Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
From Haldeman to Higby RE: Muskie's image in contrast to that of RN. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/12/1972
From Strachan to Haldeman RE: new polling figures. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/29/1972
From Strachan to Haldeman RE: the latter's preferences with regard to receiving polling data. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/9/1972
A "Summary of Surveys on Race and Bussing." 7 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Report], no date
From Strachan to Haldeman RE: new polling figures. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/29/1972
From Strachan to Haldeman RE: the latter's preferences with regard to receiving polling data. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/9/1972
A "Summary of Surveys on Race and Bussing." 6 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Report], no date
From Robert C. Walker to Ronald Reagan, Ed Meese, Mike Deaver, Gordon Luce, and Lyn Nofziger RE: California polling data. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/25/1972
Copy of memo from Higby to Strachan RE: California polling data from Teeter and a potential meeting of Teeter, Haldeman, and Mitchell. Handwritten notes added by unknown. Original memo attached. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/17/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: the wording of questions in polling interviews. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 2/10/1972
From Strachan to Higby RE: information on a possible Muskie or Kennedy purchase of the Gallup organization. Handwritten notes added by multiple unidentified individuals. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/6/1971
From Higby to Strachan RE: the Democrats' purchase of the Gallup polling organization. Handwritten notes added by unknown. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 12/14/1971
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26146280
label
WHSF: Contested, 46-1
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26146280
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 46-1
description
This file contains:
From Haldeman to Higby RE: Muskie's image in contrast to that of RN. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/12/1972
From Strachan to Haldeman RE: new polling figures. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/29/1972
From Strachan to Haldeman RE: the latter's preferences with regard to receiving polling data. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/9/1972
A "Summary of Surveys on Race and Bussing." 7 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Report], no date
From Strachan to Haldeman RE: new polling figures. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/29/1972
From Strachan to Haldeman RE: the latter's preferences with regard to receiving polling data. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/9/1972
A "Summary of Surveys on Race and Bussing." 6 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Report], no date
From Robert C. Walker to Ronald Reagan, Ed Meese, Mike Deaver, Gordon Luce, and Lyn Nofziger RE: California polling data. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/25/1972
Copy of memo from Higby to Strachan RE: California polling data from Teeter and a potential meeting of Teeter, Haldeman, and Mitchell. Handwritten notes added by unknown. Original memo attached. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/17/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: the wording of questions in polling interviews. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 2/10/1972
From Strachan to Higby RE: information on a possible Muskie or Kennedy purchase of the Gallup organization. Handwritten notes added by multiple unidentified individuals. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/6/1971
From Higby to Strachan RE: the Democrats' purchase of the Gallup polling organization. Handwritten notes added by unknown. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 12/14/1971
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26146280
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
4858a473145f9757
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
46
1
1/12/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Haldeman to Higby RE: Muskie's
image in contrast to that of RN. 1 pg.
46
1
2/29/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Strachan to Haldeman RE: new polling
figures. 1 pg.
46
1
2/9/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Strachan to Haldeman RE: the latter's
preferences with regard to receiving polling
data. 3 pgs.
46
1
Domestic Policy
Report
A "Summary of Surveys on Race and
Bussing." 7 pgs.
46
1
2/29/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Strachan to Haldeman RE: new polling
figures. 2 pgs.
46
1
2/9/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Strachan to Haldeman RE: the latter's
preferences with regard to receiving polling
data. 3 pgs.
46
1
Domestic Policy
Report
A "Summary of Surveys on Race and
Bussing." 6 pgs.
46
1
2/25/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Robert C. Walker to Ronald Reagan,
Ed Meese, Mike Deaver, Gordon Luce, and
Lyn Nofziger RE: California polling data. 2
pgs.
46
1
3/17/1972
Campaign
Memo
Copy of memo from Higby to Strachan RE:
California polling data from Teeter and a
potential meeting of Teeter, Haldeman, and
Mitchell. Handwritten notes added by
unknown. Original memo attached. 2 pgs.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Page 1 of 2
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
46
1
2/10/1972
Campaign
Report
From Colson to Haldeman RE: the wording
of questions in polling interviews. 1 pg.
46
1
1/6/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Strachan to Higby RE: information on
a possible Muskie or Kennedy purchase of
the Gallup organization. Handwritten notes
added by multiple unidentified individuals. 1
pg.
46
1
12/14/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: the Democrats'
purchase of the Gallup polling organization.
Handwritten notes added by unknown. 1 pg.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Page 2 of 2
[ [ Item N-1]
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 12, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. LAWRENCE HIGBY
FROM:
H. R. HALDEMAN H.
In his analysis, Hallett makes the point that Muskie's public image
is everything the President's is not: strong, reflective, prudent,
even wise.
The President on the other hand, is viewed as a man on the make,
ashamed of and constantly running away from his past, manipulator,
unsure of his convictions, tactician instead of strategist, grand vizier
of all Rotarians, substituting pomposity for eloquence. Further, the
American people do not think he has any broad conceptional framework
or any sense of direction or purpose.
