Museado / NARA Collection rn-ret — Collection rn-ret
Recent Folios
Login Register
English (inglés) español magyar (húngaro) हिन्दी (hindi)

Survos folio page chat

WHSF: Contested, 44-8

Ask the Scholar

Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

Page 1

OCR

Richard Nixon Presidential Library Contested Materials Collection Folder List Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 44 8 Campaign Memo To: Gordon From: Thomas W. Benham RE: Information from the Lead of a San Francisco company about CA research organization (sent May 31). 1pg 44 8 > Campaign Newspaper Article titled "Calif 6-4, Night LD" written by George Skelton. Discusses McGovern recorded upsurge in a major poll as he prepared to face Hubert Humphrey and three others. 1pg 44 8 5/12/1972 Campaign Memo To: H.R. Haldeman From: R.H. Finch RE: For Your Information RE: Sacramento Report (April 1972) from Robert G. Beverly, Assemblyman, Forty-Sixth District. Report attached. 10pgs 44 8 5/19/1972 Campaign Memo To: Thomas W. Benham From: John M. Tyler RE: Best guess as to the people most likely to be doing political research in California. 3pgs 44 8 2/8/1972 Campaign Memo To: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan RE: California poll that showed the President at 28% from Jan 10 and Tom Reed's recent poll showing the President at 32%. 1pg Thursday, February 09, 2012 Page 1 of 3 Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 44 8 2/1/1972 Campaign Letter To: H.R. Haldeman From: Thomas C. Reed RE: Copy of the final monthly survey and arrangment for one Nixon-McCloskey- Ashbrook question of Republicans to be asked in January. 1pg 44 8 1/18/1972 Campaign Report Listening Post, Preliminary Survey Results, 1,049 Interviews in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, polling questions about the Republican and Democrat Presidential Primaries. 2pgs 44 8 1/13/1972 Campaign Memo To: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan RE: California Poll. Thomas C. Reed business card, Listening Post Polling Results for December 12, 1971, and memo to: Gordon Strachan from: H.R. Haldeman RE: California Polls attached. 4pgs 44 8 2/9/1972 Campaign Memo To: H.R. Haldeman From: Bob Finch RE: "Thought the attached might interest you." 24th Congressional District polling data and articles titled "Poll Sees Finch Winning Congress Race" and "Finch, in Foothills, lauds Nixon's Work" attached. 4pgs 44 8 1/13/1972 Campaign Memo To: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan RE: California Poll. 3pgs 44 8 Campaign Other Document Handwritten notes (author unknown) RE: DMI for Tom Reed, and information about polling data. 1pg Thursday, February 09, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 44 8 12/23/1971 Campaign Memo To: Attorney General From: Jeb S. Magruber RE: recent California poll. Report titled "The California Poll" from the Independent and Impartial Statewide Survey of Public Opinion, released December 9, 1971, attached. 8pgs Thursday, February 09, 2012 Page 3 of 3 OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION Research Park Princeton, Memorandum may3' E Gordm: Here's some informate for Francisco company about Deceived from the head of our research organiz when in California in that may we engaged in in political researce It's not Too illuminating, hut will girl you Jack's professional ppraisal at any rate If we learn enything name, I wass t on- Tan Thomas W. Benham CALIF 0-4 NIGHT LD BY GEORGE SKELTON LOS ANGELES (UPI)-GEORGE MCGOVERN RECORDED ANOTHER UPSURGE IN A MAJOR POLL SUNDAY AS HE PREPARED TO FACE HUBERT HUMPHREY AND THREE OTHERS WHO FORCED THEIR WAY ONTO THE PROGRAM IN THE FINAL NATIONALLY TELEVISED DEBATE BEFORE TUESDAY'S CRUCIAL CALIFORNIA PRIMARY. A NEW CALIFORNIA POLL SHOWED MCGOVERN AND PRESIDENT NIXON RUNNING EVEN AT 41 PER CENT EACH IN THE STATE WHICH WILL OFFER THE LARGEST BLOC OF ELECTORAL VOTES IN THE NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION. HUMPHREY TRAILED NIXON BY 8 POINTS, 42-34. HUMPHREY'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER, JACK CHESTNUT, MEANTIME APPEALED TO DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE F. 0' BRIEN TO "TAKE IMMEDIATE AND APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE" WITH AN AGREEMENT ON MEDIA SPENDING HE CHARGED MCGOVERN IS VIOLATING IN CALIFORNIA. MCGOVERN HAS DENIED VIOLATING THE AGREEMENT. THE THIRD TV DEBATE SUNDAY ON ABC'S ISSUES AND ANSWERS HAD FIVE PARTICIPANTS. IN ADDITION TO MCGOVERN AND HUMPHREY, SOLE PARTICIPANTS IN THE FIRST TWO DEBATES, THE FINAL ENCOUNTER INCLUDED LOS ANGELES MAYOR SAM YORTY, REP. SHIRLEY CHISHOLM OF NEW YORK AND RETIRED ARMY GEN. TAYLOR HARDIN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF GOV. GEORGE WALLACE, A CALIFORNIA WRITE-IN CANDIDATE. NEITHER HUMPHREY NOR MCGOVERN WAS PARTICULARLY HAPPY WITH THE NEW ADDITIONS. HUMPHREY SAID BEFORE THE SHOW THEY WOULD "OBVIOUSLY DILUTE THE PERFORMANCE." MCGOVERN REFUSED TO APPEAR WITH JUST HUMPHREY AND YORTY, DEMANDING THAT THE OTHERS ALSO BE INCLUDED. ABC'S DECISION TO MAKE IT A FIVE-MEMBER DEBATE FOLLOWED A FEDERAL COURT ORDER FRIDAY THAT MRS. CHISHOLM BE GIVEN FREE EQUAL TIME IN VIEW OF HER EXCLUSION FROM THE OTHER DEBATES ON NBC AND CBS. MCGOVERN, THE FAVORITE IN CALIFORNIA'S PRIMARY WITH ITS BIG BLOC OF 271 DELEGATE VOTES, ALSO PICKED UP AN ADDITIONAL 10 DELEGATES IN OKLAHOMA AND THREE IN KENTUCKY SATURDAY, BRINGING HIS TOTAL TO MORE THAN A THIRD OF THE 1,509 NEEDED TO NOMINATE THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AT THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION. THREE OTHER PRIMARIES ALSO WILL BE HELD TUESDAY--NEW JERSEY'S WITH 109 DELEGATES, NEW MEXICO'S WITH 18 AND SOUTH DAKOTA'S WITH 17. MC30VERN AND HUMPHREY ARE BOTH ON THE BALLOT IN NEW JERSEY AND NEW MEXICO, BUT MCGOVERN IS UNOPPOSED IN HIS HOME STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA THE NEW CALIFORNIA POLL SHOWED A SUBSTANTIAL GAIN FOR MCGOVERN COMPARED TO A PREVIOUS SURVEY MAY 1. IN THE EARLIER POLL HE TRAILED NIXON BY 43 TO 39 PER CENT AND IN FEBRUARY WAS EVEN FURTHER BACK AT 47-32 PER CENT. HUMPHREY ALSO ROSE BY ONE PERCENTAGE POINT AFTER TRAILING NIXON, A MONTH AGO BY 44-35. THE PARTIALLY PARALYZED WALLACE, WAGING A CONCENTRATED CALIFORNIA CAMPAIGN THROUGH HIS WIFE, SON AND SUPPORTERS, RECORDED 9 PER CENT WHEN MATCHED WITH NIXON AND EITHER MCGOVERN OR HUMPHREY IN A THREE-WAY RACE. HUMPHREY'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER CONTENDED IN A LETTER TO O'BRIEN THAT MCGOVERN HAD SPENT $507,000 ON TELEVISION AND RADIO COMMERCIALS. DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDERS HAD AGREED TO SPEND ONLY $463,000 IN CALIFORNIA. THE HUMPHREY STRATEGIST BASED HIS FIGURES ON INFORMATION HE SAID WAS RELEASED BY THE BROADCAST MEDIA. MCGOVERN'S CAMPAIGN, MEANTIME, ANNOUNCED THAT MORE THAN 25,000 VOLUNTEERS WOULD PARTICIPATE TUESDAY IN "THE MOST EXTENSIVE GET-OUT-THE-VOTE PROGRAM IN THE HISTORY OF CALIFORNIA PRIMARY ELECTIONS." UPI 06-04 02:58 PED THE WHITE House WASHINGTON Old May 12, 1972 Polls TO: H. R. HALDEMAN FROM: R. H. FINCH FYI Sacramento Report from Robert G. Beverly ASSEMBLYMAN FORTY-SIXTH DISTRICT April 1972 Dear Friends: I am pleased to have this opportunity to preview some of the major issues we face at the 1972 Session of the State Legislature. Speaker of the Assembly Bob Moretti re-appointed me as Chairman of the Assembly Criminal Justice Committee, which handles all legislation dealing with criminal offenses, peace officers, firearms, drugs, criminal court procedure, correctional and rehabilitation facilities. I am also a member of the Finance and Insurance Committee, Constitu- tional Amendments Committee and the Local Government Com- mittee. COASTAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Coastal protection -- one of the top issues of con- servationists and one especially important to the 46th Assembly District -- is before the Legislature again this year. The measures introduced to date seek to assure that any development along the coastal zone would be coordinated to prevent the loss of California's precious and irreplace- able resources. 1 am optimistic that a measure to preserve our coastline will be enacted this year. In enacting such legislation, however, it is important that the private property interest in the coastal zone be protected as well. Local government must retain a strong voice in the development of any plans formulated for pro- tection of the coastal zone. -2- CONSUMER PROTECTION I introduced Assembly Bill 659 to give consumers who purchase products with warranties additional protection. My bill proposes that the transfer of goods from one per- son to another during the lifetime of an express or implied warranty shall not terminate that warranty. There is no reason the seller should not be made to stand behind his warranty even though the product is resold. EDUCATIONAL FINANCING In the light of the State Supreme Court's decision voiding the existing system of financing public education because it discriminates against low-wealth school dis- tricts, this subject will be a major issue at the current legislative session. Several measures have been introduced to change the entire scope of educational financing, and extensive committee studies are underway to insure an equitable and balanced program. VOTING RECORD I was honored recently by being rated as having one of the best voting records on major environmental measures introduced at the 1971 Session of the Legislature. Legis- lative Birdwatchers, Inc., a group of citizens who index the voting records of State Legislators on these important issues have rated me at 96% - second highest in the Assembly. The Coalition for Clean Air also rated me as the only member of the Assembly having a 100% voting record on air pollution legislation at the 1970 legislative session. REAPPORTIONMENT The battle on reapportionment continues during the current legislative session. The California Supreme Court ruled that if the Legislature could not reach agreement on reapportionment this year, the Court would settle it by the 1974 election. The Court validated the new Congres- sional District boundaries, but the current Assembly and Senate Districts remain unchanged for the 1972 elections. PROPERTY TAX RELIEF Several measures have been introduced to increase the $750 homeowners property tax exemption at the current session. A Constitutional Amendment was also introduced to limit real property taxes to 1% of the full cash value. Some form of property tax relief is urgently needed, and I will continue to support reasonable measures to lessen this burden. -3- APRIL 1972 QUESTIONNAIRE I am interested in your opinions on particular problems which might be solved by legislative action at the State level. Please complete, stamp and return this questionnaire to assist me to better represent you in Sacramento. * * * * * * * * * 1. Would you favor a law to legalize prostitution? Yes No Undecided 2. As an automobile owner, do you suppport the idea of required annual inspections of all vehicles to insure their safe operating condition and compliance with anti- pollution laws? Yes No Undecided 3. Would you favor statewide lotteries for raising addi- tional revenues to support local schools? Yes No Undecided 4. Do you support the idea of state-controlled off-track Detach Here betting as a means of increasing revenues? Yes No Undecided 5. How would you assess the accomplishments of Governor Reagan's administration? Good Fair Poor 6. Do you believe that the State should provide financial aid to private and parochial schools? Yes No Undecided 7. Do you approve of heroin addicts being given methadone under a medically supervised maintenance program? Yes No Undecided 8. Should our present abortion laws be liberalized? Yes No Undecided 9. Present law provides for criminal penalties for certain kinds of sexual conduct between consenting adults in pri- vate. Would you favor a bill to eliminate these penal- ties? Yes No Undecided 10. There has been much discussion regarding the penalties for using marijuana. Do you feel the penalties should: Remain unchanged Be more severe Be less severe 11. If you were voting for a successor to Governor Reagan today, who would you support among the following whose names are mentioned as possible candidates? (Listed alphabetically. ) Secretary of State Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Presidential Aide Robert H. Finch Controller Houston I. Flournoy Minority Leader Bob Monagan Speaker Bob Moretti Senator George Moscone Lt. Governor Ed Reinecke Attorney General Evelle J. Younger Other Stamp Assemblyman Robert G. Beverly 46th Assembly District Office 1611 South Pacific Coast Highway Redondo Beach, California 90277 May 11 Bob Beverly has sent out 76,000 questionnaires to his district and 4800 returns are in. Who would you like to be Governor in 1974? Brown 440 Finch 845 Flournoy 55 Monagan 20 Moretti 174 Moscone 42 Reinecke 523 Younger 771 2870 1. Would you favor a law to legalize prostitution? Yes 2339 No 2085 Undecided 406 4830 2. Do you support annual inspection of all vehicles? Yes 3252 No 1216 Undecided 347 4815 3. Do you favor statewide lottery for revenues for schools? Yes 3316 No 1235 Undecided 291 4842 4. Do you support state controlled off-track betting? Yes 3096 No 1343 Undecided 386 4825 - 2 - 5. How would you assess accomplishments of RR? Good 2133 Fair 1483 Poor 1162 4778 6. Do you believe state should provide aid to private and Parichial schools? Yes 1521 No 2853 Undecided 433 4807 7. Do you approve of methodone treatment for