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:
To: President Nixon. From: Maurice H. Stans. RE: Campaign buget. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 11/8/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Bruce Kehrli. RE: Vermont Royster comments. Memos attached. 10 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/10/1972
To: Bruce Kehrli. From: Bill Safire. RE: Final six-week posture comment. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/3/1972
To: Bruce Kehrli. From: Ron Ziegler. RE: Presidential posture during next six weeks. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/4/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Bruce Kehrli. RE: Campaign. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/30/1972
To: Tod R. Hullin. From: Raymond Caldiero. RE: John Gavin. Forwarded to Gordon Strachan. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/10/1972
To: Dwight Chapin. From: L. Higby. RE: Governor Rockefeller call to Haldeman re: Monday visit. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/18/1972
To: Clark MacGregor. Through: Fred Malek & Jeb MacGruder. From: Barbara Franklin. RE: Status report--Women's surrogate program. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/12/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Gordon Strachan. RE: Boggs' District. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/18/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Charles Colson. RE: Proposed schedule attached. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/18/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Charles Colson. RE: 8:15 meeting. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/18/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Gordon Strachan. RE: Meeting with Chotiner. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/6/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Bruce Kehrli. RE: Political analyses for campaign trips. 30 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/19/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Gordon Strachan. RE: Field operations report by Malek. 17 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/19/1972
To: Clark MacGregor. From: Fred Malek. RE: Canvassing results. 16 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/16/1972
To: Charles Colson. From: Gordon Strachan. RE: Campaign advisement. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/20/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Gordon Strachan. RE: Key States and Senate races. 10 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/18/1972
To: Gordon Strachan. From: L. Higby. RE: States campaign. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/13/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Gordon Strachan. RE: Key States and Senate races. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/18/1972
List of states. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], no date
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26146068
label
WHSF: Contested, 40-1
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26146068
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 40-1
description
This file contains:
To: President Nixon. From: Maurice H. Stans. RE: Campaign buget. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 11/8/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Bruce Kehrli. RE: Vermont Royster comments. Memos attached. 10 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/10/1972
To: Bruce Kehrli. From: Bill Safire. RE: Final six-week posture comment. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/3/1972
To: Bruce Kehrli. From: Ron Ziegler. RE: Presidential posture during next six weeks. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/4/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Bruce Kehrli. RE: Campaign. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/30/1972
To: Tod R. Hullin. From: Raymond Caldiero. RE: John Gavin. Forwarded to Gordon Strachan. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/10/1972
To: Dwight Chapin. From: L. Higby. RE: Governor Rockefeller call to Haldeman re: Monday visit. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/18/1972
To: Clark MacGregor. Through: Fred Malek & Jeb MacGruder. From: Barbara Franklin. RE: Status report--Women's surrogate program. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/12/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Gordon Strachan. RE: Boggs' District. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/18/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Charles Colson. RE: Proposed schedule attached. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/18/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Charles Colson. RE: 8:15 meeting. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/18/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Gordon Strachan. RE: Meeting with Chotiner. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/6/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Bruce Kehrli. RE: Political analyses for campaign trips. 30 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/19/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Gordon Strachan. RE: Field operations report by Malek. 17 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/19/1972
To: Clark MacGregor. From: Fred Malek. RE: Canvassing results. 16 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/16/1972
To: Charles Colson. From: Gordon Strachan. RE: Campaign advisement. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/20/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Gordon Strachan. RE: Key States and Senate races. 10 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/18/1972
To: Gordon Strachan. From: L. Higby. RE: States campaign. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/13/1972
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Gordon Strachan. RE: Key States and Senate races. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/18/1972
List of states. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], no date
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26146068
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
edf47146d17fdc6e
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
40
1
11/8/1972
Campaign
Letter
To: President Nixon. From: Maurice H.
Stans. RE: Campaign buget. 3 pgs.
40
1
10/10/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: H.R. Haldeman. From: Bruce Kehrli.
RE: Vermont Royster comments. Memos
attached. 10 pgs.
40
1
10/3/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: Bruce Kehrli. From: Bill Safire. RE:
Final six-week posture comment. 1 pg.
40
1
10/4/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: Bruce Kehrli. From: Ron Ziegler. RE:
Presidential posture during next six weeks. 1
pg.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Page 1 of 5
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
40
1
9/30/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: H.R. Haldeman. From: Bruce Kehrli.
RE: Campaign. 1 pg.
40
1
10/10/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: Tod R. Hullin. From: Raymond Caldiero.
RE: John Gavin. Forwarded to Gordon
Strachan. 2 pgs.
40
1
10/18/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: Dwight Chapin. From: L. Higby. RE:
Governor Rockefeller call to Haldeman re:
Monday visit. 2 pgs.
40
1
10/12/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: Clark MacGregor. Through: Fred Malek
& Jeb MacGruder. From: Barbara Franklin.
RE: Status report--Women's surrogate
program. 4 pgs.
40
1
10/18/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: H.R. Haldeman. From: Gordon
Strachan. RE: Boggs' District. 1 pg.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Page 2 of 5
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
40
1
10/18/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: H.R. Haldeman. From: Charles Colson.
RE: Proposed schedule attached. 1 pg.
40
1
10/18/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: H.R. Haldeman. From: Charles Colson.
RE: 8:15 meeting. 2 pgs.
40
1
10/6/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: H.R. Haldeman. From: Gordon
Strachan. RE: Meeting with Chotiner. 4 pgs.
40
1
10/19/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: H.R. Haldeman. From: Bruce Kehrli.
RE: Political analyses for campaign trips. 30
pgs.
40
1
10/19/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: H.R. Haldeman. From: Gordon
Strachan. RE: Field operations report by
Malek. 17 pgs.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Page 3 of 5
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
40
1
10/16/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: Clark MacGregor. From: Fred Malek.
RE: Canvassing results. 16 pgs.
40
1
10/20/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: Charles Colson. From: Gordon Strachan.
RE: Campaign advisement. 3 pgs.
40
1
10/18/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: H.R. Haldeman. From: Gordon
Strachan. RE: Key States and Senate races.
10 pgs.
40
1
10/13/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: Gordon Strachan. From: L. Higby. RE:
States campaign. 1 pg.
40
1
10/18/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: H. R. Haldeman. From: Gordon
Strachan. RE: Key States and Senate races. 2
pgs.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Page 4 of 5
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
40
1
>
Campaign
Report
List of states. 4 pgs.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Page 5 of 5
-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date:
TO: Joan
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
F
in compaign
26
November 8, 1972
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. President:
Here is n preliminary report on the fund-raising efforts
in your CS
T.: believe, which USE originally fired at
$40,000,000, mindually crept up to $43,000,000. and I support
that by the this all of the bills are in it will amount to as
much as $45,000,000. In addition, we should have a reserve
fund of $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 to take care of continuing
logal expenses, final reports, necessary refunds, and other
items which cusht to be provided for.
Our fund-raising was inhibited by a series of events what
173 did not face in 1963:
1. The many investigations and logal ratters related to
the Watergate and its aftermath occupied more than half of my
personal time during the Inct fiftuon vacks of the campaign,
which dade 10 Lepossible for me to be wholly effective.
2. The continuing lead of 25 points in the various polls
during the educaign changed many people to ascure that we vould
not need much tendy to via.
3. The Democrate kent up a constant barrage of statements
from the Leginning of the year until election day to the effect
that ve had MOVE money then we needed, and these statements vere
frequently purnted in the press, and even sentifices repeated by
individuals versing on our side of the campaign.
Despite all of these corious hurdicaps, I believe I on toll
you that v.e have raised enough many to pay the camedign conts in
full and have com unless Clere are unjor surprises still
to 02.04 in the uspaid bills.
The President
page two
There will be one notable change, however, from 1968. As a
result of the circumstances I have described, a larger proportion
of our contributions will have COMO from individual contributions
of larger amounts. The small contributors who normally might have
given in greater numbers were apparently influenced by the Demo-
cratic propagonda to the effect that TO didn't need money. Naver-
tholess, va will have had at least 500,000 contributors.
I congratulate you on a perfect campaign and & magnificent
winl
Sincerely,
Maurice H. Stans
MHS:AC:ft
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 10, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
BRUCE KEHRLI
BAK
SUBJECT:
Vermont Royster Comments
The comments contained in the attached memorandum
(Tab A) from Ray Price to the President by Vermont
Royster were staffed to Ziegler, Moore, Safire, Colson,
Chapin, Ehrlichman and Buchanan. Ehrlichman did not
respond and Colson claimed that his response was
covered in a previous memo, but the others are included
at Tab B.
To summarize, none of those contacted felt that the
speech proposed by Royster was a good idea. All
thought that the President should maintain the robe
he now wears -- the Presidential robe. There were,
however, some interesting comments from Dick Moore
on other possibilities for speeches between now and
the Election. You should read Moore's memorandum
in its entirety. As for the memorandum to the
President, recommend that it not go in.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 29, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
RAY PRICE
THE PRESIDENT Ruy
SUBJECT:
Vermont Royster
When I talked with Royster yesterday, he mentioned that he'd
written me a letter the day before but not mailed it because he
hadn't been able to pin the ideas down satisfactorily on paper --
but the essence of the ideas was this:
The only thing McGovern has going for him is when he puts
on his ministerial robes. When he talks defense, budgets, eco-
nomics, etc., he unravels. But when he puts on his ministerial
robes, and jumps on us about Watergate or the wheat deal, when
he talks honesty, integrity, etc., he registers.
Vermont has a "vague feeling" that you would help yourself if
you would put on your "ministerial robes" and give an "uplifting"
kind of speech -- not about taxes or the budget or Vietnam, but
"I think that a President, when he gets things flopping around
under him like the Watergate, has to let people know that he per-
sonally is for honesty, integrity, etc. That kind of uplift speech
would be a good thing. 11
He's not at all sure that the speech should directly address
Watergate, etc. (though he feels it would have been better to have
jumped in immediately, and declared, in effect, that that's the
sort of thing "up with which I will not put, 11 to borrow Churchill's
famous phrase -- anyone who runs a big organization is going to
have things like that happen, but the important thing, when they do,
is to get on the side of the angels, quick).
Vermont Royster
-2-
This might, he suggests, be handled not in a speech but rather
in a press conference, with the TV cameras.
In general, he feels that the only thing the campaign needs now
is "a little spiritual uplift" -- something that shows a real concern
for people, for the future, for integrity -- something that goes
beyond the programmatic and gets to ideals, to principles, and
again, to deep concern.
####
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 4, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR BRUCE KEHRLI
FROM:
DICK MOORE
Mr
SUBJECT:
Presidential Posture During Next Six Weeks:
"In general, the only thing the campaign needs
now is 'a little spiritual uplift' - something
that goes beyond the programmatic and gets to
ideals, to principles, and again, to deep
concern.'
At this stage, it can be argued that the campaign does not
"need" anything new, that if the President continues to con-
cern himself with presidential affairs, he will win easily.
Indeed, McGovern may even hurt himself by getting more des-
perate as the President stays more presidential.
Nevertheless, I agree with Mr. Royster that the one element
which the people are looking for and waiting for is a major
expression of the President's aspirations for America, through
and beyond his second term and the nation's 200th Birthday.
Having just had occasion to review the President's speeches
and statements of the past four years, it occurs forcefully
to me that few really recall the number and quality of the
inspirational talkswhich he has given.
Now, as he goes before the American electorate for the last
time, and as he faces the culminating years of his political
life and leadership, I think a major re-statement of his
vision for America and the principles which will keep it
great will be the most important single thing he can do.
However, there is still time to decide the wisdom of such
a course, as well as the timing and the format.
For the present, the most important thing is to keep the
options open and be prepared to deliver such a message at
the right time and place -- or it may even be a series of
two or three messages.
- 2 -
On the timing, consider this: In 1940, Election Day was
November 5. Yet FDR did not announce until October 18
that he was going to make five campaign speeches beginning
October 23. This was before TV or jet planes, yet in those
five speeches he had the country quoting "Martin, Barton
and Fish" (which was first uttered October 28 at Madison
Square Garden), and had succeeded in undercutting Willkie
completely on the one inroad he was making, the war issue.
("I have said this before but I will say it again and again
and again". )
My point is that unless there are fairly drastic developments
of some kind, RN does not have to announce any specific cam-
paign plans until at least October 20, and the last ten days
will be more than sufficient time to penetrate the minds of
America with whatever major theme he wishes to express.
With those dates in mind, it is still necessary to crystallize
the options now and to take whatever steps are needed to take
the position to exercise those options on short notice.
One of those options, for example, would be a major address
on network television on which the President sets forth his
vision of hopes for America and restates the principles which
should continue to guide the American character and spirit.
This should probably be scheduled during the week between
October 23 and 28. It could be a Fireside Chat from the
Oval Office, or it could be delivered at a major rally in
a forum like Madison Square Garden. I realize that the
President does like to read speeches at a rally. In this
instance, however, there are some excellent precedents for
doing just that, namely, the President's acceptance speeches
at the National Conventions in 1960, 1968 and 1972, all of
which had such powerful impact. (FDR's five speeches in
1940 were all delivered from scripts at major rallies.)
Another approach might be three or even four 15 minute personal
statements each delivered in a difference city in a symbolic
part of the country, the South (Atlanta), the East (New York,
the Midwest (Cleveland or Chicago) and finally the Far West
(San Clemente on Election Eve). In each case the nighttime
"Fireside Chat" could be preceded by a midday motorcade.
