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 Arthur J. Finkelstein to Magruder RE: critiques of the memo recipient's survey books. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/15/1972
Draft of a memo, possibly generated by Finkelstein, analyzing California voter demographics and trends. California county map and county voting figures for the 1968 election attached. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/13/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26146284
label
WHSF: Contested, 46-3
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26146284
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 46-3
description
This file contains:
From Arthur J. Finkelstein to Magruder RE: critiques of the memo recipient's survey books. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/15/1972
Draft of a memo, possibly generated by Finkelstein, analyzing California voter demographics and trends. California county map and county voting figures for the 1968 election attached. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/13/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26146284
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c564d9449dc1d3fe
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
46
3
5/15/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Arthur J. Finkelstein to Magruder RE:
critiques of the memo recipient's survey
books. 2 pgs.
46
3
4/13/1972
Campaign
Memo
Draft of a memo, possibly generated by
Finkelstein, analyzing California voter
demographics and trends. California county
map and county voting figures for the 1968
election attached. 6 pgs.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Page 1 of 1
[It
Committee for the Re-election of the President
MEMORANDUM
May 15, 1972
DETERMINED TO BE AN
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JEB S. MAGRUDER
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
FROM:
ARTHUR J. FINKELSTEIN
By
NAR
,
Date
SUBJECT:
Survey Review
After perusing with some degree of diligence the survey books
you have on file in your desk, I have the following comments
to make.
1. The sample size in the national poll appears to be a
little bit smaller than perhaps it should be. Fifteen hundred
samples, I would suggest, would give a better cross-section
breakout.
2. Depending on the definition of the category, "south",
there would appear to be an over-cmphasis in the national sample
of the south, (i.e. 32% of the total sample is, in the south,
where Nixon receives a rather large plurality).
3. In the national sample, there appears to be too few
Blacks and too many Jews.
4. In Maryland, there appears to be too many young.
Beyond some of the demographic weightings mentioned above, there
are certain numbers which, logically speaking, cannot be the case.
However, this is my political judgment and not a statistical one,
for, no doubt, the actual raw numbers do, in fact, state the
following results.
1. In Oregon, Nixon runs behind in the over-65 group.
2. In Southern California, Nixon runs virtually even
against Muskie, which seers to be a total impossibility.
3. In Pennsylvania, Nixon received 17% of the Philadelphia
vote against Muskie's 69%; 52% of the suburban vote to Muskie's
34%, yet with both Kennedy and Humphrey, Nixon runs virtually even
in the city of Philadelphia, but Joses by better than 3 to 1 in the
traditional Republican suburbs to both Humphrey and Kennedy. These
numbers, too, seem highly improbable.
CONFIDENTIAL
- 2 -
4. When Nixon is matched head-to-head to Kennedy in Arkansas,
he leads by a margin of 49 to 33. With Wallace in the race, Nixon
receives 33% to 36% for Kennedy, with 17% for Wallace. It is
perfectly legitimate for Wallace to take 16% of his 17 percentage
points from Nixon, however, it is totally illogical to expect the
Kennedy vote to increase by 13 percentage points because of the
inclusion of Wallace.
In a real sense, this is nitpicking, for the data in your book
seems entirely professional. Some numbers are wrong or an inaccurate
reflection of the real position of the electorate. llowever, this is
not an unusual case for a survey document. Afterall, statistically,
one case in 20 will have a margin of error greater than that of the
acceptable error tolerance. With literally hundreds of cells of
data collected, it is not surprising to find some that are con-
siderably off base. Since the reports you have do not break down
the issues by demographic cell, it is hard to determine whether or
not the specific comments made about the issues are being properly
interpreted. From my own experience, I know that the non-solicited
response from "What in your opinion is the single most important
issue facing the United States today?" is not necessarily the one
that most concerns the respondents.
I have been playing around with a relationship question asking,
for example, "From a list of issue concerns, which are most
important to you personally?", and find that Victnam falls
drastically, and far more local concerns race to the front.