addicts (heroin) ? Yes 3541 No 531 Undecided 744 4816 8. Should the present abortion laws be liberalized? Yes 2742 No 1619 Undecided 456 4817 9. Would you favor a law to eliminate penalties for sexual conduct between consenting adults? Yes 3012 No 1364 Undecided 461 4837 -- 3 - 10. Penalties for using marijuna --- do you feel the penalties should: Remain unchanged 1109 More severe 1171 Less severe 2336 4616 Additional questions for Assembly District poll 1. The California Supreme Court has abolished the death penalty in California. Do you agree? yes no undecided 2. Should there be liberalization of the laws governing the disemination of information and materials for prophylactic (birth control) purposes? yes no undecided Bagley Poll - May 9, 1972 (partial returns) Who would you like to see as Governor in 1974? Republican Democrat Non-Partisan Total Brown 26 117 18 161 Finch 271 55 22 348 Flournoy 33 8 4 45 Moretti 9 30 3 42 Moscone 15 62 8 85 Reinecke 228 33 9 270 Tunney 28 127 16 171 Younger 175 41 18 234 None 15 28 22 65 Undecided 148 102 19 269 948 603 139 1690 opinion RESEARCH CORPORATION ORC West, Inc.: 425 Battery Street, San Francisco, California 94111 telephone: 415/433-1788 INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540 JOHN M. TYLER, Vice President General Manager, ORC West, Inc. May 19, 1972 Mr. Thomas W. Benham President Opinion Research Corporation North Harrison Street Princeton, New Jersey 08540 Dear Tom: This memorandum is our best guess as to the people most likely to be doing political research in California. Some of it is based on infor- mation from Carolyn - who has worked at Field, Communications Research Center and West Coast Community Surveys, and from Betty White who recently worked at Communications Research Center. As you know, there are literally hundreds of "marketing research firms" in Los Angeles and the Bay Area. We do not have any information on most of the small shops. As far as I know from talking with researchers who have done political research locally, it is generally not a very profitable segment of the business. Competition for political research assignments is often in- tense because of the public relations value they believe it gives them. Research houses are willing to cut their bids and often lose money on the work. In addition, unsuccessful candidates often are hard to pin down for payment after election time. It is my guess that the great majority of political research being done for municipal and state level candidates for office is done by small research shops who are successful bidders on the basis of price. Further, it is probable that the research is assigned through public relations firms handling the candidates' campaigns. With that preamble, here is what we would guess about some of the California firms: Field Research Carolyn worked for Field a few years ago. At that time Merv was accepting no custom political research candidates for election in California, although he was working for candidates in other western states. His point of view was that accepting California CHICAGO LONDON LOS ANGELES MEXICO CITY MONTREAL NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO TORONTO WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Thomas W. Benham Page 2 May 19, 1972 assignments would compromise the integrity and believability of his syndicated California Poll, which, as you know, has wide distribution in California newspapers and is widely quoted on radio and television news programs. Merv's personal political leanings are toward the Democratic Party. Communications Research Center When Hugh Schwartz was running Communications Research Center, it was doing some work for candidates for the legislature and local mayoral and municipal office seekers. Candidates they have worked for are Senator John Tunney, Mayor Alioto and State Representative Phillip Burton. The current management is probably not actively seeking this kind of business since it was often unprofitable business. Public Response, Inc. This is a very small, new research firm run by the aforementioned Hugh Schwartz. He personally is very interested in this type of research, and is most likely aggressively soliciting it. We do not know how much, if any, he is currently doing. Drossler Research Corporation It is possible that Drossler is handling sub-contracting assign- ments from public relations firms. Haug Associates, Inc. Haug's total research volume is probably about the same as Field Corporation and it is probable that they are involved in political research. Their Board of Directors includes many high placed, well- known California businessmen. It is likely that they are getting some assignments through these connections. I would guess their orientation is toward Republican candidates. MSI MSI is a very profitable, high volume field and tab outfit head- quartered in Los Angeles, which is run by Dick Hurlburt, an ex-Field employee Merv fired several years ago. It is likely that MSI is doing political research because of its low-cost structure and reputation for good field and tab work. Mr. Thomas W. Benham Page 3 May 19, 1972 West Coast Community Surveys This firm is primarily known as a very high quality, expensive, interviewing service, with the bulk of its business coming from academia and governmentally funded assignments. It is doubtful that they are doing much of this kind of work because of their cost structure. There has recently been a large-scale, state-wide survey dealing with attitudes toward the controversial Proposition 9 "The Pollution Initiative" which will appear on the June ballot. Although I do not know the research firm involved, it was chosen by Whittaker and Baxter, the public relations firm handling the opposition point of view to Proposition 9. My guess would be that the research was done by MSI. That's about all we can piece together on the local political scene. I hope it is helpful. Best regards, OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION (west) Jack John M. Tyler Vice President, General Manager JMT:bjw THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON February 8, 1972 Fill Fill well TO: H. R. HALDEMAN FROM: GORDON STRACHAN On January 10 you asked about a California poll that showed the President at 28%. My January 13 memorandum responding is attached. Tom Reed just sent you the last poll with this DMI question. It shows the President at 32%. Attachment The California Delegation to the Republican National Convention of 1972 pledged to the re-election of President Richard M. Nixon Governor Ronald Reagan, Chairman Thomas C. Reed, Vice Chairman 1 February 1972 Mr. H. R. Haldeman The White House Washington, D.C. Dear Bob: Enclosed is a copy of our final monthly survey. As the Dele- gation Organizing Committee cannot use information beyond this point, our participation now terminates. I have arranged for one Nixon-McCloskey-Ashbrook question of Republicans to be carried in January. The results will be available before the Committee's final meeting. Very best regards, Tow Thomas C. Reed Enclosure TCR:h Post Office Box 371 San Rafael, California 94902 (415) 456-7310 LISTENING POST PRELIMINARY SURVEY RESULTS, 18 JANUARY 1972 1,049 Telephone Interviews in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, December 1971 1. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY (Republicans only) "Suppose you were voting for the group who will select the Republican presidential nominee -- which group of the following three would you favor: A group pledged to support Richard M. Nixon; a group pledged to support a candidate more conservative than Richard M. Nixon; or a group pledged to support a candidate more liberal than Richard M. Nixon? More More Liberal Nixon Conservative No Group Group Group Opinion Los Angeles and Orange Counties 16% 58% 15% 11% Los Angeles County only 17% 59% 14% 11% Orange County only 14% 56% 18% 13% 2. DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY (open ended question, asked of Democrats only) "Which Democrat would you personally like to see nominated for President? This Survey Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. E. Muskie 28% 30% 30% 34% 18% E. Kennedy 21% 26% 26% 29% 32% H. Humphrey 19% 15% 13% 8% 13% G. McGovern 11% 8% 10% 10% 8% J. Lindsay 4% 2% 5% 5% 8% H. Jackson 3% 5% 2% 2% 4% All others 14% 14% 12% 12% 19% PRELIMINARY SURVEY RESULTS, 18 JANUARY 1972 Page 2 3. GENERAL ELECTION A. To measure a base level of support: "Now, if the election for President were held today and Richard Nixon were running for reelection, would you vote for him?" No Yes No Depends Answer This survey, December 32.2% 40.6% 23.5% 3.7% November 27.2% 43.8% 26.5% 2.7% October 28.6% 42.6% 25.5% 3.3% September 28.9% 40.5% 22.9% 7.7% August 30.4% 43.5% 17.6% 8.5% *Los Angeles County only Nov. and Dec. 28.4% 44.7% 23.6% 3.3% Orange County only, Nov. and Dec. 35.9% 30.5% 30.8% 2.7% Republicans only, L.A. & Orange, Nov. and Dec. 59.2% 10.9% 27.4% 2.5% B. Head to head VS. Kennedy and Wallace No Nixon Kennedy Wallace Opinion *L.A. County, Nov. & Dec. 40% 41% 7% 12% L.A. & Orange, Dec. 44% 37% 6% 13% L.A. & Orange, Nov. 42% 39% 7% 12% L.A. & Orange, Aug. 39% 44% 9% 8% *Los Angeles County is reasonably representative of California as a whole. Ca. Pollo THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON Administratively Confidential January 13, 1972 MEMORANDUM FOR: H.R. HALDEMAN FROM: GORDON STRACHAN G SUBJECT: California Poll You asked what the California poll was (supposedly ours) that showed 28% for the re-election of Nixon. Decision Making Information, one of the three pollsters working for the Campaign Committee through Bob Teeter, conducts a monthly poll in Los Angeles and Orange County. Tom Reed, the Republican National Committeeman for California, purchased the following question in November: "Now, if the election for President were held today and Richard Nixon were running for re-election, would you vote for him?" Yes No Depends No Answer This survey - November 27.3% 43.8% 26.4% 2.6% The full results are attached. Tom Reed sends the poll results to the Attorney General. Harry Dent occasionally receives copies and forwards them to you. Since you have indicated previously that you did not want to see individual state polls, they have not been forwarded to you. Lyn Nofziger told me that when he saw these results in December he instructed Tom Reed not to ask that question again. It was not asked in the December or January DMI poll. When Bob Teeter called DMI to check on whether this 27.3% result was the only result close to the 28% figure you mentioned, DMI was surprised his inquiry came so late. Apparently the results have been known in California since the middle of December. Mort Allin has not seen any press coverage of this poll. THOMAS C. REED MEMBER REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE 503 D STREET, ROOM 3 NATIONAL COMMITTEEMAN FOR CALIF. SAN RAFAEL. CALIF. MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 94901 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE (415) 456-7310 Fill LISTENING POST Preliminary Survey Results, 12 December 1971 1013 Telephone Interviews in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, November 1971 1. DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY (Democrats only) This Survey November October September August E. Muskie 31% 30% 34% 18% E. Kennedy 27% 26% 29% 32% H. Humphrey 15% 13% 8% 13% G. McGovern 7% 10% 10% 8% H. Jackson 6% 2% 2% 4% J. Lindsay 2% 5% 5% 8% All others 13% 12% 12% 19% 2. GENERAL ELECTION To measure a base level of support: "Now, if the election for President were held today and Richard Nixon were running for re-election, would you vote for him? " No Yes No Depends Answer This survey, November 27.3% 43.8% 26.4% 2.6% October 28.6% 42.6% 25.5% 3.3% September 28.9% 40.5% 22.9% 7.7% August 30.4% 43.5% 17.6% 8.5% Head to Head: constant No R. Nixon E. Kennedy G. Wallace Answer Total, L.A. & Orange Co. 41.7% 39.4% 7.3% 11.6% Republicans 84.0% 7.7% 3.7% 4.7% Democrats 20.3% 60.4% 7.8% 11.5% Independents 36.2% 31.0% 13.2% 19.5% L. A. County only* 39.0% 42.5% 7.4% 11.1% Orange County only 58.5% 20.5% 7.0% 14.0% Total, L.A. & Orange Co., August survey 39.4% 44.0% 8.5% 8.0% *Los Angeles County is reasonably representative of California as a whole. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON January 10, 1972 ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM FOR: MR. GORDON STRACHAN FROM: H. R. HALDEMAN H Find out, please, what the California poll was, supposedly ours) that showed 28% for the reelection of Nixon. This is one that was reported recently and I am sure it was a listing of the whole field or something like that, but I'd like to know precisely what the method was on it and what the actual results were. more allin - nothing. Roe Teeter - Lyn not -Tom series Reed, oftracking nate comm pollsin Qr/cal LA Cntes commissioned - cancelled per Lyn Holmes Tuttle Genl Elee. - nou i ele. - not DMI- in press but CC RR,AG THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON Full February 9, 197 3 TO: H. R. HALDEMAN POODS Thought the attached might be of interest to you. nothi BBFinel Bob Finch Counsellor to the President 24th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 600 Interviewed Republican only: Most important issues - (open end-- more than 100% Finch 49.5 Taxes/Fiscal/Property Tax Relief 21.2 Richardson 27.6 Local improvements 19.2 Don't know 22.9 (traffic, freeways) Education/Bussing 14.7 Finch 61.9 Crime 11.2 McColl 11.1 Pollution/Ecology 8.2 Don't know 27.0 Racial 2.3 Finch 49.8 Quality of government 1.8 Richardson 24.4 McColl 4.1 Don't know 21.7 Democrats and Republicans: Finch 54.0 Binkley 19.5 Don't know 26.5 Richardson 41.0 Binkley 20.0 Don't know 39.0 Star-News-3 119. 