Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "26146290",
    "label": "WHSF: Contested, 46-6",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146290"
}

{
    "id": "26146290",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146290",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "WHSF: Contested, 46-6",
    "description": "This file contains:\n\nTeeter's detailed analysis of the second wave of campaign polling compiled for Haldeman. 8 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/1/1972\n\nFrom Teeter to MacGregor RE: RN's ratings on inflation and taxes as revealed through polling. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/31/1972",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146290",
    "collections": [
        "Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection",
        "Contested Materials Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/90/1462/26146290/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-46/Contested-46-06.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/90/1462/26146290/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-46/Contested-46-06.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/90/1462/26146290/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-46/Contested-46-06.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146290",
    "naId": 26146290,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/90/1462/26146290/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-46/Contested-46-06.pdf",
    "mediaId": "4cf5f813b64988fb",
    "ocrText": "Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nContested Materials Collection\nFolder List\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n46\n6\n8/1/1972\nCampaign\nMemo\nTeeter's detailed analysis of the second wave\nof campaign polling compiled for Haldeman.\n8 pgs.\n46\n6\n7/31/1972\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom Teeter to MacGregor RE: RN's ratings\non inflation and taxes as revealed through\npolling. 6 pgs.\nMonday, March 19, 2012\nPage 1 of 1\n[Item N-1.]\nA\nCommittee for the Re-election of the President\nMEMORANDUM\nAugust 1, 1972\nDETERMINED TO BE AN\nNFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY\nADMINISTRATIVE MARKING\nE.O. 12085, Section 6-102\nBy\nemp\nNARS, Date 6.17-\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMR. H. R. HALDEMAN\nFROM:\nROBERT M. TEETER\nRMT\nSUBJECT:\nSecond Wave Polling Results\nThis memorandum is to summarize the briefings I am giving the White\nHouse personnel you requested I meet with.\nWe are in relatively good shape against McGovern in terms of\nthe sample ballots. We have broken the pattern of the President\nonly getting 42-46% of the committed vote for the first time. In\nseveral of the priority states his committed vote is near or above\n50%. We continue to have some problems in Missouri, Oregon, Wisconsin,\nand Washington although our situation has improved from the first\nwave. We have rated each of the states we polled A, B, C, D, and E.\nWith A meaning we are in very good shape, B in relatively good shape,\nC that it is close, D we are in not` too good shape, and E we are in\nbad shape.\nRatings\nA\nB\nC\nD\nE\nAlabama\nCalifornia\nMichigan\nWisconsin\nNone\nConnecticut\nMaryland\nMissouri\nIllinois\nNew Jersey\nOregon\nOhio\nNew York\nWashington\nTexas\nPennsylvania\nThe President is doing very well for a Republican candidate with all\nthree voting behavior groups. He is losing almost no Republicans,\nhe has substantial leads with the ticket-splitters and is cutting into\nthe Democrats at the 25-30% level. At this point he is doing\nsignificantly better among the ticket-splitters than he did in 1968.\nOur data indicates that there are two basic groups of ticket-splitters\nwith which we need to be concerned. The first group has been splitting\ntheir ticket for some time and in recent years have been splitting\nin favor of winning Republicans. They tend to be in the 25-50 age\ngroup, to be somewhat better educated than the average voter, to have\nslightly higher incomes than the average voter, in general they are\nfrom the upper middle class, and are typically suburbanites.\n-2-\nThe second group are those who have only begun to split their\nticket in the past few years and who have previously voted straight\nDemocratic. Even though they are now clearly ticket-splitters and\nare available to us in this campaign, they will still probably vote\nfor a majority of Democrats. Many of them split for Wallace in the\nlast election and many switched from Wallace to Humphrey late in\nthe campaign. This group is lower on the socio-economic scale than\nthe first group and age is somewhat less of a factor. They are\noften (but not necessarily) Catholic, and in the large cities of\nthe East and Midwest, often have ethnic backgrounds. They are\nessentially the blue collar working middle class.