Busing, which virtually never shows up on the unsolicited response,
time and again is cited in the relationship questions.
As a last comment on the reports you have, Mr. Teeter seems to make
certain interpretive judgments based on data, which, in fact, does
not exist. For example, intensity of commitment, or, as in Texas,
saying that we should 30 strongly for the Mexican/American vote since
the data does not reflect any anti-Mexican/American feeling among
our voters. Unless there is data I have not seen or heard about,
I have no way to know how Teeter can make the judgment that no such
biases exist. I must strongly point out that each professional
surveyor has his own style and technique and that, by and large,
I am very impressed with the thoroug of the research done for
the Nixon campaign, and as to interpretive judgments, that entirely
implies a personalized and stylized approach.
Committee for the Re-election of the President
MEMORANDUM
April 13, 1972 (DRAFT)
DETERMINED TO BE AN
GONP
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
SUBJECT:
California
By time
NAR_, Date 6-16-80
California's population in 1970 was 19,696,840. It is the largest
state in the nation in terms of population. The state is 7% Black,
9% Mexican and Spanish, and 2% Oriental. Total foreign stock is
25%, with Mexicans 4%, Germans 2%, Canadians 2%, British 2%,
Italians 2%, being the largest ethnic groups.
In political terms, California is very much a North versus South
state. The southern section of the state (Tab A), which is the
larger of the two, tends to be very conservative, while the
northern portion tends to be rather liberal. Orange and San
Diego Counties in the south, for example, were the only two heavily
populated counties in the country that gave Goldwater a plurality
in 1964. The southern part of the state has been described as the
"Sun Belt State", similar politically to southern Florida and
central Texas. It was settled by "Bible Belt types" and has taken
on that political mold. San Francisco, on the other hand, being
the center of liberalism and Democratic strength in California, is
also the headquarters for many Far Left organizations, such as the
Black Panthers. The Central Valley of the state, generally
agricultural and desert, was settled by people coming from the
Oklahoma plains during the Dust Bowl era.
Nixon's greatest vote totals in 1968 came out of Los Angeles, Orange,
San Diego, Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. The President re-
ceived 2,159,656 votes from these five counties, or 62.3% of his
total California vote. (Tabs B and C)
Humphrey's best counties were northern counties of San Francisco
(plurality - 76,539), Alameda (66,260), Sacramento (21,592), Santa
Clara (10,065). These four best Humphrey counties, in terms of raw
vote, gave Humphrey a total plurality of 174,456 which is only
8,000 more than the plurality given Nixon from Orange County alone.
Wallace received 6.7% of the total vote in 1968. His vote appears
to have come most heavily, percentage wise, from that area of the
state north of Sacramento. This would make it appear that the
Wallace vote probably helped Nixon in 1968. A recent Field Poll in
California indicates that most of the vote which Wallace now re-
ceives in three-man, head-to-head contests, would go to the Democrat
in-a two-man race.
CONF
IDENTIAL
- 2 -
The conventional wisdom of the Republican politicians is that one
must get large portions of the vote downstate to offset the upstate
margins of the Democrats. In 1968, the Presidential contest
followed that pattern. Nixon carried southern California by about
376,000 votes, lost northern California by about 143,000 votes
and lost the Central Valley by about 9,000 votes.
In order to gain the plurality necessary in Southern California,
the emphasis in 1972 should be placed on Los Angeles, Orange,
and San Diego Counties. Southern California may be much more
difficult this year than in 1968 due to the high unemployment rate
in the space industry and related business. Orange and Los Angeles
Counties were the hardest hit by the white collar recession. In
particular, the Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena and South Bay areas of
Los Angeles County should receive maximum attention since so many
of their residents are out of work. All activities should focus
on alleviating this major problem.
National polls indicate that the President runs well with older
Americans. Over 18% of California's voting population is over 60.