These are arguable points and they should be pursued by some valid
polling as soon as possible. In other words, we need to test the Nixon
image versus the Muskie image against the hypotheses laid out by
Hallett.
[Item N-3-1]
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Administratively Confidential
February 29, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
G
SUBJECT:
Ehrlichman and Cole/Campaign
Poll Results
On February 10 you decided that Ken Cole should receive the
issue sections of the national and state polls being conducted
by. Bob Teeter for the Campaign (original memorandum at Tab A).
While you were in China the interest in poll results on
bussing increased tremendously. Members of the White House
Staff and Domestic Council asked for results. The Attorney
General asked Bob Teeter to prepare an analysis of the
bussing issue based on the state polls that have been
received. After discussion with Magruder, who, at the
Attorney General's direction. instructed Teeter to prepare
the memorandum, I decided to give the bussing memorandum
to Ken Cole (attached at Tab B). He told me that only he
and John Ehrlichman would have access to the memorandum.
Any information sought by Ed Morgan, Len Garment, or others
involved with the bussing question would be given orally
by Cole in his discretion.
Potentially the most sensitive aspect of the memorandum
describes the President's current percentage of black vote,
current margin vis-a-vis Muskie and Wallace, and the President's
1968 margin. Cole and I talked twice about the importance
of keeping this material as "close" as possible. Cole again
assured me that only he and John Ehrlichman had seen it
and no one else would see it.
At the Committee Jeb Magruder, Bob Teeter, and Ted Garrish,
who worked on the memorandum for Teeter, have copies. The
Attorney General received his copy Monday morning
(February 28th).
A
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Administratively Confidential
February 9, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
G
SUBJECT:
Campaign Surveys
Bob Teeter submitted the attached seven-page summary of
the Pennsylvania poll conducted by MOR. In Teeter's mind
this is the format agreed upon when you and the Attorney
General met with him on January 31. Discussion with Teeter
developed the following points for you to consider:
1) The Attorney General asked for the two pages on
personality, but Teeter wonders whether you also want to
receive them.
Yes, Haldeman receive personality pages
No, exclude personality material
Other
2) The Attorney General has not asked for a Presidential
approval page with full demographics, but you may want
H to have that page added.
Yes, Haldeman receive Presidential popularity with
full demographics
No, exclude popularity demographics
Other
3) Peter Dailey and Bob Marik will have direct access
to all of Teeter's poll information except these summary
memoranda and the trial heat results.
4) Jeb Magruder will have access to all of Teeter's
polling information though it will be delivered to the
Attorney General in the first instance.
-2-
5) Iowa, New Jersey, and North Carolina have also been
received. The results are presented in the same format
as the Pennsylvania results. The New Jersey polling
information is attached. Larry has Iowa and North
Carolina, as well as a special New Hampshire follow-up
telephone poll.
6). The schedule for the receipt of the rest of the poll
results is:
Ohio, Indiana, Missouri
February 14
California, New York, Oregon, Virginia
February 21
Texas, Tennessee, Maryland, and National
February 28
7) Upon completion of this first wave, Teeter will begin
projects that you discussed with him on January 31 in
this order -- Presidential travel, the President's image,
and the President's handling of the issues.
8) Ken Cole, on February 9, asked you by memorandum whether
the Domestic Council staff could receive the results of
these campaign polls. He wants only the material dealing
with "domestic policy issues" and would personally limit
the distribution of the results.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Ken Cole receive the issue sections of the National poll
which will be available on February 28. You and the Attorney
General would sign off on the text to be given to Cole.
H.
AGREE
DISAGREE
He should also have COMMENT
the issue sections of the state pils
B
SUMMARY OF SURVEYS
ON RACE AND BUSSING
In conducting our campaign polls during December and January, con-
siderable data was collected on school desegregation, bussing and
race relations. This memorandum will summarize and analyze the
important political aspects of the data obtained.
Favor School Desegregation
Americans overwhelmingly support the principle of school desegregation.
School Desegregation
Nat
East
Midwest
South
West
N.C.
Va.
Tex.
N.Y.
Calif.
Favor
75
80
75
65
84
60
70
79
78
87
Oppose
20
14
19
30
14
37
25
37
15
9
No Response
5
6
6
5
2
3
5
3
7
4
Racially integrated public schools are favored by over two-thirds of
every political and demographic group in the country except Wallace
voters. Nixon voters and Muskie voters favor integration by 78%
and 80% respectively. 51% of the Wallace voters are opposed to
school integration, compared to 43% in favor. Both white and black
voters favor desegregation to approximately the same degree. Young
voters, especially ages 25 to 34, who are parents of elementary age
children, approve of school integration by 83%.
Oppose Bussing
There is no doubt that the American public is opposed to bussing
to achieve a racial balance in schools.