\nCandidate Perception\nThe President is rated quite well on the three key personality\ndimensions -- trustworthiness, strength, and competence. He is\nrated higher on the trustworthy dimension now than he was in\nJanuary and this is a scale on which we rarely see any movement\nfor a well-known figure. However, there is no significant differ-\nence between the President and McGovern on the trust or strength\ndimensions. He gets his highest ratings by far on the competence\ndimension and has a large advantage over McGovern.\nSeveral specific questions were asked concerning credibility and\nthe results indicate that a significant number, though a minority,\ndo not think the administration has been completely honest with\nthem, particularly with regard to Vietnam. However, when viewed\nagainst the President's personal trustworthiness ratings I think\nthat the problem is as much one of government not being credible\nas it is of the President himself not being credible. More impor-\ntantly, I think this is a problem that can be at least partially\nsolved by separating the President from it and then having him\nattack the problem. Although he hasn't gotten much credit for it,\nhe appears to have done this to a degree by ordering the reviews\nof classification and secrecy procedures. Another possibility\nmight be for him to attack the pork-barrelling practice of Congress\nadding non-related spending items to major appropriation bills if\nand when he vetoes some major spending bills.\nThe President however does get fairly low ratings on the amiability\nor friendliness dimensions. While he is seen as trustworthy, strong,\nand competent he is not seen as warm, friendly, etc. There is no\nindication, however, that this is detracting from his support. In\ncontrast to 10-12 years ago, being dynamic or friendly is simply not\nviewed as being an important qualification for the Presidency. This\nis not to say, however, that higher ratings on these scales would\nnot be of some assistance in attracting new votes.\nThe President is also seen to a degree as a one dimensional President.\nThat is, in contrast to some past Presidents, he is viewed almost\nexclusively as one who is the chief of State, and the head of the\n- 3 -\ngovernment rather than as the head or leader of an entire culture -\nsports, the arts, life style, etc. In a sense he is viewed as a\n\"professional\" President, that is, one who is trained, experienced,\ncompetent, respected for his ability, and concerned with the official\nduties of his job full time. There is also no evidence that this\nis losing us any votes at all.\nMcGovern's perception is still being set at this time. Although\nmost of the respondents could rate him on the various personality\nand issue scales, his various ratings were similar indicating that\nthe knowledge of him is quite superficial.\nCompared to the President, McGovern's ratings for trustworthiness,\nstrength, and amiability were not significantly different from the\nPresident's but he was rated much less competent than the President.\nI would expect to see McGovern's personal image take much more\ndefinite shape in the next few weeks.\nThe most important issues continue to be Vietnam and the economy,\nparticularly inflation, both in terms of general concern and of\nimportance in voting for the President. Taxes, drugs, personal\nsafety are also important but definitely secondary to Vietnam and\ninflation. The minor issues such as abortion and marijuana do not\nappear to be affecting Presidential vote. The tendency to lump\namnesty, abortion, and marijuana all together is not supported by\nthe data. Amnesty is viewed as part of the Vietnam issues and there-\nfore relatively important. Abortion is not seen as a major national\nproblem and the voters are split almost equally on this question of\nliberalizing abortion statutes. Liberalization of the marijuana\nstatutes is opposed by a substantial majority, but is not seen as\nan important issue in the Presidential election.\nBussing is seen as a moderately important problem in those local\nareas where it is a reality or there is a pending decision but is\nnot at all an important issue outside of those areas. It is not a\nmajor national issue and while we may want to use it in those areas\nthat have been directly affected, there is no reason for us to make it\na national issue.\nUnemployment is a moderately important issue but not one which is\ncurrently costing us any votes at this time. Very few people who\nare most subject to unemployment are potential Nixon voters. This\nwill probably remain the case as long as it continues to decline.