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:
List of contributions to various Democratic politicians. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
List of contributions given by various unions to Democratic candidates for political office. Not scanned. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
List of contributions given by various unions to Democratic candidates for political office. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
From Allin to Higby RE: projected election figures generated by the press. 9 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/7/1970
Background memo on the 1970 Congressional campaign. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/5/1970
List of United States governors predicted to be elected in 1970. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Other Document], no date
Projected House of Representatives changes in the wake of the 1970 election. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
List of Senators expected to be elected in 1970. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
From Klein to Haldeman RE: Cabinet officers and other prominent figures as speakers in the 1970 campaign. 8 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/17/1970
From Dent to Haldeman RE: voter turnout in Maryland for Beall. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/17/1970
Copy of a letter from Kevin P. Phillips to Mitchell RE: enclosed documents on the 1970 election in Maine, Tennessee, and Vermont, the youth effort in North Dakota, New Mexico, and Utah, and Agnew's campaign schedule. 13 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], no date
Copy of a memo from Ruwe to Haldeman RE: states to be visited by RN in the 1970 campaign season. Handwritten notes on original added by Haldeman. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/13/1970
Background memo on the 1970 Congressional campaign. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/5/1970
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26145770
label
WHSF: Contested, 18-6
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26145770
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 18-6
description
This file contains:
List of contributions to various Democratic politicians. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
List of contributions given by various unions to Democratic candidates for political office. Not scanned. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
List of contributions given by various unions to Democratic candidates for political office. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
From Allin to Higby RE: projected election figures generated by the press. 9 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/7/1970
Background memo on the 1970 Congressional campaign. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/5/1970
List of United States governors predicted to be elected in 1970. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Other Document], no date
Projected House of Representatives changes in the wake of the 1970 election. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
List of Senators expected to be elected in 1970. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
From Klein to Haldeman RE: Cabinet officers and other prominent figures as speakers in the 1970 campaign. 8 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/17/1970
From Dent to Haldeman RE: voter turnout in Maryland for Beall. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/17/1970
Copy of a letter from Kevin P. Phillips to Mitchell RE: enclosed documents on the 1970 election in Maine, Tennessee, and Vermont, the youth effort in North Dakota, New Mexico, and Utah, and Agnew's campaign schedule. 13 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], no date
Copy of a memo from Ruwe to Haldeman RE: states to be visited by RN in the 1970 campaign season. Handwritten notes on original added by Haldeman. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/13/1970
Background memo on the 1970 Congressional campaign. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/5/1970
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26145770
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
824b1a5eedd34cd3
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
18
6
>
Campaign
Other Document
List of contributions to various Democratic
politicians. 4 pgs.
18
6
>
Campaign
Other Document
List of contributions given by various unions
to Democratic candidates for political office.
Not scanned.
18
6
>
Campaign
Other Document
List of contributions given by various unions
to Democratic candidates for political office.
4 pgs.
18
6
11/7/1970
Campaign
Memo
From Allin to Higby RE: projected election
figures generated by the press. 9 pgs.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Page 1 of 3
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
18
6
11/5/1970
Campaign
Memo
Background memo on the 1970
Congressional campaign. 4 pgs.
18
6
>
Domestic Policy
Other Document
List of United States governors predicted to
be elected in 1970. 1 pg.
18
6
Campaign
Other Document
Projected House of Representatives changes
in the wake of the 1970 election. 1 pg.
18
6
Campaign
Other Document
List of Senators expected to be elected in
1970. 2 pgs.
18
6
11/17/1970
Campaign
Memo
From Klein to Haldeman RE: Cabinet
officers and other prominent figures as
speakers in the 1970 campaign. 8 pgs.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Page 2 of 3
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
18
6
11/17/1970
Campaign
Memo
From Dent to Haldeman RE: voter turnout in
Maryland for Beall. 1 pg.
18
6
Campaign
Letter
Copy of a letter from Kevin P. Phillips to
Mitchell RE: enclosed documents on the
1970 election in Maine, Tennessee, and
Vermont, the youth effort in North Dakota,
New Mexico, and Utah, and Agnew's
campaign schedule. 13 pgs.
18
6
10/13/1970
Campaign
Memo
Copy of a memo from Ruwe to Haldeman
RE: states to be visited by RN in the 1970
campaign season. Handwritten notes on
original added by Haldeman. 1 pg.
18
6
11/5/1970
Campaign
Memo
Background memo on the 1970
Congressional campaign. 4 pgs.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Page 3 of 3
Unions
DSC 1
NCEC 2
fub
(COPE)
McG3
S.A.⁴
TOTAL
Gore
$22,850
$ 9,000
$20,000
$40,000
$91,850
Moss
26,700
20,000
40,000
$1,000
87,700
Tydings
17,200
10,000
5,000
3,000
100
35,300
Hart
15,250
10,000
20,000
25,000
70,250
Burdick
18,250
1,000
15,000
29,000
63,250
Williams
53,300
15,000
25,000
1,100
94,400
McGee
24,540
10,000
25,000
59,540
Montoya
21,100
9,000
1,000
31,100
Muskie
23,750
5,000
1,000
29,750
Cannon
11,100
6,000
1,200
18,300
Proxmire
22,400
9,000
5,000
14,000
50,400
Symington
1,200
5,000
5,000
1,000
12,200
Mansfield
5,000
5,000
1,000
11,000
Jackson
11,800
1,000
1,000
13,800
Byrd
14,650
1,000
15,650
Hartke
12,570
10,000
1,000
1,100
24,670
Kennedy
6,700
1,000
7,700
Metzenbaum
9,500
10,000
19,500
Tunney
12,800
10,000
22,800
Stevenson
6,000
15,000
25,000
46,000
Hoff
13,100
25,000
15,000
55,600
1
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
2 National Committee for Effective Congress
3 1970 Campaign Fund (McGovern)
4 Savings Association Pol. Education Committee
Unions
(COPE)
DSC¹
NCEC 2
McG 3
S.A.⁴
TOTAL
Gore
$22,850
$ 9,000
$20,000
$40,000
$91,850
Moss
26,700
20,000
40,000
$1,000
87,700
Tydings
17,200
10,000
5,000
3,000
100
35,300
Hart
15,250
10,000
20,000
25,000
70,250
Burdick
18,250
1,000
15,000
29,000
63,250
Williams
53,300
15,000
25,000
1,100
94,400
McGee
24,540
10,000
25,000
59,540
Montoya
21,100
9,000
1,000
31,100
Muskie
23,750
5,000
1,000
29,750
Cannon
11,100
6,000
1,200
18,300
Proxmire
22,400
9,000
5,000
14,000
50,400
Symington
1,200
5,000
5,000
1,000
12,200
Mansfield
5,000
5,000
1,000
11,000
Jackson
11,800
1,000
1,000
13,800
Byrd
14,650
1,000
15,650
Hartke
12,570
10,000
1,000
1,100
24,670
Kennedy
6,700
1,000
7,700
Metzenbaum
9,500
10,000
19,500
Tunney
12,800
10,000
22,800
Stevenson
6,000
15,000
25,000
46,000
Hoff
13,100
25,000
15,000
55,600
1 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
2 National Committee for Effective Congress
3 1970 Campaign Fund (McGovern)
4 Savings Association Pol. Education Committee
Unions
(COPE)
DSC¹
NCEC²
McG³
S. 4
TOTAL
Gore
$22,850
$ 9,000
$20,000
$40,000
$91,850
Moss
26,700
20,000
40,000
$1,000
87,700
Tydings
17,200
10,000
5,000
3,000
100
35,300
Hart
15,250
10,000
20,000
25,000
70,250
Burdick
18,250
1,000
15,000
29,000
63,250
Williams
53,300
15,000
25,000
1,100
94,400
McGee
24,540
10,000
25,000
59,540
Montoya
21,100
9,000
1,000
31,100
Muskie
23,750
5,000
1,000
29,750
Cannon
11,100
6,000
1,200
18,300
Proxmire
22,400
9,000
5,000
14,000
50,400
Symington
1,200
5,000
5,000
1,000
12,200
Mansfield
5,000
5,000
1,000
11,000
Jackson
11,800
1,000
1,000
13,800
Byrd
14,650
1,000
15,650
Hartke
12,570
10,000
1,000
1,100
24,670
Kennedy
6,700
1,000
7,700
Metzenbaum
9,500
10,000
19,500
Tunney
12,800
10,000
22,800
Stevenson
6,000
15,000
25,000
46,000
Hoff
13,100
25,000
15,000
55,600
1 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
2 National Committee for Effective Congress
3 1970 Campaign Fund (McGovern)
4 Savings Association Pol. Education Committee
Unions
(COPE)
DSC¹
NCEC2
McG³
S.A.⁴
TOTAL
Gore
$22,850
$ 9,000
$20,000
$40,000
$91,850
Moss
26,700
20,000
40,000
$1,000
87,700
Tydings
17,200
10,000
5,000
3,000
100
35,300
Hart
15,250
10,000
20,000
25,000
70,250
Burdick
18,250
1,000
15,000
29,000
63,250
Williams
53,300
15,000
25,000
1,100
94,400
McGee
24,540
10,000
25,000
59,540
Montoya
21,100
9,000
1,000
31,100
Muskie
23,750
5,000
1,000
29,750
Cannon
11,100
6,000
1,200
18,300
Proxmire
22,400
9,000
5,000
14,000
50,400
Symington
1,200
5,000
5,000
1,000
12,200
Mansfield
5,000
5,000
1,000
11,000
Jackson
11,800
1,000
1,000
13,800
Byrd
14,650
1,000
15,650
Hartke
12,570
10,000
1,000
1,100
24,670
Kennedy
6,700
1,000
7,700
Metzenbaum
9,500
10,000
19,500
Tunney
12,800
10,000
22,800
Stevenson
6,000
15,000
25,000
46,000
Hoff
13,100
25,000
15,000
55,600
1 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
2 National Committee for Effective Congress
3 1970 Campaign Fund (McGovern)
4 Savings Association Pol. Education Committee
Prepared 1,
ADDITION "
UNIONS
GORE
MOSS
TYDINGS
HART
(Giving through their C.O.P.E.'s)
Tennessee
Utah
Maryland
Michigan
Amalgamated Pol. Educ. Comm.