Bussing to Achieve School Integration
Nat '1
East
Midwest
South
West
N.C.
Va.
Tex.
N.Y.
Calif.
Favor
20
21
19
18
22
33
23
18
24
25
Oppose
76
75
77
78
73
59
73
61
55
61
No Response
4
4
4
4
5
8
4
20
21
14
-1-
All political, geographic, and demographic groups except blacks
are opposed to bussing by large margins. Those persons who vote
for Nixon and Wallace are somewhat more opposed to bussing than
Muskie voters.
Black voters hold a different view on bussing than their white
counterparts.
Bussing to Achieve School Integration
White
Black
Voters
Voters
Favor
17%
60%
Oppose
79
38
No Response
4
2
Other studies, however, have found a majority of blacks opposed
to bussing but the opposition is not as strong as among whites.
Black opposition also declines when bussing is perceived to be
the only alternative for blacks to achieve equal educational oppor-
tunity. The key to black attitudes on bussing appears to be
whether or not they believe they can get equal education in their
own neighborhood schools now.
Those blacks who believe they now have good schools in their areas
tend to oppose bussing, but those who believe their schools are
educationally inferior to others in the area are in favor of bussing
as a means of securing equal education for their children. Whites
also fully support equal education for blacks.
On the question of federal funds being used to provide for bussing,
78% were opposed to funds being used in this manner.
As expected, the acceptability of bussing depends partially on the
length of ride.
Percentage Willing-Unwilling
to Accept Length of Ride
10
20
30
45
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
All Voters
37-56%
26-66%
16-76%
9-83%
Ages 18-24
52-43
39-56
24-73
13-84
Ages 25-34
48-47
32-63
19-75
11-84
Younger voters (ages 18 to 34) are the most likely to be affected
by bussing in that they are the families with young children; and
they are not as opposed to short bus rides as older voters.
-2-
Bussing Not Vote Determining Issue
Bussing is not perceived as a particularly important national
problem. Nationally, less than 1% voluntarily mention it as an
important national problem. In fact, only 3% mention racial problems
as an important national issue. However, local studies have
shown that where bussing has been a problem or the subject of a
court order, the large majority of voters are strongly and intensely
opposed. The highest mention of bussing as a national problem is
8% in North Carolina.
On our recent surveys, voters were asked to rate 13 issues in terms
of their importance to them personally, and bussing received the
lowest average rating of all issues tested--nationally and in all
regions. In comparison, education was classified as important by
twice the number of voters as bussing, especially those aged 18 to
35 years. The respondents were also asked which of these 13 issues
would be most important to them in deciding how to vote for President
and bussing was mentioned as the most important factor by only 1%
nationally.
President Lacking Credibility on Bussing
Among those who are able to rate the candidates, the President
receives a less favorable rating on his ability to handle bussing
than Muskie or Kennedy. This is true nationally and in the south.
When voters were asked to select the greatest failure of the President
from an issue list (including bussing), 22% selected the bussing
answer. The same question was asked regarding the voter's expecta-
tion of the issue on which Muskie would do the poorest job. Of
those who were able to answer, 3% indicated bussing. With Kennedy,
bussing received a 1% mention.
Potential Negative Impact
There may be some risk in the President taking a very strong anti-
bussing stand.
In the south where the problem is for the most part history, the
President enjoys a comfortable margin.
The greatest impact will probably be in the northern states. In
those states where the President is ahead, he is obtaining a level
of black support, particularly against Muskie, which is higher than
a Republican candidate might normally expect or than the President
received in 1968. This is shown in tabular form on Attachment A.
If the black community perceives the President's position an "anti-
Negro,' he may seriously jeopardize his winning margin in some very
critical northern states, such as New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
and Ohio by increasing black opposition to him and increasing black
turnout.
-3-
Conclusions
I think that several conclusions can be drawn from the data we
have available.
-- Bussing is not seen as a major national problem by any significant
group of voters except in those local areas where it has become
an important local issue by virtue of a court decision or local
political campaign. However, once it does become a local issue,
the large majority are strongly opposed and their opposition is
very intense.
If asked specifically about the idea of bussing students to achieve
integration, a large majority of Americans in every region of the
country are opposed by large margins.
A large majority of Americans are strongly in favor of equal educa-
tion for all children. Most voters are in favor of integrated
public schools but do not believe bussing should be used to achieve
them. Blacks are much more concerned with equal education than
with integration or bussing. Most whites see education as the pri-
mary long-range solution to the racial problems in our country.
The President currently has a credibility problem on this issue,
particularly in those areas where it has become a major local issue.
He receives low ratings for his ability to handle the problem, and
while most people know he has said that he is against bussing, they
also know that he has been unable to stop it. This leads them to
the conclusion that he is either not believable or that he is
ineffective Any further statements by the President will have
to be accompanied by some definite action in order to be believ-
able. This is particularly true in those areas where bussing is
a problem.
There is a definite danger of "overkill" on this issue.