\nThere appears to be a threshold at which unemployment becomes a\nmajor concern of large numbers of voters whether they are unemployed\nor not but below that level only those who are unemployed are\nimmediately threatened are concerned. Undoubtedly this is also\nrelated to the trend of the unemployment statistics. The issue of\nmore and better jobs has, however, always been an effective issue\nand even though unemployment per se is not a major concern, I don't\nthink we should overlook the job issue.\n-4-\nThe general issue of national defense is also seen as a moderately\nimportant issue but with varying attitudes about the specifics.\nThere is support for the idea that a strong national defense is a\nmeans to peace. Yet a large majority think we should cut our armed\nforces. The reason for this is, however, a belief that there is\ngreat waste in the defense department, not that we don't need a\nstrong national defense.\n% Mention As One of Top\nThree Problems Facing U.S.\nVietnam\n57\nCrime\n14\nInflation\n13\nDrugs\n13\nEconomy\n12\nRace\n11\nUnemployment\n11\nEnvironment\n11\nPoverty\n9\nTaxes\n7\nBussing\n5\nThere is some concern on the part of a large group of voters, many\nof them ours, or potentially ours, with the general issue of change\nand of the concentration of power in large institutions -- govern-\nment, labor, business. This issue does not appear to be specific\nor to have taken shape yet but looks like one which could become\nof increasing importance. Any of our questions which even hinted\nat the need for change or the concentration of power issue got\nstrong responses on the side of change and more concern for the\nindividual citizen.\nThis appears to be particularly true with regard to large unions.\nMore people blame them for inflation than blame business, or the\nPresident and Congress combined and other recent data indicates a\nreal lack of sympathy with large or crippling strikes. With regard\nto business, the problem seems to be one of a lack of faith in the\nhonesty or with being adequately concerned with either the customer's\nor the public's welfare.\nGovernment is seen as too expensive, distant, inefficient, and\nsimply ineffective. The citizenry simply does not think they are\ngetting their moneys worth for their taxes. At the same time,\nhowever, they want and expect government to solve whatever problems\nthey presumably think are important.\n-5-\nWith just three exceptions the President's ratings on his handling\nof issues have held fairly constant and positive since January.\nBetween January and June his ratings on the change issue increased\nsignificantly and his ratings on inflation and taxes dropped markedly.\nHis rating on Vietnam remains high with 35% more people rating him\npositively than negatively.\nMcGovern's ratings are fairly positive but not very well defined\nas yet. This, however, may not change for the majority of the\nissues in the short time between now and the election.\nISSUE HANDLING\nNixon\nMcGovern\nPositive\nNegative\nPositive\nNegative\nVietnam\n65%\n30%\n42%\n26%\nInflation\n47\n46\n41\n42\nGeneral Unrest\n57\n33\n43\n20\nCrime\n56\n36\n46\n17\nUnemployment\n50\n43\n43\n20\nDrugs\n53\n36\n44\n18\nTaxes\n46\n48\n40\n24\nBussing\n46\n40\n35\n24\nHealth Care\n69\n21\n50\n12\nNational Defense\n73\n18\n43\n23\nEnvironment\n60\n30\n50\n11\nRacial Problems\n60\n31\n43\n20\nForeign Policy\n81\n11\n40\n22\nWelfare\n52\n39\n43\n22\nConclusions\nOne of the unique things in this set of data is its consistency\nacross the various states particularly with the perception of the\nPresident. His strong and weak points in terms of personal per-\nception is very similar in all of the priority states. The major\nissue concerns are also fairly uniform across states but there is\nsome significant variance in the importance of the secondary issues.\nIn the top priority states the President's pattern of support is\nvery close to that which Republicans have won with before,\nthat is to get 90-95% of the Republicans, 15-20% of the Democrats,\nand a large enough majority of the ticket-splitters to win.\nAssuming we get 95% of the Republicans and 15% of the Democrats,\nthe following table lists the percentages of the ticket-splitters\nwe must get in each of the priority states to win a two-way race.\n-6-\nMinimum Percentage of Ticket-Splitters\nNeeded to Win State\nCalifornia\n70%\nConnecticut\n60\nIllinois\n60\nMichigan\n75\nMissouri\n75\nNew Jersey\n60\nNew York\n65\nOhio\n55\nOregon\n60\nPennsylvania\n70\nWashington\n65\nWiscortsin\n70\nOur first priority is to re-create what has been the proven winning\ncoalition in those states before. This means we need to get majorities\namong those who have traditionally split their ticket. Our next\npriority should then be to go after the Democrats who have just\nbegun to split their tickets. We also should go after those Democrats\nwho have not yet split their tickets but are similar demographically\nto those who have. Past experience indicates that some campaign\neffort directed at these people will cause some new ticket-splitting.