2350-
1000-
American Federation of Musicians
500-
Boilermakers/Blacksmiths
600-
Brotherhood of Maintance of Way
1000-
Bro. of Painting, Paperhangers, etal
300-
Building & Construction Trades
500-
500-
Carpenters Legislative Improvement
L10a-
500-
2000-
Comm. for Good Gov't. (UAW)
1000-
500-
AFL-CIO C.O.P.E.
C.O.P.E. see #1 below
12000-
10000-
2500-
5,000-
D.R.I.V.E. (Teamsters)
2000-
10.00-
2500-
Engineers Pol. Educ. Comm.
Firemen & Oilers
Bro. of Electrical Workers
200-
700-
1000-
I.L.G.W.U.
1000-
1000-
1200-
Laborers Political League
500-
Machinists Non-Partisan Pol. League
1500-
200-
600-
Marine Engineers
1000-
2500-
1,000-
Maritime Action Comm.
3000-
3000-
Nat'l. Maritime Union
200-
011, Chem. & Atomic Workers
100-
Railway Clerks
2050-
1000-
500-
Retail Clerks
400-
Seafarers Int. Union
1400-
100-
Sheet Metal Workers
Textile Union Workers
Transportation Pol. Educ. League
1000-
1250-
500-
1200-
U.A.W.
2500-
2500-
1150-
United Plant Guards
United Steel Workers
SUB-TOTAL SUB- TOTAL
22850-
26,700-
17200-
15,250-
Other Important Contributions
Democratic Senatorial Campaign. Comm.
9000-
10000-
10000-
Natl. Comm. for Effective Congress
20000-
20000-
5000-
20000-
1970 Campaign Fund (Mc Govern)
40000-
40000-
3000-
25000-
Council for a Livable World
1
Savings Assoc. Pol. Educ. Comm.
1000-
100-
TOTAL
$91,850-
87,700-
35,300-
70,250-
#1
C.O.P.E. gave to State C.O.P.E.
We assume it-goes to help these
key candidates.
1970 CAMPAIGNS (Key S
These figures are not C
represent giving In 1 9
BURDICK
WILLIAMS
McGEE
MONTOYA
MUSKIE
CANNON
PROXMIRE
North Dakota New Jersey
Wyoming
New Mexico
Maine
Nevada
Wisconsin
=
4000-
500-
1000-
1100-
200-
1500-
100-
100-
100-
400-
200-
1000-
1000-
300-
500-
500-
2500-
4000-
2200-
2500-
400-
2,000-
2000-
2500-
7500-
10000--
10000-
7500-
15000-
10000-
5000-
1000-
500-
1000-
200-
500-
1000-
700-
600-
200-
700-
250-
2100-
700-
1000-
300-
600-
500-
1500-
2500 -
2000-
500-
500-
200-
5500-
2700-
2000-
1000-
400-
1500-
1000-
1500-
3000-
1500-
3000-
2000-
19
200-
300-
100-
700-
5000-
600-
1000-
1000-
1000-
400-
400-
1100-
500-
1000-
.
1000-
1000-
1000-
L
1200-
450-
800-
500-
1740-
500-
300-
1500-
500-
2200-
2700-
2000-
300-
2500-
1000-
200-
18250-
53300-
24540-
21/00-
23,750-
IN 00-
22400-
3
1000-
10000-
9000-
6000-
9000-
15000-
15000-
5000-
5000-
29000-
25000-
25000-
1000-
1000-
14000-
-
1100-
1200-
63,250-
94400-
59,540-
31100-
29,750-
18,300-
50400-
in
:
:
1.
enate Races)
omplete and
69-1970
SYMINGTON
MANSFIELD
JACKSON
BYRD
HARTKE
KENNEDY
Missouri
Montana
Washington
West Virginia
Indiana
Massachusetts
500-
500
2000- 500
2500--
5000- 1150-
100
5500-
1000-
500-
100-
150
500
10:0-
1000-
200-
500-
1000-
70-
200-
1000-
3000-
500-
2,000-
1000-
1,200-
5000-
11,800-
14650-
12570
6700-
5000-
10000-
5000-
5000-
1000-
1000-
1000-
1000-
1000-
1000-
1000-
1100-
12,200-
11,000-
13,800-
15650
24670-
7,700-
non -- incumbents
METZENBAUM
TUNNEY
STEVENSON
HOFF
VS.
VS.
VS.
VS.
(TAFT)
(MURPHY)
(SMITH)
(PROUTY)
Ohio
California
Illinois
Vermont
1000-
500
-
I
005-
1200-
7
-
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
5000-
1500-
12000
-
10
5000-
500-
11
12
13
500-
600-
1
14
500-
100-
1000-
15
16
5000-
200-
500-
17
18
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
500-
27
28
29
3000-
2500-
30
9500-
I
12800
-
6000-
13,100
31
32
33
34
35
36
15000-
25000-
37
10000-
10000-
25000-
15000
-
32
2500
-
39
#
40
19500-
22,800-
46,000-
55,600-
41
42
43
44
MEMORANDUM
file
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 7, 1970
FILE COPY
TO:
Larry Higby.
Remind
Copies
FROM:
Mort Allin
Matter/Mino
Subject:
A Representative Sampling of Election Predictions
by Press
House Predictions
Dem. Gains
Mears (AP)
12
Kirk (B Sun)
few
Apple (NYT)
6
Winters (Sun)
15-30
Sperling
Little change
Lawrence
Little change
Phillips
below 20-30
Louis Bean (Phila. Ev. Bull.)
20
Hope (Star)
+
Miller (Knight)
10-15
Averill-Foloy (LAT)
Little change
Evans-Novak
5
Childs
10-11
Thomasson
10-12
Weaver (NYT)
-3 to +10
A
Average
13-14
Senate
GOP Gains
Mears
1-3
Kirk (Balt. Sun)
several
Hinden (Newsday)
+ few
Apple (NYT)
1-3 (or -1)
Winters (Balt. Sun)
2
Lawrence
+
Bean (Phila. Ev. Bull.)
2-3
Broder
+
Sperling
+
Hope
+
Kraft
"indents" for GOP
Perry (Nat'l. Observer)
2-4
Miller (Knight)
2-3
Senate (continued)
GOP Gains
Pearman (K. C. Star)
3
Storin (Globe)
small gain
Averill
1-2
Phillips
3-5
Childs
3-4
Evans-Novak
1
Average
2-3
Governors
Dom. Gains
Mears (AP)
4-6
Hinden (Newsday)
4-5
Apple (NYT)
5-8
Sperling (CSM)
I-7
Phillips
3-5
Averill (LAT)
5
Gilbride (AP)
4-7
Witcover
7
Average
4-6 GOP loss
Specific Key Senate Races - Consensus opinions
Victors: Chiles, Adlai Stevenson, III, Tunney, Brock, Symington,
Williams, Prouty, Cannon, Fannin, HHH.
Toss-ups: Ohio, Texas, Indiana, Conn., Utah, New York,
South Dakota, Maryland
We did botter than predicted in the House, exactly as predicted in
the Senate, but lost twice as many as expected in Governorships.
Predictions 11/2
media
News
US
Now
Week
New
Repub
NYT
E/N
K
Star
Broder
Philips
Cours
alifornia
0
0
0
0
?
0
0
0!
0
onnecticut
?
+
0
?
?
?
+
?
?
lorida
0
?
?
0
0
0
0
o?
0
llinois
00
0
@
0
0
0
00
0
00
ndiana
?
?
?
?
+?
+?
0?
0
?
aryland
0
??
o?
0
0
0
0
innesota
00
00
00
00
00
00
issouri
00
???
00
0
00
Oo
0
00
evada
0
?
00
0
00
00
00
ew Jersey
0
??
?
0
0
00
0
?
0
ew Mexico
0
??
o?
