Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
To: Mr. Haldeman. From: Robert H. Marik. RE: The future of the data base. 19 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/20/1973
1972 Composite election statistics and brief analysis. 23 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 1/1/1973
To: Mr. Haldeman. From: W. Richard Howard. RE: Action Plan for the Data Base. 23 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/9/1973
Data Base Index. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], no date
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26146418
label
WHSF: Contested, 47-17
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26146418
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 47-17
description
This file contains:
To: Mr. Haldeman. From: Robert H. Marik. RE: The future of the data base. 19 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/20/1973
1972 Composite election statistics and brief analysis. 23 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 1/1/1973
To: Mr. Haldeman. From: W. Richard Howard. RE: Action Plan for the Data Base. 23 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/9/1973
Data Base Index. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], no date
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26146418
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0da4abe70fd3b596
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
47
17
2/20/1973
Campaign
Memo
To: Mr. Haldeman. From: Robert H. Marik.
RE: The future of the data base. 19pgs.
47
17
1/1/1973
Campaign
Report
1972 Composite election statistics and brief
analysis. 23pgs.
47
17
2/9/1973
Campaign
Memo
To: Mr. Haldeman. From: W. Richard
Howard. RE: Action Plan for the Data Base.
23pgs.
47
17
Campaign
Report
Data Base Index. 6pgs.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Page 1 of 1
Committee for the Re-election of the President
DETERMINED TO BE AN
MEMORANDUM
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING February 20, 1973
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
By
RY
NARS, Date 8-5-80
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. HALDEMAN
FROM:
ROBERT H. MARIK
RAMA
SUBJECT:
The Future of the Data Base
SUMMARY
This memorandum describes the computerized list of registered
voters and the associated software (together referred to as
the Data Base) developed for the 1972 Presidential campaign.
The utility of the Data Base in future political campaigns
is discussed and some specific recommendations are presented.
The purpose of this analysis is to present a complete technical
description of the Data Base, as one element necessary in
determining what kind of organization should be established to
control the system over the next four years.
DISCUSSION
Description of the Data Base
The Data Base that is presently housed in our data center in
Dallas has more than $1,000,000 invested in list development,
socio-economic characteristics, algorithms, software and
technical know-how. It consists of a computerized listing
of nearly 22 million households (almost 30 million registered
voters) in nine large states (Tab A). Additional elements of
the system are listed in Tab B. It now has the capacity for
the following:
Produce computerized lists of registered voters for
canvassing and get-out-the-vote, by precinct, and in
alphabetical or street address sequence.
Record voter responses from canvassing on the master
file (i.e., those voters who are for, against or undecided
toward the candidate).
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
CONFIDENTIAL
By
NARS, Date
- 2 -
For specialized mailings:
-Select out surnames indicating ethnic origin: Spanish,
Polish, Jewish, Irish, Italian.
-Estimate the age and income level of each household listed.
-Identify the Census tract, and therefore the general
demographic characteristics, of each household.
is detailed discussion of the Data Base is given in Tab C, taken
from the final report of the Direct Mail Division.
ications for the Future
The Data Base should be considered as far more than a mailing
list. It can be the central part of a total campaign strategy.
It provides the vehicle for voter identification through telephone
or door-to-door canvassing. It allows for specific direct mail
appeals to carefully segmented groups of voters. It can be used
produce final lists of favorable voters for Election Day
!vities. It can provide lists especially tailored for fund
dying, volunteer recruitment, or other campaign functions.
:: is rarely possible for local or even statewide candidates to
'est such a sophisticated voter contact operation. However,
the data base already in existence and the associated
ster software already developed, the President could offer
packaged program to local candidates, which could increase
vote by as much as 5% to 10%.
Yer, in 1976, the Republican Presidential candidate will not
the uninterrupted lead time to prepare a new data base, as
Hible in 1972. Therefore, it is important that the
LOW in existence be kept updated so that the President
the option to make it available in 1976. The problem
any address list will become obsolete at the rate of
per year. If left alone for four years, the present
have little value. The objective, then, is to keep the
apdated for 1976, and in the process to get maximum
it in 1974.
mategy for 1974
ended that the Data Base be one element in a
concerted national effort to maximize the Republican
1974 Congression races. Other elements would
selection. Sinancial assistance, professional
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
CONFIDENTIAL
By NARS, Date
- 3 -
The first step must be to select the target Congressional
Districts. The discussion which follows does offer a selection
criterion, primarily to illustrate the methods applied to develop
cost estimates for use of the Data Base in the 1974 campaigns.