\nIn terms of issues we should concentrate on the major national issue\nVietnam, the economy, taxes, drugs, and crime. These are the issues\nthat are going to decide the most Presidential votes and it is to\nour advantage to keep the campaign directed to them and not on the\nminor issues of abortion and marijuana.\nWhile the data on the President is generally optimistic there are\ntwo soft spots or potential problems that need attention. His\nratings on inflation and taxes are poor and down sharply from January.\nThese issues are closely related and important to Presidential vote.\nWe have some weakness in the general issues of change. A large\nmajority think we need fairly drastic change and they do not see\nthe President as being for this change. I think it is important\nthat we show the President as an innovator and as one who is for\nresponsible change as opposed to McGovern who is for radical and\nirresponsible change.\nWe should move as soon as possible to harden up these soft spots\nwhile they don't appear to be costing us any sizable groups of votes\nnow, they are points at which we are vulnerable to attack. We\nshould move before McGovern has a chance too.\n-7-\nThere are several elements that I think should be present in the\ngeneral thrust or image of the campaign. First, it should have a\ncentral idea or theme. We know from the first wave data that the\nPresident is viewed as a tactican and as one without a master plan\nor strategy for the country. A theme or central idea would give\nus the common thread with which to tie together all of his accomplish-\nments and give the voters a reason to vote for the President.\nSecond, the campaign should show the breath and complexity of the\nPresident's accomplishments and proposals. One of the elements of\nhis support is that he is doing a good job in a very difficult or\nimpossible job. This would take advantage of that feeling.\nThird, it should show the President as an innovator and for responsible\nchange for the reasons discussed earlier.\nFourth, it should show him as being concerned about improving the\nlives of the citizens. We need to emphasize that the ultimate pur-\npose behind all the President's trips, programs, and actions is to\nhelp our citizens enjoy better lives. We need to communicate how\nhim program is going to help \"you\" not some special interest group\nor institution.\nFifth, we should emphasize those plus qualities which the President\nis seen as having and which are believable - knowledgeable, wise,\ncompetent - and not try to make him something he isn't.\nThe campaign should have the element of hope. The voters have got\nto believe that things are going to improve over the next four years\nwith Richard Nixon as President or they have no reason to vote for\nhim. They are not going to reward him for the past four years.\nOne of the basic elements of the American attitude and of American\npolitics has always been hope for better times. People don't like\nnegativism.\nWe should work to the people's desire for a more calm, orderly, and\npeaceful life style. Even though we may be on the side of the\nmajority, it does not serve our purpose to become strident or\nincrease the acrimony in the country. One of the problems with\nthe '70 campaign was that while people were against long hair\nhippies, marijuana, permissiveness, etc. what they were for was\na return to a peaceful, orderly life style and while our campaign\nwas on the majority side, we were seen as making the fight two sided\nbut adding to the acrimony.\nWe now have a fairly large lead which will probably decline, at\nleast partially. However, as long as we have a substantial lead\nit is to our advantage to keep things calm and on the high road.\nWe should take as few chances as possible and not let it get close.\n-8-\nThis is not to say, however, that we should not do anything to\nintroduce some negatives on McGovern. We do need to have a fairly\nregular flow of negative material on him while his perception is\nbeing set but we should take full advantage of his own problems\nand let the press do as much of it as they will without our help.\nHowever, if McGovern's negative press does taper off, we should\nbe very careful about how we attack him. We simply cannot take\na chance of damaging the President's respect and trust which are\nnot yet particularly deep or well set. Any attacks on McGovern\nshould be directed at the extreme nature of his positions and not\nat him personally.