During the afternoon, the President could be in his hotel
working on his speech and then deliver it during prime time
from the local television studio.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
- 3 -
Each speech could begin with some local regional references,
but the major portion would be devoted to a high level subject.
One might be the search for Peach, another the America of
tomorrow, a third, The American Spirit of Character, and the
Election Eve address would probably emphasize the democratic
process and the obligations to vote for a better future.
A third format could be a series of three or four radio speeches.
Whatever the format, a message of inspiration and uplift can
be important for several practical reasons, such as the following:
1. We can expect that our opponents will have some success
with an anti-landslide theme ("I hate to vote for McGovern
but I am afraid of what Nixon will do if he has a landslide. ")
An eloquent statement of the reasons why a mandate is so
important in the current state of the world could undercut this
landslide argument to a considerable degree.
2. We can expect to hear and read that RN is taking the votes
for granted and will be content to win a negative victory
based on McGovern's inadequacy rather than on the Nixon
leadership. This is a displeasing concept which could
cost votes. An inspirational and affirmative appeal by
RN in the closing days can undercut and even negate the
argument that he is content to "back into the Presidency".
3. The second term will be the culmination of RN's service to
the nation, the last time he will ask the voters of America
to entrust their future to him. From a historical sense
(and that is usually good politics) it will be appropriate
and reassuring for him to go to the people with a personal
statement of his beliefs and his hopes for America.
4. Because they lack any other real issue, we can expect the
McGovernites to increase their emphasis on the issue of
integrity and to intensify their charges of cynicism.
Althouth the Watergate case has not caught on as a voting
issue, the repetition of charges about this, the so-called
grain deal and ITT will necessarily have some effect on
doubtful voters. The kind of approach which Mr. Royster
suggests can have a very important effect in defusing
this entire issue.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
- 4 -
5. I have a theory that some Democrats can vent their feel-
ings by "voting" against McGovern in the Gallup Poll, or
by telling their friends that they are going to vote
against him, and they may mean it at the time. But in
many such cases, the actual breaking of a lifelong habit,
or overcoming a long-time antipathy toward RN, may become
difficult to do at the moment of truth in the voting booth.
This problem gets reinforced in the closing days by pressure
from union leaders, or from their peers generally. For
example, many people who were mad enough to say they are were
going to vote for Wallace ended up reverting to the Demo-
cratic candidate at the final moment.
In the closing week of the campaign, I think these are
the votes we are most likely to lose, By the same token,
they are the votes we might be able to retain by an inspira-
tional appeal by RN in the closing days.
6. This kind of appeal will encourage workers to get the vote
out.
RECOMMENDATION:
For at least two more weeks (unless there is some unexpected
turn of events) I think the President should maintain his
present posture and pattern of presidential activities,
emphasizing "event" more than talk. But starting now, we
should be preparing speech material and examining locations
and logistical matters, so that we may be in a position to
make whatever moves we think wise in the final ten or twelve
days.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 4, 1972
MEMORANDUM TO:
BRUCE KEHRLI
FROM:
PAT BUCHANAN
SUBJECT:
Presidential Posture During
Next Six Weeks
While the President should not go out on the attack -- for
the simple reason that he could not say, "I disagree with
McGovern" without being accused of slashing -- I do not
think he should make any speeches which produce a lead
such as "In a major address today, President Nixon
defended his Administration against charges that it is
the 'most corrupt in American history'. 11 Better by
indirection than direction.
Buchanan
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 4, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. BRUCE KEHRLI
FROM:
DWIGHT L. CHAPIN
at
SUBJECT:
Presidential Posture
During Next Six Weeks
My response to your October 2nd memorandum (received October 3) is as
follows:
1.
McGovern is more effective with his ministerial posture - but it
is only a matter of small degree. His credibility - ministerial posture -
was hurt so badly in the post convention fiasco, I wonder how
effective it is today. The righteous quality was very precious and
once it is tarnished the possibility of regaining it is slight. (Remember
the day Romney was brainwashed, he was finished. Remember the
time Muskie cried - he had had it!)
We should keep McGovern the issue and the best way to do that is
to force him to speak to the key issues. On issues, we have him.
2.
When the President "gets things flapping around him like the
Watergate", he should ignore them. A speech is not the answer -
nor is it a time for an " uplift speech". The President doesn't
tell people he is for honesty and integrity - hell, everyone
believes he is for honesty and integrity - don't raise doubt
by even mentioning it. Let the aides do the dirty work. The
President should be aloof of scandals - that is what has saved
him to date. You can't panic when the dirt is thrown.
3.
"...get on the side of the angels" - that is so easy to say, but the
angels have a better view than some of us mortals. You can't
jump on any side without the facts - that's why the Watergate
2.
had to be untangled in its painful way. The answer is when
you can't be on a side, get above it.
4.
Spiritual unlift, concern for people, for the future, etc. - ideals,
principles; deep concern.
New York: "What I want for the youth of the country "
Los Angeles: "...and let me say it's a long way from Whittier
to Washington. !!
Washington: "This SALT agreement is only a first step."
POINT:
Uplift, vision, principle, concern - get it across
by using it in daily remarks. Aim for the news clips. The
problem is we need to get the portion of the talk alluding to
these points or qualities isolated by the media. How - maybe
by putting out a statement of 150 words which hits the same
point - maybe the President even reads that protion of his
speeches.
I feel, for some reason, the next great speech the President gives
will probably be in the spring - or sooner - if there is an
important reason for him to give one. The second inaugural
won't be great. Why? Because! The second inaugural is
something the President has to do - not something he wants
to do! The President rallies in the crunch.
I believe that our non-campaigning approach is right - to
hold to the plan is the problem.
"A little spiritual uplift" at some point is probably in the
coming. How about the Presidency - Part Two. Play off the
first address of 1968 - look at it now with the benefit
of four years in office. Call it the next four years.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 3, 1972.
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BRUCE KEHRLI
FROM:
BILL SAFIRE
RE:
Final Six-Week Posture Comment
Most people think all politicians are a little crooked. Therefore,
I do not think a speech by the President wearing "ministerial
robes" is appropriate. Nothing would be worse from our point of
view than a ringing protestation of honesty and integrity, because
it would be defensive and show that McGovern's getting to us. We
would then be keying the campaign to his battleground.
We should press our strength and his weakness. The central
speech of the campàign should be on the peace theme: Nixon's
view of how to build the peaceful world order, the need for
strength of arms and strength of character, how to keep the peace
in the next generation, and then -- interestingly -- the domestic
meaning of peace. Peace will mean less inflation, which means
more freedom of the paycheck. More tax money spent on services
rather than arms, which means no new taxes needed. More freedom
for young people no longer under the shadow of draft. More and
better jobs and business as, for the first time, we show what peace-
time prosperity can mean.
Very hopeful speech, which people need, and quite credible, as
Nixon is considered surefooted in foreign affairs.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 4, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BRUCE KEHRLI
FROM:
RON ZIEGLER R3
SUBJECT:
Presidential Posture During Next Six Weeks
The following is in response to your memo requesting comment
and recommendations on this subject:
I think at least in part, the comments referred to in your memo
of October 2 are somewhat overstated -- the suggestion that there is
a vague feeling that the President would help himself if he were to put
on his ministerial robes and give an up-lifting kind of speech. My
feeling is that the President, as President, need not don any other
robe than the one he wears the Presidential robe.
My view is that the President clearly outlined the differences
between himself and McGovern in his acceptance speech, and that
for the next five weeks he should not attack or respond to McGovern
charges, but talk instead about what he has accomplished, why he has
sought to accomplish it, and what he intends to achieve in a second
term. This, I believe, is our most appropriate posture.
I do feel at some point however and this is where I agree with
the comments in the memorandum -- that it would be worthwhile for
the President to speak about his conviction of morality in government
and the high caliber of performance he expects from his people. This
fact would, I believe, put into context the events that inevitably happen
in any large organization: you can't guarantee against incompetence,
but one can weed it out when it is found. I would stress, however,
that the focus of these remarks should not be defensive. Rather the
emphasis should be on his convictions about ethical behavior, and the
tone should be inspirational, rather than judgmental.
To conclude, I would say that a general expression by the President
of his concern over the need for integrity and the need for principles --
an expression of his deep concern for people and their future -- could
be a plus.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
10/10
September 30, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONF IDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
BRUCE KEHRLI BAK
SUBJECT:
Campaign
The September 30 News Summary contained the following
notes:
1. Sindlinger warned "RN's big lead could
boomerang against him" as apathy, voter
psychology and Dem disenchantment with
Reiner
McGovern are ingredients which could
59
lead to a "spontaneous" turn to McGovern
10/2
as late as election day itself. Sindlinger
indicates 55% plan to vote.
It was requested that the above -- especially the under-
lined portion -- be passed along to all hands by Dole and
MacGregor. Gordon Strachan will follow-up here, making
sure that this point is made at the Committee.
10/3
2. Also, in reaction to the above it was noted
that we need a major get out the vote drive.
According to Gordon this is in the works.
CC: Gordon Strachan
Alexander P. Butterfield
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 30, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
BRUCE KEHRLI
BAK
SUBJECT:
Campaign
The September 30 News Summary contained the following
notes:
1. Sindlinger warned "RN's big lead could
boomerang against him" as apathy, voter
psychology and Dem disenchantment with
McGovern are ingredients which could
lead to a "spontaneous" turn to McGovern
as late as election day itself. Sindlinger
indicates 55% plan to vote.
It was requested that the above -- especially the under-
lined portion --- be passed along to all hands by Dole and
MacGregor. Gordon Strachan will follow-up here, making
sure that this point is made at the Committee.
2. Also, in reaction to the above it was noted
that we need a major get out the vote drive.
According to Gordon this is in the works.
CC: Gordon Strachan
Alexander P. Butterfield
THE WHITE HOUSE
the
WASHINGTON
TORIZ
Date
October 10
Gordon Strachan
For
From Tod Hullin
Annel
Committee
for the Re-election
OCT
of the President
1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 333-0920
3.04292
October 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. TOD R. HULLIN
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN
FROM:
RAYMOND CALDIERO
SUBJECT:
John Gavin
Phari
John Gavin has not declared for the President as of the moment, due
to the fact that as President of the Screen Actors Guild he must
be non-partisan. This does by no means reflect his views, as Mr.
Gavin is 100% behind the President, and has been helping us a
great deal behind the scenes.
Since Mr. Gavin has just been elected for a second term as President
of the Screen Actors Guild, and his feelings for the President are
stronger than ever, we just may be able to get him to declare his support
publicly.
October 18, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DWKHT CHAPIN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
SUBJECT:
Goverser Rocksfeller
Call to Haldeman re:
Monday Visit
Governer Reckefeller called Bob this afternoon to discuss
with him the problem he is having with regard to the fact
that the President is going to Nassau County but is not going
to Suffelk County. He has talked to Swank, his Chairman
down there who is just about going out of his mind and they
think they've worked out a compromise that they would like
to propose. It is as follows:
Instead of having the President land at Idlewild
International Airport, have him land or at least
have him take off from MeArthur field. This
field is very close to Suffolk county, apparently.
He says there's a hanger there that be could set
up with a big screen. Prior to the President's
arrival he would have other speakers speak and
have a band going, etc. The President could then
arrive, just before his departure and slip in the
back deor, give the same five-minute speech he
gives in Nassau County and then slip out the door
with his departure being shown on the big screen.
He indicates that the entire thing would not take
more than fifteen minutes. He said that he has
real problems, otherwise, with Suffolk County
and indicated that this is something that really
means a let to him.
I told him that Dwight Chapin - one of his staff
would be getting back in touch with him, so they are
expecting a call back.
2
On a different subject, Bill Safire just called saying
that since he is from New York he would very much
like to make the trip with us. I told him that Chapin
would (once again) probably be getting in touch with
him.
LH:kb
Mr. Haldeman X
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
October 12, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CLARK MacGREGOR
THROUGH:
FRED MALEK
JEB MAGRUDER
FROM:
BARBARA FRANK
Brucar
SUBJECT:
Status Report -- Women's
Surrogate Program
The Women's Surrogate Program which you approved on August 19
has been implemented and is running very well. The following
have been done:
1.
Staff - Margaret Hodges is the coordinator/scheduler;
Carole Buchanan is the public relations/press contact; and
Marcia Myers is handling the Tour Desk operation.
Three new people have been added to the advance staff to
handle this program, and Jon Foust is currently using an average
of 12 people per week (6 people with the teams in the field and 6
people working on the next week's trips) to advance the women
surrogate teams.
2.
Briefings - The initial briefing of women surrogates was
held on September 13 and featured an overview of domestic and
international issues by Messrs. Ehrlichman and Haig. A second
briefing held on September 18 covered women's rights, drugs, and
the environment. The highlight was a drop-by by the President.
Each team receives additional briefing prior to every trip.
3.
Kick-Off - The program was officially kicked-off at a
Washington press conference featuring Barbara and Clark MacGregor
on September 19. CBS carried it nationally the next day.
4.
Campaign Trips - As of today, eight teams have been in the
field and have covered nearly 50 cities in 22 states. Reports from
the field are excellent and media coverage has been exceptionally
good. The schedule of trips is at Tab A. Samples of media coverage
are at Tab B.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
TAB A
WOMEN'S SURROGATE SCHEDULE - REVISED 10/5/72
ST.
DIR.
SCHEDULER
STATE
DATE
TEAM
ADV.