7. 12'T Motched Richardson. McColl, Binkley Eg DINT WERKMAN the figure sas more than the president is re-elected." He has McColl. and then both and sub- Writer usual num' 0 persons inter- scheduled a news conference mitted their names 10 Republe- Whus :- ide Prier viewed in . congr esional di- Thursday in Pasadena can voters. Finch and then Ri- to an- Finch world win both too Di- chard-on were each place di trict poll. nounce his decision wl other or mary an general 0,00 ion against Binkley in a poll of racem in the 20th Congrassional Finch. in Sylmar Tuesday for not TO run in the 20th District both Republicans and Demo- District a 10 decides in POTET a ceremony throing over to the primary. crats. the a poll 1. .01 hs country portions 01 the land Richardson hasn't yet dis- Results of the poll were: weeken Tuesday. ground me earthquake-de- closed his decision and McColl Republicans only: The poll. taken by Opinton stroved San Fernando Veterans and Binkley have *both an- Finch 49.5 h. shows Fr ? Viministpatin in Hosoital. told a nounced they will run. Richardson 27.6 R. beating direr State Sen. H. L. 1.7 vs servi reporter he woder Tite pollects fist matched Don't Know 22.9 Richardson of Areadia or Bill return 0 "atter de e Finch against Richardson. then McColl of West Covina in the Finch 61.9 McColl 11.1 June 6 primary. Egypt Talks or War Don't Know 27.0 It shows him defeating Dem- ocral John Dinkley, who an-1 Associated Press Finch 49.8 nounced Tuesday he will seek! Egyptian Premier Aziz Sidky; In Jerusalem, the Israch Richardson 24.4 the post being vacated by Rep. talked of war Tue day while, in/state radio said Premier Golda McColl 04.1 H. Allen Smith, R-Glendale, in Jerusalem. the Israeli Cabinet November. Meir would special Don't know 21.7 convene a prepared to ao" on a U.S.-spon- More than 000 voters were in- sored pe3c" plan designed 10 Cabinet meeting today in Republicans and Democrats: terviewed at their homes reopen the Sucz Canal. approve Israel's participation Finch 51.0 throughout the an "With the ower and arms in the Suez Canal initiative. Binkley 10.3 Opinion Research spekesman we have Egy: is this to start The waterway has been closed Don't know 26.5 said. and wall X 11 the battle to 10- since Isracli forces overran the The snoke man for the firm. gain the land lost in 1967." Sid- Richardson 41.0 Sinai Peninsula in the six- which commits political pelis ky told a sectioning of Egyptian Binkley 200 throughout the state, indicated workers in Alexandria. pday1967 war. Don't know 33.0 A Glendale News-Press, Wednesday, Feb. 2, 1972 By CAROLE McKELVEY He said that while at HEW for matching fund projects. Writer Robert Finch strongly sup- he managed to cut the payroll "We hope with revenue ported the domestic and for- by the phasing out of cer- sharing that Los Angeles eign policies of President Nix- tain johs. County, for example, will be on as he spoke to members of able to carry out projects un- "We cut it from $120,000 to fettered. the Sunland-Tujunga commu- $105,000." nity Tuesday night. He charged that the Con- Finch said the government During a short speech Finch gress is holding up the Pres- is trying to reorganize the touched on topics as varied as ident's innovative programs. budget. "But it is hard to Vietnam. value-added tax. "Whether we can get a make government respon- ending the draft, reorganizing clear hearing on such things sive," he said. "We have too the budget, and the need for as revenue sharing in a Pres- more medical doctors in the much in the government of idential election year is doubt- nation. overpromise and underdeliv- ful." Finch said. ery. He said the war is "obvi- Finch said the President. while not being able-to "bring "We are trying some revo- ously winding down. lutionary proposals. We are "When we came into of- us all together" as he had hoped, had returned a spirit confronted by an urban crisis fice." he said, "there were of civility to the country. in the area of schools. In the 559,000 of our men in Viet- "We look to the next decade past we have retied too much nam. May 1 of this year we on the property tax. Two will have de-escalated to 65,- with a great sense of op- timism," Finch said. commissions are now working 000 people. It cannot be dis- "We have been stabilized. on possible solutions to this puted that we are ending the We are not coming apart. problem. The President will war." "There were some of us in be answering this area soon, Finch said the winding the late 60's who thought the he said. down of the war is helping to country might have lost its Finch said one of the chan- cause the unemployment sense of rational - that an ges being looked at is a so- problems now faced on the era of violence had taken called value-added tax. "This domestic front. "No one tax would apply to each trans- wants unemployment. And the over. action any item goes through President has taken a bold "We must now determine where we are going, who we from manufacturer to buyer." route to beak down the are," he said. "This is really he said. "It may be worth economic problems. discussing to relieve soaring "The inter-relationship be- the watershed point in our tween the Vietnam War and history." property taxes. Finch mentioned briefly his the unemployment is quite ap- Finch said local govern- parent." he said. "We have period as secretary of HEW. ments are tied down by the released 2.2 million men onto saying he thought he had done current system which re- the job market from the mili- a good job. quires government approval tary and defense industry. And they all have to find jobs." Finch said. "We have passed the worst part, however, we have bitten the bullet on the economy," he said. During the question period Los Angeles City Councilman Louis R. Nowell appealed to Finch to ask the President to find a way to let local govern- ment have more say over its programs. "Please take the message back." Nowell said, "that we would rather do it ourself." Seated at the head table with Finch were members of the local service clubs who sponsored the event. They in- cluded Mr. and Mrs. Harry McGregor representing Kiwanis: Mr. and Mrs. Kenny Houge. Rotary: and Mr. and Mrs. Bud Rasmusssen, Lions. Supervisor Warren Dorn. Nowell, and Mr. and Mrs. Wellington Love of John Har- mer's office were also present. Master of ceremonies was businessman Clark Drane. The invocation was given by the Rev. Kenneth Monson, Tujunga First Christian Church. Administratively Confidential January 13, 1972 MEMORANDUM FOR: H.R. HALDEMAN FROM: GORDON STRACHAN SUBJECT: California Poll You asked what the California poll was (supposedly ours) that showed 28% for the re-election of Nixon. Decision Making Information, one of the three pollsters working for the Campaign Committee through Bob Teeter, conducts a monthly poll in Los Angeles and Orange County. Tom Reed, the Republican National Committeeman for California, purchased the following question in November: "Now, if the election for President were held today and Richard Nixon were running for re-election, would you vote for him?" Yes No Depends No Answer This survey - November 27.38 43.8% 26.48 2.6% full results are attached. Tom Reed sends the poll results to the Attorney General. Harry Dent occasionally receives copies and forwards them to you. Since you have indicated previously that you did not want to see individual state polls, they have not been forwarded to you. Lyn Nofziger told me that when he saw these results in December he instructed Tom Reed not to ask that question again. It was not asked in the December or January DMI poll. When Bob Teeter called DMI to check on whether this 27.38 result was the only result close to the 28% figure you mentioned, DMI was surprised his inquiry came so late. Apparently the results have been known in California since the middle of December. Mort Allin has not seen any press coverage of this poll. Fill LISTENING POST THOMAS C. REED polls MEMBER Survey Results, 12 December 1971 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE Los Angeles and Orange Counties, November 1971 503 D STREET. ROOM 3 COMMITTEEMAN FOR CALIF. SAN RAFAEL. CALIF. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 94901 CAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE (415) 456-7310 PRIMARY (Democrats only) This Survey November October September August E. Muskie 31% 30% 34% 18% E. Kennedy 27% 26% 29% 32% H. Humphrey 15% 13% 8% 13% G. McGovern 7% 10% 10% 8% H. Jackson 6% 2% 2% 4% J. Lindsay 2% 5% 5% 8% All others 13% 12% 12% 19% 2. GENERAL ELECTION To measure a base level of support: "Now, if the election for President were held today and Richard Nixon were running for re-election, would you vote for him?' No Yes No Depends Answer This survey, November 27.3% 43.8% 26.4% 2.6% October 28.6% 42.6% 25.5% 3.3% September 28.9% 40.5% 22.9% 7.7% August 30.4% 43.5% 17.6% 8.5% Head to Head: constant No R. Nixon E. Kennedy G. Wallace Answer Total, L.A. & Orange Co. 41.7% 39.4% 7.3% 11.6% Republicans 84.0% 7.7% 3.7% 4.7% Democrats 20.3% 60.4% 7.8% 11.5% Independents 36.2% 31.0% 13.2% 19.5% L. A. County only* 39.0% 42.5% 7.4% 11.1% Orange County only 58.5% 20.5% 7.0% 14.0% Total, L.A. & Orange Co., August survey 39.4% 44.0% 8.5% 8.0% *Los Angeles County is reasonably representative of California as a whole. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON January 10, 1972 ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM FOR: MR. GORDON STRACHAN FROM: H. R. HALDEMAN H Find out, please, what the California poll was, supposedly ours.) that showed 28% for the reelection of Nixon. This is one that was reported recently and I am sure it was a listing of the whole field or something like that, but I'd like to know precisely what the method was on it and what the actual results were. more allin - nothing Bol Teeter - Lyn not -Tom ceries oftriking Reed, nate comm polls in Qr/cal LA Cntes commissioned - cancelled per Lyn Holmes Tattle Genl Elec. - nouil ele - not DMI- in press but CC RR,AG Teeler DMI for Tom Reed 1000 calls in LA Orange enty - now if the elee for P. were Dell tereay an RR were running for Re-Ele, Pollins Tom Reed asked 0 m I te would you whe for him? Dates get absolute Rn car Oct, 29% yes for sere 41% not vote on Here 31% depends - That 101 A G had the soll Thanks - conduct poll every mo, unique ? Fle COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT Cal Polls 1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. NW WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 December 23, 1971 (202) 333.0920 DETERMINED TO BE AN CONFIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING E.O. 12065, Section 6-102 By OMPMAL NARS, Date 5-23-80 MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The attached information from the recent California Poll may be of interest to you. Attachment JEB Jun S MAGRUDER CONFIDENTIAL THE AND SMPART OF PUBLIC CRINICH OPERATION FL... CORPORATION SHICE 013 San Francisco Headquarters Office COPYRIGHT 1971 BY FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION. FOR PUBLICATION BY SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Release #737 For release THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1971 LARGE POTENTIAL FOURTH PARTY IMPORTANT: Contract for this service is subject to re- VOTE; PRESENCE WOULD HURT vocation if publication or broadcast takes place before DEMOCRATS release date or if contents of report are divulged to persons outside of subscriber staff prior to release time. by Mervin D. Field Rumblings of a possible fourrh party movement are being heard across the land and it is quite possible that next year voters in many states will have a ballot choice of four national presidential tickets. Within the past fortnight about 200 delegates representing about 23 states attended a fourth party organizing convention in Texas. Naming itself the People's Party, the delegates debated a party platform and reviewed the candidate field for likely 1972 presidential and vice-presidential standard bearers. Initial support for this fourth party movement comes from C variety of disaffected groups, such as militant young voters, blacks, browns, women's libburs, consumerists, and anti-war activists. While they may lack unity on some policies and issues, their common ground is their dissatisfaction with the present social and political system. They see little difference between the two major parties, and abhor George Wallace. In con- ventional political description they are liberal, and if they did not form a Fourth party, most of them would as probably vote Democratic as the least of several evils. This is what disturbs Democratic strategists as they view next year's presidential campaign. They fear that fourth party votes will mean defeat for the party and the re-election of Republican President Richard Nixon. Last May, and again last month, the California Poll measured public sentiment toward a fourth party movement in this state for president. The survey's results indicate that there is large potential vote for C fourth party in this state. The amount depends on who heads the Democratic party ticket and who runs on the fourth party ticket. The survey also shows why Democrats have cause for wony: a fourth party candidate draws more votes from Democraric than from Republican ranks. In this latest test The California Poll tested the current