It is anticipated that the final selection will be somewhat
different, taking into account survey results, field evaluation
of the races, retirement of incumbents, availability of attractive
challengers, etc.
Manyon Millican has prepared an analysis of the Congressional and
Gubernatorial races for 1974 (Tab D). He identifies 116 "marginal"
seats. Of those seats, the winner in 1972 received 56% or less
of the vote in 68 cases (39 Republican and 29 Democrat). Those
have been taken as the target districts in this analysis. It
will be important to strengthen the marginal Republican incumbents,
because they are particularly vulnerable in the mid-term election
during a Republican Administration. Twenty-six of the 39 are
freshmen. Of the 29 Democrats, 11 were elected for the first time
in 1972.
In Tab E, the status of Gubernatorial and Senatorial races in 1974
is summarized by state, along with the marginal house races, as
defined above. Some marginal Senate races are indicated, where
availability of the Data Base might make a significant difference
for the Republican candidate.
In Tab F, the data processing cost to update the existing Data Base,
or expand it to cover new target districts or states, is given
in detail. The financial analysis extends into 1976, covering the
final updating of the original Data Base for the Presidential
campaign.
Operation of the Data Base for the Next Four Years
Several decisions must be made on how the Data Base will be handled
in the future. The organizational structure must be determined
in the light of potential legal restrictions, public relations,
political considerations and finances. Several alternatives
have been raised, including:
Establish an independent trust or corporation, accountable
to the interests of the President, which would make the
Data Base available to selected candidates, possibly through
the RNC, or directly.
Transfer the Data Base to the RNC, with the assurance that
it will remain under the control of a competent general man 'ger.
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
By
CONFIDENTIAL
NARS, Date
- 4 -
It is beyond the scope of this memo to recommend which form is most
appropriate. It is important, however, to understand that the
computer programs and voter lists are only useful when managed
by someone who is thoroughly familiar with the system. There
should be continuity and a high degree of professional competence
in the position of General Manager.
Three people now have the experience to perform that job. L. Robert
Morgan was the manager of the direct mail operation during the
campaign. Bob has returned to the Reuben H. Donnelley Corporation
in Chicago, but can be available for occasional consulting
on the Data Base. Dr. Thomas Slivinski helped to design the Data
Base, and assisted and managed all phases of its application and
development. Tom is experienced in computer systems, but he is
seeking more diversified experience within the Administration.
He is expected to be in the Washington area, and available for
consultation, subject to any limitations by Civil Service
regulations. James White was a project manager on the political
direct mail staff, and as such was the trouble-shooter in the
systems area. His background includes both marketing and systems
experience. Jim is recommended for the position of General Manager.
Tab G shows projected operating costs for the project over the next
four years, including staff and administrative overhead. No operating
revenue is included. The assumptions are as follows:
Any lists or mailing labels provided for candidates are billed
at net cost (no margin to cover G & A or development costs).
This policy would encourage candidates to use the system
and improve their own campaigns. On the other hand, a somewhat
higher price would obviously reduce the operating deficit.
No revenue from commercial sales is shown. Jim White believes
that up to $40,000 in revenue could be realized in 1973 from
sales of mailing labels to charitable fund drives and similar
organizations. The volume of such sales would be expected to
increase in subsequent years. The margin on commercial sales
is estimated to be 50% of the selling price. It should be the
objective of the General Manager to develop a significant
volume of commercial sales; however, until the concept is
proven, no reduction in the operating deficit is projected.
The major functions of the General Manager, beyond providing
labels to candidates and commercial accounts, will be to
upgrade the system, the lists to include additional
states
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
CONFIDENTIAL
By
NARS, Date
- 5 -
and find ways of sharply reducing the cost of processing
the data and producing mailing labels or lists. New
computer hardware will become available in the next few
years, allowing some data processing operations to be done
far less expensively than is now the case. The research
and computer programming costs shown in Tab G are partly
intended to achieve cost reductions in the final product.
