Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
To: Larry Higby From: Gordon Strachan RE: "Home Testing Institute Poll." 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/28/1971
To: Larry Higby From: Gordon Strachan RE: "Home Testing Institute Poll." 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/28/1971
To: Larry Higby From: Gordon Strachan RE: Bob Marik's report about the Flanigan- Derge meeting of previous afternoon. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/9/1971
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26146182
label
WHSF: Contested, 45-4
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26146182
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 45-4
description
This file contains:
To: Larry Higby From: Gordon Strachan RE: "Home Testing Institute Poll." 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/28/1971
To: Larry Higby From: Gordon Strachan RE: "Home Testing Institute Poll." 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/28/1971
To: Larry Higby From: Gordon Strachan RE: Bob Marik's report about the Flanigan- Derge meeting of previous afternoon. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/9/1971
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26146182
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
47cac9c12421c300
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
45
4
5/28/1971
Campaign
Memo
To: Larry Higby From: Gordon Strachan
RE: "Home Testing Institute Poll." 1pg
45
4
5/28/1971
Campaign
Memo
To: Larry Higby From: Gordon Strachan
RE: "Home Testing Institute Poll." 1pg
45
4
6/9/1971
Campaign
Memo
To: Larry Higby From: Gordon Strachan
RE: Bob Marik's report about the Flanigan-
Derge meeting of previous afternoon. 2pgs
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Page 1 of 1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 28, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
LARRY HIGBY
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
G
SUBJECT:
Home Testing Institute Poll
You asked to have someone give a quick analysis of material
that Pat Buchanan had sent to Mr. Haldeman concerning the
Home Testing Institute Poll. I talked with Tom Benham and
read the text of the information to him. He had these
observations:
1. Home Testing Institute does mail polls. That is,
when they are mailing materials to housewives, they
frequently include questions which are probably the
source of the attached poll. The problem with any mail
poll is that there is no way to assess representativeness.
The sample cannot be checked;
2. The sample is frequently heavily concentrated in
cities, where it is more economical to use some of the
Home Testing Institute mailing lists;
3. The questions themselves are faulty in that no real
alternatives are offered. For example, "If the next
Presidential election were held today, would you vote
for Nixon-Agnew?". This is not a real trial heat
because the opposition candidate is not named. This
explains the very high percentage (36.2%) who "aren't
sure". The reason they aren't sure is that they have
no alternative. Benham characterized paragraph five
"after calculating the percentage of shifts since
1968, it is found that we have lost more than 3.25 votes
for every one that we have picked up" as very, very risky;
and
4. In addition to these specific criticisms of the poll,
Tom Benham characterized Home Testing Institute Polls
as "crap".
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 28, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
LARRY HIGBY
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN 3
SUBJECT:
Home Testing Institute Poll
You asked to have someone give a quick analysis of material
that Pat Buchanan had sent to Mr. Haldeman concerning the
Home Testing Institute Poll. I talked with Tom Benham and
read the text of the information to him. He had these
observations:
1. Home Testing Institute does mail polls. That is,
when they are mailing materials to housewives, they
frequently include questions which are probably the
source of the attached poll. The problem with any mail
poll is that there is no way to assess representativeness.
The sample cannot be checked;
2. The sample is frequently heavily concentrated in
cities, where it is more economical to use some of the
Home Testing Institute mailing lists;
3. The questions themselves are faulty in that no real
alternatives are offered. For example, "If the next
Presidential election were held today, would you vote
for Nixon-Agnew?". This is not a real trial heat
because the opposition candidate is not named. This
explains the very high percentage (36.2%) who "aren't
sure". The reason they aren't sure is that they have
no alternative. Benham characterized paragraph five
"after calculating the percentage of shifts since
1968, it is found that we have lost more than 3.25 votes
for every one that we have picked up" as very, very risky;
and
4. In addition to these specific criticisms of the poll,
Tom Benham characterized Home Testing Institute Polls
as "crap".
60/11
Polls
thin
June 9, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. HIGBY
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
After our meeting with Jeb Magruder this morning, I talked
with Bob Marik. He reported the following about the Flanigan-
Derge meeting of yesterday afternoon:
1) Derge spent most of the time filling in Marik on
the polling plan of 1968 because Mr. Flanigan was
in and out of his office for the entire two hours.
2) Flanigan is taking charge of what he views to be
his responsibility as Chairman of the Polling
Planning Group. However, he realizes that no
commitments are to be made and that all suggestions
to The Attorney General should be funneled through
Magruder.
3) Flanigan would not hire Derge as the polling
consultant for the campaign, for example.
4) Marik is keeping close track of the polling
task force and will continue to keep us advised.
On the question of simulation, Dr. Derge suggested to Flanigan
shat he bring the man from IBM in California who did the
original Derge simulation memo back to the White House for
discussion. Flanigan is not eager about simulation, but
realizes that the question should be considered and decided.
To implement your suggestion about having a top level group
review the question of simulation and submitting a recommendation
to Mr. Haldeman and The Attorney General, Marik will suggest
to Flanigan on Friday the following:
1) Dr. Derge and the California IBM man come to Washington
the following week;
2) Flanigan, Magruder, Marik, Higby or Strachan, Anderson,
Derge, Torrance and DeBolt should listen to the presentation;
3) Flanigan should submit a recommendation over his signature
as to whether to commit the 35,000 necessary for the
segment one trial run of the simulation project.
-2-
If this is a wholly incorrect method of approaching the simulation
problem, please advise me and I will have Marik programmed to
guide Flanigan or whoever else you suggest to guide the simulation
question to decision.
GS:elr