popularity of two men as possible fourth party candidates: ex-Senator Eugene McCarthy and New York Mayor John Lindsay. In each test Nixon was listed CS the GOP candidate and George Wallace as the AIP candidate. Democratic candidates were rotated in order on these simulated ballots. (MORE) The California Poll - page 2 While neither McCarthy nor Lindsay "wins" in these tests as fourth party candidates, results show that McCarthy has much more support than Lindsay. Nevertheless, in all cases except one, the appearance of a fourth party still leaves Nixon with substantial pluralities. The exception is when Senator Edward Kennedy is the Democratic candidate. His appeal appears able to stem the defection of some nominal Democratic votes to C fourth party, leaving him at least as strong as Nixon. In the table below are shown the current candidate popularity standings when Kennedy, Muskie, or Humphrey is the Democratic candidate and McCarthy or Lindsay are fourth party candidares. For comparison purposes, previously published three party results are also shown. Three Party 4 Parties (McCarthy) 4 Parties (Lindsay) Nixon 42% Nixon 37% Nixon 39% Muskie 40 Muskie 30 Muskie 31 Wallace 10 Wallace 7 Wallace 7 McCarthy 20 Lindsay 18 Don't know 8 Don't know ó Don't know 5 Nixon 42% Nixon 35% Nixon 35% Kennedy 45 Kennedy 36 Kennedy 41 Wallace 9 Wallace 6 Wallace 5 McCarthy 18 Lindscy 15 Don't know 4 Don't know 5 Don't know 4 Nixon 46% Nixon 38% Nixon 36% Humphrey 35 Humphrey 25 Humphrey 30 Wallace 10 Wallace 7 V/allace 7 McCarthy 23 Lindsay 22 Don't know 9 Don't know 7 Don't know 5 When less prominent presidential contenders such as Senators George McGovein, Henry Jackson, Mayor Sam Yorty, Congressman Wilbur Mills and Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, are listed in the Democratic slot, Nixon's pluralities become even greater than when Kennedy, Muskie, and Humphrey are listed. From this evidence, it would seen that if fourth party movement had as its motivating force the desire to change the status quo, it would instead accomplish the opposite -- the election of Richard Nixon. But this is only one way of looking at the situation. The dissidents who would rally around a fourth party banner see in this exercise an opportunity to demonstrate just how powerful they are and expect that even if they don't poll a plurality of votes, they can influence the major parties and their candidates. A significant share of the popular vote, even though it brought no electoral college votes, would also be encouragement for more organization and a better showing in 1976. More immediate, however, there is the prospect that a. fourth party headed by a credible candidate and given a determined effort between now and next November, might just possible result in winning a state such as California, Illinois, New York. The electoral votes from just one of these states, together with whatever electoral college votes George Wallace got in the South, might be enough to deny either the Republican or Democratic party an outright victory in November. Then, when the House of Representatives subsequently convened to select a President, the congressmen whose districts polled substantial fourth party votes would be under considerable pressure to select a man who would be acceptable to fourtn purly voters. (MORE) The California Poll - page 3 Three Party 4 Parties (McCarthy) 4 Parties (Lindsay) Nixon 47% Nixon 40% Nixon 38% Jackson 21 Jackson 13 Jackson 12 Wallace 11 Wallace 8 Wallace 7 McCarthy 29 Lindsay 27 Don't know 20 Don't.know 10 Don't know 16 Nixon 45% Nixon 33% Nixon 39% McGovern 33 McGovern 25 McGovern 22 Wallace 10 Wallace 8 Wallace 7 McCarthy 21 Lindsay 19 Don't know 13 Don't know 9 Don't know 13 Nixon 54% Nixon 40% Nixon 39% Yorty 17 Yorty 11 Yorry 14 Wallace 9 Wallace 6 Waliace 6 McCarthy 33 Lindsay 30 Don't know 20 Don't know 10 Don't know 11 Nixon 49% Nixon 39% Nixon 41% Mills 19 Mills 9 Mills 11 Wallace 11 Wallace 8 Wallace 7 McCarthy 31 Lindsay 26 Don't know 20 Don't know 13 Don't know 15 Nixon 50% Nixon 41% Nixon 41% Chisholm 19 Chisholm 8 Chisholm 8 Wallace 11 Wulldce 8 Wallace 8 McCarthy 30 Lindsay 29 Don't know 19 Don't know 13 Don't know 14 U -30- COPYRIGHT 1971 BY FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION. FOR PUBLICATION BY SUBSCRIBERS ONLY SECURITY PUBLICIANCE Losting INFORMATION ABOUT THIS SURVEY Dates of interviewing: November 1 - 13, 1971 Population covered by this survey: Representative cross-section of California adult public Sample design: The survey interviews are solected in accordance with a probability sample design which provides for rondom (i 0., non-judgemental) selection of households. Assign- ments in a particula: place are done in clusters with randomly drawn addresses as starting points to. each cluster of interviews. For this survey, 240 clusters throughout the state were selected. Each cluster consisted of a set of consecutive households beginning with the du signated starting hauchold. Interviewers made up 10 three calls on every listed address in on attempt to complete on interview. One adult per howe- hold was selected for interview on a systematic basis TO provide a balance by sex and age. Interviewing was conducted during late afternoon and evening on woukdays and all day on the week-ord The sample is designed to be self-weighted on all variable. of interest, such astared of state, degree of Libanization, political party affiliation, Hand socio-economic status. Whenever imbalances in key variables occur ir. the sample due 10 sampling variability or other factors, corrective weights are applied during the data processing stage to return the sample to proper proportion. Wording of the A. "I know the 1972 presidential election is a year away, but if you were voting today and questions on which the presidential baliot looked like this, who would you vote for ? (CARDS WERE SHOWN this report is based: TO RESPONDENT LISTING THREE PARTY TRIAL HEAT PAIRINGS) B. "Let's assume that in addition 10 the two major parties' candidates and George Wullace's ticket, there was C fourth party headed by Eugene McCorthy. If you were voting today for President and Mese were the choices, who would you vote for? (CARDS WERE SHOWN TO RESPONDENT LISTING FOUR-PARTY TR.AL HEAT PAIRINGS) C. "Let's assume that in addition to the two major parties' candidates and George Wolloce's ticket, there was a fourth party headed by John Lindsay , If you were voting day for President and these were the choices, who would you vote for ?" (CARDS WERE SHOWN TO RESPONDENT LISTING FOUR PARTY TRIAL HEAT PAIRINGS) Number of interviews: In total 1007 persons: 300 self-identified as Republicans, 464 as Democrats, and 193 other party or no political affiliation. The California Poll sample for ti is report utilized a "split half sample" for questions on the four-party trial heat pairings used in this release. The number of interviews for the two halves was CS follows: Total sample A Sub-somple B Sub-sample C 3-party 4-party 4-party pairings Carrhy) (Lindsay) Total 1007 502 505 Republicans 350 174 176 Democrats 464 236 228 Other 193 92 101 [See reverse side for answers to some typical questions about the Poil] The public Souphs

Document source description

This file contains: To: Gordon From: Thomas W. Benham RE: Information from the Lead of a San Francisco company about CA research organization (sent May 31). 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], no date Article titled "Calif 6-4, Night LD" written by George Skelton. Discusses McGovern recorded upsurge in a major poll as he prepared to face Hubert Humphrey and three others. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Newspaper], no date To: H.R. Haldeman From: R.H. Finch RE: For Your Information RE: Sacramento Report (April 1972) from Robert G. Beverly, Assemblyman, Forty-Sixth District. Report attached. 10 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/12/1972 To: Thomas W. Benham From: John M. Tyler RE: Best guess as to the people most likely to be doing political research in California. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/19/1972 To: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan RE: California poll that showed the President at 28% from Jan 10 and Tom Reed's recent poll showing the President at 32%. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/8/1972 To: H.R. Haldeman From: Thomas C. Reed RE: Copy of the final monthly survey and arrangment for one Nixon-McCloskey- Ashbrook question of Republicans to be asked in January. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 2/1/1972 Listening Post, Preliminary Survey Results, 1,049 Interviews in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, polling questions about the Republican and Democrat Presidential Primaries. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 1/18/1972 To: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan RE: California Poll. Thomas C. Reed business card, Listening Post Polling Results for December 12, 1971, and memo to: Gordon Strachan from: H.R. Haldeman RE: California Polls attached. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/13/1972 To: H.R. Haldeman From: Bob Finch RE: "Thought the attached might interest you." 24th Congressional District polling data and articles titled "Poll Sees Finch Winning Congress Race" and "Finch, in Foothills, lauds Nixon's Work" attached. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/9/1972 To: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan RE: California Poll. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/13/1972 Handwritten notes (author unknown) RE: DMI for Tom Reed, and information about polling data. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date To: Attorney General From: Jeb S. Magruber RE: recent California poll. Report titled "The California Poll" from the Independent and Impartial Statewide Survey of Public Opinion, released December 9, 1971, attached. 8 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 12/23/1971

Page data

Page
1
Source index
0
Type
document
Media ID
326bc4bbe13348e3
Size
unknown

Document data

ID
26146136
Core
doc
Type
document
DTO data 
{
    "id": "26146136",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146136",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "WHSF: Contested, 44-8",
    "description": "This file contains:\n\nTo: Gordon From: Thomas W. Benham RE: Information from the Lead of a San Francisco company about CA research organization (sent May 31). 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], no date\n\nArticle titled \"Calif 6-4, Night LD\" written by George Skelton. Discusses McGovern recorded upsurge in a major poll as he prepared to face Hubert Humphrey and three others. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Newspaper], no date\n\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: R.H. Finch RE: For Your Information RE: Sacramento Report (April 1972) from Robert G. Beverly, Assemblyman, Forty-Sixth District. Report attached. 10 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/12/1972\n\nTo: Thomas W. Benham From: John M. Tyler RE: Best guess as to the people most likely to be doing political research in California. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/19/1972\n\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan RE: California poll that showed the President at 28% from Jan 10 and Tom Reed's recent poll showing the President at 32%. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/8/1972\n\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: Thomas C. Reed RE: Copy of the final monthly survey and arrangment for one Nixon-McCloskey- Ashbrook question of Republicans to be asked in January. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 2/1/1972\n\nListening Post, Preliminary Survey Results, 1,049 Interviews in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, polling questions about the Republican and Democrat Presidential Primaries. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 1/18/1972\n\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan RE: California Poll. Thomas C. Reed business card, Listening Post Polling Results for December 12, 1971, and memo to: Gordon Strachan from: H.R. Haldeman RE: California Polls attached. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/13/1972\n\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: Bob Finch RE: \"Thought the attached might interest you.\" 24th Congressional District polling data and articles titled \"Poll Sees Finch Winning Congress Race\" and \"Finch, in Foothills, lauds Nixon's Work\" attached. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/9/1972\n\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan RE: California Poll. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/13/1972\n\nHandwritten notes (author unknown) RE: DMI for Tom Reed, and information about polling data. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date\n\nTo: Attorney General From: Jeb S. Magruber RE: recent California poll. Report titled \"The California Poll\" from the Independent and Impartial Statewide Survey of Public Opinion, released December 9, 1971, attached. 8 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 12/23/1971",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146136",
    "collections": [
        "Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection",