There is a fine line between being against bussing and being
"anti-Negro" and the President needs to treat this subject
with great care. As more Democrats take anti-bussing posi-
tions, the President should be careful not to go as far in
his opposition and be perceived as "anti-Negro" just to keep
the lead on the bussing issue.
The President is now in a position to get 15-20% of the
black vote in several large northern states against Muskie.
Presently, there is no particular intensity in black support
for Muskie. Any position which is perceived to be "anti-Negro"
could reduce the President's black support to 5-10%, intensify
black opposition to him, and increase black turnout for Muskie.
These factors would damage the President's chances of carrying
several large northern states which he is now likely to win.
-4-
A position which is perceived to be anti-black could also
give the press the opportunity to move the President's
perception too far to the conservative end of the liberal-
conservative spectrum. This could hurt the President's
chances with significant numbers of white ticket-splitters
or swing voters who tend to be moderate on the race question,
very pro education, and who are now supporting the President
on Vietnam, inflation, and other more important national
issues.
It appears unlikely that this issue could produce any additional
voters for the President. Rather, we should primarily be concerned
with not losing any votes.
Recommendations
As the President has already taken a strong stand against bussing
and has some credibility problems with the issue, I think that he
should either say nothing more or that he should reaffirm his stand
but accompany it with some specific action. If his decision is to
further oppose bussing, I would suggest that it contain the follow-
ing elements:
1. He should not endorse a constitutional amendment.
His endorsement of a constitutional amendment would clearly
be perceived as "anti-Negro" and it would seriously damage
our chances of carrying several large northern states by
intensifying black opposition and costing us the support of
significant numbers of swing voters.
2. He should reaffirm his support for the principles of equal
educational opportunity and integration.
3. He should recognize that many schools, particularly black
schools, are now educationally inferior to others in their same
school district or area.
4. He should strongly oppose bussing as a means of remedying this
situation.
5. He should propose legislative action which would tie anti-bussing
provisions to a program which would give immediate remedial attention
to schools which have no realistic prospect of being desegregated
and would provide maximum educational opportunity for all school
children, white and black.
6. His approachshould have the advantage of satisfying the majority
who are opposed to bussing, and at the same time, protect us with the
blacks and moderate whites who are primarily concerned with high
quality education. The data clearly indicates that many blacks would
support an anti-bussing stand if they believed they were going to get
equally good schools in their own neighborhoods.
--5-
ATTACHMENT A
CURRENT
1968
MARGIN
PERCENTAGE
STATE
MARGIN
(N/M/W)
BLK. SUPPORT
National
+ 9%
11%
California
+ 3%
- 6%
11%
Florida
+ 9%
+17%
33%
Illinois
+ 3%
+ 7%
2%
Indiana
+12%
+ 8%
4%
Iowa
+12%
+10%
*
Kentucky
+ 6%
+16%
38%**
Maryland
- 2%
- 1%
17%
.
Missouri
+ 1%
- 8%
4%
North Carolina
+ 8%
+12%
25%
New Hampshire
+ 8%
+10%
*
New Jersey
+ 2%
+11%
21%
New York
- 5%
- 1%
23%
Ohio
+ 2%
+ 9%
19%
Oregon
+ 6%
+ 3%
*
Pennsylvania
- 4%
- 4%
10%
Tennessee
+ 4%
+11%
20%
Texas
- 1%
- 2%
8%
Virginia
+10%
+15%
15%
Wisconsin
+ 4%
- 8%
3%
*
Sample Size Too Small
** Based on 29 Negroes in Sample
E Item N-3-2
Administratively Confidential
February 29, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
SUBJECT:
Ehrlichman and Cole/Campaign
Poll Results
On February 10 you decided that Ken Cole should receive the
issue sections of the national and state polls being conducte.
by Bob Teeter for the Campaign (original memorandum at Tab A).
While you were in China the interest in poll results on
bussing increased tremendously. Members of the White House
Staff and Domestic Council asked for results. The Attorney
General asked Bob Teeter to prepare an analysis of the
bussing issue based on the state polls that have been
received. After discussion with Magruder, who, at the
Attorney General's direction instructed Teeter to prepare
the memorandum, I decided to give the bussing memorandum
to Ken Cole (attached at Tab B). He told me that only he
and John Ehrlichman would have access to the memorandum.
Any information sought by Ed Morgan, Len Garment, or others
involved with the bussing question would be given orally
by Cole in his discretion.
Potentially the most sensitive aspect of the memorandum
describes the President's current percentage of black vote,
current margin vis-a-vis Muskie and Wallace, and the President
1968 margin. Cole and I talked twice about the importance
of keeping this material as "close" as possible. Cole again
assured me that only he and John Ehrlichman had seen it
and no one else would see it.
At the Committee Jeb Magruder, Bob Teeter, and Ted Garrish,
who worked on the memorandum for Teeter, have copies. The
Attorney General received his copy Monday morning
(February 28th).