CONTACTED
SUGGESTED AREAS
October 3-5
WASHINGTON
Spokane
10/3-5
Hodgson
Seattle-Tacoma-Everett
Ehrlichman
OREGON
Portland
Flanigan
MINNESOTA
Bemidji-Rochester-Minneapolis
10/3-5
Kleindienst
SOUTH DAKOTA
Sioux Falls
Ruckelshaus
WISCONSIN
Milwaukee
David
IOWA
Des Moines
VIRGINIA
Richmond - Norfolk
10/3-5
Stein
SOUTH CAROLINA
Columbia-Greenville-Spartanbut
g
Klein
GEORGIA
Atlanta - Columbus
Brooks
October 10-12
NEW JERSEY
Entire State
10/10-12
Rogers
DELAWARE
Wilmington
Bush
MARYLAND
Towson
Klein
MAINE
Portland
10/10-12
Richardson
MASSACHUSETTS
Springfield-Worcester-New Bedford
Train
RHODE ISLAND
Providence
Brown
OHIO
Columbus-Newark-Zanesville
10/10-12
Shultz
Cincinnati-Dayton
Weinberger
INDIANA
Indianapolis - Ft. Wayne
Hitt
WOMEN'S SURROGATE SCHEDULE - REVISED 10/5/72
ST.
DIR.
SCHEDULER
STATE
SUGGESTED AREAS
DATE
TEAM
ADV.
CONTACTED
October 17-19
ILLINOIS
Rock Island-Moline-Bettendorf
10/17-19
Butz
Springfield-Decatur-Davenport
Rumsfeld
Peoria-Champaign-E. St. Louis
Bentley
Rockford-Wheaton-Wheeling
Township
ARIZONA
Phoenix - Tucson
10/17-19
Kleindienst
NEW MEXICO
Albuquerque
Ruckelshaus
COLORADO
Denver - Pueblo
David
-
October 24-26
MICHIGAN
Grand Rapids - Kalamazoo
10/24-26
Rogers
Muskegon - Battle Creek
/
Rumsfeld
Flint - Saginaw - Bay City
Knauer
Lansing
Escanaba-Marquette-Sault.
St. Marie - Traverse City
NEW YORK
Buffalo-Staten Island-Nassau Co.
Romney
Albany-Schnectady-Troy
10/24-26
Brown
Syracuse - Rochester
Franklin
NEBRASKA
Omaha - Lincoln
10/24-26
Richardson
KANSAS
Kansas City
Weinberger
MISSOURI
St. Joseph-Columbia-Kansas City
Train
WOMEN'S SURROGATE SCHEDULE - REVISED 10/5/72
ST.
DIR.
SCHEDULER I
STATE
SUGGESTED AREAS
DATE
TEAM
ADV.
CONTACTED AI
October 31-November 2
KENTUCKY
Louisville - Lexington
10/31 - 11/2
Hodgson Shultz
TENNESSEE
Memphis - Nashville
Flanigan
LOUISIANA
New Orleans
Brooks
FLORIDA
Tampa - St. Petersburg
10/31 - 11/2
Shultz Hodgoon
Orlando - Daytona Beach
Kleindienst
Jacksonville Huntsville
Stein
ALABAMA
Birmingham-Mobile-Montgomery
NORTH CAROLINA
Highpoint - Greensboro
Winston-Salem
TEXAS
San Antonio
10/31 - 11/2
Romney
Beaumont - Port Arthur
Bush
Amarillo
Ruckelshaus
E1 Paso
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
October 18, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
S
SUBJECT:
Boggs' District
There is no Republican candidate for Boggs' district,
according to Dent. In the redistricting Boggs' district
was made so safe that David Treen, who had tried to
defeat Boggs previously, decided to seek the Congressional
seat in the adjoining district.
There will be a special election held for Boggs' seat.
This would probably be held in February or March.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 18, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Proposed Schedule Attached
The attached is a very rough cut at events
To
schedule over the remaining days of the campaign that would
keep the President busy on things he ought to be working on
as President.
For your information, I have just talked to Bryce Harlow who
is away on vacation. He couldn't concur more strongly with the
Colson/Haldeman position. As he put it, "we have a winning
game; we should do nothing to upset it. Campaigning can
only galvanize the enemy and bring out the wrong voters. 11
He thinks what we are doing and planning to do is a perfect
pace for the President to keep.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 18, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
8:15 Meeting
There were 11 people at the 8:15 meeting and 11 different opinions
on Topic A. MacGregor is absolutely furious that I raised the subject
and was as angry as I have ever seen him. Ehrlichman was downright
sullen.
Rumsfeld is very strongly on our side. Klein, Weinberger and Stein
all felt that the President should get out and do more provided the
events are Presidential. Ehrlichman continued to make the point that
there are innumerable opportunities for "Presidential" campaign
appearances but when pressed couldn't name a specific single one.
The big argument comes from MacGregor that our 1 million volunteers
need to be charged up and need to know that the President is working
and campaigning.
Another point was that by getting the President out campaigning, we will
knock Segretti, Watergate, etc. off the front pages. That is absolute
bullcrap.
In short, there was no consensus on anything except that I was the skunk
at this morning's lawn party.
Tommy Meskill gave me the best advise that I have had in this campaign
Meskill is an extraordinarily successful politician who has turned around
the State of Connecticut. He said that the people of his state and he
spends a lot of time in touch with them all have great respect and
admiration for President Nixon. The State is Democratic, however,
and most of the Democrats in the state have voted against Nixon 4 times
when he has been a candidate. Meskill believes that a sure fire pres-
cription for blowing Connecticut would be to remind the Democrats of
the old Candidate Nixon, whom they did not like. Meskill said that
naturally he would like to have Nixon in Connecticut but that the smartest
thing we could do would be to keep him totally occupied in the White House.
-2-
I don't know where the breaking point is -- 5 appearances 6, 7, 8, 9.
I do know that any overt sign of intensive campaigning will be inter-
preted as being smoked out and will galvanize the opposition. My own
feeling, strongly confirmed by Sindlinger, is that there are a lot of
Democrats who are probably going to sit this one out. They can't
stomach McGovern and they can't bring themselves to vote for Nixon.
The key issue is -- and I don't have the answer -- by going on the
hustings intensively, do we bring those people out and, if so, how in
the final analysis are they going to vote?
Our people are going to vote no matter what we do. Extensive campaign-
ing will create excitement for what is now a dull Presidential campaign.
Our people are going to vote as they always do because they have a
winner and because Republicans generally do turn out and vote. The
question is what happens to that 50% of the Democratic vote that is not
now with McGovern.
In my view, intensive campaigning will rejuvenate the McGovern camp,
will bring us head to head with them on the networks every night, will
energize partisan Democratic loyalties, will remind millions of people
of the Candidate Nixon and will turn a landslide into a horserace.
Let the media bitch like hell that we are hiding in the White House. We
can build Presidential events here that counters that and go out on the
hustings just often enough so that they can't make this case stick. Our
original plan of Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Ohio, Denver and
LA covers the country; This interspersed with radio speeches and a
last minute nationwide appeal to the people to vote.
Maybe you should ask the President to watch the Connally speech again.
Connally's speech frames the issue in this campaign brilliantly. It talks
about the bi-partisan Presidential tradition. Nixon on the hustings is
only going to take away from the mood and tone of the Connally message.
Bear in mind what you are dealing with -- MacGregor like every cam-
paign manager in history is under intense pressure from the partisans
who are working in the vineyards. Connally blows hot and cold. Last
week he told me we were doing exactly right keeping the President in the
White House and using surrogates. Mitchell has been listening to the
partisans and Ehrlichman I can't explain. I can only say that when you
have a game plan that is working and if you are way ahead, it is nuts to
throw it away. Why take the risk?
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date:
10 6
TO:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
Chotiner met with MacGregor
on October 3. As you can see
from Chotiner's October 4
note to you, he is not satis-
fied with the results.
You may want to cover this
with MacGregor directly.
nope
From the desk of
MURRAY M. CHOTINER
October 4, 1972
TO:
H. R. HALDEMAN
If I had wanted to talk to Clark
MacGregor - I could have called
him.
My opinions regarding the campaign
are still the same.
Manualy
SUITE 500
1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
TELEPHONE 202 298-9030
Chuk Mac
the
September 26, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
MURRAY CHOTINER
"tack you then of we Add This
Dear Bob:
Things are no better since we met.
I
both of us must meet with the President.
Please let me know when and where.
shld believe theirew P T
Cordially,
Disney
Have youf
to not at Plant, # your
MMC:a
L
LAW OFFICES
REEVES & HARRISON
SUITE 500
1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
MARION EDWYN HARRISON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
OF COUNSEL
ERNEST GENE REEVES
MURRAY M. CHOTINER
ROBERT F. SAGLE
TELEPHONE 202 298-9030
MYRON SOLTER
TELEX 440376 CRDK
CHARLES EMMET LUCEY
CABLE "REEVLAW"
September 26, 1972
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. President:
For several months I have watched the development of
the campaign for your re-election. Some time ago, I
remarked facetiously that you would win in spite of the
campaign. Today, six weeks before the election, I can
only say that your re-election will occur in spite of
the campaign.
At a time when a campaign should be one of the best and
most efficient in history, I am sorry to say that it is
far from this.
As you well know, it is most unwise to rely on how well
things appear; every possible step must be taken to
insure victory. Also, as you know, I would not impose
on your time unless I felt the need to be of the utmost
importance to you -- I am suggesting that we meet before
things become any worse.
Very sincerely,
Murray termary
MMC:a
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 19, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
BRUCE KEHRLI
BAS
SUBJECT:
Political Analyses
for Campaign Trips
You requested that something be done to upgrade the political
briefing. papers that go to the President for each campaign
stop. These are prepared initially by Harry Dent and for-
warded to John Ehrlichman for review from an issues stand-
point. From there they go to Dave Hoopes for inclusion in
the President's trip package.
The trip package is distributed to the following people:
Ziegler, Ehrlichman, Haldeman, Higby, Waldron, Warren, Ball
Chapin, Butterfield, Hoopes (file copy).
We should have some input from Bob Teeter including the
latest trial heat information and a check on the Ehrlichman
issues information. We found a couple of errors in the
latest analyses for Pennsylvania and New York.
This can be done in one of two ways:
1. Take the political analysis as it comes
from Ehrlichman's office and rewrite it to
include the Teeter data. If we do this,
distribution will have to be limited to the
President and H. since none of the other
people are to receive the trial heat in-
formation.
2. Include the memo from Dent, checked by
Ehrlichman, in all trip packages after double
checking it with Teeter and include in the
and Haldeman's trip package a
separate memo from Teeter on trial heats.
-2-
RECOMMENDATION:
That we proceed as outlined in Option 2. It is a round-
about solution but will keep people from asking about or
borrowing the information from you on the plane. It will
also preclude the inevitable appeals from at least Ziegler,
Ehrlichman, and Chapin to receive the political brief
information.
APPROVE
H
DISAPPROVE
If approve, attached are the Teeter addenda for Pennsylvania
and New York. The standard Dent memo has been checked and
will be included in all trip packages for these trips.
TEETER ANALYSIS OF PENNSYLVANIA
Our private polls show that the President's lead increased
from 7% in Pennsylvania to 33% over the July-August period.
Our follow-up study since early September indicates that
this lead has held very steady during the past six weeks.
Nixon
McGovern
Undecided
Margin
6/27 - 1701
49
42
9
+ 7
9/14 - 1701
60
27
14
+33
10/16 - 1701
61
27
12
+34
The level of commitment in Pennsylvania also indicates
that the President's lead is solid. The President has
substantial leads in every geographic region of the state
except the city of Philadelphia where he trails McGovern
by 7%. Our Philadelphia data indicates that at this point
the President would lose the city of Philadelphia by approxi-
mately 90,000 votes. It is generally accepted that a
Republican candidate to have any chance to win statewide
must hold his loss in Philadelphia to under 200,000. The
President lost the city by approximately 271,000 in 1968
while losing the state overall by only 169,000.
- 2 -
Nixon
McGovern
Undecided
Philadelphia
36
43
21
Philadelphia Suburbs
67
21
12
Allegheny County
62
31
7
Southwest
67
25
8
Anthracite Area
'69
19
13
Other
67
16
17
In most recent elections there has not been nearly as much
ticket-splitting in the city of Philadelphia as there has
in the suburbs. It would appear, however, that this year
the President has the opportunity to increase the amount
of ticket-splitting in the city in his favor by a very
substantial margin. While the President's committed vote
in Philadelphia is at 36%, the other Republican statewide
candidates, one of whom is black, are only getting 12 to 14%
of the vote.
Rizzo is extremely popular with all of the white voters in
Philadelphia (78% approval) and across the state.
Vietnam is the most important issue statewide followed by
taxes, inflation, unemployment and crime. Pennsylvania
recently adopted a state income tax for the first time
- 3 -
which is very unpopular and has caused Governor Shapp's
approval rating to drop down to about 35%.
In Philadelphia, Vietnam as an issue is followed by
unemployment, crime, high taxes and drugs. The importance
of unemployment, however, is skewed high by the high
concern of blacks with it and crime is by far the most
important issue with white voters.
Pa
The President lost Pennsylvania in 1968 by 4%. He received 44% of
the vote compared to Humphrey's 48% and Wallace's 8%. He trailed
the normal Republican vote of 50% by 6%. He trailed the normal
vote by the farthest in Allegheny County and Philadelphia City. He
also did poorly in the suburban east Pennsylvania counties. Only
in some of the rural central Pennsylvania counties did he exceed
the normal vote.