        "Contested Materials Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/36/1461/26146136/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-44/Contested-44-08.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/36/1461/26146136/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-44/Contested-44-08.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/36/1461/26146136/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-44/Contested-44-08.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity 
{
    "localId": "26146136",
    "label": "WHSF: Contested, 44-8",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146136"
}
Document source metadata 
{
    "id": "26146136",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146136",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "WHSF: Contested, 44-8",
    "description": "This file contains:\n\nTo: Gordon From: Thomas W. Benham RE: Information from the Lead of a San Francisco company about CA research organization (sent May 31). 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], no date\n\nArticle titled \"Calif 6-4, Night LD\" written by George Skelton. Discusses McGovern recorded upsurge in a major poll as he prepared to face Hubert Humphrey and three others. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Newspaper], no date\n\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: R.H. Finch RE: For Your Information RE: Sacramento Report (April 1972) from Robert G. Beverly, Assemblyman, Forty-Sixth District. Report attached. 10 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/12/1972\n\nTo: Thomas W. Benham From: John M. Tyler RE: Best guess as to the people most likely to be doing political research in California. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/19/1972\n\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan RE: California poll that showed the President at 28% from Jan 10 and Tom Reed's recent poll showing the President at 32%. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/8/1972\n\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: Thomas C. Reed RE: Copy of the final monthly survey and arrangment for one Nixon-McCloskey- Ashbrook question of Republicans to be asked in January. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 2/1/1972\n\nListening Post, Preliminary Survey Results, 1,049 Interviews in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, polling questions about the Republican and Democrat Presidential Primaries. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 1/18/1972\n\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan RE: California Poll. Thomas C. Reed business card, Listening Post Polling Results for December 12, 1971, and memo to: Gordon Strachan from: H.R. Haldeman RE: California Polls attached. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/13/1972\n\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: Bob Finch RE: \"Thought the attached might interest you.\" 24th Congressional District polling data and articles titled \"Poll Sees Finch Winning Congress Race\" and \"Finch, in Foothills, lauds Nixon's Work\" attached. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/9/1972\n\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan RE: California Poll. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/13/1972\n\nHandwritten notes (author unknown) RE: DMI for Tom Reed, and information about polling data. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date\n\nTo: Attorney General From: Jeb S. Magruber RE: recent California poll. Report titled \"The California Poll\" from the Independent and Impartial Statewide Survey of Public Opinion, released December 9, 1971, attached. 8 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 12/23/1971",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146136",
    "collections": [
        "Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection",
        "Contested Materials Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/36/1461/26146136/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-44/Contested-44-08.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/36/1461/26146136/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-44/Contested-44-08.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/36/1461/26146136/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-44/Contested-44-08.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras 
{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146136",
    "naId": 26146136,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context 
{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/36/1461/26146136/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-44/Contested-44-08.pdf",
    "mediaId": "326bc4bbe13348e3",
    "ocrText": "Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nContested Materials Collection\nFolder List\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n44\n8\nCampaign\nMemo\nTo: Gordon From: Thomas W. Benham RE:\nInformation from the Lead of a San\nFrancisco company about CA research\norganization (sent May 31). 1pg\n44\n8\n>\nCampaign\nNewspaper\nArticle titled \"Calif 6-4, Night LD\" written\nby George Skelton. Discusses McGovern\nrecorded upsurge in a major poll as he\nprepared to face Hubert Humphrey and three\nothers. 1pg\n44\n8\n5/12/1972\nCampaign\nMemo\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: R.H. Finch RE:\nFor Your Information RE: Sacramento\nReport (April 1972) from Robert G. Beverly,\nAssemblyman, Forty-Sixth District. Report\nattached. 10pgs\n44\n8\n5/19/1972\nCampaign\nMemo\nTo: Thomas W. Benham From: John M.\nTyler RE: Best guess as to the people most\nlikely to be doing political research in\nCalifornia. 3pgs\n44\n8\n2/8/1972\nCampaign\nMemo\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan\nRE: California poll that showed the\nPresident at 28% from Jan 10 and Tom\nReed's recent poll showing the President at\n32%. 1pg\nThursday, February 09, 2012\nPage 1 of 3\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n44\n8\n2/1/1972\nCampaign\nLetter\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: Thomas C. Reed\nRE: Copy of the final monthly survey and\narrangment for one Nixon-McCloskey-\nAshbrook question of Republicans to be\nasked in January. 1pg\n44\n8\n1/18/1972\nCampaign\nReport\nListening Post, Preliminary Survey Results,\n1,049 Interviews in Los Angeles and Orange\nCounties, polling questions about the\nRepublican and Democrat Presidential\nPrimaries. 2pgs\n44\n8\n1/13/1972\nCampaign\nMemo\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan\nRE: California Poll. Thomas C. Reed\nbusiness card, Listening Post Polling Results\nfor December 12, 1971, and memo to:\nGordon Strachan from: H.R. Haldeman RE:\nCalifornia Polls attached. 4pgs\n44\n8\n2/9/1972\nCampaign\nMemo\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: Bob Finch RE:\n\"Thought the attached might interest you.\"\n24th Congressional District polling data and\narticles titled \"Poll Sees Finch Winning\nCongress Race\" and \"Finch, in Foothills,\nlauds Nixon's Work\" attached. 4pgs\n44\n8\n1/13/1972\nCampaign\nMemo\nTo: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan\nRE: California Poll. 3pgs\n44\n8\nCampaign\nOther Document\nHandwritten notes (author unknown) RE:\nDMI for Tom Reed, and information about\npolling data. 1pg\nThursday, February 09, 2012\nPage 2 of 3\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n44\n8\n12/23/1971\nCampaign\nMemo\nTo: Attorney General From: Jeb S.\nMagruber RE: recent California poll. Report\ntitled \"The California Poll\" from the\nIndependent and Impartial Statewide Survey\nof Public Opinion, released December 9,\n1971, attached. 8pgs\nThursday, February 09, 2012\nPage 3 of 3\nOPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION\nResearch Park Princeton,\nMemorandum\nmay3'\nE\nGordm: Here's some informate\nfor Francisco company about\nDeceived from the head of our\nresearch organiz when in California in\nthat may we engaged in in\npolitical researce It's not Too\nilluminating, hut will girl you Jack's\nprofessional ppraisal at any rate\nIf we learn enything name, I wass\nt on-\nTan\nThomas W. Benham\nCALIF 0-4\nNIGHT LD\nBY GEORGE SKELTON\nLOS ANGELES (UPI)-GEORGE MCGOVERN RECORDED ANOTHER UPSURGE IN A\nMAJOR POLL SUNDAY AS HE PREPARED TO FACE HUBERT HUMPHREY AND THREE\nOTHERS WHO FORCED THEIR WAY ONTO THE PROGRAM IN THE FINAL NATIONALLY\nTELEVISED DEBATE BEFORE TUESDAY'S CRUCIAL CALIFORNIA PRIMARY.\nA NEW CALIFORNIA POLL SHOWED MCGOVERN AND PRESIDENT NIXON RUNNING\nEVEN AT 41 PER CENT EACH IN THE STATE WHICH WILL OFFER THE LARGEST\nBLOC OF ELECTORAL VOTES IN THE NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION. HUMPHREY\nTRAILED NIXON BY 8 POINTS, 42-34.\nHUMPHREY'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER, JACK CHESTNUT, MEANTIME APPEALED TO\nDEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE F. 0' BRIEN TO \"TAKE IMMEDIATE\nAND APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE\" WITH AN AGREEMENT ON\nMEDIA SPENDING HE CHARGED MCGOVERN IS VIOLATING IN CALIFORNIA.\nMCGOVERN HAS DENIED VIOLATING THE AGREEMENT.\nTHE THIRD TV DEBATE SUNDAY ON ABC'S ISSUES AND ANSWERS HAD FIVE\nPARTICIPANTS. IN ADDITION TO MCGOVERN AND HUMPHREY, SOLE PARTICIPANTS\nIN THE FIRST TWO DEBATES, THE FINAL ENCOUNTER INCLUDED LOS ANGELES\nMAYOR SAM YORTY, REP. SHIRLEY CHISHOLM OF NEW YORK AND RETIRED ARMY\nGEN. TAYLOR HARDIN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF GOV. GEORGE WALLACE, A\nCALIFORNIA WRITE-IN CANDIDATE.\nNEITHER HUMPHREY NOR MCGOVERN WAS PARTICULARLY HAPPY WITH THE NEW\nADDITIONS. HUMPHREY SAID BEFORE THE SHOW THEY WOULD \"OBVIOUSLY DILUTE\nTHE PERFORMANCE.\" MCGOVERN REFUSED TO APPEAR WITH JUST HUMPHREY AND\nYORTY, DEMANDING THAT THE OTHERS ALSO BE INCLUDED.\nABC'S DECISION TO MAKE IT A FIVE-MEMBER DEBATE FOLLOWED A FEDERAL\nCOURT ORDER FRIDAY THAT MRS. CHISHOLM BE GIVEN FREE EQUAL TIME IN\nVIEW OF HER EXCLUSION FROM THE OTHER DEBATES ON NBC AND CBS.\nMCGOVERN, THE FAVORITE IN CALIFORNIA'S PRIMARY WITH ITS BIG BLOC\nOF 271 DELEGATE VOTES, ALSO PICKED UP AN ADDITIONAL 10 DELEGATES IN\nOKLAHOMA AND THREE IN KENTUCKY SATURDAY, BRINGING HIS TOTAL TO MORE\nTHAN A THIRD OF THE 1,509 NEEDED TO NOMINATE THE PRESIDENTIAL\nCANDIDATE AT THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION.\nTHREE OTHER PRIMARIES ALSO WILL BE HELD TUESDAY--NEW JERSEY'S WITH\n109 DELEGATES, NEW MEXICO'S WITH 18 AND SOUTH DAKOTA'S WITH 17.\nMC30VERN AND HUMPHREY ARE BOTH ON THE BALLOT IN NEW JERSEY AND NEW\nMEXICO, BUT MCGOVERN IS UNOPPOSED IN HIS HOME STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA\nTHE NEW CALIFORNIA POLL SHOWED A SUBSTANTIAL GAIN FOR MCGOVERN\nCOMPARED TO A PREVIOUS SURVEY MAY 1. IN THE EARLIER POLL HE TRAILED\nNIXON BY 43 TO 39 PER CENT AND IN FEBRUARY WAS EVEN FURTHER BACK AT\n47-32 PER CENT.\nHUMPHREY ALSO ROSE BY ONE PERCENTAGE POINT AFTER TRAILING NIXON, A\nMONTH AGO BY 44-35.\nTHE PARTIALLY PARALYZED WALLACE, WAGING A CONCENTRATED CALIFORNIA\nCAMPAIGN THROUGH HIS WIFE, SON AND SUPPORTERS, RECORDED 9 PER CENT\nWHEN MATCHED WITH NIXON AND EITHER MCGOVERN OR HUMPHREY IN A\nTHREE-WAY RACE.\nHUMPHREY'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER CONTENDED IN A LETTER TO O'BRIEN THAT\nMCGOVERN HAD SPENT $507,000 ON TELEVISION AND RADIO COMMERCIALS.\nDEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDERS HAD AGREED TO SPEND ONLY $463,000\nIN CALIFORNIA.\nTHE HUMPHREY STRATEGIST BASED HIS FIGURES ON INFORMATION HE SAID\nWAS RELEASED BY THE BROADCAST MEDIA.\nMCGOVERN'S CAMPAIGN, MEANTIME, ANNOUNCED THAT MORE THAN 25,000\nVOLUNTEERS WOULD PARTICIPATE TUESDAY IN \"THE MOST EXTENSIVE\nGET-OUT-THE-VOTE PROGRAM IN THE HISTORY OF CALIFORNIA PRIMARY\nELECTIONS.\"\nUPI 06-04 02:58 PED\nTHE WHITE House\nWASHINGTON\nOld\nMay 12, 1972\nPolls\nTO:\nH. R. HALDEMAN\nFROM: R. H. FINCH\nFYI\nSacramento Report\nfrom\nRobert G. Beverly\nASSEMBLYMAN\nFORTY-SIXTH DISTRICT\nApril 1972\nDear Friends:\nI am pleased to have this opportunity to preview\nsome of the major issues we face at the 1972 Session of\nthe State Legislature.\nSpeaker of the Assembly Bob Moretti re-appointed me as\nChairman of the Assembly Criminal Justice Committee, which\nhandles all legislation dealing with criminal offenses,\npeace officers, firearms, drugs, criminal court procedure,\ncorrectional and rehabilitation facilities. I am also a\nmember of the Finance and Insurance Committee, Constitu-\ntional Amendments Committee and the Local Government Com-\nmittee.\nCOASTAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION\nCoastal protection -- one of the top issues of con-\nservationists and one especially important to the 46th\nAssembly District -- is before the Legislature again this\nyear. The measures introduced to date seek to assure that\nany development along the coastal zone would be coordinated\nto prevent the loss of California's precious and irreplace-\nable resources. 1 am optimistic that a measure to preserve\nour coastline will be enacted this year.\nIn enacting such legislation, however, it is important\nthat the private property interest in the coastal zone be\nprotected as well. Local government must retain a strong\nvoice in the development of any plans formulated for pro-\ntection of the coastal zone.\n-2-\nCONSUMER PROTECTION\nI introduced Assembly Bill 659 to give consumers who\npurchase products with warranties additional protection.\nMy bill proposes that the transfer of goods from one per-\nson to another during the lifetime of an express or implied\nwarranty shall not terminate that warranty. There is no\nreason the seller should not be made to stand behind his\nwarranty even though the product is resold.