GS:1m
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Administratively Confidential
February 9, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
G.
SUBJECT:
Campaign Surveys
Bob, Teeter submitted the attached seven-page summary of
the Pennsylvania poll conducted by MOR. In Teeter's mind
this is the format agreed upon when you and the Attorney
General met with him on January 31. Discussion with Teeter
developed the following points for you to consider:
1) The Attorney General asked for the two pages on
personality, but Teeter wonders whether you also want to
receive them.
Yes, Haldeman receive personality pages
No, exclude personality material
Other
2) The Attorney General has not asked for a Presidential
approval page with full demographics, but you may want
H to have that page added.
Yes, Haldeman receive Presidential popularity with
full demographics
No, exclude popularity demographics
Other
3) Peter Dailey and Bob Marik will have direct access
to all of Teeter's poll information except these summary
memoranda and the trial heat results.
4) Jeb Magruder will have access to all of Teeter's
polling information though it will be delivered to the
Attorney General in the first instance.
-2-
5) Iowa, New Jersey, and North Carolina have also been
received. The results are presented in the same format
as the Pennsylvania results. The New Jersey polling
information is attached. Larry has Iowa and North
Carolina, as well as a special New Hampshire follow-up
telephone poll.
6) The schedule for the receipt of the rest of the poll
results is:
Ohio, Indiana, Missouri
February
California, New York, Oregon, Virginia
February
Texas, Tennessee, Maryland, and National
February
7) Upon completion of this first wave, Teeter will begin
projects that you discussed with him on January 31 in
this order -- Presidential travel, the President's image,
and the President's handling of the issues.
8) Ken Cole, on February 9, asked you by memorandum whether
the Domestic Council staff could receive the results of
these campaign polls. He wants only the material dealing
with "domestic policy issues" and would personally limit
the distribution of the results.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Ken Cole receive the issue sections of the National poll
which will be available on February 28. You and the Attorney
General would sign off on the text to be given to Cole.
H.
AGREE
DISAGREE
He should also have COMMENT
the issue sections of the skete pal
SUMMARY OF SURVEYS
ON RACE AND BUSSING
In conducting our compaign polls during December and January, con-
siderable data was collected on school desegregation, bussing and
race relations. This memorandum will summarize and analyze the
important political aspects of the data obtained.
Favor School Desegregation
Americans overwhelmingly support the principle of school desegregation.
School Desegregation
Nat
East
Midwest
South
West
N.C.
Va.
Tex.
N.Y.
Calif.
Favor
75
80
75
65
84
60
70
79
78
87
Oppose
20
14
19
30
14
37
25
37
15
9
No Response
5
6
6
5
2
3
5
3
7
4
Racially integrated public schools are favored by over two-thirds of
every political and demographic group in the country except Wallace
voters. Nixon voters and Huskie voters favor integration by 78%
and 80% respectively. 51% of the Wallace voters are opposed to
school integration, compared to 43% in favor. Both white and black
voters favor desegregation to approximately the same degree. Young
voters, especially ages 25 to 34, who are parents of elementary age
children, approve of school integration by 83%.
Oppose Bussing
There is no doubt that the American public is opposed to bussing
to achieve a racial balance in schools.
Bussing to Achieve School Integration
Nat
East
Midwest
South
West
N.C.
Va.
Tex.
N.Y.
Calif.
Favor
20
21
19
18
22
33
23
18
24
25
Oppose
76
75
77
78
73
59
73
61
55
61
No Response
4
4
4
4
5
S
4
20
21
14
-1-
All political, geographic, and demographic groups except blacks
are opposed to bussing by large margins. Those persons who vote
for Nixon and Wallace are somewhat more opposed to bussing than
Muskie voters.
Black voters hold a different view on bussing than their white
counterparts.
Bussing to Achieve School Integration
White
Black
Voters
Voters
Favor
17%
60%
Oppose
79
38
No Response
4
2
Other studies, however, have found a majority of blacks opposed
to bussing but the opposition is not as strong as among whites.
Black opposition also declines when bussing is perceived to be
the only alternative for blacks to achieve equal educational oppor-
tunity. The key to black attitudes on bussing appears to be
whether or not they believe they can get equal education in their
own neighborhood schools now.
Those blacks who believe they now have good schools in their areas
tend to oppose bussing, but those who believe their schools are
educationally inferior to others in the area are in favor of bussing
as a means of securing equal education for their children. Whites
also fully support equal education for blacks.
On the question of federal funds being used to provide for bussing,
78% were opposed to funds being used in this manner.
As expected, the acceptability of bussing depends partially on the
length of ride.
Percentage Villing-Unwilling
to Accept Length of Ride
10
20
30
45
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
All Voters
37-56%
26-66%
16-76%
9-83%
Ages 18-24
52-43
39-56
24-73
13-84
Ages 25-34
48-47
32-63
19-75
11-84
Younger voters (ages 18 to 34) are the most likely to be affected
by bussing in that they are the families with young children; and
they are not as opposed to short bus rides as older voters.