00
0
00
00
?
0
0
?
ew York
0?
?
?
?
+
0
?
brth Dakota
0
??
6?
0
+
0
0
+
?
iio
?
+
o?
+
+
?
0
+
?
0
+
0
+
&
nnessee
+
+
γ?
+
exas
0
+
+
+
+
+
?
+
0
+
tah
0
0
?
0
:
o?
+
?
?
0
ermont
?
+
+
+
+
0
+
yoming
00
??
00
0
00
00
00
0-5
Bruco Winters (11/1) Sun: At the national level, GOP chances may be
better then (tradition would suggest but unlikely to gain control of Senate,
Dem majority "may not be changed by more than d'seat or two) In the
House "the lincup may be favorably shifted 15 to 30 seats to the Dems. "
Overall "an apprehensive electorate will deny the GOP the Senate prize
it thought it had won this spring, but it may hodge the bet by improving
prospects for a Congressional takeover in two years.
Congressional Quarterly (11/1) Sun: 10 contests too close to call. In
Md. Mandel and Tydings were favored.
Ernest Furgerson (11/1) Sun: "N. J. is about to witness 1970's most impres-
sive political comeback by a man and a party": Williams and the Dems
come back from the Cahill sweep.
Thomas O'Neill (11/1) Sun: - very critical - "The raucous mob (San Jose)
probably achieved the reclection of Murphy."
Joe Kraft (11/1) Post: Republican tide, GOP to make indents putting GOP
in better position for future. Way station on road to better show in '72,
Failing a bad turn to economy -- or in VN hard to sce how RN can be
defeated in '72.
Broder (11/1) Post: RN unlikely to get Senate. Instead RN likely to hear he
made only "minor inroads on the supposedly vulnerable Dem majority"
white Dems held or boosted margin of control in the House. Thus,
seems likely to result as negative or nebulous, from RN's viewpoint, as
the campaign itself.
Paul Hope (11/1) Star: Dems to retain Senate control, continued Dem
House control by same margin. Chances are GOP will lose some gov-
ernorships.
Warren Weaver (11/1) Times: House almost certainly, leave unchanged
relative strengths. Almost certainly RN would hail such a result because
ruling party usually loses 41.
2
George Meany (is quoted by David Lawrence, (10/29) Times Pic:
as predicting a shift of 3 or 4 House seats either way and maybe 2-3
Senate seats either way. Gaylord Nelson is quoted as seeing it possible
of a net gain or loss.
Lawrence himself says " a gain by the GOP would be regarded as a
surprise, and a maintenance of the present margins in both Houses is
more or less expected by leaders in the two camps."
Robert Pearman (10/29) Kansas City Star: guesses the GOP would win
in Conn., Ohio, Indiana, Tenn., New Mex., and California. The Dems
would take Fla., N. Dakota, Texas and Utah. (Overall a net gain of 3
GOP seats.)
JDN (1028): Holmes Alexander predicted any surprises would be of candidate
to the right of center. "In this atmosphere Barry Goldwater could win
national election in a walk. "
Ray McHugh (Copley Wash Bureau) in the 10/29 Jackson Daily News
predicted GOP wins in Ohio, Fla. Senate seats.
UPI -- Raymond Lahr in (10/28) Arizona Republic "knowledgeable political
strategists of both parties agreed the GOP stands a good chance of coming
close to RN's goal of seizing the Senate. " Not to win political control but
idenlogical control.
Louis Bean (In 10/31) Phil. Evening Bulletin: predicted a Dem gain of
20 seats in the House and a loss of 2-3 in the Senate.
Milton Viorst (10/29) Star: From the polls "it seems clear that enough of
them (RN's favorites) will be defeated to confirm that the majority of voters
in the nation have not swung to conservative Republicanism. " 13 too close
to call, 243-179 without the 13.
Richard Reeves (11/1) Times main forecast: More than most the elections
are coming to an end in a blaze of uncertainty. Dems seem sure to pick
up Governorships. Some GOP cling to belief gain party control. Dems
though's might add seat or 2. A bad showing for GOP -- particularly where
Veep turned up -- could make RN think twice about the 172 ticket. If 1970
3
proves a "bust for the social issue and the Southern strategy, RN has
shown he can guickly adapt himself to new realities as well as old
myths. "
Times: Brock in Tenn.
Burdick in N. Dakota
Taft in Ohio
Indiana - ?
Utah -- close
Roth - 10/28 Rocky by -- 17 -- according to polls.
Miami Herald poll: 61-39 Chiles.
Deakin - 10/25: "If Dems retain control Sen., add to their present House
contingent and gain some "ships, RN's prestige will suffer a sharp
blow that inevitably will increase his leg. diffs."
Deakin - 10/16: Col. Dispatch -- 48.4% -- Metz -- 43% Taft.
Doyle - 10/28: Wisc. GOP in trouble.
Thimmesch - 10/3: RN figured he could tip enough races that he'd have
a GOP Senate and a friendlier House. Thus there'd be a mandate in
the Nixon direction. Doubtful he succeeded and he lost some prestige
on VN and Mideast -- did so well there that neither was issue.
Neil Gilbride - 11/3 (AP): Dems appeared likely to recapture governorsh
from the GOP in a fear of the nation's 10 most populous states. Thei
best chances are in Ohio, Fla., Penn., and to retain Texas. The GO
seems certain to hold Calif., probably NY, Michigan, and Massachus
Dems are also likely to take governorship in Ark., N. Mex. and S.
Dakota -- while losing Com. and Tenn.
(CSM) Sperling - 10/13: The GOP may lose at least one, and perhaps as
many as 5 governorships. GOP losses in Ohio and Arkansas could be
nearly cancelled out by a GOP victory in Conn. But GOP losses in
4
Ala., Fla., Nebraska, N. Mox. - would be more significant. The
GOP has 2 major disadvantages -- GOP incumbents hold all but 11
of 30 seats -- thus they are vulnerable and 2, there is unhappiness
over local issues. Hence if the GOP holds its governorships it
would be a major GOP victory.
10/26 Columbus Dispatch: Two incumbent GOP Congressmen who repre-
sent central Ohio still hold commanding leads in the second C.D.
poll. But Dovine's lead over Goodrich has shrunk from 37.4% to
26. 1.
10/27 Cleveland Plain-Dealer: The Ohio Senate race is as close as a
poll can show with both candidates holding 40%. But a breakdown
shows Taft may hold an ever-so-slight edgo on Motzenbaum, The
poll also showed 1. 1% for Kay and 18. 3% undecided.
10/28 Gallup poll (Chic. Sun-Times): Dems are holding their lead in the
race for House seats: in early Oct. Dems would receive 50% of the
vote for House seats, 44% for the GOP with 6% undecided,
10/25 Chic. Sun-Times: A state-wide poll shows Byrd with 42%, Rawlings
38% and Garland 20%.
10/25 Chic. Sun-Times: St. Clair county prefers Stevenson 2 to 1;
64. 9% with 35. 1% for Smith.
10/27 Miami Herald: Chiles 60% -0, Gramer 30%. Stevenson 58% --
Smith 42%. HHH 56% -- MacGregor 13%,
10/12 L.A. Times: GOP have the odds against them in what could be
their last big opportunity to capture the Senate, Bentson is even
better financed than Bush and at the moment is rated a slight
favorite. The GOPers regarded. as shoo-ins for re-eloction are
Hruska, Scott, Stevens, and Roth. Va, 's Byrd is rated the favorite
over his two challengers. Chances for a Gross victory are less
than 50-50,
5
10/18 Philip Carter Wash. Post: With the help of the WH, Thurmond and
a plurality of white voters Watson has a chance of winning.
10/27 J. J. Kilpatrick: Cramer will make it to the Senate.
10/26 Harry Bodine: Sen. Harold Hughes predicted a repeat of the 1958 mid-
term Dem upset. During that election VP Nixon delivered a slashing
attack on the opposition much the way VP Agnew has been doing. In
1958, the WH toned RN down, but it didn't help the GOP, it sustained
one of the heaviest mid-term losses in US politics.
10/29 Evans & Novak: quotes a Goldberg aido who said: "Arthur's such
a bad candidate that if he wins it'll be the sympathy vote that does it. "
10/25 Iowa poll in Des Moines Register: RN still leads 4 possible Dem
contenders by margins of 14 to 24% points.
RN 46% EMK 32% Wallace 4%.
RN 48% -- HHH 25% -- Wallace 6%.
RN 45% -- Muskie 29% -- Wallace 6%.
RN 17% -- Lindsay 23% -- Wallace 5%.
In approval ratings RN's popularity has changed little since May. Ap-
proval of RN's job handling in Sept. 57%; May 59%. Disapproval
rating in Sept. 30%; May 32%.
10/28 Richmond News Leader, John Farmer: says in an ordinary year
Metzembaum couldn't beat Taft but this year it may be possible.
10/24 David Broder: if Minnesota voters reject HHH the candidate instead
of endorsing HHH the institution it will be the upset of the year.