\nEDUCATIONAL FINANCING\nIn the light of the State Supreme Court's decision\nvoiding the existing system of financing public education\nbecause it discriminates against low-wealth school dis-\ntricts, this subject will be a major issue at the current\nlegislative session. Several measures have been introduced\nto change the entire scope of educational financing, and\nextensive committee studies are underway to insure an\nequitable and balanced program.\nVOTING RECORD\nI was honored recently by being rated as having one\nof the best voting records on major environmental measures\nintroduced at the 1971 Session of the Legislature. Legis-\nlative Birdwatchers, Inc., a group of citizens who index\nthe voting records of State Legislators on these important\nissues have rated me at 96% - second highest in the Assembly.\nThe Coalition for Clean Air also rated me as the only\nmember of the Assembly having a 100% voting record on air\npollution legislation at the 1970 legislative session.\nREAPPORTIONMENT\nThe battle on reapportionment continues during the\ncurrent legislative session. The California Supreme Court\nruled that if the Legislature could not reach agreement on\nreapportionment this year, the Court would settle it by\nthe 1974 election. The Court validated the new Congres-\nsional District boundaries, but the current Assembly and\nSenate Districts remain unchanged for the 1972 elections.\nPROPERTY TAX RELIEF\nSeveral measures have been introduced to increase the\n$750 homeowners property tax exemption at the current\nsession. A Constitutional Amendment was also introduced\nto limit real property taxes to 1% of the full cash value.\nSome form of property tax relief is urgently needed, and\nI will continue to support reasonable measures to lessen\nthis burden.\n-3-\nAPRIL 1972\nQUESTIONNAIRE\nI am interested in your opinions on particular problems\nwhich might be solved by legislative action at the State\nlevel. Please complete, stamp and return this questionnaire\nto assist me to better represent you in Sacramento.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n1.\nWould you favor a law to legalize prostitution?\nYes\nNo\nUndecided\n2. As an automobile owner, do you suppport the idea of\nrequired annual inspections of all vehicles to insure\ntheir safe operating condition and compliance with anti-\npollution laws?\nYes\nNo\nUndecided\n3.\nWould you favor statewide lotteries for raising addi-\ntional revenues to support local schools?\nYes\nNo\nUndecided\n4.\nDo you support the idea of state-controlled off-track\nDetach Here\nbetting as a means of increasing revenues?\nYes\nNo\nUndecided\n5.\nHow would you assess the accomplishments of Governor\nReagan's administration?\nGood\nFair\nPoor\n6. Do you believe that the State should provide financial\naid to private and parochial schools?\nYes\nNo\nUndecided\n7.\nDo you approve of heroin addicts being given methadone\nunder a medically supervised maintenance program?\nYes\nNo\nUndecided\n8.\nShould our present abortion laws be liberalized?\nYes\nNo\nUndecided\n9.\nPresent law provides for criminal penalties for certain\nkinds of sexual conduct between consenting adults in pri-\nvate. Would you favor a bill to eliminate these penal-\nties?\nYes\nNo\nUndecided\n10. There has been much discussion regarding the penalties\nfor using marijuana. Do you feel the penalties should:\nRemain unchanged\nBe more severe\nBe less severe\n11. If you were voting for a successor to Governor Reagan\ntoday, who would you support among the following whose\nnames are mentioned as possible candidates? (Listed\nalphabetically. )\nSecretary of State Edmund G. Brown, Jr.\nPresidential Aide Robert H. Finch\nController Houston I. Flournoy\nMinority Leader Bob Monagan\nSpeaker Bob Moretti\nSenator George Moscone\nLt. Governor Ed Reinecke\nAttorney General Evelle J. Younger\nOther\nStamp\nAssemblyman Robert G. Beverly\n46th Assembly District Office\n1611 South Pacific Coast Highway\nRedondo Beach, California 90277\nMay 11\nBob Beverly has sent out 76,000 questionnaires to\nhis district and 4800 returns are in.\nWho would you like to be Governor in 1974?\nBrown\n440\nFinch\n845\nFlournoy\n55\nMonagan\n20\nMoretti\n174\nMoscone\n42\nReinecke\n523\nYounger\n771\n2870\n1.\nWould you favor a law to legalize prostitution?\nYes\n2339\nNo\n2085\nUndecided\n406\n4830\n2.\nDo you support annual inspection of all vehicles?\nYes\n3252\nNo\n1216\nUndecided\n347\n4815\n3.\nDo you favor statewide lottery for revenues for schools?\nYes\n3316\nNo\n1235\nUndecided\n291\n4842\n4.\nDo you support state controlled off-track betting?\nYes\n3096\nNo\n1343\nUndecided\n386\n4825\n- 2 -\n5. How would you assess accomplishments of RR?\nGood\n2133\nFair\n1483\nPoor\n1162\n4778\n6. Do you believe state should provide aid to private\nand Parichial schools?\nYes\n1521\nNo\n2853\nUndecided\n433\n4807\n7. Do you approve of methodone treatment for addicts (heroin) ?\nYes\n3541\nNo\n531\nUndecided\n744\n4816\n8. Should the present abortion laws be liberalized?\nYes\n2742\nNo\n1619\nUndecided\n456\n4817\n9. Would you favor a law to eliminate penalties for\nsexual conduct between consenting adults?\nYes\n3012\nNo\n1364\nUndecided\n461\n4837\n-- 3 -\n10. Penalties for using marijuna --- do you feel the\npenalties should:\nRemain unchanged\n1109\nMore severe\n1171\nLess severe\n2336\n4616\nAdditional questions for Assembly District poll\n1. The California Supreme Court has abolished the death\npenalty in California. Do you agree?\nyes\nno\nundecided\n2. Should there be liberalization of the laws governing\nthe disemination of information and materials for\nprophylactic (birth control) purposes?\nyes\nno\nundecided\nBagley Poll - May 9, 1972 (partial returns)\nWho would you like to see as Governor in 1974?\nRepublican\nDemocrat\nNon-Partisan\nTotal\nBrown\n26\n117\n18\n161\nFinch\n271\n55\n22\n348\nFlournoy\n33\n8\n4\n45\nMoretti\n9\n30\n3\n42\nMoscone\n15\n62\n8\n85\nReinecke\n228\n33\n9\n270\nTunney\n28\n127\n16\n171\nYounger\n175\n41\n18\n234\nNone\n15\n28\n22\n65\nUndecided\n148\n102\n19\n269\n948\n603\n139\n1690\nopinion RESEARCH CORPORATION\nORC West, Inc.: 425 Battery Street, San Francisco, California 94111\ntelephone: 415/433-1788\nINTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540\nJOHN M. TYLER, Vice President\nGeneral Manager, ORC West, Inc.\nMay 19, 1972\nMr. Thomas W. Benham\nPresident\nOpinion Research Corporation\nNorth Harrison Street\nPrinceton, New Jersey 08540\nDear Tom:\nThis memorandum is our best guess as to the people most likely to be\ndoing political research in California. Some of it is based on infor-\nmation from Carolyn - who has worked at Field, Communications Research\nCenter and West Coast Community Surveys, and from Betty White who\nrecently worked at Communications Research Center.\nAs you know, there are literally hundreds of \"marketing research firms\"\nin Los Angeles and the Bay Area. We do not have any information on most\nof the small shops.\nAs far as I know from talking with researchers who have done political\nresearch locally, it is generally not a very profitable segment of the\nbusiness. Competition for political research assignments is often in-\ntense because of the public relations value they believe it gives them.\nResearch houses are willing to cut their bids and often lose money on\nthe work. In addition, unsuccessful candidates often are hard to pin\ndown for payment after election time.\nIt is my guess that the great majority of political research being done\nfor municipal and state level candidates for office is done by small\nresearch shops who are successful bidders on the basis of price. Further,\nit is probable that the research is assigned through public relations\nfirms handling the candidates' campaigns.\nWith that preamble, here is what we would guess about some of the\nCalifornia firms:\nField Research\nCarolyn worked for Field a few years ago. At that time Merv was\naccepting no custom political research candidates for election\nin California, although he was working for candidates in other\nwestern states. His point of view was that accepting California\nCHICAGO\nLONDON\nLOS ANGELES\nMEXICO CITY\nMONTREAL\nNEW YORK\nSAN FRANCISCO\nTORONTO\nWASHINGTON, D.C.\nMr. Thomas W. Benham\nPage 2\nMay 19, 1972\nassignments would compromise the integrity and believability\nof his syndicated California Poll, which, as you know, has\nwide distribution in California newspapers and is widely quoted\non radio and television news programs. Merv's personal\npolitical leanings are toward the Democratic Party.\nCommunications Research Center\nWhen Hugh Schwartz was running Communications Research Center,\nit was doing some work for candidates for the legislature and\nlocal mayoral and municipal office seekers. Candidates they\nhave worked for are Senator John Tunney, Mayor Alioto and\nState Representative Phillip Burton. The current management\nis probably not actively seeking this kind of business since\nit was often unprofitable business.\nPublic Response, Inc.\nThis is a very small, new research firm run by the aforementioned\nHugh Schwartz. He personally is very interested in this type of\nresearch, and is most likely aggressively soliciting it. We do\nnot know how much, if any, he is currently doing.\nDrossler Research Corporation\nIt is possible that Drossler is handling sub-contracting assign-\nments from public relations firms.\nHaug Associates, Inc.\nHaug's total research volume is probably about the same as Field\nCorporation and it is probable that they are involved in political\nresearch. Their Board of Directors includes many high placed, well-\nknown California businessmen. It is likely that they are getting\nsome assignments through these connections. I would guess their\norientation is toward Republican candidates.\nMSI\nMSI is a very profitable, high volume field and tab outfit head-\nquartered in Los Angeles, which is run by Dick Hurlburt, an\nex-Field employee Merv fired several years ago. It is likely that\nMSI is doing political research because of its low-cost structure\nand reputation for good field and tab work.\nMr. Thomas W. Benham\nPage 3\nMay 19, 1972\nWest Coast Community Surveys\nThis firm is primarily known as a very high quality, expensive,\ninterviewing service, with the bulk of its business coming from\nacademia and governmentally funded assignments. It is doubtful\nthat they are doing much of this kind of work because of their\ncost structure.\nThere has recently been a large-scale, state-wide survey dealing with\nattitudes toward the controversial Proposition 9 \"The Pollution Initiative\"\nwhich will appear on the June ballot. Although I do not know the research\nfirm involved, it was chosen by Whittaker and Baxter, the public relations\nfirm handling the opposition point of view to Proposition 9. My guess\nwould be that the research was done by MSI.\nThat's about all we can piece together on the local political scene. I\nhope it is helpful.\nBest regards,\nOPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION (west)\nJack John M. Tyler\nVice President, General Manager\nJMT:bjw\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nFebruary 8, 1972\nFill Fill\nwell\nTO:\nH. R. HALDEMAN\nFROM: GORDON STRACHAN\nOn January 10 you asked about a\nCalifornia poll that showed the\nPresident at 28%. My January 13\nmemorandum responding is attached.\nTom Reed just sent you the last\npoll with this DMI question. It\nshows the President at 32%.\nAttachment\nThe California Delegation\nto the Republican National Convention of 1972\npledged to the re-election of President Richard M. Nixon\nGovernor Ronald Reagan, Chairman\nThomas C. Reed, Vice Chairman\n1 February 1972\nMr. H. R. Haldeman\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C.\nDear Bob:\nEnclosed is a copy of our final monthly survey. As the Dele-\ngation Organizing Committee cannot use information beyond\nthis point, our participation now terminates.\nI have arranged for one Nixon-McCloskey-Ashbrook question\nof Republicans to be carried in January. The results will be\navailable before the Committee's final meeting.\nVery best regards,\nTow Thomas C. Reed\nEnclosure\nTCR:h\nPost Office Box 371\nSan Rafael, California 94902\n(415) 456-7310\nLISTENING POST\nPRELIMINARY SURVEY RESULTS, 18 JANUARY 1972\n1,049 Telephone Interviews in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, December 1971\n1.\nREPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY (Republicans only)\n\"Suppose you were voting for the group who will select the Republican\npresidential nominee -- which group of the following three would you\nfavor: A group pledged to support Richard M. Nixon; a group pledged to\nsupport a candidate more conservative than Richard M. Nixon; or a group\npledged to support a candidate more liberal than Richard M. Nixon?\nMore\nMore\nLiberal\nNixon\nConservative\nNo\nGroup\nGroup\nGroup\nOpinion\nLos Angeles and Orange Counties\n16%\n58%\n15%\n11%\nLos Angeles County only\n17%\n59%\n14%\n11%\nOrange County only\n14%\n56%\n18%\n13%\n2.\nDEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY (open ended question, asked of Democrats\nonly)\n\"Which Democrat would you personally like to see nominated for President?\nThis Survey\nDec.\nNov.\nOct.\nSept.\nAug.\nE. Muskie\n28%\n30%\n30%\n34%\n18%\nE. Kennedy\n21%\n26%\n26%\n29%\n32%\nH. Humphrey\n19%\n15%\n13%\n8%\n13%\nG. McGovern\n11%\n8%\n10%\n10%\n8%\nJ. Lindsay\n4%\n2%\n5%\n5%\n8%\nH. Jackson\n3%\n5%\n2%\n2%\n4%\nAll others\n14%\n14%\n12%\n12%\n19%\nPRELIMINARY SURVEY RESULTS, 18 JANUARY 1972\nPage 2\n3.