Average
1968
1968
Rep.
Nixon
Humphrey
Wallace
Schweiker
Clark
Strength
Statewide
44
48
8
53
47
50
Philadelphia
30
63
7
38
62
36
Suburb-Phila.
(Delaware)
50
41
9
61
39
58
Bucks
49
40
11
60
40
56
Allegheny
37
52
11
51
49
48
A republican who carries Pennsylvania obviously has to run ahead of
normal Republican strength by at least 1 or 2% and past voting
patterns have shown that all of the Republicans who have carried
Pennsylvania have had essentially the same pattern of support.
TEETER ANDLYSIS of PENNSYLVANIA
As in most other states Sur private polls show that the President's
lead increased from approximately in Pennsylvania to 33% over the
July-August period. Our follow-up study since early September indicates
that this lead has held very steady during the past six weeks.
Nixon
McGovern
Undecided
Margin
6/27 1701
49
42
9
+ 7
9/14 1701
60
27
14
+33
10/16 1701
61
27
12
+34
-2-
The level of commitment in Pennsylvania also indicates that the
President's lead is solid. The President has substantial leads in
every geographic region of the state except the city of Philadelphia
where he trails McGovern by 7%. Our Philadelphia data indicates
that at this point the President would lose the City of Philadelphia
by approximately 90,000 votes. It is generally accepted that a
Republican candidate to have any chance to win statewide must hold
his loss in Philadelphia to under 200,000. The President lost the
City by approximately 271,000 in 1968 while losing the state overall
by only 169,000.
Nixon
McGovern
Undecided
Philadelphia
36
43
21
Philadelphia Suburbs
67
21
12
Allegheny County
62
31
7
Southwest
67
25
8
Anthracite Area
69
19
13
Other
67
16
17
In most recent elections there has not been nearly as much ticket-
splitting in the City of Philadelphia as there has in the suburbs.
It would appear, however, that this year the President has the
opportunity to increase the amount of ticket-splitting in the city
in his favor by a very substantial margin. While the President's
committed vote in Philadelphia is at 36%, the other Republican
statewide candidates, one of whom is black, are only getting 12 to 14%
of the vote. The greatest potential for the President to gain from
this ticket-splitting is in the three Jewish wards in the northeastern
section of the city (53, 56 and 63) and several wards also in the
northeastern section of the city that are largely Eastern European
(55, 57, 64, 65 and 66) and in the Italian areas in South Philadelphia
(Wards 1, 2, and 39).
-3-
Our most recent Philadelphia polls indicate the President may be
losing a small amount of support in the Jewish wards, that he is
running very strongly in the Eastern European areas and in Ward
39 which is the largest Italian ward of the city. Also while he is
leading in wards 1 and 2, there appears to be the potential for
him to gain even more votes in these areas.
Rizzo is extremely popular with all of the white voters in Philadelphia
(78% approval) and across the state.
Vietnam is the most important issue statewide followed by taxes,
inflation, unemployment and crime. Pennsylvania recently adopted
a state income tax for the first time which is very unpopular and
has caused Governor Shapp's approval rating to drop down to about 35%.
In Philadelphia Vietnam as an issue is followed by unemployment,
crime, high taxes and drugs. The importance of unemployment, however,
is skewed high by the high concern of blacks with it and crime is
by far the most important issue with white voters.
The President should, in his statement on revenue sharing or at some
time while he is in Philadelphia, emphasize how revenue sharing will
hold local taxes down and at the same time assist in the strengthening
of local police departments and in the control of drugs.
Pa
The President lost Pennsylvania in 1968 by 4%. He received 44% of
the vote compared to Humphrey's 48% and Wallace's 8%. He trailed
the normal Republican vote of 50% by 6%. He trailed the normal
vote by the farthest in Allegheny County and Philadelphia City. He
also did poorly in the suburban east Pennsylvania counties. Only
in some of the rural central Pennsylvania counties did he exceed
the normal vote.
Average
1968
1968
Rep.
Nixon
Humphrey
Wallace
Schweiker Clark
Strength
Statewide
44
48
8
53
47
50
Philadelphia
30
63
7
38
62
36
Suburb-Phila.
(Delaware)
50
41
9
61
39
58
Bucks
49
40
11
60
40
56
Allegheny
37
52
11
51
49
48
A republican who carries Pennsylvania obviously has to run ahead of
normal Republican strength by at least 1 or 2% and past voting
patterns have shown that all of the Republicans who have carried
Pennsylvania have had essentially the same pattern of support.
TESTER of
As in most states our private polls show that the President's
lead increased from approximately % in Pennsylvania to 33% over the
July-August period. Our follow-up study since early September indicates
that this lead has held very steady during the past six weeks.
Nixon
McGovern
Undecided
Margin
6/27 - 1701
49
42
9
+ 7
9/14 1701
60
27
14
+33
10/16 1701
61
27
12
+34
-2-
The level of commitment in Pennsylvania also indicates that the
President's lead is solid. The President has substantial leads in
every geographic region of the state except the city of Philadelphia
where he trails McGovern by 7%. -Our- Philadelphia data -indicates
that at this point the President would lose-the City of Philadelphia
by approximately 90,000 votes. It is generally accepted that a
Republican candidate to have any chance to win statewide must hold
his loss in Philadelphia to under 200,000. The President lost the
City by approximately 271,000 in 1968 while losing the state overall
by only 169,000.
Nixon
McGovern
Undecided
Philadelphia
36
43
21
Philadelphia Suburbs
67
21
12
Allegheny County
62
31
7
Southwest
67
25
8
Anthracite Area
69
19
13
Other
67
16
17
In most recent elections there has not been nearly as much ticket-
splitting in the City of Philadelphia as there has in the suburbs.
It would appear, however, that this year the President has the
opportunity to increase the amount of ticket-splitting in the city
in his favor by a very substantial margin. While the President's
committed vote in Philadelphia is at 36%, the other Republican
statewide candidates, one of whom is black, are only getting 12 to 14%
of the vote. The greatest potential for the President to gain from
this ticket-splitting is in the three Jewish wards in the northeastern
section of the city (53, 56 and 63) and several wards also in the
northeastern section of the city that are largely Eastern European
(55, 57, 64, 65 and 66) and in the Italian areas in South Philadelphia
(Wards 1, 2, and 39).
-3-
Our most recent Philadelphia polls indicate the President may be
losing a small amount of support in the Jewish wards, that he is
running very strongly in the Eastern European areas and in Ward
39 which is the largest Italian word of the city. Also while he is
leading in wards 1 and 2, there appears to be the potential for
him to gain even more votes in these areas.
Rizzo is extremely popular with all of the white voters in Philadelphia
(78% approval) and across the state.
Vietnam is the most important issue statewide followed by taxes,
inflation, unemployment and crime. Pennsylvania recently adopted
a state income tax for the first time which is very unpopular and
has caused Governor Shapp's approval rating to drop down to about 35%.
In Philadelphia Vietnam as an issue is followed by unemployment,
crime, high taxes and drugs. The importance of unemployment, however,
is skewed high by the high concern of blacks with it and crime is
by far the most important issue with white voters.
The President should, in his statement on revenue sharing or at some
time while he is in Philadelphia, emphasize how revenue sharing will
hold local taxes down and at/the same time assist in the strengthening
of local police departments and in the control of drugs.
TEETER ANALYSIS OF NEW YORK
The Committee for the Re-Election of the President's private
and public polls indicate the President is now running well
in New York.
Nixon
McGovern
Undecided
Margin
6/30 - 1701
49
42
9
+ 7
9/11 - 1701
55
33
11
+22
9/26 - Yankelovich
57
33
10
+34
10/10 - Yankelovich
50
33
17
+17
10/10 - 1701
54
33
11
+23
This data indicates that the lead the President gained over the
summer is holding steady and while McGovern can be expected to
pick up more of the undecideds than the President as they are
largely Democrats and Ticket-Splitters, there is no evidence
that the President is now in jeopardy of losing the state. In
order for McGovern to carry the state there would have to be a
substantial amount of switching away from the President by voters
who now intend to vote for him.
The President's greatest increases have come with middle income
working class people, many of whom are Catholics and Jews in
- 2 -
New York. He is now getting approximately 35% of the Jewish
vote which is more than double his 1968 Jewish vote and over
60% of the Catholics.
Geographically his greatest gains from 1968 have come in the
upstate cities, particularly Buffalo, and on Long Island.
Nixon
McGovern
Undecided
Margin
Suffolk/Nassau
61
27
12
+34
Manhattan
29
69
2
-40
Bronx/Queens/Kings
49
38
13
+11
Westchester/Putnam
55
33
12
+22
Greene/Ulster/
St. Lawrence/Oneida/
Onondaga/Chemung
71
17
12
+54
Erie
59
29
12
+35
Albany/Monroe
50
39
11
+11
The areas the President will visit are those that have the
highest level of ticket-splitting in the state. They are
largely middle and upper middle class suburbs. Yonkers is
the largest city on the route and has a large Italian population.
Rockefeller was the beneficiary of very high ticket-splitting
in 1970 and it appears that the President will be this year.
- 3 -
New Rochelle is over 50% Jewish. Hastings-on-Hudson, Dobbs
Ferry, Irvington and Tarrytown are largely WASP, upper middle
income suburbs.
As in all other states, Vietnam is mentioned by the largest
number of people as the most important issue in the Presidential
election statewide and in all of the local areas of the state.
It is particularly important to the voters in Westchester
County and Manhattan. The next most important issues statewide
are the economy, particularly inflation, drugs and crime, and
taxes. Other important issues in Westchester County are
inflation and crime. In Suffolk and Nassau Counties, inflation
is also the second most important issue, and taxes third.
There are no significant differences in the issue concerns of
the various voting groups in the areas the President will visit.
ny
The average Republican strength for statewide candidates in New York
is 44%. In 1968 the President ran at just this level and lost the
state by just under 6%. Wallace got 5.2%.
The President ran only at about the level of average Republican
strength in most of the upstate counties and behind it in several
of the large urban counties, particularly New York, Erie (Buffalo),
Monroe (Rochester) and Westchester. He ran well ahead of average
Republican strength in Suffolk and Onondaga (Syracuse); he ran
about even with it in Nassau, Queens and Kings.
Average
1968
1970
Rep.
Nixon
Humphrey
Wallace
Rockefeller
Goldberg
Strength
Statewide
44
50
5
57
42,
Westchester Co. 50
45
5
67
33
53
Hastings-on-
Hudson
Dobbs Ferry
48
46
6
59
41
Irvington
Tarrytown
Larchmont
52
44
4
61
39
Momoroneck
New Rochelle
41
54
5
55
45
Yonkers
48
43
9
62
38
Tuckahoe
62
34
3
69
31
White Plains
47
49
4
60
40
Nassau Co.
51
43
5
61
39
51
Suffolk Co.
58
53
8
67
47
30/
TReCREP
Teeter analysis of new Your
Both our private and the public polls indicate the President is now
running very well in New York.
-2-
Nixon
McGovern
Undecided
Margin
6/30 - 1701
49
42
9
+ 7
9/9 - 1701
55
33
11
+22
9/26 - Yankelovich
57
33
10
+34
10/10- Yankelovich
50
33
17
+17
10/10- 1701
54
33
11
+23
This data indicates that the lead the President gained over the summer
is holding steady and while McGovern can be expected to pick up more
of the undecideds than the President as they are largely Democrats
and Ticket-Splitters, there is no evidence that the President is now
in jeopardy of losing the state. In order for McGovern to carry the
state there would have to be a substantial amount of switching away
from the President by voters who now intend to vote for him.
The most recent Yankelovich poll (New York Times last Monday) noted
that the pattern of the President's support is similar to that of
Eisenhower in 1956 and Rockefeller in 1970.
The President's greatest increases have come with middle income
working class people, many of whom are Catholics and Jews in New York.
He is now getting approximately 35% of the Jewish vote which is more
than double his 1968 Jewish vote and over 60% of the Catholics.
Geographically his greatest gains from 1968 have come in the upstate
cities, particularly Buffalo and on Long Island.
Nixon
McGovern
Undecided
Margin
Suffolk/Nassau
61
27
12
+34
Manhattan
29
69
2
Bronx/Queens/Kings
49
38
13
Westchester/Putnam
55
33
12
+22
Greene/Ulster/St. Lawrence/
Oneida/Onondaga/Chemung
71
17
12
+54
Erie
59
29
12
+35
Albany/Monroe
50
39
11
+11
-3-
The areas the President will visit are those that have the highest
level of ticket-splitting in the state. They are largely middle
and upper middle class suburbs. Yonkers is the largest city on the
route and has a large Italian population. Rockefeller was the
beneficiary of very high ticket-splitting in 1970 and it appears
that the President will be this year. New Rochelle is over 50% Jewish.
Hastings-on-Hudson, Dobbs Ferry, Irvington and Tarrytown are largely
WASP, upper middle income suburbs.
As in all other states Vietnam is mentioned by the largest number of
people as the most important issue in the Presidential election
statewide and in all of the local areas of the state. It is parti-
cularly important to the voters in Westchester County and Manhattan.
The next most important issues statewide are the economy, particularly
inflation, drugs and crime, and taxes. Other important issues in
Westchester county are inflation and crime. In Suffolk and Nassau
County in flation is also the second most important issue, and
taxes third. There are no significant differences in the issue
concerns of the various voting groups in the areas the President will
visit.