Kilpo 10/27 -- Texas Sen. too close to call. -- Some mild gains for con-
servative Republicans but not much.
Means 11/3 -- Both sides can claim victory -- GOP - 1 to 3 in Senate --
Dems upwards of dozen in House plus 6 State Houses -- "If GOP
gains even just one Senate seat, they have WOR a symbolic victory in
reversing the trad'l pattern, although this involves ignoring fact that
they fell far short of their origin expectors. But if Dems add to House
6
numbers, they won't suffer defeat Local variables the key this
year Mismatch no clear guidelines likely
White 10/24: Campaign is "a national referendum on the foreign and
military policy leadership of RN. Meaningful dove losses (4)
would amount to a presidential vindication. "
Bryce Nelson LA Times 10/28: Symington now ahead by 7-8.
R. Wilson 10/24: Only w/ the greatest of luck and the presence of an
as yet undetected landslide can RN win the 6 or 7 needed -- doesn't
look good. Everything has to break his way. RN can't win much but
could lose a lot.
Clymer, Baltimore Sun 10/24: Lowenstein leads despite leftist label - -
but close.
Beckman CT - 10/22: WH optimistic about Taft and Brock -- good chance
for Kleppe; Rowdy close. Also feel Prouty and Weicker will do it. RN
visit to California hoped to pull Murphy through.
Stanley Hinden in a Newsday Analysis (10/29) sees close Senate races
and "indications are that there will be little change. " He also foresaw a net
loss of 4-5 governorships.
Wm. S. White said (Oct 23, Birmingham News) that if the GOP picked up
four seats, RN's efforts would have been worthwhile. If no net gain the
whole campaign would have been a disaster for RN, perhaps even deeper
than that suffered by Truman in 146.
Thomas O'Neill (10/28 Sun): says indicators show "only a limited shifting
of party strength on each side. =
November 5, 1970
POL/
BACKGROUND MEMO
NOTES: Re: 1970 Congressional Campaign
Before the President entered the campaign and urged his
Cabinet Officers to make an intensive effort - about 6 weeks prior
to the election - all of the private polls we had for each of the key
states indicated that our Senatorial candidate was behind in every
state except Tennessee. On the basis of these polls the indications
were that we would end up with a net loss of one seat in the Senate
and a net loss of 30 seats in the House.
The reason the President went out on the campaign trail was
as he said during the campaign that the major issues in the Senate
were being decided by a majority of one or maybe two votes and he
couldn't leave a situation where the President was being undercut
week after week, especially in the area of foreign policy. Also, if
we had lost 30 seats in the House there would have been no possibility
at all of winning control of the House in 1972, which continues to be
a long-range objective.
Looking at history we find, of course, that Eisenhower in 1954
and 1958, lost 57 and 13 House seats respectively. A Republican
Administration with any kind of economic slow down will always face
a disaster at the polls.
During the campaign in four of the key states the Democratic
Senator accused the Administration of sitting on the new unemployment
figures and that they would be 6 1/2%. They also said that the Adminis-
tration was planning to close key bases in each of those states which
was not true. The losses in those states and throughout the West are
clearly due to the economy. The problem of 10% unemployment in
Los Angeles and Orange Counties for example, is virtually insurmountable.
In other words when the decision was made to go out and
campaign, the purpose was to avoid an unmitigated disaster.
We were of course disappointed regarding the Governorships.
The President had predicted a loss of eight, instead we lost probably 11.
These losses are an indication of what might of also happened in the
Congress and Senate had we not gone out to fight.
Some of the Governorship losses were unavoidable - the Ohio
scandal, the Florida party fight, the problems in Pennsylvania, the tax
problems of Tiemann in Nebraska, the conflict of interest problems of
Farrar in South Dakota, etc.
In terms of political significance for 1972, however, it doesn't
mean a damned thing. In 1960 we only had 14 Governors, yet the President
carried 26 states (this was the lowest number of Governors that any party
ever had). We lost two major states - New York and Illinois where we had
Republican Governors - and we won two major states - Ohio and California
where we did not have Republican Governors.
3
Having a Governor of our Party would help a bit but basically
the Governors don't play the political game now. They have become
more non-partisan. There are no strong state political machines in
most cases. Naturally we would have preferred not to lose the Governor-
ships, but losing them will not hurt us particularly for the long hall.
A rather remarkable statistical fact is that this election equalized
the Republican representation in the House, Senate, and Governorships.
Where we have only 28% of the population registered as Republicans, the
Republican Party controls 41% of the House seats, 42% of the Governors,
and 45% of the Senate seats.
Without the economic drag, we would have carried both Houses.
Our foreign policy position is a tremendous asset to the Administration
and the Party.
Looking ahead to 1972 with the war over and no new war underway,
with a nuclear agreement of some sort, and with the economy up, we should
be in excellent shape.
It's important to separate national elections from state elections.
When you do so and look only at the national picture, this was a remarkable
showing. We gained two actual seats in the Senate plus Buckley and Benson
ideologically. The House is also remarkable vs. the average loss. Except
for Teddy Roosevelt in 1902 and FDR in 1934, no President has gained
seats in the House during an off-year election.
4
Peace and the economy are the only issues that matter, none of the
other issues that were so thoroughly discussed, really make any
difference.
It is important to recognize the outstanding work the President
did especially going into the places that were not sure winners. For
instance, MacGregor had no chance at all, but he's a great guy who
was making a tremendous fight. Danforth is an outstanding man who
should have had a boost and got it. Nebraska and Arizona both looked
like sure things but we still hit them just in case, and it's a lucky thing
we did.
The President has never felt that you should just play it safe
or like Johnson in 1966, stay out all together. He felt he had a respon-
sibility to fight for good people and he went out and did it.
The President has always had the feeling that if people fight
for you, you've got to go out and fight for them. It was imperative,
especially in the Senate, to be sure that we didn't loose seats and it
appeared quite grobable that we would if we didn't make a major effort.
The President campaigned only four week days, a couple of
evenings, and three Saturdays and it paid off where it counted in the
Senate.
Martin
Evans-
Rob't
Nolan
UPI
AP
Governors
All
Post
Broder
P. Hope
Novak
Pearman
ALA
Wallace
ALASKA
?
Egan
Miller
Miller
?
ARIZ
Williams
? (R-)
Williams
Williams
?
ARK
Bumpers
? (R-)
Bumpers
Bumpers
Bumpers
CALIF
Reagan
COLO
Love
Love
Love
?
CONN
Meskill
Meskill
Meskill
Meskill
?
Meskill
FLA
Askew
Askew
Askew
Askew
Askew
Askew
GEO
Carter
Carter
Carter
HAW
Burns
Burns
Burns
Burns
IDA
?
? (R-)
Samuelson
Andkus
Samuelson
IOWA
Ray
Ray
Ray
KANS
Docking
Docking
?
ME
Curtis
? (D-)
Curtis
Erwin
Curtis
MAR
Mandel
MASS
Sargent
Sargent
Sargent
?
MICH
?
? (R-)
Milliken
Milliken
- ?
MINN
Anderson
Anderson
?
Anderson
Anderson
?
NEBR
Tiemann
? (R-)
Tiemann
?
NEV
?
? (R-)
?
O'Callaghan ?
N HAM
Peterson
Peterson
Peterson
N MEX
?
? (R-)
?
King
King
N YORK
Rocky
OHIO
Gilligan
OKLA
Bartlett
Bartlett
Bartlett
ORE
McCall
PENN
Shapp
? (R-)
?
Shapp
Broderick
Shapp
RI
Licht
? (D-)
Licht
Licht
?
Licht
so CAR
?
? (D-)
?
?
West
so DAK
?
? (R-)
Farrar
Kneip
Kneip
TENN
Dunn
Dunn
Dunn
Dunn
TEX
Smith
? (D-)
Smith
?
?
VT
?
? (R-)
Davis
Davis
Davis
WIS
?
? (R-)
?
Lucey
?
?
WYO
Hathaway
HOUSE
Paul Hope
NY Times
Evans-Novak
Post
Alabama
0
0
Alaska
?-1
-1
-1
Arizona
0
0
Arkansas
0
0
California
+2
+1
+1
+1-2
Colorado
+1
-1
Connecticut
+1
0
-1
+1
Delaware
+1
0
Florida
0
0
Georgia
0
0
Hawaii
0
0
Idaho
0
0
Illinois
-1
0
Indiana
-2
-1
-2
0
Iowa
0
0
Kansas
0
0
Kentucky
?-1
?-1
Louisiana
0
0
Maine
0
0
Maryland
-1
-2?
Massachusetts
?+1
-1?
Michigan
?-2
0
Minnesota
-1
-2
-1,2?
Mississippi
0
0
Missouri
?+1
0
Montana
0
0
Nebraska
0
-1
-1?