.All of the marginal Congressional Districts, as well as
several marginal Senate races, have been covered by
the activity reflected in Tab F. If it were desired
to keep the net deficit to a smaller amount, certain
districts could be added to the Data Base only after
adequate revenue were generated from commercial accounts
to cover the list expansion costs.
It can be seen in Tab G that the "severest projected cost",
assuming no off-setting revenue, to maintain and update the
existing Data Base for four years is $806,000. The additional
cost to expand the Data Base for target races in 1974 is
$270,000. The $211,000 shown for list maintenance in 1976 can
only be a rough estimate. Computer technology and electoral
procedures may by then render obsolete the methods of 1972.
There is some speculation that more states will follow the
example of California and make current voter lists on computer
tape available to campaign organizations at a moderate cost.
The pressures in Congress to liberalize registration procedures
may take the voter lists out of the hands of the township clerks
and county courthouses, to a higher level of government. Such
centralization could facilitate list-gathering at lower cost and
with shorter lead times. For all of those reasons, it is
recommended that list updating be postponed until 1976, in
every area where the system will not be used in 1974. Whatever
the situation in 1976, the computer software in the Data Base will
assure that the data on registered voters can be used to the
greatest possible benefit of the 1976 Republican Presidential
candidate.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That you approve the concept of preserving and updating the Data
Base for use in 1974 and 1976. (The particular structure in which
it will be housed is yet to be decided.)
DISAPPROVE
COMMENTS
DETERMINED TO
ADMINISTRATIVE
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
By
RH. NARS, Date
CONFIDENTIAL
- 6 -
That you approve the appointment of Jim White as General Manager
of the Data Base.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
COMMENT
That you approve the general operating plan described in this memo,
with the understanding that the specific states and Congressional
Districts to be used in 1974 can be decided at a later date
(but preferably not later than November, 1973).
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
COMMENT
Attachments:
TAB A
TAB B
TAB C
TAB D
TAB E
TAB F
TAB G
cc: The Honorable John N. Mitchell
Jeb S. Magruder
TAB A
CONTENTS OF THE DATA BASE
STATE
NUMBER OF VOTING
NUMBER OF
HOUSEHOLDS
REGISTERED VOTERS
California
6,020,000
8,626,400
Connecticut
906,000
1,373,500
Illinois
1,787,000
1,682,300
Maryland
775,000
1,349,100
Michigan
1,798,000
1,688,600
New Jersey
2,131,200
3,196,200
Ohio
2,352,600
3,381,500
Pennsylvania
3,609,400
5,157,100
Texas
2,605,500
3,970,300
Total
21,984,700
30,425,000
TAB B
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS IN THE DATA BASE
OR AVAILABLE FROM THE CAMPAIGN
Partial lists of registered Republican voters:
Florida - 350,000 voters from ten counties
Massachusetts - 13,000 key Republicans
New Hampshire - 80,000 households (total state)
New York - 350,000 voters from 5 counties
Lists potentially available from the 1972 campaign:
Telephone program key leaders lists (2,400 names)
Telephone centers' volunteer lists (55,000 names)
State Chairmen's volunteer lists (130,000 names)
Finance Committee contributor lists (800,000 names)
Democrats for Nixon volunteer lists (2,000 names)
LIST DEVELOPMENT
DATA BASE DEVELOPMENT
The Voter Registration Data Base was established in two phases. During the
first phase individual vendors were contracted to collect the voter regis-
tration lists of specific states and to computerize this information into a
standard format specified by the Committee. Standard edit programs were
supplied to each vendor to validate the data. In the second phase, at
University Computing Company in Dallas, the base voter registration data was
expanded with specific demographic information added. This section dis-
cusses the establishment of the Voter Registration Data Base.
DATA BASE ORGANIZATION
The Voter Registration Data Base was organized as sequential data sets on
magnetic tape.