\nGENERAL ELECTION\nA. To measure a base level of support: \"Now, if the election for President\nwere held today and Richard Nixon were running for reelection, would\nyou vote for him?\"\nNo\nYes\nNo\nDepends\nAnswer\nThis survey, December\n32.2%\n40.6%\n23.5%\n3.7%\nNovember\n27.2%\n43.8%\n26.5%\n2.7%\nOctober\n28.6%\n42.6%\n25.5%\n3.3%\nSeptember\n28.9%\n40.5%\n22.9%\n7.7%\nAugust\n30.4%\n43.5%\n17.6%\n8.5%\n*Los Angeles County only\nNov. and Dec.\n28.4%\n44.7%\n23.6%\n3.3%\nOrange County only,\nNov. and Dec.\n35.9%\n30.5%\n30.8%\n2.7%\nRepublicans only, L.A.\n& Orange, Nov.\nand Dec.\n59.2%\n10.9%\n27.4%\n2.5%\nB. Head to head VS. Kennedy and Wallace\nNo\nNixon\nKennedy\nWallace\nOpinion\n*L.A. County, Nov. & Dec.\n40%\n41%\n7%\n12%\nL.A. & Orange, Dec.\n44%\n37%\n6%\n13%\nL.A. & Orange, Nov.\n42%\n39%\n7%\n12%\nL.A. & Orange, Aug.\n39%\n44%\n9%\n8%\n*Los Angeles County is reasonably representative of California as a whole.\nCa. Pollo\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAdministratively Confidential\nJanuary 13, 1972\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nH.R. HALDEMAN\nFROM:\nGORDON STRACHAN\nG\nSUBJECT:\nCalifornia Poll\nYou asked what the California poll was (supposedly ours)\nthat showed 28% for the re-election of Nixon.\nDecision Making Information, one of the three pollsters\nworking for the Campaign Committee through Bob Teeter,\nconducts a monthly poll in Los Angeles and Orange County.\nTom Reed, the Republican National Committeeman for\nCalifornia, purchased the following question in\nNovember:\n\"Now, if the election for President were held today\nand Richard Nixon were running for re-election, would\nyou vote for him?\"\nYes\nNo\nDepends\nNo Answer\nThis survey -\nNovember\n27.3% 43.8% 26.4%\n2.6%\nThe full results are attached.\nTom Reed sends the poll results to the Attorney General.\nHarry Dent occasionally receives copies and forwards them\nto you. Since you have indicated previously that you did\nnot want to see individual state polls, they have not\nbeen forwarded to you.\nLyn Nofziger told me that when he saw these results in\nDecember he instructed Tom Reed not to ask that question\nagain. It was not asked in the December or January DMI\npoll.\nWhen Bob Teeter called DMI to check on whether this 27.3%\nresult was the only result close to the 28% figure you\nmentioned, DMI was surprised his inquiry came so late.\nApparently the results have been known in California since\nthe middle of December.\nMort Allin has not seen any press coverage of this poll.\nTHOMAS C. REED\nMEMBER\nREPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE\n503 D STREET, ROOM 3\nNATIONAL COMMITTEEMAN FOR CALIF.\nSAN RAFAEL. CALIF.\nMEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE\n94901\nREPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE\n(415) 456-7310\nFill\nLISTENING POST\nPreliminary Survey Results, 12 December 1971\n1013 Telephone Interviews in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, November 1971\n1.\nDEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY (Democrats only)\nThis Survey\nNovember\nOctober\nSeptember\nAugust\nE. Muskie\n31%\n30%\n34%\n18%\nE. Kennedy\n27%\n26%\n29%\n32%\nH. Humphrey\n15%\n13%\n8%\n13%\nG. McGovern\n7%\n10%\n10%\n8%\nH. Jackson\n6%\n2%\n2%\n4%\nJ. Lindsay\n2%\n5%\n5%\n8%\nAll others\n13%\n12%\n12%\n19%\n2.\nGENERAL ELECTION\nTo measure a base level of support: \"Now, if the election for President were\nheld today and Richard Nixon were running for re-election, would you vote for\nhim? \"\nNo\nYes\nNo\nDepends\nAnswer\nThis survey, November\n27.3%\n43.8%\n26.4%\n2.6%\nOctober\n28.6%\n42.6%\n25.5%\n3.3%\nSeptember\n28.9%\n40.5%\n22.9%\n7.7%\nAugust\n30.4%\n43.5%\n17.6%\n8.5%\nHead to Head:\nconstant\nNo\nR. Nixon\nE. Kennedy G. Wallace\nAnswer\nTotal, L.A. & Orange Co.\n41.7%\n39.4%\n7.3%\n11.6%\nRepublicans\n84.0%\n7.7%\n3.7%\n4.7%\nDemocrats\n20.3%\n60.4%\n7.8%\n11.5%\nIndependents\n36.2%\n31.0%\n13.2%\n19.5%\nL. A. County only*\n39.0%\n42.5%\n7.4%\n11.1%\nOrange County only\n58.5%\n20.5%\n7.0%\n14.0%\nTotal, L.A. & Orange Co.,\nAugust survey\n39.4%\n44.0%\n8.5%\n8.0%\n*Los Angeles County is reasonably representative of California as a whole.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJanuary 10, 1972\nADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMR. GORDON STRACHAN\nFROM:\nH. R. HALDEMAN H\nFind out, please, what the California poll was, supposedly ours)\nthat showed 28% for the reelection of Nixon.\nThis is one that was reported recently and I am sure it was a\nlisting of the whole field or something like that, but I'd like to\nknow precisely what the method was on it and what the actual\nresults were.\nmore allin - nothing.\nRoe Teeter -\nLyn not -Tom series Reed, oftracking nate comm pollsin Qr/cal LA Cntes commissioned\n- cancelled per Lyn Holmes Tuttle\nGenl Elee.\n- nou i ele.\n- not DMI- in press but CC RR,AG\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nFull\nFebruary 9, 197\n3\nTO: H. R. HALDEMAN\nPOODS\nThought the attached might\nbe of interest to you.\nnothi\nBBFinel\nBob Finch\nCounsellor to the President\n24th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT\n600 Interviewed\nRepublican only:\nMost important issues - (open end--\nmore than 100%\nFinch\n49.5\nTaxes/Fiscal/Property Tax Relief 21.2\nRichardson\n27.6\nLocal improvements\n19.2\nDon't know\n22.9\n(traffic, freeways)\nEducation/Bussing\n14.7\nFinch\n61.9\nCrime\n11.2\nMcColl\n11.1\nPollution/Ecology\n8.2\nDon't know\n27.0\nRacial\n2.3\nFinch\n49.8\nQuality of government\n1.8\nRichardson\n24.4\nMcColl\n4.1\nDon't know\n21.7\nDemocrats and Republicans:\nFinch\n54.0\nBinkley\n19.5\nDon't know\n26.5\nRichardson\n41.0\nBinkley\n20.0\nDon't know\n39.0\nStar-News-3\n119. 7. 12'T\nMotched Richardson. McColl, Binkley\nEg DINT WERKMAN\nthe figure sas more than the president is re-elected.\" He has McColl. and then both and sub-\nWriter\nusual num' 0 persons inter- scheduled a news conference mitted their names 10 Republe-\nWhus\n:-\nide\nPrier\nviewed\nin\n.\ncongr\nesional\ndi-\nThursday\nin\nPasadena\ncan voters. Finch and then Ri-\nto\nan-\nFinch world win both too Di-\nchard-on were each place di\ntrict\npoll.\nnounce his decision wl other or\nmary an general 0,00 ion\nagainst Binkley in a poll of\nracem in the 20th Congrassional Finch. in Sylmar Tuesday for not TO run in the 20th District both Republicans and Demo-\nDistrict a 10 decides in POTET a ceremony throing over to the primary.\ncrats.\nthe a poll 1. .01 hs country portions 01 the land Richardson hasn't yet dis- Results of the poll were:\nweeken Tuesday. ground me earthquake-de- closed his decision and McColl Republicans only:\nThe poll. taken by Opinton stroved San Fernando Veterans and Binkley have *both an- Finch\n49.5\nh. shows Fr ? Viministpatin in Hosoital. told a nounced they will run.\nRichardson\n27.6\nR.\nbeating direr State Sen. H. L. 1.7 vs servi reporter he woder Tite pollects fist matched\nDon't Know\n22.9\nRichardson of Areadia or Bill return 0 \"atter de e Finch against Richardson. then\nMcColl of West Covina in the\nFinch\n61.9\nMcColl\n11.1\nJune 6 primary.\nEgypt Talks or War\nDon't Know\n27.0\nIt shows him defeating Dem-\nocral John Dinkley, who an-1\nAssociated Press\nFinch\n49.8\nnounced Tuesday he will seek!\nEgyptian Premier Aziz Sidky; In Jerusalem, the Israch Richardson\n24.4\nthe post being vacated by Rep.\ntalked of war Tue day while, in/state radio said Premier Golda McColl\n04.1\nH. Allen Smith, R-Glendale, in\nJerusalem. the Israeli Cabinet\nNovember.\nMeir\nwould\nspecial\nDon't know\n21.7\nconvene\na\nprepared to ao\" on a U.S.-spon-\nMore than 000 voters were in- sored pe3c\" plan designed 10 Cabinet meeting today in Republicans and Democrats:\nterviewed at their homes reopen the Sucz Canal.\napprove Israel's participation Finch\n51.0\nthroughout the an \"With the ower and arms in the Suez Canal initiative. Binkley\n10.3\nOpinion Research spekesman we have Egy: is this to start The waterway has been closed Don't know\n26.5\nsaid.\nand wall X 11 the battle to 10- since Isracli forces overran the\nThe snoke man for the firm. gain the land lost in 1967.\" Sid-\nRichardson\n41.0\nSinai\nPeninsula\nin\nthe\nsix-\nwhich commits political pelis ky told a sectioning of Egyptian\nBinkley\n200\nthroughout the state, indicated workers in Alexandria.\npday1967 war.\nDon't know\n33.0\nA\nGlendale News-Press, Wednesday, Feb. 2, 1972\nBy CAROLE McKELVEY\nHe said that while at HEW\nfor matching fund projects.\nWriter\nRobert Finch strongly sup-\nhe managed to cut the payroll\n\"We hope with revenue\nported the domestic and for-\nby the phasing out of cer-\nsharing that Los Angeles\neign policies of President Nix-\ntain johs.\nCounty, for example, will be\non as he spoke to members of\nable to carry out projects un-\n\"We cut it from $120,000 to\nfettered.\nthe Sunland-Tujunga commu-\n$105,000.\"\nnity Tuesday night.\nHe charged that the Con-\nFinch said the government\nDuring a short speech Finch\ngress is holding up the Pres-\nis trying to reorganize the\ntouched on topics as varied as\nident's innovative programs.\nbudget. \"But it is hard to\nVietnam. value-added tax.\n\"Whether we can get a\nmake government respon-\nending the draft, reorganizing\nclear hearing on such things\nsive,\" he said. \"We have too\nthe budget, and the need for\nas revenue sharing in a Pres-\nmore medical doctors in the\nmuch in the government of\nidential election year is doubt-\nnation.\noverpromise and underdeliv-\nful.\" Finch said.\nery.\nHe said the war is \"obvi-\nFinch said the President.\nwhile not being able-to \"bring\n\"We are trying some revo-\nously winding down.\nlutionary proposals. We are\n\"When we came into of-\nus all together\" as he had\nhoped, had returned a spirit\nconfronted by an urban crisis\nfice.\" he said, \"there were\nof civility to the country.\nin the area of schools. In the\n559,000 of our men in Viet-\n\"We look to the next decade\npast we have retied too much\nnam. May 1 of this year we\non the property tax. Two\nwill have de-escalated to 65,-\nwith a great sense of op-\ntimism,\" Finch said.\ncommissions are now working\n000 people. It cannot be dis-\n\"We have been stabilized.\non possible solutions to this\nputed that we are ending the\nWe are not coming apart.\nproblem. The President will\nwar.\"\n\"There were some of us in\nbe answering this area soon,\nFinch said the winding\nthe late 60's who thought the\nhe said.\ndown of the war is helping to\ncountry might have lost its\nFinch said one of the chan-\ncause the unemployment\nsense of rational - that an\nges being looked at is a so-\nproblems now faced on the\nera of violence had taken\ncalled value-added tax. \"This\ndomestic front. \"No one\ntax would apply to each trans-\nwants unemployment. And the\nover.\naction any item goes through\nPresident has taken a bold\n\"We must now determine\nwhere we are going, who we\nfrom manufacturer to buyer.\"\nroute to beak down the\nare,\" he said. \"This is really\nhe said. \"It may be worth\neconomic problems.\ndiscussing to relieve soaring\n\"The inter-relationship be-\nthe watershed point in our\ntween the Vietnam War and\nhistory.\"\nproperty taxes.\nFinch mentioned briefly his\nthe unemployment is quite ap-\nFinch said local govern-\nparent.\" he said. \"We have\nperiod as secretary of HEW.\nments are tied down by the\nreleased 2.2 million men onto\nsaying he thought he had done\ncurrent system which re-\nthe job market from the mili-\na good job.\nquires government approval\ntary and defense industry.\nAnd they all have to find\njobs.\" Finch said.\n\"We have passed the worst\npart, however, we have bitten\nthe bullet on the economy,\"\nhe said.\nDuring the question period\nLos Angeles City Councilman\nLouis R. Nowell appealed to\nFinch to ask the President to\nfind a way to let local govern-\nment have more say over its\nprograms.\n\"Please take the message\nback.\" Nowell said, \"that we\nwould rather do it ourself.\"\nSeated at the head table\nwith Finch were members of\nthe local service clubs who\nsponsored the event. They in-\ncluded Mr. and Mrs. Harry\nMcGregor\nrepresenting\nKiwanis: Mr. and Mrs. Kenny\nHouge. Rotary: and Mr. and\nMrs. Bud Rasmusssen, Lions.\nSupervisor Warren Dorn.\nNowell, and Mr. and Mrs.\nWellington Love of John Har-\nmer's office were also\npresent.\nMaster of ceremonies was\nbusinessman Clark Drane.\nThe invocation was given by\nthe Rev. Kenneth Monson,\nTujunga First Christian\nChurch.\nAdministratively Confidential\nJanuary 13, 1972\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nH.R. HALDEMAN\nFROM:\nGORDON STRACHAN\nSUBJECT:\nCalifornia Poll\nYou asked what the California poll was (supposedly ours)\nthat showed 28% for the re-election of Nixon.\nDecision Making Information, one of the three pollsters\nworking for the Campaign Committee through Bob Teeter,\nconducts a monthly poll in Los Angeles and Orange County.\nTom Reed, the Republican National Committeeman for\nCalifornia, purchased the following question in\nNovember:\n\"Now, if the election for President were held today\nand Richard Nixon were running for re-election, would\nyou vote for him?\"\nYes\nNo\nDepends\nNo Answer\nThis survey -\nNovember\n27.38\n43.8% 26.48\n2.6%\nfull results are attached.\nTom Reed sends the poll results to the Attorney General.\nHarry Dent occasionally receives copies and forwards them\nto you. Since you have indicated previously that you did\nnot want to see individual state polls, they have not\nbeen forwarded to you.