Nevada
0
0
New Hampshire
0
0
New Jersey
+1
+1
0
New Mexico
0
New York
+1 or 2
+1
+3
+3
N. Carolina
0
?+1,2
N. Dakota
-1
-1
Ohio
0
?-1,2
Oklahoma
0
0
Oregon
0
0
Pennsylvania
0
?-1
Rhode Island
0
0
S. Carolina
-1
0
S. Dakota
-1
-1
Tennessee
0
0
Texas
0
?+1,2
Utah
-1
?-1
Vermont
0
0
Virginia
0
+1
+2
+1 (?+2)
Washington
0
0
W. Virginia
0
0
Wisconsin
0
-1
-1
?-1
Wyoming
0
0
Pearman
Ted
Childs
Kansas City
-
Knapp
Cong.
Senate
All
E-N
Phillips
Broder
Hope-Star
Perry-NO
Post
Alexander
Star
Scripps
Qrtly.
ALASKA
Stevens
Stevens
Stevens
Steven
ARIZ
Fannin
Fannin
Fannin
Fannin
Fannin
Fannin
Fannin
Fannin
CALIF
Tunney
?
?
Murphy
Tunney
?
CONN
Weicker
?
?
?
Weicker?
?
Weick
DEL
Roth
Roth
FLA
Chiles
Chiles
Chiles
Chiles
Chiles?
Chiles
?
HAW
Fong
Fong
ILL
Adlai III
Adlai
Adlai
Adlai
Adlai
Stevenson
Adlai
Adlai
IND
Hartke
Roudy
?
Roudy
Roudebush
?
?
ME
Muskie
Muskie
MAR
Tydings
Tydings
Tydings
Tydings
Meakl
1
Tydings
Tydings
Tyding
MASS
EMK
Kleen
Kennedy
MICH
Hart
Hart
MINN
HHH
HHH
MISSI
Stennis
Stennis
MO
Stu
Stu
Stu
Stu
Stu
Symington
Syming
MONT
Mansfield
Mansfield
NEBR
Hruska
Hruska
NEV
?
Cannon
Cannon
Cannon
Cannon
Cannon
Cannor
NJER
Williams
Williams
Williams
Williams
Williams
Williar
NMEX
?
Montoya
Montoya
Montoya
Carter
Montoya
?
NYORK
Buckley
?
?
Ottinger
?
Ottinge
NDAK
Burdick
Kleppe
Burdick
Burdick
Burdick
?
OHIO
Metz
Taft
Taft
?
Taft
Taft
Taft?
PENN
Scott
Scott
RI
Pastore
Pastore
TENN
Brock
Brock
Brock
Brock
Brock
Brock
Brock
Brock
?
TEX
Bush
Bush?
Bush?
?
Bush
Benston
?
?
UTAH
Moss
?
?
Moss
Moss
Moss
?
VT
Prouty
Prouty
Prouty
Prouty
Prouty
Prouty
?
?
VIR
Byrd
Byrd
WASH
Jackson
Jackson
WVA
Byrd
Byrd
WIS
Proxmire
Prox.
WYO
McGee
McGee
McGee
McGee
McGee
McGee
McGee
Pearman
Ted
Douglas
Storin
Mankiewicz
Childs
Kansas City
Knapp
Cong.
Bedell
Boston
Times
Times
AP
Braden
Perry-NO
Post
Alexander
Star
Scripps
Qrtly.
Phil. Bul.
Globe
N.Y.
L.A.
UPI
11/3
Stevens
Stevens
Stevens
Stevens
Fannin
Fannin
Fannin
Fannin
Fannin
Fannin
Fannin
?
Murphy
Tunney
?
Tunney
Tunney
Tunney
?
?
Weicker?
?
Weicker
Weicker
?
?
?
Roth
Chiles
Chiles
Chiles?
Chiles
?
Chiles
Chiles
Chiles
Chiles
Chiles
Fong
Adlai
Adlai
Stevenson
Adlai
Adlai
Adlai
Adlai
Adlai
Stevenson
Roudy
Roudebush
?
?
Roudy?
?
Hartke
Muskie
Tydings
Metakl -
Tydings
Tydings
Tydings
?
?
Tydings
Tydings
Tydings
Kleen
Kennedy
Hart
HHH
Stennis
Stu
Stu
Stu
Symington
Symington
Symington
Symington Symingta
Symington
Mansfield
Hruska
Cannon
Cannon
Cannon
Cannon
Cannon
Cannon
Cannon
Williams
Williams
Williams
Williams
Williams
Williams
Williams
Williams
Montoya
Carter
Montoya
?
Montoya
?
Ottinger
?
Ottinger
?
?
B
?
Ottinger
Burdick
Burdick
Burdick
?
Kleppe
Burdick
Burdick
Burdick
?
Taft
Taft
Taft?
Taft
Taft
?
Taft
Metzenbaum
Scott
Pastore
Brock
Brock
Brock
Brock
Brock
?
Brock
Brock?
Gore
?
Bush
Benston
?
?
Benston
Benston?
Bush?
Bush
Moss
Moss
Moss
?
Moss
Prouty
Prouty
Prouty
?
?
Prouty
Prouty
Prouty
?
Prouty
Byrd
Jackson
Byrd
Prox.
McGee
McGee
McGee
McGee
McGee
McGee
McGee
McGee
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Novmeber 17, 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR MR. HALDEMAN
FROM:
Herbert G. Klein
H.W.
The attached listing is a final summary of our speaker
placement activities during the campaign. As you can
see, we had extensive Cabinet-level presence in all the
Key States.
The scheduling operation was coordinated by Nick Ruwe.
Nick, Ed Barner and Peter Amis each scheduled four or
five Cabinet-level speakers. Dick Howard worked entirely
on the scheduling and advancing of the First Family after
his return from Madrid.
In addition to almost daily contact with the campaign
managers, in the Key States, Ruwe's operation distributed
speech material and political briefings to the speakers.
We understand from the speakers, that these items were
extremely helpful. These were prepared with help from
Jim Keogh and staff, Lyn Nofzier, Ken Khachigian of my
staff, and, of course, with my input.
One problem continuously hindered the effectiveness of
the scheduling operation - the lack of adequate trans-
portation for Cabinet officers. The Defense Department
would not provide planes to Cabinet officers for political
trips, and the RNC was not able to respond to the various
requests, and commercial transportation always wasted an
excessive amount of time. A solution to this problem
should be considered before 1972, or we will lose the
effectiveness of our speakers during that campaign. The
cost, naturally is another factor, but perhaps we could
do more with corporate airplane loans.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
CAMPAIGN APPEARANCES
ALASKA
September
16
Blount
Fairbanks
21
Blount
Juneau
22
Blount
Ketchikan
October
7
Hickel
Anchorage
8
Hickel
Anchorage
9
Hickel
Fairbanks
10
Hickel
Fairbanks
20
Hickel
Alaska
21
Hickel
Anchorage
CALIFORNIA
September
17
Finch
California
18
Finch
California
19
Finch
California
21
Finch
California
23
Hardin
Los Angeles
24
Hardin
Los Angeles
25
Hardin
California
26
Hickel
San Diego
28
Finch
Sacramento
28
Hickel
California
29
Finch
California
29
Hickel
California
30
Laird
San Francisco
October
1
Kennedy
San Francisco
3
Finch
Vallejo - Los Angeles
4
Finch
California
5
Klein
California
6
Klein
Los Angeles - San Diego
7
Tricia
Anaheim
8
Mitchell
San Francisco
9
Stans
San Francisco
10
Stans
Los Angeles
-2-
CALIFORNIA (Cont'd.)
October
11
Hickel
Tulare County
14
David
Los Angeles
17
Hodgson
California
18
Hodgson
California
20
Richardson
San Francisco
22
Romney
Palm Springs
22
Finch
Palo Alto
23
Finch
Los Angeles
23
Volpe
San Francisco
24
Finch
Ventura
25
Finch
California
27
Finch
San Diego
28
Finch
Los Angeles
28
Blount
Los Angeles
29
Klein
Los Angeles
29
Dole
California
30
President &
Mrs. Nixon
California
31
Mrs. Nixon
California
31
Klein
Sacramento
November
1
Kennedy
Los Angeles
2
Klein
San Diego
CONNECTICUT
October
3
Tricia
Danbury
8
Finch
Connecticut
9
Finch
Connecticut
12
President &
Mrs. Nixon
Connecticut
12
Klein
Connecticut
16
Dole
Connecticut
21
Dole
Connecticut
29
Hickel
Connecticut
30
Richardson
Connecticut
DELAWARE
September
24
Dole
Dover
FLORDIA
September
26
Julie & David
Tallahassee
-3-
FLORIDA (Cont'd.)
October
13
Attorney General &
Mrs. Mitchell
Florida
16
Volpe
Florida
22
Mrs. Nixon
Florida
25
Stans
Florida
26
Romney
Miami
27
Dole
Florida
31
Blount
Tuscaloosa
ILLINOIS
September
17
Volpe
Chicago
19
Dole
Bloomington
21
Hodgson
Peoria
October
4
Julie and David Chicago
9
Kennedy
Chicago
11
Kennedy
Chicago
13
Klein
Illinois
15
Richardson
Chicago
22
Laird
Chicago
25
Rumsfeld
Chicago
26
Hodgson
Chicago
27
Hodgson
Chicago
28
Hodgson
Springfield
28
Hickel
Springfield
28
Stans
Springfield
28
Hardin
Springfield
30
Romney
Illinois
November
2
Kennedy
Illinois
INDIANA
October
13
Klein
Indianapolis
16
Mitchell
Indiana
17
Hardin
Indiana
18
Hardin
Indiana
19
Hardin
Indiana
19
Hodgson
Indiana
21
Volpe
Indiana
-4-
INDIANA (Cont'd.)