The basic processing entity was a county within a state. With several minor
exceptions, the entire county was processed at one time. Counties were
placed on separate reels of tape and were never combined. If two parts of
the same county were processed separately, different county codes were
assigned.
The concept of stand alone county processing was sound. The only problem
arose when zip codes crossed county boundaries. In these cases, the match
codes used for adding phone numbers and other data were not valid.
Within the county, each voter was supplied a unique sequence number. This
number, together with the state and county codes uniquely identified the voter
in the entire data base.
Members of the same family (with the same surname) who live at the same
address and who belong to the same party, were combined into households. Up
to four members of a household were planned for. Each member of a household
was given a unique sequence member number.
In any future design, households should be defined independent of political
party registration. The party affiliation should be included for each member,
but all members of the household with the same surname should be combined.
Within a household, the male head of household was shown first, followed
by wife and any other members. If a residence contained individuals with
different surnames, these individuals were listed as separate households
(the address most likely being an apartment).
The sequence numbers were assigned to voters in address sequence for mailing
(i.e., by zip code and street address within zip code). Labels or other
mailings could be generated for a county without a major sort of the data.
24
Householding in non-city delivery service areas should be limited to those
Individuals who can be positively identified as belonging to the same
household. Very often in small towns or rural areas, several families with
the same surname will live on the same rural route or receive their mail
through the same general delivery post office. These individuals cannot be
arbitrarily combined into households.
If supplements were required for a county, the sequence numbers for these
additions began at 5,000,000. This eliminated the possibility that voters
would be multiply updated.
The Voter Registration Data Base and other name lists were combined through
the use of match codes. These codes are extracted from key parts of the
name and address.
The match code for City Delivery Service Areas (Type 1 addresses) was:
state, county, zip, last four characters of house number, first character
of street name and first, third and fourth characters of surname. John
Smith who lived at 1121 Elm Street, Chicago, Illinois 61610 was coded:
1L031616101121ESIT.
The match code for other type addresses was state, county, zip and first,
third and fourth characters of last name. This did not always produce a
valid match. Names such as DAVIS, DAVIDSON, DEVITT in the same zip code
were considered equivalent.
A new match code for non-street type addresses needs to be defined. One
potential code would be state, county, zip, first character of owner name
and the first seven characters of the last name.
AVAILABILITY OF VOTER LISTS
In general, lists of registered voters are available from county or local
registrars across the country. These lists are normally available to any
candidate. Two exceptions should be noted: (a) some states or counties do
not require registration; and (b) citizens vote on their personal cognizance.
Also, the voter lists may be available only through political sub-divisions
within the county, e.g., Michigan, where each township maintains the voting
list.
The voting lists normally include name, address and party affiliation (if
voters register by party). In some states (such as New Jersey and Ohio)
only those voters who participate in the primary elections have party
designation. In other states, there is not attempt at the county level to
record party; Republican and Democratic voter lists are kept separate by the
county organizations.
In determining the availability of voter lists, a primary consideration is
25
access to computerized voter lists. Because the cost of keypunching or
optically scanning hardcopy lists is approximately 4-6 times as much as
reformatting a computer tape, it is cost-efficient to obtain voter regis-
tration on magnetic tape.
The Table at TAB 14 lists all counties by state which were included in
the Voter Registration Data Base. If a computerized source tape was available,
the table lists the office or individual which supplied the tape.
The availability of computerized voter lists does not preclude massive
conversions or data additions. Many tapes do not include zip codes for
example. Others contain only one name for each household. It is not
sufficient that the voter lists be computerized, but must be standardized
and most often enriched.
Another critical factor in the availability of voter registration data
is the date that the lists were prepared. This is critical for two reasons.
First, on a national average, 20% of the population moves each year. Data
which is not current decreases in value accordingly. Second, redistricting
can occur between the time that the list is produced and the present election.
This was an especially critical problem in the 1972 Election since many
areas were under court order to reapportion the population based on the
1970 census. Therefore, it is very important to know the date of the voter
registration data used.
REGISTERED VOTER LISTS VERSUS OTHER LISTS
Many direct mail corporations maintain separate lists which may be used for
mailings. The Reuben H. Donnelley list is probably the most complete in
coverage. This was the list used by the Committee in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Experience in Michigan indicates that there are three major problems with
use of such lists.