Our recommendation is that the President discuss Vietnam in Westchester
county and include some discussion of foreign affairs and national
defense if he speaks in New Rochelle. These issues appear to be the
words many Jews use when referring to Israel and the Middle East. In
Nassau and Suffolk counties he should discuss property taxes with some
emphasis on how revenue sharing will hold property taxes down. It is
also important that he emphasize how revenue sharing helps suburban
areas as well as large cities as I have seen some evidence in other
-4-
polls that some suburban and rural residents feel revenue sharing
is directed only at the large central cities.
ny
The average Republican strength for statewide candidates in New York
is 44%. In 1968 the President ran at just this level and lost the
state by just under 6%. Wallace got 5.2%.
The President ran only at about the level of average Republican
strength in most of the upstate counties and behind it in several
of the large urban counties, particularly New York, Erie (Buffalo),
Monroe (Rochester) and Westchester. He ran well ahead of average
Republican strength in Suffolk and Onondaga (Syracuse); he ran
about even with it in Nassau, Queens and Kings.
Average
1968
1970
Rep.
Nixon
Humphrey
Wallace
Rockefeller
Goldberg
Strength
Statewide
44
50
5
57
43
Westchester Co. 50
45
5
67
33
53
Hastings-on-
Hudson
Dobbs Ferry
48
46
6
59
41
Irvington
Tarrytown
Larchmont
52
44
4
61
39
Momoroneck
New Rochelle
41
54
5
55
45
Yonkers
48
43
9
62
38
Tuckahoe
62
34
3
69
31
White Plains
47
49
4
60
40
Nassau Co.
51
43
5
61
39
51
Suffolk Co.
58
%
8
47
67
30/
of
newther
Both our private and the public polls indicate the President is now
running very well in New York.
-3-
The areas the President will visit are those that have the highest
level of ticket-splitting in the state. They are largely middle
and upper middle class suburbs. Yonkers is the largest city on the
route and has a large Italian population. Rockefeller was the
beneficiary of very high ticket-splitting in 1970 and it appears
that the President will be this year. New Rochelle is over 50% Jewish.
Hastings-on-Hudson, Dobbs Ferry, Irvington and Tarrytown are largely
WASP, upper middle income suburbs:
As in all other states Vietnam is mentioned by the largest number of
people as the most important issue in the Presidential election
statewide and in all of the local areas of the state. It is parti-
cularly important to the voters in Westchester County and Manhattan.
The next most important issues statewide are the economy, particularly
inflation, drugs and crime, and taxes. Other important issues in
Westchester county are inflation and crime. In Suffolk and Nassau
County in flation is also the second most important issue, and
taxes third. There are no significant differences in the issue
concerns of the various voting groups in the areas the President will
visit.
Our recommendation is that the President discuss Vietnam in Westchester
county and include some discussion of foreign affairs and national
defense if he speaks in New Rochelle. These issues appear to be the
words many Jews use when referring to Israel and the Middle East. In
Nassau and Suffolk counties he should discuss property taxes with some
emphasis on how revenue sharing will hold property taxes down. It is
also important that he emphasize how revenue sharing helps suburban
areas as well as large cities as I have seen some evidence in other
-2-
Nixon
McGovern
Undecided
Margin
6/30 1701
49
42
9
+ 7
9/9 - 1701
55
33
11
+22
9/26 - Yankelovich
57
33
10
+34
10/10- Yankelovich
50
33
17
+17
10/10- 1701
54
33
11
+23
This data indicates that the lead the President gained over the summer
is holding steady and while McGovern can be expected to pick up more
of the undecideds than the President as they are largely Democrats
and Ticket-Splitters, there is no evidence that the President is now
in jeopardy of losing the state. In order for McGovern to carry the
state there would have to be a substantial amount of switching away
from the President by voters who now intend to vote for him.
The most recent Yankelovich poll (New York Times last Monday) noted
that the pattern of the President's support is similar to that of
Eisenhower in 1956 and Rockefeller in 1970.
The President's greatest increases have come with middle income
working class people, many of whom are Catholics and Jews in New York.
He is now getting approximately 35% of the Jewish vote which is more
than double his 1968 Jewish vote and over 60% of the Catholics.
Geographically his greatest gains from 1968 have come in the upstate
cities, particularly Buffalo and on Long Island.
Nixon
McGovern
Undecided
Margin
Suffelk/Nassau
61
27
12
+34
Manhattan
29
69
2
Bronx/Queens/Rings
49
38
13
Westchester/Putnam
55
33
12
+22
Greeue/Ulster/St. Lawrence/
Oneida/Onondaga/Chemung
71
17
12
+54
Erie
59
29
12
+35
Albany/Monroe
50
39
11
+11
-4-
)
polls that some suburban and rural residents feel revenue sharing
is directed only at the large central cities.
65
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 12, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY L
John Ehrlichman turned in a memorandum to the
President entitled "The South: Politics and
Issues" and it was a combination of work done
by his staff and Harry Dent. In it for each
of the southern states there was significant
poll data that I think we should check against
our figures.
We shouldn't have Ehrlichman's office sending
in poll data about how much the President's
going to win by and what the Senate races are
without us even knowing about it. Let's get
on top of this thing. I've mentioned it to you
once before and I'd like to know what specific
steps or plans you are taking to make sure you
are on top of it for the next trip. What happened
on this one? Is the information that Ehrlichman
forwarded to the President correct?
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JOHN EH LICHMAN
SUBJECT:
The South: Politics and Issues
The political sections of what follows were drafted by Harry Dent.
The issues sections were assembled by my staff.
ALABAMA: This could be the President's best state. Governor
Wallace has been silent on both presidential and senatorial races,
except to say he will vote the "Democratic ticket, 11 though impli-
cation was that he means on state level. Red Blount closed some-
what on Sparkman, mainly by McGovern linkage. Rumors out that
White House really doesn't want to beat Sparkman. GOP will hold
its three seats but redistricted Representative Bill Dickinson in
tight race. Two House pickups possible, in Third and Fourth Dis-
tricts.
Major National Issues:
1701 Third Wave Poll - Sept. 5-12
1. Vietnam
49%
2. Drugs
41
3.
Inflation
38
4. Crime
36
5.
Taxes
32
6. Unemployment
29
(Busing is ninth
with 19%.)
- 2 -
ARKANSAS: The President will win here by 55% to 60%. Rep.
Paul Hammerschmidt will hold his GOP seat. Wayne Babbitt (R)
has little chance against Senator McClellan. Dale Bumpers (D)
will easily hold The Statehouse against Len Blaylock. Bumpers
has reorganized state government, GOP charging it has resulted
in cost increase. Amtrak eliminated Arkansas' only rail passen-
ger service. Bumpers now making noise about it.
Major National Issues:
Source: Ray Brown, 1701 Regional Director
1. Vietnam
2. Inflation
3. Taxes
4. Crime
5. Drugs
6. Unemployment
FLORIDA: Another solid win for the President. No statewide races.
GOP could pick up new Fifth and Tenth Districts. Last March in the
primary, there were heavy votes against busing and for prayer. Gov.
Askew's stance for busing has hurt him.
Major National Issues:
Source: An assessment by Peter Sawers, 1701 Regional Dir.
1. Vietnam
2. Inflation
3. Taxes
4. Unemployment
5. Crime
6. Drugs
7. Busing
Additional Comments:
In Florida, there is a strong interest in space and military
installations. There is lingering concern about busing, but
it isn't nearly as strong as it was earlier in the year during
the primary.
- 3 -
KENTUCKY: President will win big here. This will be the most
important factor for Louie Nunn against Dee Huddleston in Senate
race. Possible House pickup in Sixth District; GOP candidate is
Laban Jackson. His fortunes tied to President's strength.
Major National Issues:
Source: Assessment by Peter Sawers, 1701 Regional Dir.
1. Vietnam
2. Inflation
3.
Unemployment
4. Taxes
Additional Comments:
Mine safety is a significant issue in eastern Kentucky.
Military and government installations are important in
Kentucky and are of concern.
LOUISIANA: The President, according to a recent poll is ahead with
68.2%, with 16. 4% for McGovern. GOP Senatorial candidate Bennett
Johnston and Independent ex-Governor John McKeithen. GOP candidate
David Treen is two to four points ahead in the Third District.
Major National Issues:
Source: Senate candidate Toledano private poll
1. Vietnam
2. Economy
3. Crime
4. Drugs
5.
Moral decay
6. Race
Major State Issues:
1. Corruption
2. Jobs
3. Crime
4. Education
5. Cost of living
6. Taxes
- 4 -
Additional Comments:
Busing does not seem to be a major issue in Louisiana.
There is concern about drugs and crime in New Orleans.
The localized issue is the offshore oil royalties question.
Louisiana wants royalties beyond present limit, but we
have opposed this request because by international law
these royalties belong to all 50 states.
MISSISSIPPI: A win for the President of 72% according to late
September poll. Some GOP demoralization and much visibility to
White House non-support for GOP candidate Carmichael against
Senator Eastland. Likely GOP House pickup in Fifth District, where
former AA to retiring Rep. Colmer running on GOP ticket. Good
shot in Second District, possible in Third. In recent poll, much sen-
timent for reduction of foreign aid, for President's Vietnam policy.
Major National Issues:
Source: Assessment made by Ray Brown, 1701 Regional Dir.
1. Vietnam
2. Inflation
3. Unemployment
4. Crime
5. Drugs
6. Taxes
Additional Comments:
In the Gulf Coast area, there is concern about the Navy
holding up funds for the shipbuilding contracts with Litton
Industries.
NORTH CAROLINA: Recent regional polls show the President winning
from 64% to 82%. Jim Holshouser (R) is closing on Skipper Bowles in
the gubernatorial race, though still lagging. Jesse Helms is within four
points of Nick Galifianakis in the Senate race according to two recent
Democratic polls. GOP may pick up the Galifianakis seat, but Jonas'
vacant seat in danger. Busing remains a hot issue.
- 5 -
Major National Issues:
Source: Assessment made by Peter Sawers, 1701 Regional Dir.
1.
Vietnam
2. Inflation
3. Drugs
4. Crime
5. Taxes
Additional Comments:
The Republican Party in this state is in disarray and filled
with factions.
SOUTH CAROLINA: Another win of at least 60-70% is expected for the
President. Strom Thurmond will have closer race than expected against
State Senator Nick Zeigler. Possible House pickup in First District (old
Rivers seat) and Sixth District where Ed Young is carrying GOP banner
for John McMillan's old seat. Textile issue is a plus here for the Presi-
dent, as is Vietnam policy; busing simmers.
Major National Issues:
Source: Central Surveys poll (probably for Thurmond)
taken within the last two weeks
1.
Vietnam
42.3%
2.
Inflation
26.0
3. Welfare
17.0
4.
Crime/Drugs
8.7
5.
Taxes
8.0
State Issues:
Source: Same as above
1.
Unemployment
18.7%
2.
Education
17.3
3.
Inflation
12.3
4.
Welfare
11.3
5.
Civil Rights
9.0
- 6 -
TENNESSEE: Party leaders see a win for the President at about 60%+.
Senator Baker will win in a tough race with Rep. Ray Blanton, GOP
could pick up Fifth, Sixth (new) Districts. Rep. Dan Kuykendall (R)
in tough race in new Eighth District. Busing extremely potent, parti-
cularly in Nashville and Memphis.
Major National Issues:
Source: Assessment made by Peter Sawers, 1701 Regional Dir.
1. Vietnam
2. Inflation
3. Taxes
4. Crime
5. Drugs
6. Busing
TEXAS: Chances for the President to win look good. Tower race remains
close. Republicans concerned about Connally impact on Tower. GOP
gubernatorial candidate Hank Grover, though closing, probably won't
beat Democrat Dolph Briscoe. Good House shot in 24th District (new).
Incumbents Bob Price (R) and Graham Purcell (D) head-on in new 13th.
Price win is possible. Busing hot in Dallas, Austin and Corpus Christi.
Major National Issues:
Source: 1701 Third Wave Poll - Sept. 5-10
1. Vietnam
2. Inflation
3. Crime
4. Unemployment
5. Drugs
Major State Issues:
Source: 1701 Second Wave Poll - June 13-27
1.
New leadership and scandal
2. High taxes
- 7
Additional Comments:
The insurance and loan scandal which rocked the Texas
legislature still reverberates and is an important issue
to ticket-splitters and upper socio-economic types.
Vietnam is especially important in Corpus Christi and
Houston. Drugs are important to blacks and women,
inflation is important to ticket-splitters and Republicans.
High taxes are important to Democrats and ticket-splitters,
especially in Mid- and West Texas. Unemployment is
important to blacks, Mexican-Americans and in South
Texas. The President's weaker areas are in Houston
and the Gulf Coast.
VIRGINIA: The President's win here will be strong. Would have
major impact on Rep. Bill Scott's Senate race against William Spong.
House wins possible in Fourth and Eighth Districts. Recent floods in
Richmond, Petersburg quite serious. Busing still hot in scattered
areas.
Major National Issues:
Source: Assessment made by Peter Sawers, 1701 Regional Dir.
1. Vietnam
2. Inflation
3. Taxes
4. Unemployment
5. Crime
6. Drugs
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: 10/19/72
TO:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
This report by Malek summarizes his
Field Operations' canvassing in the
Key States. The data is somewhat
dated - a report later this week
will show 7 million instead of
3.5 million contacted. All data is
recorded in a campaign control room
at 1730 Pa. that is one of the more
interesting aspects of this campaign.