October
22
Dole
Indiana
26
Dole
Indiana
27
Hardin
Indiana
28
Mrs. Nixon
Indiana
29
Finch
Indiana
29
Volpe
Indiana
November
1
Tricia
Indiana
MARYLAND
October
1
Hickel
Annapolis
16
Finch
Maryland
17
Mrs. Nixon
Hagerstown
21
Rumsfeld
Maryland
29
Volpe
Maryland
30
Stans
Maryland
MICHIGAN
September
15
Finch
Lansing
October
3
Stans
Detroit
6
Romney
Detroit
10
Romney
St. Clair
19
Mrs. Nixon
Michigan
28
Volpe
Michigan
MINNESOTA
September
10
Hickel
St. Paul
16
Stans
Minneapolis
October
8
Laird
Duluth
14
Tricia
Minneapolis
16
Richardson
Minneapolis
17
Stans
Minnesota
18
Finch
Minneapolis
19
Mrs. Nixon
Minnesota
20
Romney
Minneapolis
28
Richardson
Minnesota
-5-
MISSOURI
October
1
Blount
Kansas City
2
Blount
Kansas City
2
Dole
Missouri
3
Blount
Kansas City
9
Rumsfeld
Missouri
16
Klein
St. Louis
17
Julie & David
Missouri
19
Dole
Missouri
20
Finch
Missouri
22
Stans
Missouri
23
Klein
Missouri
27
Hardin
Missouri
28
Hickel
Missouri
NEVADA
October
7
Mitchell
Reno
19
Hickel
Nevada
20
Mrs. Nixon
Carson City
26
Finch
Nevada
28
Dole
Nevada
NEW JERSEY
September
24
Finch
Newark
29
Hodgson
Atlantic City
October
6
Volpe
Atlantic City
14
Volpe
New Jersey
21
Julie & David
New Jersey
26
Tricia
New Jersey
26
Volpe
New Jersey
30
Hardin
New Jersey
NEW MEXICO
October
13
David
Albuquerque
18
Hickel
Albuquerque
22
Klein
New Mexico
30
Dole
New Mexico
-6-
NORTH DAKOTA
October
24
Dole
North Dakota
27
Hickel
North Dakota
29
Tricia
North Dakota
OHIO
September
4
Volpe
Columbus
12
Hardin
Versailles
October
5
David
Cincinnati
14
Stans
Canton
17
Dole
Ohio
19
Finch
Dayton
21
Romney
Ohio
28
Volpe
Ohio
28
Tricia
Ohio
29
Hickel
Ohio
31
Tricia
Cleveland
SOUTH DAKOTA
October
27
Hickel
South Dakota
TENNESSEE
September
28
Blount
Nashville
October
22
Stans
Tennessee
TEXAS
October
6
Finch
Dallas
8
Kennedy
Wichita Falls & Dallas
8
Stans
Dallas
9
Laird
San Antonio
9
Kennedy
Dallas
10
Dole
Texas
16
Klein
Dallas
17
Hickel
Houston
21
Finch
Dallas
22
Volpe
Houston
-7-
UTAH
September
25
Hodgson
Salt Lake City
October
2-4
Kennedy
Provo
4-5
Finch
Salt Lake City
6
Finch
Salt Lake City
21
Tricia
Provo & Ogden
21
Klein
Salt Lake City
28
Hardin
Utah
29
Hardin
Utah
29
Kennedy
Utah
VERMONT
September
26
Finch
Brattleboro
October
24
Hickel
Vermont
WYOMING
September
26
Dole
Wyoming
28
Stans
Cheyenne
October
1
Kennedy
Wyoming
2
Kennedy
Wyoming
:
28
Mitchell
Wyoming
29
Tricia
Wyoming
November
1
Finch
Wyoming
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 17, 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR
BOB HALDEMAN
SUBJECT:
Maryland Vote
Dave Markey, from Senator-elect Beall's office,
advises me that the industrial area, which the
President visited in Maryland, did very well for
Beall in the election. The 5th Legislative District,
which is known as the Essex Area, went 13,000 to
8,000 for Beall. The registration there is 28,600
Democrats to 6,260 Republicans. In the 6th Legis-
lative District, the Sparrows Point Area, Beall
carried 10,000 to 7,000. The registration there
is 24,840 Democrats to 4,870 Republicans. In the
7th Legislative District, which is the Dundalk Area,
it was a Beall-Tydings standoff with each getting
about 8,600 votes. The registration there is
25,240 Democrats to 4,000 Republicans.
DsD
Harry S. Dent
KEVIN P. PHILLIPS
5115 MOORLAND LANE
BETHESDA, MARYLAND
(301)654-7128
Sunday
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
Per my last letter, some further enclosures.
Please let me know any further details you might have when
you get back.
I was disgusted to hear than welfare announcement.
As you might imagine, I have a few more columns' worth of opinion
on that mess.
As before, I hope that this finds you with time
enough for golf, and that you and Mrs. Mitchell have been
enjoying your West Coast stay.
Sincerely,
Kevi
Re: Maine
In 1964, Senator Muskie won re-election by a vote of
253,000 to 127,000. This success was considerably swollen by a)
heavy straight Democratic voting by Republicans in protest against
the Goldwater candidacy, and b) the staying at home of 10-20% of
the Yankee Republican electorate who couldn't bear the thought of
choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Under these circumstances - and despite a steady registration
trend to the Democrats - Muskie is unlikely to do SO well as in 1964.
The enclosed xerox of a mid-August poll of Yankees in Hancock County,
Maine, shows Muskie down from his 1964 lead over the GOP candidate.
The reason: a combination of trending away from Muskie (mostly by
persons who cast protest ballots in 1964) and heavier voting by
Yankee Republicans who stayed home in 1964. This is not a big trend,
but it is a factor nevertheless.
Muskie's 66% of the vote will probably slip to the 60% range
because of the above trends and a lighter-than-presidential year turnout
in the Catholic milltowns that fuel Maine Democratic pluralities. However
there seems little doubt that Muskie will be re-elected handily.
It would not seem wise for the Administration to look like it
is too interested in the Maine race. GOP candidate Bishop should be
given personal ammunition against Muskie, so that when the results are
totaled and Muskie wins, say, by 91,000 votes and 61% of the total,
nobody is embarrassed by too much intervention but at the same time,
there will be grounds to spread the word that the bloom is off Muskie's
appeal.
The enclosed poll shows that the "Southern Strategy" is very
unpopular among Maine's Yankee Republicans, 55% of whom think that the
Administration pays too much attention to the South. The Machiasport
situation and Bath shipyards contract are particularly embarassing.
If any oil free trade zones are to be announced shortly, it would be
useful to do so before the election.
Another useful idea might be a "Northern New England Regional
Commission" like that for Appalachia. Industrial obsolescence and
redundancy is cruel in upper New England - towns with 10-20% unemployment
are common - and such a move would be well-received. It would also
provide a rebuttal to the "Southern Strategy" innuendo, and also help
bolster 1972 prospects in the one part of New England that is winnable.
Prouty and Bishop would be bolstered.
Some kind of ethnic appeal or cultural recognition should
be extended to upper New England's French-Canadians; that would really
be hitting the Democrats from the rear.
1970 Maine Election Questionnaire
1. For whom do you plan to vote in November's Senate election? (Circle one.)
45%
50%
Dowthrow - 5%
A) Edmund Muskie (Democrat) B) Neil Bishop (Republican)
2. For whom did you vote when Edmund Muskie last ran for the Senate
in 1964? (Circle one.)
35%
32%
30%
A) For Muskie B) For his Republican opponent c) Don't know/Didn't vote
3. Whom did you support for President in 1968? (Circle one.)
70%
23%
A) Richard Nixon (Republican) B) Hubert Humphrey (Democrat)
C) George Wallace (Independent), Don't know, Didn't Vore - 720
4. Whom did you support for President in 1960? (Circle one.)
A) Richard Nixon (Republican) B) John F. Kennedy (Democrat)
c) Don't know/Didn't vote
5. Do you plan to vote for President Nixon in 1972? (Circle one.)
502 17% 33%
A) Yes B) No C) Don't know
6. Dr. you think that the Nixon Administration pays too much attention
to the South and not enough to New England? (Circle one.)
55% 33% 12%
A) Yes B) No c) Don't know
Mary Yaskee Republiciens in Maine
didnet vote in 1904 because of
disvaste for SER Goldwater and Johnson
poll Yaskees, of +2 Hencock random Co. -selected (Down East) Maine
Aup 10-15.