1. They do not include any political information (such as precinct).
As a result, such data must be coded into the file by the canvassers.
2. They do not include county designation. Because zip codes
cross county boundaries, many individual voters were placed in the wrong
county.
3. One name is normally shown in each household, the male in whose
name both the phone and auto are registered. Younger people and wives are
not usually shown.
Specialized lists can and should be used both for individual mailings, as
well as part of the overall data base.
26
Specific lists used in this Campaign were:
1. Farmers list owned by National Farm Journal
2. Youth list assembled by Committee's Youth Group
Potential lists which should have application:
1. Subscription lists to conservative publications such as
National Review
2. Contributor lists compiled from GAO and state reports filed by
Republican candidates
3. Past Nixon-Agnew volunteer lists
VOTER LIST CONVERSION
The most unique feature of the effort has been the standardization of the
data base format and contents. In California, for example, where we compu-
terized thirty-one counties all maintained their lists in different formats.
Thus, unique programs were written for each county to produce walking lists,
labels or other output. By standardizing the data format and contracting
with individual vendors to convert the data into this single format, maximum
flexibility was achieved in the use of these lists while minimizing the
overall costs.
Each vendor was required to collect the voter registration lists for certain
states or parts of states. Where the lists were not readily available (parti-
cularly where there was a reluctance to release computerized lists) outside
Committee pressure was brought to bear.
Having obtained the data, each vendor was required to convert it to the
standard format as shown in TAB 2. If the data was already on magnetic tape,
this involved an analysis of the source tape codes and formats, then the
writing of unique programs to convert the tape. Where the source data was in
hard copy for written lists it was either keypunched or optically scanned.
Each vendor wrote his own conversion software.
One of the most severe problems was the very poor quality of the source tapes
available from the individual counties. In particular, these tapes often
followed no real rules at all in their coding of address, name and political
precinct.
Some county tapes contained no zip codes and required manual zip coding.
purbled and streets misspelled and inconsistently coded.
27
Apartment numbers were inconsistent, e.g., 111 Elm St. A -- Alll Elmst,
and Apt A 111 Elm St, all on the same file.
The same name appeared three, four or more times on the county voter lists.
Precinct codes were non-uniform. This was a great problem in California.
Because voters must be grouped together by precinct for walking or phoning,
it is imperative that the unique code for each precinct be determined. In
California, numerous code combinations were used, most incorrect. This cost
much time and extra expense in the generation of the lists.
Sex and title codes were incorrect. In Harris County, Texas, all titles were
either blank or Mr. (including females).
The quality of the hard copy lists varied. Most were typed and could be
easily converted. The major problems arose when they were handwritten as
shown in TAB 15. Problems normally arose in zip coding the lists (many
included no zip code) and in assigning meaningful codes to the political
sub-divisions (precincts, wards, townships, etc.).
VENDOR APPRAISAL
Seven different vendors were used to collect and convert the data. These
were as follows:
RATING
1. CompuGraphics, Cleveland, Ohio (Ohio)
Unacceptable
2. C. Howard Wilson Company
Very Poor
Van Nuys, California
(California, part of Maryland, part of Texas)
3. Premier Printing and Mailing
Unacceptable
Houston, Texas
(Harris County, Texas)
4. Ed Nichols Associates
Good
Kensington, Maryland
(Pennsylvania, part of Maryland, part of Texas)
5. A.R.A.P.
Satisfactory
Princeton, New Jersey
(New Jersey)
6. Cambridge Opinion Studies, Inc.
Satisfactory
New York, New York (Connecticut)
7. Cohasse: Associates
Satisfacto.
Chicago, Illinois
28
The performance of each vendor is appraised:
CompuGraphics is headed by Terry McCarthy and has close ties with the
Cuyahoga County Republican organization through William Bennett. This firm
maintains the Cuyahoga County Voter Lists. This firm performed very poorly
and should not be considered for any future business. They underestimated
the jobs and did not have the technical management talent to accomplish
the tasks. One of the Committee's staff was sent to Cleveland to direct
the project.