-2-
Bussing Not Vote Determining Issue
Bussing is not perceived as a particularly important national
problem. Nationally, less than 1% voluntarily mention it as an
important national problem. In fact, only 3% mention racial problems
as an important national issue. However, local studies have
shown that where bussing has been a problem or the subject of a
court order, the large majority of voters are strongly and intensely
opposed. The highest mention of bussing as a national problem is
8% in North Carolina.
On our recent surveys, voters were asked to rate 13 issues in terms
of their importance to them personally, and bussing received the
lowest average rating of all issues tested--nationally and in all
regions. In comparison, education was classified as important by
twice the number of voters as bussing, especially those aged 18 to
35 years. The respondents were also asked which of these 13 issues
would be most important to them in deciding how to vote for President
and bussing was mentioned as the most important factor by only 1%
nationally.
President Lacking Credibility on Bussing
Among those who are able to rate the candidates, the President
receives a less favorable rating on his ability to handle bussing
than Muskie or Kennedy. This is true nationally and in the south.
When voters were asked to select the greatest failure of the President
from an issue list (including bussing), 22% selected the bussing
answer. The same question was asked regarding the voter's expecta-
tion of the issue on which Muskie would do the poorest job. Of
those who were able to answer, 3% indicated bussing. With Kennedy,
bussing received a 1% mention.
Potential Negative Impact
There may be some risk in the President taking a very strong anti-
bussing stand.
In the south where the problem is for the most part history, the
President enjoys a comfortable margin.
The greatest impact will probably be in the northern states. In
those states where the President is ahead, he is obtaining a level
of black support, particularly against Muskie, which is higher than
a Republican candidate might normally expect or than the President
received in 1968. This is shown in tabular form on Attachment A.
If the black community perceives the President's position an "anti-
Negro,' he may seriously jeopardize his winning maryin in some very
critical northern states, such as New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
and Ohio by increasing black opposition to him and increasing black
turnout.
-3-
Conclusions
I think that several conclusions can be drawn from the data we
have available.
-- Bussing is not seen as a major national problem by any significant
group of voters except in those local areas where it has become
an important local issue by virtue of a court decision or local
political campaign. However, once it does become a local issue,
the large majority are strongly opposed and their opposition is
very intense.
--- If asked specifically about the idea of bussing students to achieve
integration, a large majority of Americans in every region of the
country are opposed by large margins.
-- A large majority of Americans are strongly in favor of equal educa-
tion for all children. Most voters are in favor of integrated
public schools but do not believe bussing should be used to achieve
them. Blacks are much more concerned with equal education than
with integration or bussing. Most whites see education as the pri-
mary long-range solution to the racial problems in our country.
-- The President currently has a credibility problem on this issue,
particularly in those areas where it has become a major local issue.
He receives low ratings for his ability to handle the problem, and
while most people know he has said that he is against bussing, they
also know that he has been unable to stop it. This leads them to
the conclusion that he is either not believable or that he is
ineffective Any further statements by the President will have
to be accompanied by some definite action in order to be believ-
able. This is particularly true in those areas where bussing is
a problem.
--- There is a definite danger of "overkill" on this issue.
There is a fine line between being against bussing and being
"anti-Negro" and the President needs to treat this subject
with great care. As more Democrats take anti-bussing posi-
tions, the President should be careful not to 80 as far in
his opposition and be perceived as "anti-Negro" just to keep
the lead on the bussing issue.
The President is now in a position Lo get 15-20% of the
black vote in several large northern states against Muskie.
Presently, there is no particular intensity in black support
for Muskie. Any position which is perceived to be "anti-Negro"
could reduce the President's black support to 5-10%, intensify
black opposition to him, and increase black turnout for Muskic.
These Inctors would damage the President's chances of carrying
several large northern states which he is now likely to win.
-4-
A position which is perceived to be anti-black could also
give the press the opportunity to move the President's
perception too far to the conservative end of the liberal-
conservative spectrum. This could hurt the President's
chances with significant numbers of white ticket-splitters
or swing voters who tend to be moderate on the race question,
very pro education, and who are now supporting the President
on Vietnam, inflation, and other more important national
issues.
It appears unlikely that this issue could produce any additional
voters for the President. Rather, we should primarily be concerned
with not losing any votes.
Recommendations
As the President has already taken a strong stand against bussing
and has some credibility problems with the issue, I think that he
should either say nothing more or that he should reaffirm his stand
but accompany it with some specific action. If his decision is to
further oppose bussing, I would suggest that it contain the follow-
ing elements:
1. He should not endorse a constitutional amendment.
His endorsement of a constitutional amendment would clearly
be perceived as "anti-Negro" and it would seriously damage
our chances of carrying several large northern states by
intensifying black opposition and costing us the support of
significant numbers of swing voters.