Specific attention should be given to the problems of the senior
citizens in the following locations: (1970 Congressional Districts)
1. 32nd Congressional District - Long Beach
2. 20th Congressional District - Pasadena
3. 6th Congressional District - West San Francisco
4. 38th Congressional District - Palm Springs
5.
1st Congressional District - Marin
6. 18th Congressional District - Tulare, Kern
Close attention should be paid to San Francisco as 24.5% of its voting
popul ation is over 60 years old. An effort should be made to attract
these voters SO that the Democratic plurality in Northern California
can be limited.
Agriculture is important to the economy of California. Particular
emphasis should be placed on the farm vote in the following areas;
1:
1st Congressional District - Napa
2. 38th Congressional District - Imperial, Riverside
3. 18th Congressional District - Kern, Tulare
4. 16th Congressional District - Fresno
5. 12th Congressional District - Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo
6.
4th Congressional District - Glenn, Lake, Colusa, Sutter
CONF IDENT
- 3 -
Approximately 9% of California's population have Spanish surnames.
Considerable attention has been given to the Mexican American by
the Nixon Administration. If we are indeed going to persuade
this minority to vote for the President, we must seek them out in
the following areas of California:
1. 38th Congressional District - San Bernardino, Imperial
2. 30th Congressional District - Los Angeles
3. 29th Congressional District - Los Angeles
4. 19th Congressional District - Los Angeles
5. 16th Congressional District - Fresno
6.
9th Congressional District - Santa Clara
Although the Mexican American vote, the older American vote, and
the agricultural vote should receive consideration, they are secondary
in priority. Our main emphasis should center on San Diego,
Los Angeles, and Orange Counties. These Southern California Counties
will mainly determine whether we win or lose California's 45
electoral votes.
CONFIDENTIAL
(38 Districts)
(1968 VOTE TOTALS IN THOUSANDS)
151
HORTE
BOOOG
SENTEWIDE PESULTS
PUMBOR
NIXON
3,463 (49%)
HUMPHREY 3,244 (44%)
EUREKA
EMASTA
WALLACE
LESSEM
487 ( 7%)
TRANTY
REDDING
0
Tenans
PLUMIS
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
c
CHICO
(27% OF TOTAL VOTE)
GLENN
CUITE
5(ths
MORIA
NIXON
830 (43%)
COLUMN
STATES
YORK
HUMPHREY
973 (50%)
nece
use
WALLACE
132 ( 7%)
"
SACRAMENTO
SONOMA
YOUR
AGENCE
need
o
SANTA ROSA
CENTRAL VALLEY
;;
sours
(15% OF TOTAL VOTE)
...
AND
6 PART
o
DOND
NIXON
479 (45%)
SAM FRANCISCO
5,6PART.
3
HUMPHREY
488 (46%)
7
WALLACE
90 ( 9%)
9
11
U
MADERA
......
0
FRESNO
(
SAMNAS
see
16
MTD
ESNITO
TOLARE
MONTHEY
RISGS
it
if
LOSS
X4
BAKERSFIELD
0
FORM
33
1
ANAHEIM
-
ser BERNIONS
2
105 ANGELES
3
OAKLAND
SANTA
$
i "
a
4
ONTANO
n
1:
ANDRESS
3
RICHMOND
SANTA BARBARA
-
SAN BERNARDINO
& SAN JOSE
0
REDLANDS
, SAN MATIO
$
SANTA ANA
0
RIVERSIDE
$
VALIEJO
REVERSIDE
19-26
28-32
0
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
-
(58% OF TOTAL VOTE)
MEDIA
4
0
31% 242
37
NIXON
2,159 (510)
36
SANISOD
HUMPPILEY
1,783 (433)
WALLACE
235 ( (3)
1968 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
( California Counties Providing the Largest Number of Votes for Richard Nixon )
CANDIDATES
COUNTY
NIXON
HUMPHRLY
WALLACE
PLURALITY
Los Angeles *
1,266,480
1,223,251
151,050
43,229 (R)
(47.6%)
(46.0%)
(5.7%)
Orange
314,905
148,869
33,034
166,036 (R)
(63.1%)
(29.9%)
(6.6%)
San Diego
261,540
167,669
33,340
93,871 (R)
(56.3%)
(36.1%)
(7.2%)
Santa Clara
163,446
173,511
18,754
10,065 (D)
(45.6%)
(48.4%)
(5.2%)
Alameda
153,285
219,545
28,426
66,260 (D)
(37.6%)
(53.9%)
(7.0%)
Mixon's plurality vote from Los Angeles accounted for 36.5% of his total
Republican vote.