C.. Howard Wilson Company is headed by C. Howard Wilson. This company also
did a very poor job. Data was in many cases 30 or more days late. Failure
to check outputs for correct precinct structure in California caused numerous
re-runs, cost the Committee more than $10,000 and delayed delivery of a usable
product more than four weeks in some areas. Technical management was poor.
Mr. Wilson left the project to attend to other business. Numerous counties
had to be removed from Wilson and given to other vendors because of his
poor performance. One of the Committee's staff was sent to California to
direct the project.
Although Premier Printing and Mailing had responsibility for only one county,
Harris County, they were unable to perform the job and the county was sent to
another vendor for conversion. This firm is operating in the dark ages of
automation and should not be considered for any work of this type.
Ed Nichols Associates is headed by Edward Nichols and performed creditably
for the Committee. Most of the work which was taken from other vendors was
sent to Nichols. As the volume of work increased, the quality of the out-
put went down. Nichols was not sufficiently staffed to handle the greater
volumes. Second, Nichols made certain promises to Pennsylvania Republicans
to allow them access to the data in exchange for their cooperation in ob-
taining the source data. This was done without Committee approval and against
his specific instructions.
A.R.A.P. converted the data for New Jersey and wrote the Committee's edit
programs. They subcontracted all programming and computer work to Automated
Data Research (ADR), also of Princeton. The A.R.A.P. group was headed by
Evan Gray and the ADR programmer was Robert Wickendon. Because A.R.A.P.
subcontracted all programming, it is difficult to assess that aspect. However,
the technical management at A.R.A.P. was not good. Wickendon was the only
person who understood their software. After the last shipment, Wickendon
left for a prolonged vacation and no one was available for more than
two weeks to correct several problems that developed in their last shipment.
29
Cambridge Opinion Studies converted voter data for Connecticut. The project
was headed by Richard Hochhauser. All the work was from hard copy source
data. A major error was made in the position of the telephone number, which
caused only the first six digits to be shown on manuscripts. Cambridge
regenerated these lists for each one affected.
Cohasset Associates is headed by Bob Williams. All work was done on a
subcontract basis. Work was delivered on time. The only complaint is that
Williams does not stand behind his work. When errors were detected in pre-
cincting the data, causing a re-run, Williams originally agreed to cover
the cost of correcting the error and Vegenerating the manuscript. He later
reneged on this agreement.
One other vendor was used during the primary -- Compass Systems of San Diego,
California. Compass was contracted to convert California data for the
primary election. Tom Hoefeller was Project Manager. The firm did a very
poor job -- delivering data for only 20 of the 31 counties required.
In summary, no firm which converted voter registration data did an out-
standing job. Some, such as CompuGraphics, Wilson and Premier, did extremely
poor jobs and should not be used in the future. Others, such as Nichols,
Cohasset, A.R.A.P. and Cambridge did average jobs. In choosing any firm,
three criteria must be weighed: technical experience, sufficient manpower
and political backing. The greatest single fault with all of the firms
with which we dealt was lack of technical management and lack of sufficient
resources to do the job. It appears that the companies with political ex-
perience in data processing are so small that they lack the means to do
the job properly. Similarly, the larger firms, such as UCC, do not have the
political experience to handle the jobs.
DATA EDIT AND STANDARDIZATION
A standard computer edit program was developed and supplied to each in the
state vendors and to UCC. The purpose of this program was to validate the
data in the original county files prior to submission to UCC. The edit was
designed to be run as a final processing step by the state vendors after
all data had been converted into the standard format. It was also to be
run by UCC to validate that the correct data has been submitted by the state
vendor. The edit program was designed to validate input data, not correct
errors. Thus, it was designed to display real or potential problems for
manual checking rather than attempting to correct them.
The edit routine consisted of the following:
1. A set of error-checking sub-routines
30
2. Two error listings
3. A fatal error listing of records containing errors which
precluded further processing
4. A warning error listing of potential errors (such as an
alphabetic character in the house number field)
5. Two audit reports: Zip City Audit (TAB 16) showing the number
of households and voters for Republicans, Democrats, Indepen-
dents and others by zip code and the Political Unit Audit (TAB 17)
showing the number of households and voters for each precinct, ward
and township or city -- summarized by county. Initially, a third
audit report containing a statistical dump of the file was envisioned.