Mosiman is not doing as poorly as
his sheet indicates - there was
just a reporting lag.
1
Committee
for the Re-election
of the President
1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 333-0920
October 16, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CLARK MACGREGOR
FROM:
FRED MALEK
SUBJECT:
Canvassing Results
OVERALL PROGRESS
This memorandum reports the progress on door to door canvassing through
October 7 and telephone canvassing through October 5. All but six states
are now reporting canvassing results to our control center, and all
telephone centers are reporting. The reported progress is as follows:
(000 omitted)
Total Households in U. S.
63,316
Total Households in Priority Counties
48,149
Total Households Contacted Door to Door
3,459
% Priority County Households Canvassed
7.1%
Total Households Contacted by Phone
2,548
Total Households Canvassed Door to
Door and by Telephone
6,006
% Priority County Households Canvassed
12.0%
Taken overall, I am pleased with the progress to date. A major canvassing
effort is underway across the country with the three most important can-
vassing weeks yet to come (October 7 through October 28). At the same
time neither the door to door nor the telephone banks have met the quotas
we had originally set. This is due largely to a very late start by most
states along with a certain amount of apathy we have encountered in gen-
erating volunteers. How well we do ultimately depends on whether or not
we can make up for some of the lost time during the last three weeks in
October. Needless to say, we are pushing hard to make this happen, and I
hope to double the above results by October 28.
- 2
PROGRESS IN KEY STATES
When the overall results are broken out on a state by state basis,
the results are uneven with some states performing superbly and with
some not yet getting the job done. Tab A shows the progress in the
key states, and the following paragraphs comment on this progress.
California is moving quite well with 24% of the priority county
households canvassed either by phone or door to door. They are
in high gear and should continue their fine performance.
Connecticut is canvassing, but results are below our expect-
ations. Their organization is strong but they haven't yet
delivered. We are hammering hard here, and I believe we can
bring them up substantially.
Illinois has clearly generated the most outstanding results
of any state - 924,991 households have been canvassed door
to door and 271,699 have been telephoned. This represents
roughly 37% of the households in the priority counties.
Maryland was considered to have the best organization, but the
results are not as good as we had hoped from a state which
organized for a primary. Twenty-two percent of the households
have been contacted, mostly by telephone. Door to door was de-
emphasized early with the goal of reaching the greatest number
of households possible over the telephone.
New Jersey is doing an excellent job in light of their late
start. Nineteen percent of the households in the priority counties
have been contacted and I expect a major surge in the next three
weeks.
Michigan has canvassed but the results have not been reported.
We anticipate a fairly good performance, but any real appraisal
must be based on the numbers.
Ohio shows a disappointing 10% canvass rate, but due to lax disci-
pline, have not yet reported all that has been done. Therefore,
they are likely to be in much better shape than indicated but again,
we must await the numbers to make a meaningful evaluation.
New York, Pennsylvania and Texas are doing less well. Each has
contacted 12 to 15% of their priority county households. New York
and Pennsylv mia have been working hard but have a lot of ground
to cover and have not had firm leadership. They are clearly the
worst of our key states although they are moving fairly well now.
Texas is the victim of a late reorganization and is just beginning
a hard effort. Because of this, Texas' major canvassing effort
will be made from phone banks.
3
In the seven other battleground states, canvassing progress is behind
that achieved in the key states. Their efforts have not, of course,
been supplemented by the telephone banks, nor have their campaigns
been as well financed as those in the key states. These states have
canvassed 6.1% of the households in the priority counties as shown
in Tab B. Of these states, Missouri, Washington and Oregon have done
relatively well. Wisconsin has not yet begun their key cities program
which was designed to get the canvassing done during the month before the
election. Massachusetts will show rapid improvement and is not too bad off
considering the late start. Minnesota should also improve. West Virginia
on the other hand, is a disaster, and I doubt if they will ever show the
results needed. Progress for all other states by Regional Director is
shown at Tab C.
ACTIONS TAKEN
In order to bolster the states where canvassing is going poorly, I have
taken the following actions:
1.
Assigned fieldman support to states where added manage-
ment is needed - New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Texas,
California, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, West Virginia,
and Washington.
2.
Personally talked to the State Chairmen, Executive Directors
and other key personnel to re-emphasize the importance of
canvassing and the results we are expecting of them. I am
spending a good deal of my time on this telephone work now
and am applying severe heat.
3.
Instructed the Regional Directors to emphasize phone bank
operations in the key states and make them the number one
priority for the last three weeks of October. Their calling
capacity, if properly utilized, can add significantly to the
households contacted in the closing weeks of the campaign.
Also, since they are essential to our get out the vote effort, it
is imperative that all of them are fully manned and operating
properly.
4.
Increased the state budgets where finances have been a
problem - Oregon, Massachusetts, Missouri and Wisconsin.
*
4
In summary, I am pleased at where we now stand in our canvassing efforts.
Where weaknesses have appeared, actions are being taken to bolster the
effort and I am certain the canvass results by October 28 will be impress-
ive. Our major concern now is to plan our "Get-Out-The-Vote" effort SO
that it can turn out the favorables found in the door to door canvass as
well as all registered Republicans.
One final note, the control system is now fully on stream. It not only
provides the attached results, but also shows performance on every county
in the country. I encourage you to visit the control room again for a
complete review. Because it is clearly an innovation in national campaigns,
you may want to mention it to the President.
BCC: H.R. Halleman
KEY STATES
PROGRESS REPORT
ON
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total %
TAB
Number of
Number
Households
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Pricrity
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Compties
CALIFORNIA
5,047,704
424,000
8.3
768,512
A.
1
Connecticut
730,997
69,777
9.5
43,938
6.0
15.5
IUINOIS
2,604,869
924,991
35.5
271,677
10.4
43.9
MARYLAND
935,627
61,780
6.6
145,349
15.5
22.1
New JERSEY
1,660,037
257,845
15.5
63,720
37
AM
New YORK
4,902,038
191,206
3.9
50%235
10.2.
HI
OHIO
2,573,045
89,279
34
167,308
65
2.1
Predsylvania
3,095,630
141,842
45
232,057
7.6
Terms
2,270,018
345,800
15.2-
15.70
TOTALS
23,819,965
2,140,742
7.0
2,547,737
10.5
PROGRESS REPORT
BATTLEGROUND STATES
ON
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
TAB B
Total X
Number of
Number
Houscholds
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Pricrity
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Centies
Missouri
1,184,870
87,433
7.3
N/A
11/3
%
Mnss.
1,177,833
37,787
3.2
2/A
MINN.
883,676
56,505
6.2
2/2
6.2
WASH.
857,966
57,584
10.4
N/O
100/
OREGON
525,467
127,186
24.2
n/o
242
W.VICGINIA
414,372
3,33y
.8
N/A
0
c/o
Wise.
1,453,430
TOTALS
6,497,614
400,827
6.1
1.1
PROGRESS REPORT
COLLINS
ON
TAB C
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total :
Number of
Number
Beuncholds
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contincted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Pricrity
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
CALIFORNIA
5,047, 704
424,000
8.3
768,512
15.2
23,
TOTALS
PROGRESS REPORT
ON
YEUTTER
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total X
Number of
Number
Households
Households
Number of
Contricted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
IOWA
574,000
92,884
16.1
N/A
11.1
KANSAS
573,505
51,940
9.0
N/A
7.0
MINN.
883,676
55,505
6.2
N/A
60-
NECRASKA
376,995
d/o
N.DAKOTA
140,592
N/A
N/A
OKLAHIMA
623,018
20,740
.3.3
2/2
S. DAKOTA
155,947
nlpic
TOTALS
3,327,733
221,069
6.6
PROGRESS REPORT
GOOCH
ON
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total
Number of
Number
Households
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
New YORK
4,902,038
191,206
3.9
50%235
10.2
15.1
PENNSYLVANIA
3,095,630
141,842
4.5
228,087
VV
134
TOTALS
7,997,668
333,048
4.1
742,382
9.2
15.3
PROGRESS REPORT
ON
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
SAWERS
Total
Number of
Number
Her scholds
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
FLORIDA
1,667,263
54,249
3.2
N/A
KENTACKY
893,996
51,424
5.7
n/n
5.7
MISSOURI
1,184,870
87,733
7.3
N/A
N.CAC.
1,033,775
5,697
5
N/C
TENd.
841,555
40,17
4.7
N/2
VIRGINIA
919,324
71,807
7.8
2/A
WEST.VA
414,372
3,332
.8
TOTALS
6,955,155
314,059
4.5
PROGRESS REPORT
ON
RICHARDS
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total %
Number of
Number
Honseholds
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
ALASKA
58,294
5,641
9.6
N/A
96
IDAHO
164,127
27,003
16.4
100
MONTANA
170,319
32,544
19.1
04/2
19.1
NEVADA
129,490
14,815
12.9
Not
12.9
OREGON
525,467
127,186
242
n/A
742
WTAH
242,224
59,083
21/3
N/A
mas
WASH.
857,966
89,584
10.1
2/8
10.4
WYOMING
83,860
TOTALS
2,231,747
357,856
16.0
PROGRESS REPORT
ON
MOSIMAN
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total :
Number of
Number
Homach :00
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Conntics
INDIANA
1,174,407
3,760
.3
MICHIGAN
2,103,959
3,296
.1
OHIO
2,573,045
89,279
3.4
167,288
6.5
9.7
Wisconsin
1,453,430
TOTALS
7,304,841
96,335
1.3
167,288
6.5
PROGRESS REPORT
KAUPINEN
ON
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total :
Number of
Number
Households
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
Cornectiont
730,997
62,799
9.5
43,938
6.0
15:57
ILLINOIS
2,604,869
924991
35.5
271,679
4579
MAINE
238,070
22,501
9.4
MASS.
1,177,833
37,787
3.2
NEW HAMP.
174,935
40,786
23.3
VERMONT
107,077
3,989
3.7
R.I.
232,456
31,146
13.3
TOTALS
5,266,237
1,130,999
21.4
315,017
5.9
6.7.3
PROGRESS REPORT
ON
REED
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total :
Number of
Number
Households
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
ARRONA
413,000
28,413
6.8
N/A
N/O
6.9
COLORADO
549,861
01/07
M/A
HAWAII
165,000
10,289
6.2
n/a
N/A
6.2-
NEW MEX.
224,000
17,272
7.7
n/n
2/6
7.7
TEXAS
2,270,018
345,856
15.0
15.2
TOTALS
3,621,879
55,974
1.5
345,85
16.2
16.7
PROGRESS REPORT
ON
BROWN
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total %
Number of
Number
Rewseholds
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Conties
ALABAMA
642,865 865
18,296
2.8
N/A
3.8
ARKANSAS
433,724
27,079
6.2-
N/A
6.7
GEORGIA
745,213
4402
0.5
N/A
LOUISIANNA
712,485
17,307
2.4
N/A
And
MISS.
403,784
96,501
23.8
N/A
73.8°
S.CAR.
524,337
5,697
1.0
n/A
10
TOTALS
3,444,408
169,282
4.9
PROGRESS REPORT
MURRAY
ON
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total :
Number of
Number
Benseholds
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Pricrity
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
DELAWARE
141,436
6,188
4.3
MACYLAND
935,627
61,780
6.6
145,349
15.5
38.1
NEWJERSEY
1,660,037
257,845
15.5
62,770
37
100
D.C.
197,000
1,864
.9
TOTALS
2,934,100
327,677
11.1
208,139
7.0
1:1
FM
To
H
Committee
10/19
for the Re-election
of the President
1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 333-0920
October 16, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CLARK MACGREGOR
FROM:
FRED MALEK
SUBJECT:
Canvassing Results
OVERALL PROGRESS
This memorandum reports the progress on door to door canvassing through
October 7 and telephone canvassing through October 5. All but six states
are now reporting canvassing results to our control center, and all
telephone centers are reporting. The reported progress is as follows:
(000 omitted)
Total Households in U. S.
63,316
Total Households in Priority Counties
48,149
Total Households Contacted Door to Door
3,459
% Priority County Households Canvassed
7.1%
Total Households Contacted by Phone
2,548
Total Households Canvassed Door to
Door and by Telephone
6,006
% Priority County Households Canvassed
12.0%
Taken overall, I am pleased with the progress to date. A major canvassing
effort is underway across the country with the three most important can-
vassing weeks yet to come (October 7 through October 28). At the same
time neither the door to door nor the telephone banks have met the quotas
we had originally set. This is due largely to a very late start by most
states along with a certain amount of apathy we have encountered in gen-
erating volunteers. How well we do ultimately depends on whether or not
we can make up for some of the lost time during the last three weeks in
October. Needless to scy, we are pushing hard to make this happen, and I
hope to double the above results by October 28.
- 2
PROGRESS IN KEY STATES
When the overall results are broken out on a state by state basis,
the results are uneven with some states performing superbly and with
some not yet getting the job done. Tab A shows the progress in the
key states, and the following paragraphs comment on this progress.
California is moving quite well with 24% of the priority county
households canvassed either by phone or door to door. They are
in high gear and should continue their fine performance.
Connecticut is canvassing, but results are below our expect-
ations. Their organization is strong but they haven't yet
delivered. We are hammering hard here, and I believe we can
bring them up substantially.
Illinois has clearly generated the most outstanding results
of any state - 924,991 households have been canvassed door
to door and 271,699 have been telephoned. This represents
roughly 37% of the households in the priority counties.