PRESIDENT 1968
1960 Census
Total
Percentage Total Vote
Population
County
Vote
Republican
Democratic
AIP
Other
Plurality
Rep.
Dem.
AIP
905,070 ALAMEJA
407,349
153,285
219,545
28,426
6,093
66,260 D
37.6%
53.9%
7.01
397 ALPINE
253
150
83
20
67 R
59.3%
32.8%
7.91
9,990 AMADOR
5,390
2,269
2,440
660
21
171
D
42.1%
45.3%
12.2%
32,030 OUTTE
39,211
22,225
12,837
3,891
208
9,338 R
56.7%
32.9%
9.9%
10,289 CALAVERAS
5,332
3,042
2,134
643
13
908
R
52.2%
30.6%
11.0%
12,075 COLUSA
4,577
2,361
1,858
344
14
503 R
51.6%
40.6%
7.5%
409,630 CONTRA COSTA
218,917
97,436
101,668
18,330
1,433
4,182 D
44.5%
46.4%
8.41
17,771 JEL NORTE
5,168
2,387
2,236
495
50
151 R
46.2%
43.3%
9.6:
29,350 cL DOKADO
15,241
7,468
6,054,
1,676
43
1,414
R
49.0%
39.7%
11.0%
305,745 FRESNO
137,396
59,901
65,153
11,292
1,050
5,252 D
43.6%
47.4%
8.2%
17,245 GLEAN
7,138
3,848
2,466
808
16
1,382 R
53.9%
34.52
11.3:
104,092 HUMBOLDT
36,214
16,719
16,476
2,759
260
243 R
46.2%
45.5%
7.6%
72,105 IMPERIAL
20,446
10,818
7,481
2,100
47
3,337 R
52.9%
36.6%
10.31
11,004 INYO
6,687
3,641
2,314
714
18
1,327 R
54.42
34.6%
10.72
291,984 KERN
115,832
53,990
49,284
12,309
249
4,706 R
46.6%
42.5%
10.6%
49,934
KINGS
18,101
7,796
8,643
1,640
22
847 D
43.1%
47.7%
9.11
13,766 LAKE
9,111
4,464
3,777
838
32
687 R
49.0%
41.58
9.2%
13,597 LASSEN
6,218
2,553
2,930
712
23
377 D
41.1%
47.1%
11.5:
0,033,771 LOS ANGELES
2,657,982
1,266,480
1,223,251
151,050
17,201
43,229 R
47.66
46.0%
5.7%
40,400 MADERA
14,303
6,229
6,932
1,120
22
703 D
43.6%
48.5%
7.8%
140,020 MARIN
82,755
41,422
36,278
3,801
1,254
5,144
R
50.1%
43.82
4.6%
5,004 MARIPOSA
2,297
1,496
1,187
302
12
309 R
49.9%
39.62
10.1%
51,009 MENDOCINO
17,904
8,305
7,935
1,554
110
370 R
46.4%
44.3%
8.7%
90,440 MERCED
28,349
11,595
14,453
2,240
53
2,858 D
40.9%
51.02
7.9%
3,305 MODOC
3,267
1,713
1,264
284
6
449 R
52.4%
35.72
8.7%
2,213 MONO
1,758
1,130
465
156
7
665 R
64.3%
26.5%
8.9%
190,351 MONTEREY
67,124
33,670
28,261
4,000
393
5,409 R
50.25
42.1%
7.2%
65,390 NAPA
32,612
14,270
14,762
3,476
104
492 D
43.8%
45.32
10.71
20,911 NEVADA
11,794
6,001
4,607
1,078
48
1,454 R
51.4%
39.1%
9.1%
703,925 ORANGE
493,707
314,905
148,369
33,034