2. He should reaffirm his support for the principles of equal
educational opportunity and integration.
3. He should recognize that many schools, particularly black
schools, are now educationally inferior to others in their same
school district or area.
4. He should strongly oppose bussing as a means of remedying this
situation.
5. He should propose legislative action which would tic anti-bussing
provisions to a program which would give immediate remedial attention
to schools which have no realistic prospect of being desegregated
and would provide maximum educational opportunity for all school
children, white and black.
6. His approachshould have the advantage of satisfying the majority
who are opposed to bussing, and at the same time, protect us with the
blacks and moderate whites viio are primarily concerned with high
quality education. The data clearly indicates that many blacks would
support nn anti-bussing stand if they believed they were going to get
equally good schools in their own neighborhoods.
--5-
ATTACHMENT A
CURRENT
1968
MARGIN
PERCENTACE
STATE
MARGIN
(N/M/W)
BLK. SUPPORT
National
+ 9%
11%
California
+ 3%
- 6%
11%
Florida
+ 9%
+17%
33%
Illinois
+ 3%
+ 7%
2%
Indiana
+12%
+ 8%
4%
Iowa
+12%
+10%
*
Kentucky
+ 6%
+16%
38%**
Maryland
- 2%
- 1%
17%
Missouri
+ 1%
- 8%
4%
North Carolina
+ 8%
+12%
25%
New Hampshire
+ 8%
+10%
*
New Jersey
+ 2%
+11%
21%
New York
- 5%
- 1%
23%
Ohio
+ 2%
+ 9%
19%
Oregon
+ 6%
+ 3%
*
Pennsylvania
- 4%
- 4%
10%
Tennessee
+ 4%
+11%
20%
Texas
- 1%
- 2%
8%
Virginia
+10%
+15%
15%
Wisconsin
+ 4%
- 8%
3%
*
Sample Size Too Small
**
Based on 29 Eegroes in Sample
e of California
emorandum
:
Governor Reagan
Acb Maqua yy! welloce announce of out Los of hill. Date
Fabruary 25, 1972
Ed Meese
Mike Deaver
Gordon Luce
Subject:
Lyn Nofziger
Wallace and Spock
,Dtay
in California
:
Robert C. Walker
If the latest (mid-February) California Poll (Field) is reliable
and Muskie gets the nomination, it would seem highly desirable
that Wallace and Spock be on the ticket in California. If they
are, the poll shows:
Nixon
44%
Muskie
40
Wallace
9
Spock
2
Undecided
5
100%
If Wallace and Spock are not on the ballot, their 11 points are
distributed as follows:
Muskie
8
Undecided
2
Nixon
1
The result is a Muskie victory assuming the undecided vote
breaks in the same proportion:
Muskie
43%
Nixon
45
Undecided
7
100%
This does not occur with Humphrey or Kennedy. The distribution
of 11 points cast for Wallace and Spock when Humphrey is the
nominee is as follows:
Nixon
5
He Shreey
5
Undersion
1
With Kennody as the nomine 0 tallace and Speck get only 3 points
and they break an follows Wallace and Spock are removed:
F.
Mixen
4
Kinnedy
4
Governor Reagan
Ed Meese
Mike Deaver
Gordon Luce
Lyn Nofziger
-2-
February 25, 1972
The phonomenon of a disproportionate share of Wallace votes going
to Muskie instead of to Nixon might be explained by the voters
perception of Muskie as a new and more neutral figure, whereas
they have sharp impressions of Nixon, Humphrey and Kennedy. In
other words, a lack of knowledge about Muskie may affect their
choice of him at this time. As the campaign progresses, however,
this may gradually decline and should be watched closely. If it
does decline to the point of equal distribution as in the Humphrey
and Kennedy showings, then, of course, it will make little difference
whether or not Wallace and Spock are on the California ballot.
Since we cannot be sure that the unfavorable pro-Muskie distribution
will evaporate and since we are not hurt by the Humphrey and Kennedy
distributions, I suggest that any moves to disqualify the AIP's be
held in abeyance, at least.
As you know, this is contrary to the efforts of. Robert Walters these
past 1cw months.
Teeter/mag
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 17, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
Bob asked that in addition to getting more information from DMI
if we can get it, also get our January figures for Los Angeles and
Orange County. What he wants to do, obviously, is make a compari-
son to see if the shift has been in Orange County and Los Angeles
County. As you know, Teeter was worried about Orange County
figures. The shift, as I'm sure you are well aware, is almost too
much to believe, so let's check it out.
With regard to the Mitchell meeting on March 21, Bob felt there
might be some interest in John Mitchell, Bob Teeter and Haldeman
getting together for a meeting. Rather than responding to the fact
that Mitchell and Teeter are getting together, why don't you just say
cangelled
would it not perhaps be worthwhile for the former Attorney General
and Bob to sit down with Teeter and review the situation together and
see what the feeling is. The point is that Bob does not want to horn
in on Mitchell's meeting, but I would guess Mitchell would welcome
Haldeman sitting in on a polling meeting now that we have gone round
the polls once. Obviously Bob from feb studied them more than John did.