Maryland was considered to have the best organization, but the
results are not as good as we had hoped from a state which
organized for a primary. Twenty-two percent of the households
have been contacted, mostly by telephone. Door to door was de-
emphasized early with the goal of reaching the greatest number
of households possible over the telephone.
New Jersey is doing an excellent job in light of their late
start. Nineteen percent of the households in the priority counties
have been contacted and I expect a major surge in the next three
weeks.
Michigan has canvassed but the results have not been reported.
We anticipate a fairly good performance, but any real appraisal
must be based on the numbers.
Ohio shows a disappointing 10% canvass rate, but due to lax disci-
pline, have not yet reported all that has been done. Therefore,
they are likely to be in much better shape than indicated but again,
we must await the numbers to make a meaningful evaluation.
New York, Pennsylvania and Texas are doing less well. Each has
contacted 12 to 15% of their priority county households. New York
and Pennsylvania have been working hard but have a lot of ground
to cover and have not had firm leadership. They are clearly the
worst of our key states although they are moving fairly well now.
Texas is the victim of a late reorganization and is just beginning
a hard effort. Because of this, Texas' major canvassing effort
will be made from phone banks.
- 3 -
In the seven other battleground states, canvassing progress is behind
that achieved in the key states. Their efforts have not, of course,
been supplemented by the telephone banks, nor have their campaigns
been as well financed as those in the key states. These states have
canvassed 6.1% of the households in the priority counties as shown
in Tab B. Of these states, Missouri, Washington and Oregon have done
relatively well. Wisconsin has not yet begun their key cities program
which was designed to get the canvassing done during the month before the
election. Massachusetts will show rapid improvement and is not too bad off
considering the late start. Minnesota should also improve. West Virginia
on the other hand, is a disaster, and I doubt if they will ever show the
results needed. Progress for all other states by Regional Director is
shown at Tab C.
ACTIONS TAKEN
In order to bolster the states where canvassing is going poorly, I have
taken the following actions:
1.
Assigned fieldman support to states where added manage-
ment is needed - New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Texas,
California, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, West Virginia,
and Washington.
2.
Personally talked to the State Chairmen, Executive Directors
and other key personnel to re-emphasize the importance of
canvassing and the results we are expecting of them. I am
spending a good deal of my time on this telephone work now
and am applying severe heat.
3. Instructed the Regional Directors to emphasize phone bank
operations in the key states and make them the number one
priority for the last three weeks of October. Their calling
capacity, if properly utilized, can add significantly to the
households contacted in the closing weeks of the campaign.
Also, since they are essential to our get out the vote effort, it
is imperative that all of them are fully manned and operating
properly.
4. Increased the state budgets where finances have been a
problem - Oregon, Massachusetts, Missouri and Wisconsin.
*
*
*
- 4 -
In summary, I am pleased at where we now stand in our canvassing efforts.
Where weaknesses have appeared, actions are being taken to bolster the
effort and I am certain the canvass results by October 28 will be impress-
ive. Our major concern now is to plan our "Get-Out-The-Vote" effort so
that it can turn out the favorables found in the door to door canvass as
well as all registered Republicans.
One final note, the control system is now fully on stream. It not only
1
provides the attached results, but also shows performance on every county
in the country. I encourage you to visit the control room again for a
complete review. Because it is clearly an innovation in national campaigns,
you may want to mention it to the President.
Bee:
KEY STATES
PROGRESS REPORT
ON
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total %
TAB
Number of
Number
Households
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
CALIFORNIA
5,047,704
8.5
-
424,000
768,512
CONNECTICUT
730,997
69,799
9.5
43,938
6.0
15.7
ILLINOIS
2,604,869
924,991
35.5
271,679
10.4
MARYLAND
935,627
61,780
6.6
145,349
15.5
93.1
New JERSEY
1,660,037
257,845
15.5
63,720
37
NEW YORK
4,902,038
191,206
3.9
301,235
10.2.
141
OHIO
2,573,045
89,279
3.4
167,258
65
PENNSYLVANIA
3,095,630
141,842
4.5
238,057
2.6
TEXAS
2,270,018
345,800
15.2-
15.70
TOTALS
23,819,965
2,160,742
9.0
2,547,73%
10.5
PAG
PROGRESS REPORT
BATTLEGROUND STATES
ON
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
TAB B
Total %
Number of
Number
Households
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
Missouri
1,184,870
87,433
7.3
N/A
%
MASS.
1,177,833
37,787
3.2
N/A
3.5
MINN.
883,676
55,505
6.2
n/o
6.5
WASH.
857,966
89,584
10.4
N/A
10.01
OREGON
525,467
127,186
24.2
n/n
24.2
W.VICOINIA
414,372
3,33y
.8
N/A
WISC.
1,453,430
TOTALS
6,497,614
400,827
6.1
14/
PROGRESS REPORT
COLLINS
ON
TAB C
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total :
Number of
Number
Households
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
CALIFORNIA
5,047,704
424,000
8.3
768,512
15.2
23.5
TOTALS
PROGRESS REPORT
ON
YEUTTER
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total %
Number of
Number
Households
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
IOWA
574,000
92,884
16.1
N/A
KANSAS
573,505
51,940
9.0
N/A
MINN.
883,676
55,505
6.2
N/A
NEBRASKA
376,995
N/A
N.DAKOTA
140,592
N/A
OKLAHOMA
623,018
20,740
3.3
N/A
S. DAKOTA
155,947
N/A
TOTALS
3,327,733
221,069
6.6
PROGRESS REPORT
GOOCH
ON
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total %
Number of
Number
Households
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
NEW YORK
4,902,038
191,206
3.9
504,235
10.2
15.1
PENNSYLVANIA
3,095,630
141,842
4.5
228,087
%
12.9
TOTALS
7,997,668
333,048
4.1
742,382
9.2
15.3
PROGRESS REPORT
ON
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
SAWERS
Total
Number of
Number
Households
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Pricrity
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
FLORIDA
1,667,263
54,249
3.2
N/A
KENTACKY
893,996
51,424
5.7
N/A
MISSOURI
1,184,870
87, 153
7.3
N/A
N.CAR.
1,033,775
5,697
.5
N/A
TENN.
841,555
40,117
4.7
N/A
VIRGINIA
919,324
71,807
7.8
N/A
WEST.VA
414,372
3,332
.8
N/A
TOTALS
6,955,155
314,059
4.5
PROGRESS REPORT
ON
RICHARDS
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total %
Number of
Number
Households
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
ALASKA
58,294
5,641
9.6
90
IDAHO
164,127
27,003
16.4
1611
MONTANA
170,319
32,544
19.1
19.1
NEVADA
129,490
14,815
12.9
13.9
OREGON
525,467
127,186
24.2
no.
WTAH
242,224
59,083
243
N/A
74.3
WASH.
857,966
89,584
10.1
10.4
WYOMING
83,860
TOTALS
2,231,747
357,856
16.0
PROGRESS REPORT
ON
MOSIMAN
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total 3
Number of
Number
Housch 1ds
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
INDIANA
1,174,407
3,760
.3
MICHIGAN
2,103,959
3,296
./
OHIO
2,573,045
89,279
3.4
167,288
6.5
9.9
Wisconsin
1,453,430
TOTALS
7,304,841
96,335
1.3
167,288
6.5
PROGRESS REPORT
KAUPINEN
ON
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total :
Number of
Number
Households
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
Correctiont
730,997
67,799
9.5
43,938
6.0
15:5
ILLINOIS
2,604,869
924,991
35.5
271,679
10.9
459
MAINE
238,070
22,501
9.4
MASS.
1,177,833
37,787
3.2
NEWHAMP.
174,935
40,786
23.3
VERMONT
107,077
3,989
3.7
R.I.
232,456
31,146
13.3
TOTALS
5,266,237
1,130,999
21.4
315,617
59
27.3
PROGRESS REPORT
ON
REED
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total %
Number of
Number
Households
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
ARIZONA
413,000
28,413
6.8
N/A
6.9
COLORADO
549, 861
2/0
HAWAII
165,000
10,289
6.2
w/o
6.2-
NEW MEX.
224,000
17,272
7.7
N/A
N/A
7.7
TEXAS
2,270,018
345,856
15.2
15.00
TOTALS
3,621,879
55,974
1.5
345,850
15.2-
16.7
PROGRESS REPORT
ON
BROWN
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total %
Number of
Number
Households
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
ALABAMA
642, 865
18,296
2.8
N/A
ARKANSAS
433,724
27,079
6.2
N/A
GEORGIA
745,213
4,402
0.5
N/A
LOUISIANNA
712,485
17,307
2.4
N/A
MISS.
403,784
96,501
23.8
N/A
S.CAR.
524,337
5,697
1.0
n/A
TOTALS
3,444,408
169,282
4.9
PROGRESS REPORT
MURRAY
ON
DOOR TO DOOR AND TELEPHONE CANVASSING
Total :
Number of
Number
Households
Households
Number of
Contacted
Contacted
Number of Households
Contacted
% Contacted In
Telephone
Priority
In Priority
State
in Priority Counties
Door to Door
Priority Counties
Calls Made
Counties
Counties
DELAWARE
141,436
6,188
4.3
the
MARYLAND
935,627
61,780
6.6
145,349
16.5
79.1
NEW JERSEY
1,660,037
257,845
15.5
62,790
3.7
100
D.C.
197,000
1,864
.9
TOTALS
2,934,100
327,677
11.1
208,109
7.0
1.1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: 10/20/72
TO:
Charles Colson
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
Bob disagrees with both suggestions.
Buchanan has been advised.
Have
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
1013
October 16, 1972
MEMORANDUM TO:
H. R. HALDEMAN
CHARLES COLSON
FROM:
PAT BUCHANAN
Some ideas sent in that have some merit: Considering
the "corruption" charge, etc., why not have the
President photographed in quasi-religious services;
either Sunday services, funerals, if they come up --
or other -- which in and of itself makes McGovern look
nasty in the character of his charges.
Secondly, strongly recommend that we take out ads in
all major black publications attacking McGovern for taking
blacks for granted -- and calling on blacks to repudiate
that sentiment. These ads would serve to force McGovern
to spend money to answer them -- and they might well weaken
him in the black community as McGovern has never been
strong there personally. This is the one major voting block
where McGovern wins overwhelmingly -- and some hard
negative ads might convince blacks either to "go fishing"
or cut McGovern.
Buchanan
I disagree Nott on
H
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINCTON
October 16, 1972
MEMORANDUM TO:
H. R. HALDEMAN
CHARLES COLSON
FROM:
PAT BUCHANAN
Some ideas sent in that have some merit: Considering
the "corruption" charge, etc., why not have the
President photographed in quasi- religious services;
either Sunday services, funerals, if they come up --
or other -- which in and of itself makes McGovern look
nasty in the character of his charges.
Secondly, strongly recommend that we take out ads in
all major black publications attacking McGovern for taking
blacks for granted -- and calling on blacks to repudiate
that sentiment. These ads would serve to force McGovern
to spend money to answer them -- and they might well weaken
him in the black community as McGovern has never been
strong there personally. This is the one major voting block
where McGovern wins overwhelmingly - - and some hard
negative ads might convince blacks either to "go fishing"
or cut McGovern.
Buchanan
Gaton Shadhan - I heartities
agree - we write pet any votes but
they will Stay homes -See of we can care do duns
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
October 18, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
S
SUBJECT:
Key States and Senate Races
Clark MacGregor has approved a list of Key States which
includes the crucial areas for the President as well as
local candidates. The document attached at Tab A divides
the President's Key States into four levels indicating the
amount of effort.
Presidential Race
I = California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey,
New York and West Virginia
II = Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania
III = Maryland, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin
IV = Minnesota
Local Races
The attached document uses a key to describe the situation
in states where effort on behalf of local candidates is
being directed:
NP = No effort necessary for the President
= incumbent
( ) = House race
* = Maximum support
NG = Net gain in House or Senate
RO = Republican Open
- 2 -
For example, the situation in Illinois is: number II level
of activity for the President; Percy is the incumbent Senator;
Madigan is the Republican House candidate in the 21st trying
to keep a Republican seat; Young is the Republican candidate
who would be a net gain if he won the 10th seat.
Senate Races
The updated chart of the Senate Seats, with all available
polling data and comments, is attached at Tab B. MacGregor
will receive a copy.
You may want to discuss Key States and the Senate Races at
tomorrow's Political Meeting.
Alabama NP
Blount
* (Dickinson - 2nd) Montgomery and S. E. Corner
Alaska NONE
Arizona NONE
Arkansas NONE
I
California
* (Mailliard - 6th) San Francisco
* (Snider - 38th) NG San Bernardino - Riverside
Colorado NP
* (Johnson - 4th) NG Fort Collins and N. W. Corner
(Armstrong - 5th) NG Denver, Aurora
(McKevitt - 1st) Denver
Connecticut NP
* (Sarasin - 5th) NG Waterbury, Wallingford, Meriden
(Rittenband - 1st) NG Hartford
Delaware NP
Boggs
Florida NONE
Georgia NP
Thompson
* (Cook - 5th) RO Atlanta
hawaii NONE
Idaho NP
*McClure'
Page Two
II
Illinois
Percy
(Madigan - 21st) RO Decatur, Champaign, Bloomington
(Young - 10th) NG Cook County
(Hoellen - 11th) NG Cook County
Indiana NP
* (Dennis - 10th) Muncie and Richmond
(Hudnut - 11th) NG Kokomo and Marion
? (Landgrebe - 2nd) Lafayette and North (not Gary or S. Bend)?
