jersey
there are 109 delegates; Muskie had the upper hand here, but appears
to have lost it as both former Governor Hughes and Senator Williams
are backing away from him. This redounds to Humphrey's benefit.
He is probably the favorite here, with McGovern again targeting on
districts where he can pick up delegates. (Wallace has not decided yet
on a major push here, though he has two weeks left to file.)
California is where it is at for the Democrats, with 271 votes -- winner
take all. This is nearly a fifth of what is needed for nomination. This
prize, the possibility of seizing it for bargaining leverage and prestige,
is what may keep a bedraggled Ed Muskie in the race.
Wallace could not get on the ballot; McCarthy will not campaign and
Jackson will have pulled out by then in our estimate. This leaves it
between Humphrey and George McGovern. If Muskie stays in and has
any appreciable support, then what he draws from Humphrey could well
give the Golden State to George McGovern. McGovern has organization
here, enthusiasm, and money; and it could pay off.
Further, he is the lone candidate on the Left for the balance of the
primaries and thus the more "centrists" left in the primaries
Jackson, HHH, Muskie or Wallace -- the merrier for George McGovern.
NEW YORK June 20: New York's 278 delegates is the largest, but
this will be split up considerably by the time it gets to Miami. New York
does not have a statewide vote; moreover, the delegate slates do not
have the candidates' names appended. So you vote for delegate, John
Jones, and that is that. Candidates tend to get popular figures pledged to
-5-
them to run for delegate; strong grass roots effort is essential here;
so McGovern should do extremely well in the Empire State, probably
more delegates than anyone else, but not more than 100.
THE NON-PRIMARY STATES
Several points need to be made.
A)
Regular Democrats are not doing as well as they have in the
past.
B)
A lot of liberals are getting into the convention who weren't
there in 1968.
C)
Unions are not doing as well.
D)
There are sizable numbers of "undecided" delegates winning
and we do not know precisely to whom they will go.
E)
McGovern is doing extremely well in non-primary states,
maximizing his potential -- when George is winning them in Georgia,
and Virginia, and picking off two-thirds of the Kansas delegation, it
means they have a Goldwater type operation going, and going well.
THE SCENARIOS
SCOOP JACKSON No way we can see him winning the nomination,
and no reason for his continuing much further. Wallace has eclipsed
him on the party's social conservative right. We predict Jackson will
either be out after Ohio or after Oregon -- the longer he stays in,
however, the better for us, as he draws votes that would otherwise be
Humphrey's or Muskie's and so he aids George McGovern.
HUBERT HUMPHREY Victory for Hubert lies in knocking Muskie
out of the race in Pennsylvania and Ohio, in taking West Virginia and
Michigan and Maryland from George Wallace, and winning California.
Humphrey, in our view, is the odds-on favorite to become the Last
Best Hope of the party Regulars against the McGovern insurgert S. By
and large, he does not contest any more major primary races with
McGovern, directly, head-on before the decisive California primary.
His competition in Pennsylvania and Ohio is Muskie, and if he takes
Muskie out of the play there he contests Wallace in West Virginia,
Maryland and Michigan.
-6-
Clearly, once Muskie is eliminated -- if he is -- Humphrey's approach
in California is to paint George McGovern to the Regulars as the death-
knell of the Democratic Party they have known. Even should Hubert
lose California narrowly, he will likely carry New Jersey and pull some
delegates out of New York.
Our problem with HHH is that he has never won a contested Democratic
Presidential primary.
ED MUSKIE It is truly ten minutes to midnight for Big Ed. If he
loses both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania on April 25 which he
could it is hard to see how he can regain his momentum to become
the Candidate of the Party Regulars. McGovern has already locked up
the Left.
Muskie's chance to rehabilitate himself comes April 25 in Pennsylvania,
and then a week later in Ohio. If he wins the first, he can conceivably
win the second, and become himself the Candidate of the Regulars --
the last man who can prevent a McGovern nomination. The problem for
the Regulars is that unless they settle on a single candidate before
California, they are going to lose California -- to McGovern. From
our standpoint, then, it would be good to have Muskie win something,
good to have him and Jackson stay around for the California primary.
Muskie is today in a position not dissimilar from RN in 1968 -- had RN
not swept the primaries. Had Miami come down to a three-way contest
between RR, NR and RN then as soon as it appeared, the left or right
candidate would win RN in the center would become the beneficiary
of the opposite wing's support. In other words, had Nixon not won on
the first ballot, he could still have won on a later ballot, by getting the
panicked Rockefeller support, should Reagan rise, and the panicked
Reagan support should Rockefeller approach the nomination.
Ed's second chance lies in the fact that he is more acceptable to the
Left than Humphrey and to the Regulars than McGovern.
Absenting only Teddy Kennedy, he still has the best chance of uniting
the Democratic Party today.
One final note: Muskie could come alive and well if he should two weeks
from now win both Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. That could bring
him to life in an instant and though highly unlikely, it is not altogether
outside the realm of possibility.