Why don't you get a reading on what can be done here and, if so, plan
on setting up the meeting on March 21. It would obviously be to our
advantage to have the meeting in Haldeman's office, but I don't know
if Mitchell can, or would prefer to arrange that, and obviously there
is no need to make waves here. See what you can work out.
Tector/may [Item N-6]
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 17, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
L
Bob asked that in addition to getting more information from DMI
if we can get it, also get our January figures for Los Angeles and
Orange County. What he wants to do, obviously, is make a compari-
son to see if the shift has been in Orange County and Los Angeles
County. As you know, Teeter was worried about Orange County
figures. The shift, as I'm sure you are well aware, is almost too
much to believe, so let's check it out.
With regard to the Mitchell meeting on March 21, Bob felt there
might be some interest in John Mitchell, Bob Teeter and Haldeman
getting together for a meeting. Rather than responding to the fact
that Mitchell and Teeter are getting together, why don't you just say
canglled
would it not perhaps be worthwhile for the former Attorney General
and Bob to sit down with Teeter and review the situation together and
see what the feeling is, The point is that Bob does not want to horn
in on Mitchell's meeting, but I would guess Mitchell would welcome
Haldeman sitting in on a polling meeting now that we have gone round
the polls once. Obviously Bob studied them more than John did.
from feb
Why don't you get a reading on what can be done here and, if so, plan
on setting up the meeting on March 21 It would obviously be to our
advantage to have the meeting in Ideman's office, but I don't know
if Mitchell can, or would prefer to arrange that, and obviously there
is no need to make waves here. See what you can work out.
[Item N.
EYes ONCY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
EYES ONLY
February 10, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
wr
SUBJECT:
Polling
Apropos our conversation on polls this morning, I think it
might be a very interesting experiment to have our pollsters
ask at the outset of the interview the approval question and the
trial heats. Then go into the development of issue data and all
the questions about the President that would be a part of the
poll. At the end of the session, the interviewer might say, "I
just want to check my notes once again. How did you say you
would vote between Nixon and X?"
If there is any shift, i.e. , any change at the end of the interview
from the beginning, this could be very significant information.
More importantly, the profile of the kind of people who shift could
be invaluable. That would identify the type of voter we really need
to get to with issue material; That is, the people who can be sold
if we work on them. Conceivably that could be the swing vote.
Harris said he would do this for me. On the other hand, I have
some reservations about having him do this. We all know he is
for sale and, while he is presently in our hands (I think), there is
no telling what might happen in the future. The more I think about
it the more I would be inclined to have it in the hands of one of our
suppliers whom we can control rather than in the hands of Harris.
Would you let me know?
[Item N-107
Teeter
H
2/6
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Administratively Confidential
January 6, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
LARRY HIGBY
brott
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
G
SUBJECT:
Gallup Poll
CHECK
TEEM
You asked that an attempt be made to find out whether Gallup
had been purchased by Muskie/Kennedy or at least the DNC.
Jeb Magruder contacted Bob Teeter, who has a professional
relationship with George Gallup Jr. Teeter talked with Gallup
according to Magruder but could learn nothing. Magruder also
had Cliff Miller contact Lloyd Free, Rockefeller's pollster
who has strong connections with Gallup. Again, nothing concrete
developed.
I did not call Tom Benham because he would be the third
individual with tenuous White House connections. This could
have been very embarrassing.
Rumsfeld is of course the correct, above board contact with
Gallup. I advised Dick Cheney of our suspicions on December 20.
He discussed them with Counsellor Rumsfeld before Rumsfeld's
lunch with George Gallup Jr. on December 29. Cheney doubts
that Rumsfeld has called Mr. Haldeman with a report on that
luncheon.
[Item N-11]
mag/carney
FU 12/20
THE WHITE HOUSE
12/21
WASHINGTON
December 14, 1971
12/30 1/5
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
HIGBY
L
It is obvious that Gallup has been bogged by Muskie/Kennedy
bought
or at least the Democratic National Committee.
They have probably figured that we bought Harris and they
might as well get something.
Of course this is not the case, but it is probably worth finding
out exactly what the Democratic - Gallup relationship is. I
don't know if you want to talk to Dean about this or to Colson,
but one of them should get something going on a low-key basis.
You may also want to mention this to Magruder and let's do each
of them independently so we don't have everyone running around
making statements about this. Let me know what progress you
have made in one week.
Thank you.
G>DH 12/16,
G
J8m 12/17
will see e
use miller / Free-ete
cwc wants
togote whatever Rumsor
G
Oney lunch 2/20 w/ Gallep
cw ct Hamis(Gion)
Runs on 12/27 but hasn't reported
agree Gallup bright to
Teeter
to it yet
but canlget Rums
really findout.