\nONLY\n[Item\nCommittee for the Re-election of the President\nMEMORANDUM\nJuly 31, 1972\nONLY\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nTHE HONORABLE CLARK MacGREGOR\nFROM:\nROBERT M. TEETER\nRMT\nSUBJECT:\nInflation and Taxes\nWhile the second wave data is generally very optimistic, two potential\nproblems are apparent. The President's ratings on inflation and taxes\nhave fullen sharply since January and he appears to be vulnerable\non the'more general issue of change against McGovern. This memorandum\nsummarizes the data on inflation and taxes. The change issue will be\ncovered in a subsequent memorandum.\nIn all states surveyed the President has experienced a substantial\ndecline in his ratings on his handling of inflation.\nPercentage Rating the Preisdent's\nSelected\nHandling of Inflation as Positive\nStates\nWave I\nWave II\nChange\nCalifornia\n62%\n45%\n-17%\nIllinois\n*\n47\nN/A\nMaryland\n69\n48\n-21\nMissouri\n64\n45\n-19\nNew Jersey\n65\n37\n-28\nNew York\n62\n43\n-19\nOhio\n69\n47\n-22\nOregon\n59\n40\n-19\nPennsylvania\n70\n47\n-23\nTexas\n68\n52\n-16\nWisconsin\n63\n49\n-14\nIn January, approximately two-thirds of the voters gave the President\npositive ratings on handling inflation while today equal numbers of\nvoters give him positive ratings as give him negative ratings.\nOverall the President's ability to handle inflation has dropped about\n17%, across the priority states. A similar decline is also evident in\nthe percentage approving of the way the President handled all economic matters.\n*\nComparable data on Wave I is not available.\n- 2 -\nThis decline results from the feeling that the problem has worsened\ndurign the past six months and that his programs have not slowed\nrising prices. Half of all voters and more significantly half of the\nticket-splitters now share this view. The problem is especially\nacute with respect to food prices. Seventy-two percent of the voters\nhold the opinion that rising food prices have not been slowed. This\nbelief is held consistently by all demographic groups and in all\ngeographic regions, although it is particularly pronounced in several\nlarge metropolitan areas.\nNearly two-thirds of the voters give the President negative inflation\nratings in Chicago, Philadelphia, New York City, St. Louis, Detroit,\nNewark, Northern California, Milwaukee and Tacoma.\nAt the same time only 8% of the voters blame the President directly\nfor causing inflation. The greatest mention went to unions blamed\nby 37% as most responsible for rising prices. Business is seen as the\nnext greatest cause being mentioned by 36%.\nIn terms of solutions, 66% would favor more drastic measures such as\na total freeze on food prices similar to Phase I.\nTaken together the above data may indicate that although the voters\ndo not blame the President for causing inflation, they do not think he\nhas been effective in solving it.\nSimilar to the situation in inflation, the President's perceived\nability to handle taxes has declined significantly in most states\nsince the first wave.\nPercentage Rating President's\nHandling of Taxes as Positive\nSelected\nStates\nWave I\nWave II\nChange\nCalifornia\n53%\n44%\n- 9%\nIllinois\n*\n48\nN/A\nMaryland\n65\n48\n-17\nMissouri\n61\n53\n- 8\nNew Jersey\n48\n36\n-12\nNew York\n50\n43\n- 7\nOhio\n62\n50\n-12\nOregon\n54\n39\n-15\nPennsylvania\n57\n44\n-13\nTexas\n68\n56\n-12\nWisconsin\n54\n42\n-12\n*Taxes not included on Wave I Illinois poll.\n- 3 -\nTax reform may be especially important in the campaign because it\nis an issue on which McGovern's perceived position is closer to\nthe general population's position than Nixon's and one which is\nrelated to the change issue. The data from the seven large states\nis almost identical to Illinois which is demonstrated below.\nSelf\nT-S\nD\nR\nMc\nN\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nNeed Tax\nDo not need\nReform\nTax Reform\nSelf:\n2.4\nTotal Rating Nixon:\n4.4\nTotal Rating McGovern:\n3.0\nRep.:\n2.6\nRep. Rating Nixon\n3.6\nRep. Rating McGovern:\n2.9\nT-S:\n2.4\nT-S Rating Nixon:\n4.2\nT-S Rating McGovern:\n2.9\nDem.:\n2.0\nDem. Rating Nixon:\n4.9\nDem. Rating McGovern:\n3.2\n(See Attachment for other states)\nIn Illinois 77% of the voters favor tax reform with only 11% opposed.\nThe important point is not so much that a large majority favor major\ntax reform as it is that the President is seen'as being opposed to\ntax reform. Although McGovern enjoys a better position overall than\nNixon on tax questions, 63% of the voters specifically oppose the\nMcGovern proposal to give direct financial aid to those with less than\n$12,000 income and thereby resulting in higher taxes for those with\nincomes over $12,000.\nWith regard to local property taxes, 51% favor continuation of it\nas the means to finance public education compared to 40% who are\nopposed. Those opposed would favor a national sales tax to replace\nlocal property taxes followed by federal income tax and sales tax\nas alternatives.