(Hillis - 5th) North of Indianapolis
Iowa NP
* (Schwengel - 1st) Iowa City, Burlington, Davenport
* (Kyl - 4th) Des Moines
Kansas NONE
Kentucky NP
*Nunn
* (Jackson - 6th) NG Frankfort, Lexington
Louisiana NONE
Maine NP
* (Cohen - 2nd) NG Bangor, Lewiston and North
III
Maryland
(Holt - 4th) NG Annapolis
I
Massachusetts
? (Cronin - 5th) RO Middlesex County - Lowell ?
* (Weeks - 12th) RO Weymouth - Plymouth County
* (Linsky- 4th) NG Newton, Brookline, Framingham
Page Three
I
Michigan
Griffen
* (Esch - 2nd) Ann Arbor and South
IV
Minnesota
Hansen
* (Zwach - 6th) St. Cloud and S. W. Corner
* (HaaMan - 7th) NG Moorhead and N. W. Corner
Mississippi NP
(Butler - 2nd) NG Columbus to Greenville
(Cochran - 4th) NG Vicksburg and South
III Missouri
* (Sloan - 6th) NG St. Joseph
Montana NP
Hibbard
Nebraska NONE
Nevada NP
(Towell - ALL) NG at large
New Hampshire NP
Powell
I
New Jersey
* (Maraziti - 13th) NG Phillipsburg, Boonton
(Dowd - 3rd) NG
Long Branch, Monmouth
New Mexico NP
*Domenici
Page Four
I
New York
* (Gilman - 26th) NG Newburg
* (Koldin - 32nd) NG Syracuse
(Peyser - 23rd) Bronx and Southern Westchester
(Vergari - 24th) NG White Plains and Yonkers
North Carolina NP
*Helms
* (Martin - 9th) RO Charlotte
* (Hawke - 4th) NG Raleigh-Durham
North Dakota NONE
II
Ohio
Oklahoma NP
*Bartlett
* (Hewgley - 1st) RO Tulsa
III Oregon
II
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island NP
*Chaffee
South Carolina NP
(Limehouse - 1st) NG Charleston
South Dakota NP
*Hirsch
* (Abdnor - 2nd) NG Western two thirds
(Vickerman - 1st) NG Eastern Third
Page Five
Tennessee NP
* (Beard - 6th) NG Clarksville - Columbia
Texas NP
*Tower
* (Price - 13th) Amarillo, Wichita Falls
(Steelman - 5th) NG Dallas
Utah NONE
Vermont NONE
Virginia NP
SCOTT
III Washington
(Bledsoe - 4th) NG Yakima and North
I
West Virginia
III Wisconsin
(Thomson - 3rd) La Crosse, Eau Claire
(Froelich - 8th) RO Green Bay and North
Wyoming NP
(Kidd - ALL) NG at large
B
SENATE SEATS
STATE
CANDIDATES
POLLS
COMMENTS
INCUMBENTS
Michigan
Griffin (R)
10/16 47-37-2-14
Lead still very soft, Detroit area
Kelley (D)
9/21 42-36-22
still key, needs P visit.
Texas
Tower (R)
10/3 53-30-17
Tower pulling away 68 organization
Sanders (D)
9/12 46-41-13
improvés -- needs another showing of
P interest. Still a lingering anti-
Tower sentiment among voters.
Delaware
Boggs (k)
8/15 63-18-19
Biden very attractive and running
Biden (D)
9/15 41-29-31
well. Boggs badly in need of P
10/15 46-40-14
assist. TV & radio tapes will help.
REPUBLICAN SEATS
Kentucky
Nunn (R)
10/3 53-30-17
Field reports organization needs pick-
Huddleston (D)
9/12 46-41-13
up. Nunn thinks campaign going well.
Idaho
McClure (R)
10/9 47-30-23
Field reports encouraging.
Davis (D)
South
Hirsch (R)
8/1 38-44-18
Needs $ and help in western part of
Dakota
Abourezk (D)
10/6 39-44-17
state. Also Butz & Mrs. N. wanted.
NON-INCUMBENTS
PROBABLE
New Mexico
Domenici (R)
39-24-37
Organization closely tied into P's.
Daniels (D)
Needs S - looks good.
Rhode
Chaffee (R)
9/22 49-34-17
Needs Mrs. N. visit, organization
Island
Pell (D)
10/12 Chaffee +8
now working w/P's.
Georgia
Thompson (R)
No good data
Field reports close race, running poor
Nunn (D)
campaign. P's visit a real boost.
Oklahoma
Bartlett (k)
Due 10/20
Campaign improving, still needs
Edmondson (D)
identity w/P.
POSSIBLE
North
Helms (R)
No good data
Running poor campaign -- too conserva-
Carolina
Galifianakis (D)
tive, organization now improving w/
tie-in to P. Considered close enough
to win.
Alabama
Blount (F)
28-47-2-23
Well organized -- P coattails will be
Sparkman (n)
strong w/straight ticket. Needs more
P involvement -- TV tapes.
Nontara
Hibbard (k)
No good data
Needs $ but DOW very doubtful and our
Metcalf (i))
resources should not be wasted here.
Louisiana
Toledano (R)
No good data
3-vay race -- needs $ and organiza-
Johnston (D)
tional help.
McKeithen (1)
LONG
Virginia
Scott (R)
No good data
Foor candidate, totally dependent on
Spong (1))
P landslide.
New
Powell (R)
10/16 30-58-15
Very conservative candidate, but
Melatrye (D)
trying to tie in w/p's.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 13, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
We need to gather a revised list of the states we need
to worry about in terms of concentrating our surrogates
etc., and taking a complete relook at the last two weeks
of the campaign for surrogate scheduling on this basis.
Bob
should have the latest information available as to what
the priority states really are. We need to include, for
example, Texas where we are forty points ahead but other
states where things are close we need to take a look at.
L.
you
Parter 2 cong
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
October 18, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Key States and Senate Races
Clark MacGregor has approved a list of Key States which
includes the crucial areas for the President as well as
local candidates. The document attached at TAB A divides
the President's Key States into four levels indicating the
amount of effort.
Presidential Race
I - California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey,
New York and West Virginia
II = Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania
III = Maryland, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin
IV = Minnesota
Local Races
The attached document uses a key to describe the situation
in states where effort on behalf of local candidates is
being directed:
NP
=
No effort necessary for the President
#
incumbent
( ) = House race
*
Maximum support
MG
-
Net gain in House or Senate
RO
-
Republican Open
- 2 -
For example, the situation in Illinois is: number II level
of activity for the President; Percy is the incombent Senator;
Madigan is the Republican House candidate in the 21st trying
to keep a Republican seat; Young is the Republican candidate
who would be a net gain if he won the 10th seat.
Senate Races
The updated chart of the Senate Seats, with all available
polling data and comments, is attached at Tab B. MacGregor
will receive a copy.
You may want to discuss Key States and the Senate Races at
tomorrow's Political Meeting.
Alabama NP
Blount
* (Dickinson - 2nd) Montgomery and S. E. Corner
Alaska NONE
Arizona NONE
Arkansas NONE
I
California
* (Mailliard - 6th) San Francisco
* (Snider - 38th) NG San Bernardino - Riverside
Colorado NP
* (Johnson - 4th) NG Fort Collins and N. W. Corner
(Armstrong - 5th) NG Denver, Aurora
(McKevitt - 1st) Denver
Connecticut NP
* (Sarasin - 5th) NG Waterbury, Wallingford, Meriden
(Rittenband - 1st) NG Hartford
Delaware NP
Boggs
Florida NONE
Georgia NP
*Thompson
* (Cook - 5th) RO Atlanta
h.waii NONE
Idaho NP
*McClure
Page Two
II
Illinois
Percy
(Madigan - 21st) RO Decatur, Champaign, Bloomington
(Young - 10th) NG Cook County
(Hoellen - 11th) NG Cook County
Indiana NP
* (Dennis - 10th) Muncie and Richmond
(Hudnut - 11th) NG Kokomo and Marion
? (Landgrebe - 2nd) Lafayette and North (not Gary or S. Bend) ?
(Hillis - 5th) North of Indianapolis
Iowa NP
* (Schwengel - 1st) Iowa City, Burlington, Davenport
* (Kyl - 4th) Des Moines
Kansas NONE
Kentucky NP
*Nunn
* (Jackson - 6th) NG Frankfort, Lexington
Louisiana
NONE
Maine NP
* (Cohen - 2nd) NG Bangor, Lewiston and North
III
Maryland
(Holt - 4th) NG Annapolis
I
Massachusetts
? (Cronin - 5th) RO Middlesex County - Lowell ?
* (Weeks - 12th) RO Weymouth - Plymouth County
* (Linsky- 4th) NG Newton, Brookline, Framingham
Page Three
I
Michigan
Griffen
* (Esch - 2nd) Ann Arbor and South
IV
Minnesota
Hansen
* (Zwach - 6th) St. Cloud and S. W. Corner
* (HaaMan - 7th) NG Moorhead and N. W. Corner
Mississippi NP
(Butler - 2nd) NG Columbus to Greenville
(Cochran - 4th) NG Vicksburg and South
III Missouri
* (Sloan - 6th) NG St. Joseph
Montana NP
Hibbard
Nebraska NONE
Nevada NP
(Towell - ALL) NG at large
New Hampshire NP
Powell
I
New Jersey
* (Maraziti - 13th) NG Phillipsburg, Boonton
(Dowd - 3rd) NG Long Branch, Monmouth
New Mexico NP
*Domenici
Page Four
I
New York
* (Gilman - 26th) NG Newburg
* (Koldin - 32nd) NG Syracuse
(Peyser - 23rd) Bronx and Southern Westchester
(Vergari - 24th) NG White Plains and Yonkers
North Carolina NP
*Helms
* (Martin - 9th) RO Charlotte
* (Hawke - 4th) NG Raleigh-Durham
North Dakota NONE
II
Ohio
Oklahoma NP
*Bartlett
* (Hewgley - 1st) RO Tulsa
III
Oregon
II
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island NP
*Chaffee
South Carolina NP
(Limehouse - 1st) NG Charleston
South Dakota NP
*Hirsch
* (Abdnor - 2nd) NG Western two thirds
(Vickerman - 1st) NG Eastern Third
Page Five
Tennessee NP
* (Beard - 6th) NG Clarksville - Columbia
Texas NP
*Tower
* (Price - 13th) Amarillo, Wichita Falls
(Steelman - 5th) NG Dallas
Utah NONE
Vermont NONE
Virginia NP
SCOTT
III Washington
(Bledsoe - 4th) NG Yakima and North
I
West Virginia
III Wisconsin
(Thomson - 3rd) La Crosse, Eau Claire
(Froelich - 8th) RO Green Bay and North
Wyoming NP
(Kidd - ALL) NG at large
SENATE SEATS
STATE
CANDIDATES
POLLS
COMMENTS
INCUMBENTS
Michigan
Griffin (R)
10/16 - 47-37-2-14
Lead still very soft, Detroit area
Kelley (D)
9/21 - 42-36-22
still key, needs P visit.
Texas
Tower (R)
10/3 - 53-30-17
Tower pulling away as organization
Sanders (D)
9/12 - 46-41-13
improves -- needs another showing of
P interest. Still a lingering anti-
Tower sentiment among voters.
Delaware
Boggs. (R)
8/15 - 63-18-19
Biden very attractive and running
Biden (D)
9/15 - 41-29-31
well. Boggs badly in need of P
10/15 - 46-40-14
assist. TV & radio tapes will help.
REPUBLICAN SEATS
Kentucky
Nunn (R)
10/3 - 53-30-17
Field reports organization needs pick-
Huddleston (D)
9/12 - 46-41-13
up. Nunn thinks campaign going well.
Idaho
McClure (R)
10/9 - 47-30-23
Field reports encouraging.
Davis (D)
South
Hirsch (R)
8/1 - 38-44-18
Needs $ and help in western part of
Dakota
Abourezk (D)
10/6 - 39-44-17
state. Also Butz & Mrs. N. wanted.
NON-INCUMBENTS
PROBABLE
New Mexico
Domenici (R)
39-24-37
Organization closely tied into P's.
Daniels (D)
Needs $ -- looks good.
Rhode
Chaffee (R)
9/22 - 49-34-17
Needs Mrs. N. visit, organization
Island
Pell (D)
10/12 - Chaffee +8
now working w/P's.
Georgia
Thompson (R)
No good data
Field reports close race, running poor
Nunn (D)
campaign. P's visit a real boost.
Oklahoma
Bartlett (R)
Due 10/20
Campaign improving, still needs
Edmondson (D)
identity w/P.
POSSIBLE
North
Helms (R)
No good data
Running poor campaign -- too conserva-
Carolina
Galifianakis (D)
tive, organization now improving w/
tie-in to P. Considered close enough
to win.
Alabama
Blount (R)
28-47-2-23
Well organized -- P coattails will be
Sparkman (D)
strong w/straight ticket. Needs more
P involvement -- TV tapes.
Montana
Hibbard (R)
No good data
Needs $ but now very doubtful and our
Metcalf (D)
resources should not be wasted here.
Louisiana
Toledano (R)
No good data
3-way race -- needs $ and organiza-
LONG SHOT
Johnston (D)
tional help.
McKeithen (I)
Virginia
Scott (R)
No good data
Poor candidate, totally dependent on
Spong (D)
P landslide.
New
Powell (R)
10/16 - 30-58-15
Very conservative candidate, but
Hampshire
McIntrye (D)
trying to tie race in w/P's.