1,899
166,030 R
63.1%
29.9%
6.6%
30,990 PLACER
29,144
12,427
14,050
2,574
93
1,623
D
42.6%
48.2%
8.8%
11,620 PLUMAS
5,611
2,097
2,961
529
24
864 D
37.4%
52.5%
9.4%
300,191 RIVERSIDE
157,670
83,414
61,146
12,432
678
22,268 R
52.9%
39.8%
7.91
502,778 SACRAMENTO
233,246
97,177
110,769
16,209
1,031
21,592 D
41.71
50.91
7.01
10,390 SAN BENITO
6,229
2,961
2,809
447
12
152 R
47.5%
45.12
7.21
503,591
SAN BERNARDINO
223,616
111,974
89,418
21,187
1,037
22,556 R
50.1%
40.0%
9.5%
1,033,011
SAN DIEGO
464,803
261,540
167,669
33,340
2,314
93,871 R
56.3%
36.1%
7.2%
142,053
SAN FRANCISCO
299,947
100,970
177,509
17,332
4,136
76,539 D
33.7%
59.2%
5.8%
249,909 SAN JOAQUIN
98,589
47,293
42,073
8,923
300
5,220 R
48.0:
42.7%
9.11
01,044 SAN LUIS 0315PO
37,881
19,420
15,828
2,416
217
3,592 R
51.3%
41.8%
6.4%
444,387 SAN MATED
225,668
98,654
106,519
14,720
5,775
7,865 D
43.72
47.2%
6.5%
160,962
SANTA BARBARA
93,420
50,068
37,565
5,083
704
12,503 R
53.6%
40.22
5.4%
642,015 SANTA CLARA
358,367
163,446
173,511
18,754
2,656
10,065 D
45.6%
48.4%
5.2%
54,219 SANTA CRUZ
49,944
25,365
20,492
3,405
622
4,873 R
50.8%
41.02
6.9%
59,400 SHASTA
29,230
11,821
14,510
2,815
84
2,689 D
40.4%
49.6%
9.61
2,247 STERRA
1,193
548
559
85
1
11
D
45.9%
46.9%
7.11
32,585 SISKIYOU
13,732
6,334
6,260
1,088
50
74
R
46.11
45.62
7.9%
134,597 SOLAND
50,952
17,683
27,271
5,810
188
9,588 D
34.76
53.5%
11.4%
147,375 SUNGRA
78,059
38,088
33,587
5,075
509
4,501 R
48.8%
43.02
7.5%
137,294
STANISLAUS
65,063
29,573
31,316
3,973
201
1,743 D
45.5%
48.1%
6.1%
33,300 SUTTER
14,545
8,665
4,624
1,228
28
4,041
R
59.6%
31.8%
8.4%
25,305 TEHAMA
10,999
5,198
4,565
1,216
20
633 R
47.3%
41.58
11.1:
9,706 TRINITY
3,307
1,426
1,433
432
16
70
43.1%
43.3%
13.18
108,403 TULARE
56,189
29,314
22,180
4,580
115
7,134 R
52.2%
39.5%
8.2%
14,404 TUDLURNE
9,119
4,330
3,913
865
11
417 R
47.5%
42.9%
9.5%
199,133 VENTURA
116,261
59,705
47,794
8,234
528
11,911 R
51.4%
41.12
7.11
65,727 YOLO
28,960
11,123
15,833
1,742
262
4,710 D
38.42
54.7%
6.0:
33,559 YUSA
11,150
5,371
4,461
1,296
22
910 R
48.2%
40.0%
11.6:
15,717,204 TOTAL
7,251,587
3,467,664
3,244,318
487,270
52,335
223,346 R
47.8%
44.78
6.7%