\nLyn Nofziger told me that when he saw these results in\nDecember he instructed Tom Reed not to ask that question\nagain. It was not asked in the December or January DMI\npoll.\nWhen Bob Teeter called DMI to check on whether this 27.38\nresult was the only result close to the 28% figure you\nmentioned, DMI was surprised his inquiry came so late.\nApparently the results have been known in California since\nthe middle of December.\nMort Allin has not seen any press coverage of this poll.\nFill\nLISTENING POST\nTHOMAS C. REED\npolls\nMEMBER\nSurvey Results, 12 December 1971\nREPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE\nLos Angeles and Orange Counties, November 1971\n503 D STREET. ROOM 3\nCOMMITTEEMAN FOR CALIF.\nSAN RAFAEL. CALIF.\nTHE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE\n94901\nCAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE\n(415) 456-7310\nPRIMARY (Democrats only)\nThis Survey\nNovember\nOctober\nSeptember\nAugust\nE. Muskie\n31%\n30%\n34%\n18%\nE. Kennedy\n27%\n26%\n29%\n32%\nH. Humphrey\n15%\n13%\n8%\n13%\nG. McGovern\n7%\n10%\n10%\n8%\nH. Jackson\n6%\n2%\n2%\n4%\nJ. Lindsay\n2%\n5%\n5%\n8%\nAll others\n13%\n12%\n12%\n19%\n2.\nGENERAL ELECTION\nTo measure a base level of support: \"Now, if the election for President were\nheld today and Richard Nixon were running for re-election, would you vote for\nhim?'\nNo\nYes\nNo\nDepends\nAnswer\nThis survey, November\n27.3%\n43.8%\n26.4%\n2.6%\nOctober\n28.6%\n42.6%\n25.5%\n3.3%\nSeptember\n28.9%\n40.5%\n22.9%\n7.7%\nAugust\n30.4%\n43.5%\n17.6%\n8.5%\nHead to Head:\nconstant\nNo\nR. Nixon\nE. Kennedy G. Wallace\nAnswer\nTotal, L.A. & Orange Co.\n41.7%\n39.4%\n7.3%\n11.6%\nRepublicans\n84.0%\n7.7%\n3.7%\n4.7%\nDemocrats\n20.3%\n60.4%\n7.8%\n11.5%\nIndependents\n36.2%\n31.0%\n13.2%\n19.5%\nL. A. County only*\n39.0%\n42.5%\n7.4%\n11.1%\nOrange County only\n58.5%\n20.5%\n7.0%\n14.0%\nTotal, L.A. & Orange Co.,\nAugust survey\n39.4%\n44.0%\n8.5%\n8.0%\n*Los Angeles County is reasonably representative of California as a whole.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJanuary 10, 1972\nADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMR. GORDON STRACHAN\nFROM:\nH. R. HALDEMAN H\nFind out, please, what the California poll was, supposedly ours.)\nthat showed 28% for the reelection of Nixon.\nThis is one that was reported recently and I am sure it was a\nlisting of the whole field or something like that, but I'd like to\nknow precisely what the method was on it and what the actual\nresults were.\nmore allin - nothing\nBol Teeter -\nLyn not -Tom ceries oftriking Reed, nate comm polls in Qr/cal LA Cntes commissioned\n- cancelled per Lyn Holmes Tattle\nGenl Elec.\n- nouil ele\n- not DMI- in press but CC RR,AG\nTeeler\nDMI for Tom Reed\n1000 calls in LA Orange enty\n- now if the elee for P.\nwere Dell tereay an RR\nwere running for Re-Ele,\nPollins Tom Reed asked 0 m I te\nwould you whe for him?\nDates\nget absolute Rn car\nOct,\n29% yes for sere\n41% not vote on Here\n31% depends\n- That 101 A G had the soll Thanks\n- conduct poll every mo,\nunique ?\nFle\nCOMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT\nCal\nPolls\n1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. NW\nWASHINGTON. D C. 20006\nDecember 23, 1971\n(202) 333.0920\nDETERMINED TO BE AN\nCONFIDENTIAL\nADMINISTRATIVE MARKING\nE.O. 12065, Section 6-102\nBy OMPMAL NARS, Date 5-23-80\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL\nThe attached information from the recent California Poll may be\nof interest to you.\nAttachment\nJEB Jun S MAGRUDER\nCONFIDENTIAL\nTHE AND SMPART OF PUBLIC CRINICH\nOPERATION FL... CORPORATION SHICE 013\nSan Francisco Headquarters\nOffice\nCOPYRIGHT 1971 BY FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION. FOR PUBLICATION BY SUBSCRIBERS ONLY\nRelease #737\nFor release THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1971\nLARGE POTENTIAL FOURTH PARTY\nIMPORTANT: Contract for this service is subject to re-\nVOTE; PRESENCE WOULD HURT\nvocation if publication or broadcast takes place before\nDEMOCRATS\nrelease date or if contents of report are divulged to\npersons outside of subscriber staff prior to release time.\nby Mervin D. Field\nRumblings of a possible fourrh party movement are being heard across the land and it is quite possible\nthat next year voters in many states will have a ballot choice of four national presidential tickets.\nWithin the past fortnight about 200 delegates representing about 23 states attended a fourth party\norganizing convention in Texas. Naming itself the People's Party, the delegates debated a party platform and\nreviewed the candidate field for likely 1972 presidential and vice-presidential standard bearers.\nInitial support for this fourth party movement comes from C variety of disaffected groups, such as\nmilitant young voters, blacks, browns, women's libburs, consumerists, and anti-war activists. While they may\nlack unity on some policies and issues, their common ground is their dissatisfaction with the present social and\npolitical system. They see little difference between the two major parties, and abhor George Wallace. In con-\nventional political description they are liberal, and if they did not form a Fourth party, most of them would\nas\nprobably vote Democratic as the least of several evils.\nThis is what disturbs Democratic strategists as they view next year's presidential campaign. They fear\nthat fourth party votes will mean defeat for the party and the re-election of Republican President Richard Nixon.\nLast May, and again last month, the California Poll measured public sentiment toward a fourth party\nmovement in this state for president.\nThe survey's results indicate that there is large potential vote for C fourth party in this state. The\namount depends on who heads the Democratic party ticket and who runs on the fourth party ticket.\nThe survey also shows why Democrats have cause for wony: a fourth party candidate draws more votes\nfrom Democraric than from Republican ranks.\nIn this latest test The California Poll tested the current popularity of two men as possible fourth party\ncandidates: ex-Senator Eugene McCarthy and New York Mayor John Lindsay. In each test Nixon was listed CS\nthe GOP candidate and George Wallace as the AIP candidate. Democratic candidates were rotated in order on\nthese simulated ballots.\n(MORE)\nThe California Poll - page 2\nWhile neither McCarthy nor Lindsay \"wins\" in these tests as fourth party candidates, results show that\nMcCarthy has much more support than Lindsay. Nevertheless, in all cases except one, the appearance of a fourth\nparty still leaves Nixon with substantial pluralities. The exception is when Senator Edward Kennedy is the\nDemocratic candidate. His appeal appears able to stem the defection of some nominal Democratic votes to C\nfourth party, leaving him at least as strong as Nixon.\nIn the table below are shown the current candidate popularity standings when Kennedy, Muskie, or\nHumphrey is the Democratic candidate and McCarthy or Lindsay are fourth party candidares. For comparison\npurposes, previously published three party results are also shown.\nThree Party\n4 Parties (McCarthy)\n4 Parties (Lindsay)\nNixon\n42%\nNixon\n37%\nNixon\n39%\nMuskie\n40\nMuskie\n30\nMuskie\n31\nWallace\n10\nWallace\n7\nWallace\n7\nMcCarthy\n20\nLindsay\n18\nDon't know\n8\nDon't know\nó\nDon't know\n5\nNixon\n42%\nNixon\n35%\nNixon\n35%\nKennedy\n45\nKennedy\n36\nKennedy\n41\nWallace\n9\nWallace\n6\nWallace\n5\nMcCarthy\n18\nLindscy\n15\nDon't know\n4\nDon't know\n5\nDon't know\n4\nNixon\n46%\nNixon\n38%\nNixon\n36%\nHumphrey\n35\nHumphrey\n25\nHumphrey\n30\nWallace\n10\nWallace\n7\nV/allace\n7\nMcCarthy\n23\nLindsay\n22\nDon't know\n9\nDon't know\n7\nDon't know\n5\nWhen less prominent presidential contenders such as Senators George McGovein, Henry Jackson,\nMayor Sam Yorty, Congressman Wilbur Mills and Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, are listed in the Democratic\nslot, Nixon's pluralities become even greater than when Kennedy, Muskie, and Humphrey are listed.\nFrom this evidence, it would seen that if fourth party movement had as its motivating force the desire\nto change the status quo, it would instead accomplish the opposite -- the election of Richard Nixon. But this is\nonly one way of looking at the situation. The dissidents who would rally around a fourth party banner see in this\nexercise an opportunity to demonstrate just how powerful they are and expect that even if they don't poll a\nplurality of votes, they can influence the major parties and their candidates. A significant share of the popular\nvote, even though it brought no electoral college votes, would also be encouragement for more organization and\na better showing in 1976.\nMore immediate, however, there is the prospect that a. fourth party headed by a credible candidate and\ngiven a determined effort between now and next November, might just possible result in winning a state such as\nCalifornia, Illinois, New York. The electoral votes from just one of these states, together with whatever electoral\ncollege votes George Wallace got in the South, might be enough to deny either the Republican or Democratic\nparty an outright victory in November. Then, when the House of Representatives subsequently convened to select\na President, the congressmen whose districts polled substantial fourth party votes would be under considerable pressure\nto select a man who would be acceptable to fourtn purly voters.\n(MORE)\nThe California Poll - page 3\nThree Party\n4 Parties (McCarthy)\n4 Parties (Lindsay)\nNixon\n47%\nNixon\n40%\nNixon\n38%\nJackson\n21\nJackson\n13\nJackson\n12\nWallace\n11\nWallace\n8\nWallace\n7\nMcCarthy\n29\nLindsay\n27\nDon't know\n20\nDon't.know\n10\nDon't know\n16\nNixon\n45%\nNixon\n33%\nNixon\n39%\nMcGovern\n33\nMcGovern\n25\nMcGovern\n22\nWallace\n10\nWallace\n8\nWallace\n7\nMcCarthy\n21\nLindsay\n19\nDon't know\n13\nDon't know\n9\nDon't know\n13\nNixon\n54%\nNixon\n40%\nNixon\n39%\nYorty\n17\nYorty\n11\nYorry\n14\nWallace\n9\nWallace\n6\nWaliace\n6\nMcCarthy\n33\nLindsay\n30\nDon't know\n20\nDon't know\n10\nDon't know\n11\nNixon\n49%\nNixon\n39%\nNixon\n41%\nMills\n19\nMills\n9\nMills\n11\nWallace\n11\nWallace\n8\nWallace\n7\nMcCarthy\n31\nLindsay\n26\nDon't know\n20\nDon't know\n13\nDon't know\n15\nNixon\n50%\nNixon\n41%\nNixon\n41%\nChisholm\n19\nChisholm\n8\nChisholm\n8\nWallace\n11\nWulldce\n8\nWallace\n8\nMcCarthy\n30\nLindsay\n29\nDon't know\n19\nDon't know\n13\nDon't know\n14\nU\n-30-\nCOPYRIGHT 1971 BY FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION. FOR PUBLICATION BY SUBSCRIBERS ONLY\nSECURITY\nPUBLICIANCE\nLosting\nINFORMATION ABOUT THIS SURVEY\nDates of interviewing:\nNovember 1 - 13, 1971\nPopulation covered by\nthis survey:\nRepresentative cross-section of California adult public\nSample design:\nThe survey interviews are solected in accordance with a probability sample design\nwhich provides for rondom (i 0., non-judgemental) selection of households. Assign-\nments in a particula: place are done in clusters with randomly drawn addresses as\nstarting points to. each cluster of interviews. For this survey, 240 clusters throughout\nthe state were selected. Each cluster consisted of a set of consecutive households\nbeginning with the du signated starting hauchold. Interviewers made up 10 three calls\non every listed address in on attempt to complete on interview. One adult per howe-\nhold was selected for interview on a systematic basis TO provide a balance by sex and\nage. Interviewing was conducted during late afternoon and evening on woukdays and\nall day on the week-ord The sample is designed to be self-weighted on all variable.\nof interest, such astared of state, degree of Libanization, political party affiliation,\nHand socio-economic status. Whenever imbalances in key variables occur ir. the sample\ndue 10 sampling variability or other factors, corrective weights are applied during the\ndata processing stage to return the sample to proper proportion.\nWording of the\nA. \"I know the 1972 presidential election is a year away, but if you were voting today and\nquestions on which\nthe presidential baliot looked like this, who would you vote for ? (CARDS WERE SHOWN\nthis report is based:\nTO RESPONDENT LISTING THREE PARTY TRIAL HEAT PAIRINGS)\nB. \"Let's assume that in addition 10 the two major parties' candidates and George Wullace's\nticket, there was C fourth party headed by Eugene McCorthy. If you were voting today\nfor President and Mese were the choices, who would you vote for? (CARDS WERE\nSHOWN TO RESPONDENT LISTING FOUR-PARTY TR.AL HEAT PAIRINGS)\nC. \"Let's assume that in addition to the two major parties' candidates and George Wolloce's\nticket, there was a fourth party headed by John Lindsay , If you were voting day for\nPresident and these were the choices, who would you vote for ?\" (CARDS WERE SHOWN\nTO RESPONDENT LISTING FOUR PARTY TRIAL HEAT PAIRINGS)\nNumber of interviews:\nIn total 1007 persons: 300 self-identified as Republicans, 464 as Democrats, and 193\nother party or no political affiliation.\nThe California Poll sample for ti is report utilized a \"split half sample\" for questions\non the four-party trial heat pairings used in this release. The number of interviews for\nthe two halves was CS follows:\nTotal sample A\nSub-somple B\nSub-sample C\n3-party\n4-party\n4-party\npairings\nCarrhy)\n(Lindsay)\nTotal\n1007\n502\n505\nRepublicans\n350\n174\n176\nDemocrats\n464\n236\n228\nOther\n193\n92\n101\n[See reverse side for answers to some\ntypical questions about the Poil]\nThe\npublic\nSouphs"
}