\nConclusions\nInflation and taxes are clearly related in the minds of the voters\nand are the greatest potential problems evident in the data. While\nwe do not appear to be losing any significant number of votes on\nthese issues now, it is definitely a potential problem and one we\nshould act to solve soon. I have seen instances where this kind of\nattitude shift has not immediately resulted in loss of ballot strength\nbut later caught up with the candidate and cost him votes. Should\nMcGovern begin to gain strength and segments of the Democratic coalition\nbegin to come back together, inflation and taxes appear to be the issues\nthat could be most effectively be used against US.\n-4-\nWe should keep in mind that while inflation is related to all\nelements of the rising cost of living, including taxes, most\nvoters relate it directly to food prices.\nI think that the President should take some action dealing with\nthe inflation problem immediately and that the tax reform problem\nshould be handled some time early in the campaign before McGovern\nhas a chance to get a hold of it. If the President can boost his\nrating on inflation near the January level, it should carry through\nthe election. While I do not think tax reform is as urgent as\ninflation, it is an important issue and one on which we are\nespecially vulnerable to McGovern. Tax reform seems to be related\nto the general issue of economic and social change and to the con-\ncentration of power issue on which McGovern appears to have an\nadvantage.\nInflation and tax reform are problems the President should handle\npersorally. They are important with virtually every significant group\nin the electorate and he should get the direct benefit of any action\nhe takes. The key criteria of whatever action he takes should be\nthat it be clearly seen as being in the interests of the individual\nworker and consumers and not for any special interest group.\nThe surrogate program should then continue to communicate the President's\naction on inflation and taxes in those geographic areas of the country\nwhere they are particularly important and where the President receives\nlow ratings on his ability to handle these issues.\nI believe that the President would gain in overall strength if he\nwere to take strong action against rising food prices, even though\nthere might be some temporary decline in strength from the farm belt.\nHowever, there are simply many more food purchasers than farmers,\nparticularly in the top priority states.\nCONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY\nATTACHMENT\n(Tax Reform)\nCALIFORNIA\nSelf\nD T-S\nR\nN\nMc\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nNeed Tax\nDo Not Need\nReform\nTax Reform\nSelf:\n2.2\nTotal Rating Nixon:\n4.4\nTotal Rating McGovern:\n2.8\nRep:\n2.8\nRep. Rating Nixon:\n3.5\nRep. Rating McGovern:\n2.6\nT-S:\n2.2\nT-S Rating Nixon:\n4.4\nT-S Rating McGovern:\n2.9\nDem:\n1.9\nDem. Rating Nixon:\n4.9\nDem. Rating McGovern:\n2.8\nNEW JERSEY\nSelf\nT-S\nR\nD\nMc\nN\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nNeed Tax\nDo Not Need\nReform\nTax Reform\nSelf:\n2.2\nTotal Rating Nixon:\n4.5\nTotal Rating McGovern:\n2.7\nRep:\n2.7\nRep. Rating Nixon:\n4.0\nRep. Rating McGovern:\n2.5\nT-S:\n2.1\nT-S Rating Nixon:\n4.4\nT-S Rating McGovern:\n2.9\nDem:\n2.1\nDem. Rating Nixon:\n4.8\nDem. Rating McGovern:\n2.6\nNEW YORK\nSelf\nD\nT-S\nR Mc\nN\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nNeed Tax\nDo Not Need\nReform\nTax Reform\nSelf:\n2.0\nTotal Rating Nixon:\n4.4\nTotal Rating McGovern:\n2.7\nRep:\n2.4\nRep. Rating Nixon:\n3.5\nRep. Rating McGovern:\n2.7\nT-S:\n2.1\nT-S Rating Nixon:\n4.2\nT-S Rating McGovern:\n2.6\nDem:\n1.8\nDem. Rating Nixon:\n5.0\nDem. Rating McGovern:\n2.6\nAttachment Cont d.\nOHIO\nSelf\nT-S\nR\nD\nMc\nN\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nNeed Tax\nDo Not Need\nReform\nTax Reform\nSelf:\n2.3\nTotal Rating Nixon:\n4.3\nTotal Rating McGovern:\n2.7\nRep:\n2.8\nRep. Rating Nixon:\n3.7\nRep. Rating McGovern:\n2.4\nT-S:\n2.3\nT-S Rating Nixon:\n4.2\nT-S Rating McGovern:\n2.7\nDem:\n2.0\nDem. Rating Nixon:\n4.7\nDem. Rating McGovern:\n2.9\nPENNSYLVANIA\nSelf\nT-S\nD\nR\nMc\nN\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nNeed Tax\nDo Not Need\nReform\nTax Reform\nSelf:\n2.2\nTotal Rating Nixon:\n4.2\nTotal Rating McGovern:\n2.9\nRep:\n2.5\nRep. Rating Nixon:\n3.6\nRep. Rating McGovern:\n3.1\nT-S:\n2.1\nT-S Rating Nixon:\n4.2\nT-S Rating McGovern:\n2.7\nDem:\n2.1\nDem. Rating Nixon:\n4.5\nDem. Rating McGovern:\n2.9\nTEXAS\nSelf\nT-S\nD\nR\nMc\nN\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nNeed Tax\nDo Not Need\nReform\nTax Reform\nSelf:\n2.7\nTotal Rating Nixon:\n4.4\nTotal Rating McGovern:\n3.4\nRep:\n3.1\nRep. Rating Nixon:\n4.0\nRep. Rating McGovern:\n3.2\nT-S:\n2.6\nT-S Rating Nixon:\n4.4\nT-S Rating McGovern:\n3.4\nDem:\n2.6\nDem. Rating Nixon:\n4.4\nDem. Rating McGovern:\n3.3\nONLY"
}