-7-
GEORGE MCGOVERN McGovern has these assets going for him:
A)
He is maximizing his support in the non-primary states, with
a hustling team maximizing his support and winning him, nickel and
dime, delegates in some of the damndest places.
B)
Even in the primary states where he is very nearly conceding
defeat, such as New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan -- he will be picking
up small pockets of delegates.
C)
He has momentum after Wisconsin; he has generated tremendous
enthusiasm on the Left; he has convinced the True Believers that they
can take over the party; and their challenge now has a "credibility"it
has never previously had.
D)
He is targeting well. The states he says he can win -- he can
conceivably win, i. e., Massachusetts, Nebraska, Oregon, South
Dakota, California and New York.
E)
He will go to Miami with support in every section of the country
if not damn near every state.
D)
The convention he goes to will be mor e liberal and conscience
oriented than any previous convention since the GOP in 1964. If
Kennedy stays out and the convention goes more than two ballots, a
lot of delegates are going to vote their hearts instead of their heads --
and the Democratic Party could wind up with this fellow as nominee.
McGovern's problems are apparent; he is of course anathema to
conservative Democrats; but also, after Massachusetts, he is going
to have a dry spell in terms of publicity for a few weeks -- and this
could hurt him if Humphrey is dominating the news and building
momentum with headline victories.
GEORGE WALLACE -- As someone put it, if Wallace were nominated,
the Democratic Party would self-destruct on his way to the rostrum.
There is no scenario for a Wallace nomination. However, he could take
300 delegates into the convention; his delegates will be challenged;
anything is likely to happen; there is no way now to predict what he will
do or what will be done to him -- the Democrats themselves will have
to decide that.
-8-
OUR NEXT GOAL
What we need now is a decision on whom we want to run against. We
believe that McGovern is our candidate for dozens of reasons. He
could be painted as a left-radical candidate, the Goldwater of the
Democratic Party; and at this point in time we would inundate him.
The Wallace Democrats, South and North, as well as the Daley and
Meany Democrats, would have to take hemlock to support a fellow
whose major plant is to chop 32 billion out of defense. Also, he is
weak with the blacks, and would have to cater to that vote -- - to his
great disadvantage. Humphrey can take the blacks for granted in a
contest with the President.
If we want McGovern -- and we believe we should -- then what we want
is a showdown in Miami between the Regulars and the Left -- between
Humphrey and McGovern with McGovern winning. And if McGovern
loses that showdown -- then by all means, we want Humphrey. The
Left would never take him again; he would guarantee a horror show in
Miami Beach and a walkout of the Left following.
Muskie is our third choice -- the reason being that Muskie, despite his
weaknesses is still a potentially unifying candidate for the Democrats,
after a Humphrey-McGovern deadlock.
EDWARD MOORE KENNEDY
Evans-Novak, in a column that looks to have come from the horses
mouth, say that Kennedy would accept a genuine draft. He is in the
catbird's seat today. Tough there will be pressure on him to endorse
McGovern -- if McGovern carries Massachusetts two weeks from today
he can sit back and observe until July.
If the convention deadlocks on the first ballot, and if there is a deep
division within the Democratic Party he is the major unifying
figure on the national scene today. Though he would be unacceptable
to the South, in a national election, he would bring to his candidacy all
the McGovern support, plus the Kennedy charisma, plus the support
of the Meanys and Daleys. A Democratic Party deeply divided, thirsting
for unity and victory, would welcome a Kennedy.
For this reason, we do not believe our strategy should be to flush
Kennedy out. As Kennedy is elevated, McGovern recedes -- and
We Want McGovern.
-9-
Just as it would have been foolish for LBJ -- who wanted Goldwater
in April -- to flush out and elevate the more formidable RN -- so it
is foolish for us we believe to flush out and elevate EMK when he
is far stronger and mor dangerous than McGovern. We should elevate
and assist McGovern in every way conceivable.
Nor can we surface Kennedy -- if he doesn't want to be surfaced. If
we indicate we are apprehensive about his candidacy, that makes his
candidacy more likely.
Right now, Kennedy is still in the background. There is a liberal media
love affair going on with George McGovern; they will help George against
Humphrey and we should help him as well. Every notch we move
Kennedy up, we move McGovern down a peg. What we should do is
begin publicly to take George McGovern seriously, and any pressure
we could place upon EMK to endorse McGovern as the leader of the
Left should be exerted. We might even attack McGovern to elevate
him -- also, to get the record on him into the media.
McGovern has a long shot at the nomination, a very long shot. But if
he wins, we win. Let's let him have his run at the nomination, and
assist him in every way we can. Today, he gets 5 percent of a
Democratic vote nationally; and RN swamps him in the polls -- and
people do not yet know what a wild man he is. McGovern's The One.
COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N.W.
April 11, 1972
WASHINGTON, D. C 20006
(202) 333-0920
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
E.O. 13065, Section 6-102
By Amp
8-25-81
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
FROM:
ROBERT M. TEETER
sarrish
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. 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 nominee, 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