Re: Tennessee
Analysis of the Tennessee primary vote suggests that Congressman
Bill Brock is a probable victor over Albert Gore.
Tennessee can be divided politically into three parts (see enclosure).
Brock will carry Republican East Tennessee by a large majority, Dixiecrat
(and anti-Gore) West Tennessee by a small majority, and lose moderate
Middle Tennessee, but not by enough to elect Gore.
The key to Tennessee victory is the Wallace vote. The bulk of it
appears to have gone against Gore in the primary, and the state's Wallace
Party leaders are vehemently anti-Gore. Social issues continue to outweigh
economic issues.
Brock's major weakness is his economic conservatism. Were it not for
Gore's record of unSouthernism and unpatriotism, Brock's economic record
could be fatal. This can be approached from several directions.
A) Appalachia - Brock voted against the Appalachia program which
is important to East Tennessee. Tex Ritter used this issue with
some effect in the primary, giving Gore some juicy anti-Brock
quotes. Brock should find a way to equivocate on Appalachia, or
come up with some programmatic alternative to justify his "no"
vote. One idea: that the Appalachia program does not include all
poor parts of Tennessee, leaving out the Tennessee River counties
in the west-central part of the state, as well as other poor areas,
and therefore orge a broader program that helps all needy Tennessee
areas.
B) Conservative Voting Record on Social Security. Medicare, Income
Tax, etc - Brock should prepare immediately, for heavy distribution
in all poor sections of the state, one page handbills explaining
in simple language how he has supported Social Security, Medicare,
tax reform and cheap power (TVA) and pledging even more effort
in the future.
Most of Tennessee's country and western music stars were active in
Tex Ritter's primary campaign. They have not yet come around to Brock (nor
to Gore). For one thing, neither Brock nor Gore has supported the music
industry with respect to certain copyright and other objectives they have.
Inasmuch as the country music people can be of tremendous assistance with
Wallace-leaning voters in the South and Border states in this campaign and
that of 1972, I strongly recommend that their desires be ascertained and
granted to the maximum feasible extent. This year, they could be of great
assistance in Tennessee, Florida and Texas, where country and western
musicians are a major campaign asset (especially to take the edge off
country club types like Brock and Dush).
Albert Gore can be expected to campaign against Brock with a never-
ending stream of folksy gibes and populist economics, but Gore's cocktail
party liberalism offers a chance to rebut his folksy image. Brock's office
Tennessee
-2-
has already responded favorably to the suggestion that the society
pages of the Washington newspapers be researched back to 1965 for a
complete list of the parties attended by Gore, the menu (the Frenchier
the better) and the society types and Northern liberals in attendence.
This way, Gore's "common touch" can be rebutted; if Brock cannot play
this sort of game well himself, then a surrogate candidate should hit
at Gore's liberal society circuitry.
Key area not to bother with "unSouthern" policies -- West
Tennessee (see map).
A last point to make regards Ten: essee GOP factionalism. The
East Tennessee counties that opposed Brock in the primary are old Baker
organization strongholds. Presumably they will be okay in the general
election because Brock's people now feel that Baker is cooperating, but
it might be useful for the message to be passed to Baker thair people will
be watching for the usual GOP majorities in the First Congressional
district strongholds.
Finally, I would not recommend that the Vice-President go to
Tennessee. Outside interference does not seem necessary, and there is the
chance that Gore could stir up sympathy and/or a backlash. The Vice-President
could do the job just as well by saying that he's not going to Tennessee
because he thinks the people down their "can kill their own skunk themselves. "
Tennessee
-3-
The Political Regions of Tennessee
MIDDLE
CAST
WEST
CHAMANOOGH
MOMPILLS
East Tennessee is solidly Republican; Brock just needs the
usual majority and should get it. In Middle and West Tennessee, much of
the anti-Gore primary vote should go to Brock - many of the voters will
be Wallaceites - and that should do it. The heavy Brock primary vote
and anti-Gorc primary vote in West Tennessee suggests that Brock will
be able to forge a majority in that section, albeit a fairly small one.
If so, then his East Tennessee majority can be expected to exceed
Gore's Middle Tennessee majority and he will win. Noodless to say, the
fulcru m of anti-Gore feeling in Western Tennessee is social, racial
and regional.
Past Votes and 1970 Projections by Region
West Tennessee
Middle Tennessee
East Tennessee
State
Kyykendall
21,000 Demo.
111,000 Demo.
55,000 Rep.
77,000
(1964)
Majority
Majority
Majority
Demo.
Baker
7,000 Rep.
28,000 Demo.
125,000 Rep.
99,000
(1966)
Majority
Majority
Majority
Rep.
GOP-Crockett
56,000 Combined
26,000 Combined
88,000 Combined
Primary Lead
Over Gore (1970)
Projected Brock
10-25,000 Rep.
35-50,000 Demo.
75-100,000
25-90,000
Majority *
Majority
Rep. Majority
Rep. M
*
Unusual GOP strength in West Tennessee anticipated because
of a) intensity of "Southern"-based emnity towards Gore and
b) local popularity of Brock runningmate Winfield Dunn, who
played major role in building GOP in West Tennessee's Shelby
County (Memphis)
Re: The Vermont Senate Race
Six years ago, Winston Prouty won election to a second
term by a margin of 88,000 to 76,000. This year he faces a much
stronger candidate, former governor Philip Hoff, and polls
indicate the election will be tight.
A comparison of Prouty's 1964 vote with Hoff's 1966
gubernatorial victory suggests that the two men will be fighting
for an independent and liberal Republican electorate based in
the cities and larger towns. Many of these people voted for
Prouty in 1964 but Hoff in 1966. Indeed, Hoff's gains over the
Democrat who ran against Prouty correlate with the vote cast
in the 1966 GOP gubernatorial primary for a liberal Republican
(defeated). Liberal Republican and independent votes hold the
key to a Hoff or Prouty victory.
Signs of liberal Republican breakaway in the November
election are already building. The incumbent lieutenant-governor,
Tom Hayes, is the liberal Republican who was defeated in the
1966 primary. This year, he is again running for governor in
the GOP primary and he threatens to bolt if he doesn't make
it, calling incumbent Governor Davis a captive of big business.
Prouty would be affected by a liberal bolt against Davis.
Prouty is running almost at 1964 levels in the small
Yankee towns, a good sign (see enclosed poll). Hoff is not
going to do nearly as well in these areas as he did in 1966.
But the Prouty problem will lie in the liberal Republican
areas: Bennington and vicinity, Brattleboro, Rutland, areas of
Burlington, Barre and some of the major towns.
To this end:
Suggestions
1. Congressman Robert Stafford, a moderate with great
appeal (especially in his home area - Rutland) should be
induced to campaign for Prouty, especially in the urban areas
of southern Vermont.
2. Lieutenant governor Hayes, who has no financial safe
harbor to shelter in after his likely defeat, should receive
a talking-to about a federal job or future in order to prevent
a damaging break on his part with Governor Davis (which could
not help but extend to Prouty).
3. Prouty should be given any possible federal contracts or
awards to make affecting Burlington or urban south Vermont.
4. The College Young Republicans should be geared up for
a Prouty effort in south Vermont (where affluent intelligentsia
liberalism is on the upswing) to counteract the image of Prouty
as a crusty old Yankee with no youth appeal. This is one area
5. It does not look like Vermont is going to be
too hard-pressed by this winter's oil shortage, but it
would be good for the President to go to New England for
some fuel re-assurance conference or something in which
he could a) demonstrate intense concern; b) announce some
new import program; or c) announce a new way of handling
the import quotas to be allowed so that the import tickets
are not just bonuses to Big Oil but go where they will do
the most good. An oil extravaganza (public-relationswise)
oriented towards New England consumers would be a good idea
now that the oil interests have been re-assured of retention
of the quota system. This would also affect Maine, Mass and Conn.
6. The French Canadian vote in upper New England is
taken for granted by the Democrats at a 6, 8 and 10-1 ratio.
It is worth trying to break up. The Vice President could
profitably add French Canadians to his list along with
Chicanos and Indians; they are in little better shape throughout
parts of New England. A little cultural attention and recognition
would go a long way.
Speakers
I don't think out-of-state speakers serve the purpose
in Vermont. The best thing for Prouty would be strong assistance
from Stafford (and Aiken, of course, if he would).
3
Re: Vermont (Addendum)
Prouty's office people advise that they have received
no financial aid from White House or national party, and that some
of their contributors are holding up until Washington gives the
word.
They further state that the Prouty campaign is not yet
really organized, while Democrat Hoff has a tightly-knit, effective
organization.
Jack Gleason is out of town but will advise re Prouty
funds problem/lack of coordination.
1970 Vermont Election Questionnaire
1. For whom 84% do you plan to vote in November's Senate election? (Circle one.)
13%
Drittion - 36
A) Winston Prouty (Republican) B) Philip Hoff (Democrat)
2. For whom did you vote when Winston Prouty last ran for the Senate
in 1964? (Circle 842 one.) 7%
920
A) For Prouty B) For his Democratic opponent c) Don't know/Didn't vote
3. For whom did you vote when Philip Hoff last ran for Governor in 1966?
(Circle one.)
26%
61%
13%
A) For Hoff B) For his Republican opponent c) Didn't vote
4. Whom did you support for President in 1968? (Circle one.)
872
10%
A) Richard Nixon (Republican) B) Hubert Humphrey (Democrat)
c) George Wallace (Independent), Don't know Didn't Vote — 320
5. Whom did you support for President in 1960? (Circle one.)
A) Richard Nixon (Republican) B) John F. Kennedy (Democrat)
c) Don't know/Didn't vote
6. Do you plan to vote for President Nixon in 1972? (Circle one.)
71% 10% 19%
A) Yes B) No c) Don't know
7. Do you think that the Nixon Administration pays too much attention
to the South and not enough to New England? (Circle one.)
192 65% 16%
A) Yes B) No c) Don't know
mnd- August poll at Yarkee voters exchaled)
n orange County. vt., The state's
banner 600 county
(Jample - Vontec 34 voter, all orange Covnty truns)
To: JNM
Re: North Dakota, New Mexico, Utah
Senate races; youth effort therein
I strongly believe in the enclosed
project outlined by Morton Blackwell (Executive
Director of the College Young Republicans) to
mobilize local, home-state student manpower in
these three races where a few thousand votes
could make the difference.
Morton tells me that the President
had a long conversation a month or so ago with
Rob Pollack, President of the College YRs, in
which he said that he wants the college YRs to
get into the Senate races. These would be the
most productive.
According to Morton, topflight
references for this type of effort can be had from
Louie and Lee Nunn, Bob Hitt (RNC) and Charlton
Lyons, among others.
The YRs are already starting their
operation in New Mexico and they have worked out
tenative arrangements with Burton's people in
Utah, but they need guarantees that the money
to pay organizers will be available - and they need
to know as soon as possible so that the organizers
can be sent in.
The total cost would be about $20,000,
and in my opinion worth more than a quarter of a
million dollars worth of Harry Trcleaven commercials.
At present, they just don't have the money - and
that is why White House intervention is necessary.
If this can be approved, it would be useful
to have one of Haldeman's people tell Blackwell as soon
as possible.
As I said, I think that Blackwell is a
very capable individual and knows what he is doing.
Re: Young Republican Campaign Effort
With the enthusiastic cooperation of the New Mexico and Utah
candidate's organizations, Morton Blackwell of the national YR's is
already out in the two states laying the groundwork for a substantial
youth effort on behalf of Burton and Carter.
The operation can be extended quickly to North Dakota as per
the previously submitted blueprint, but they will need guarantees
of financing before the necessary commitments can be undertaken.
$
Re: Agnew Scheduling
Apart from any local organizational vicissitudes, the following is
a general suggestion of chilly ideological climates viz a foray by the
Vice-President.
Probably unproductive: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont,
Minnesota, Hawaii, Rhode Island
Dubious: Connecticut, New York, Michigan, Oregon, Washington
In general, Agnew should be used in places where the Administration
is trying to tap a Southern-type or blue-collar Democratic trend to the GOP.
Thus the ruling out of the first seven.
Specific states where Agnew would help Senate candidates are Indiana
(to counter Roudebush's increasing irritation of conservatives); Texas (to
bolster Bush's rightist appeal) ; Illinois (to bolster Smith among Chicago
area law and order ethnics) ; Maryland (to bolster Beall in Baltimore area,
especially Baltimore County); California and Florida; and conceivably New
Jersey if he can be zeroed in on the Catholic industrial/backlash areas.
Agnew would seem useful, but for less specific reasons, in the Rocky
Mountain states, North Dakota and Alaska - useful more for publicity
purposes/media coverage of local campaign.
He would be useful in Missouri if Danforth looks like he has a
prayer; Ohio is questionable, depending on Taft's feelings; and Delaware
would not be negatively affected.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 13, 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR MR. HALDEMAN
FROM:
Nick Ruwe
.
With the announcement of the President's swing through
Connecticut and this Saturday's upcoming political swing
the situation has developed that several candidates
or their managers are now declining offers of the First
Family or Cabinet members on the basis of holding out
hope that the President will visit their states. As
an example, John Wold is declining offers in the hope
that the President will go to Wyoming. For certain
reasons, we know that the President will not go to
Wyoming.
No doubt there are some states where the President
will not go and a list of these would be very helpful.
CC: Mr. Finch
Mr. Klein
P. will go to:
He will not go to any
Vt
Fla
other states.
NJ
Ill
Family should go to:
Pa
Tex
NJ
and
Wisc
Calif
Ohio
menn.
Ohio
Utah
Tenn
Wyoming
NO
Ind.
mich
Mo.
&
maybe
md.
NC. (Corg)
Tenn
N.M.
Fla
SC (Gov)
Ind
Nev.
See
SD (ow)
S.D.
Tex
md.
Calil
Pa (bov
November 5, 1970
BACKGROUND MEMO
NOTES: Re: 1970 Congressional Campaign
Before the President entered the campaign and urged his
Cabinet Officers to make an intensive effort - about 6 weeks prior
to the election - all of the private polls we had for each of the key
states indicated that our Senatorial candidate was behind in every
state except Tennessee. On the basis of these polls the indications
were that we would end up with a net loss of one seat in the Senate
and a net loss of 30 seats in the House.
The reason the President went out on the campaign trail was
as he said during the campaign that the major issues in the Senate
were being decided by a majority of one or maybe two votes and he
couldn't leave a situation where the President was being undercut
week after week, especially in the area of foreign policy. Also, if
we had lost 30 seats in the House there would have been no possibility
at all of winning control of the House in 1972, which continues to be
a long-range objective.
Looking at history we find, of course, that Eisenhower in 1954
and 1958, lost 57 and 13 House seats respectively. A Republican
Administration with any kind of economic slow down will always face
2
a disaster at the polls.
During the campaign in four of the key states the Democratic
Senator accused the Administration of sitting on the new unemployment
figures and that they would be 6 1/2%. They also said that the Adminis-
tration was planning to close key bases in each of those states which
was not true. The losses in those states and throughout the West are
clearly due to the economy. The problem of 10% unemployment in
Los Angeles and Orange Counties for example, is virtually insurmountable.
In other words when the decision was made to go out and
campaign, the purpose was to avoid an unmitigated disaster.
We were of course disappointed regarding the Governorships.
The President had predicted a loss of eight, instead we lost probably 11.
These losses are an indication of what might of also happened in the
Congress and Senate had we not gone out to fight.
Some of the Governorship losses were unavoidable - the Ohio
scandal, the Florida party fight, the problems in Pennsylvania, the tax
problems of Tiemann in Nebraska, the conflict of interest problems of
Farrar in South Dakota, etc.
In terms of political significance for 1972, however, it doesn't
mean a damned thing. In 1960 we only had 14 Governors, yet the President
carried 26 states (this was the lowest number of Governors that any party
ever had). We lost two major states - New York and Illinois where we had
Republican Governors - and we won two major states - Ohio and California
where we did not have Republican Governors.
3
Having a Governor of our Party would help a bit but basically
the Governors don't play the political game now. They have become
more non-partisan. There are no strong state political machines in
most cases. Naturally we would have preferred not to lose the Governor-
ships, but losing them will not hurt us particularly for the long hall.
A rather remarkable statistical fact is that this election equalized
the Republican representation in the House, Senate, and Governorships.
Where we have only 28% of the population registered as Republicans, the
Republican Party controls 41% of the House seats, 42% of the Governors,
and 45% of the Senate seats.
Without the economic drag, we would have carried both Houses.
Our foreign policy position is a tremendous asset to the Administration
and the Party.
Looking ahead to 1972 with the war over and no new war underway,
with a nuclear agreement of some sort, and with the economy up, we should
be in excellent shape.
It's important to separate national elections from state elections.
When you do so and look only at the national picture, this was a remarkable
showing. We gained two actual seats in the Senate plus Buckley and Benson
ideologically. The House is also remarkable VS. the average loss. Except
for Teddy Roosevelt in 1902 and FDR in 1934, no President has gained
seats in the House during an off-year election.
4
Peace and the economy are the only issues that matter, none of the
other issues that were so thoroughly discussed, really make any
difference.
It is important to recognize the outstanding work the President
did especially going into the places that were not sure winners. For
instance, MacGregor had no chance at all, but he's a great guy who
was making a tremendous fight. Danforth is an outstanding man who
should have had a boost and got it. Nebraska and Arizona both looked
like sure things but we still hit them just in case, and it's a lucky thing
we did.
The President has never felt that you should just play it safe
or like Johnson in 1966, stay out all together. He felt he had a respon-
sibility to fight for good people and he went out and did it.
The President has always had the feeling that if people fight
for you, you've got to go out and fight for them. It was imperative,
especially in the Senate, to be sure that we didn't loose seats and it
appeared quite probable that we would if we didn't make a major effort.
The President campaigned only four week days, a couple of
evenings, and three Saturdays and it paid off where it counted in the
Senate.