This idea was dropped as impractical because of the large size of
some counties.
The key to the edit routines was the geopolitical table. This set of cards
was designed to show the permissable relationships between the Zip Code,
Post Office name and the political sub-divisions (city/township, ward, district,
precinct, state lower and upper house district and congressional district).
This table was used to standardize Post Office name spelling and to insure
that each voter was assigned to the correct precinct. If the information
for a voter was not consistent, this record was rejected as a fatal error.
In general, the edit routine provided a very effective audit of the data.
Each field was checked to ascertain correct placement of the data and the
validity of characters with the field. Extensive checking was done on
the "name" fields (given name, surname, and street name) in an effort to
guard against misspellings. Character sequences were checked so that
such things as four contiguous consonants, three contiguous vowels, or
three contiguous identical letters produced warning messages. The A.R.A.P.
specifications for the edit routine are included in TAB 18.
There were three basic problems with the edit programs:
1. First, and most important, while the programs displayed errors,
each vendor was left to his own resources to develop programs and pro-
cedures to correct the errors. To the maximum extent possible, the edit
program should automatically correct known errors. Standard software should
be developed as part of the edit package to allow either single records or
groups of records to be corrected and should operate on standard file format.
2. The geo-political table should be re-designed. Defined as it was,
the political table was difficult to code. Since it was necessary to specify
each precinct separately in order to use the precinct name field, the table
often grew unmanageably large. Because the edit routine would not run with-
out the table, the majority of vendors generated the table from the county
file itself which, of course, defeated the purpose of the validation table.
Minimally, if such a table is used, the toles of precincts and zip codes
should show the zip codes within a precinct and not vice versa.
3. More time must be given to develop the edit programs. The final
edit specifications were developed in mid-June and the programs delivered
to vendors in mid-July. This was not sufficient time to totally de-bug the
programs or to test the applicability of the various complex routines.
Numerous minor problems were found in the edits after they had been
delivered to vendors. This delayed the acceptance of data. Minimally, two
and one half months must be allowed to write the programs after the specifi-
cations are firm. Further, vendors should be given several weeks of
experience with the edit routines prior to data submission.
In determining the specifications for future editing, special attention
must be given to the street name field. The correct spelling and categoriza-
tion of each street name is essential if effective door-to-door canvass
lists are to be produced.
The street type (street, drive, road, etc.) should be separated from the
rest of the street name in a separate field.
The key to developing good reliable addresses under the tight time con-
straints imposed by a political Campaign must be to use other address sources
which have been compiled, checked and validated at a more leisurely pace.
A common directory of street names within each zip code for each metropolitan
area could be used to automatically correct spellings and to flag variances.
Two good sources for this are the Address Coding Guide developed by Reuben H.
Donnelley and the Universal Occupant Lists also developed by the direct mail
companies.
Name redundancy should be eliminated. This can easily be done by sorting
the files prior to editing and then checking for consecutive repeating names.
Specific field edit recommendations are shown at TAB 19.
ALGORITHMS FOR EXTENDING DATA
Ethnic origin of names was determined by comparing the surname with a
precompiled list of names and by matching the last set of characters in the
name against a prescribed set of endings. Procedures were developed for
Spanish, Polish, Jewish, Irish and Italian groupings. The exact lists and
endings used for each ethnic group are shown in TAB 20.
The greatest potential problem in determining ethnic grouping from the surname
is insuring that the ethnic groupings are exclusive, i.e., insuring that if
a surname is assigned to a specific ethnic group, that the individual
does indeed belong to the group. This problem is most acute in determining
Jewish surnames and in separating Irish from other Angle-Saxon names.
(For example, the name Schwartz can be both Jewish and German and it is
a mistake to arbitrarily assign this name to a Jewish group.)
The second potential problem with the use of surnames is the standardization
of prefixes. Prefixes such as '0', 'Di', or 'D' must be in standard posi-
tions in order that these names be properly assigned.
Telephone number, census tract, age groupings and income grouping were
all appended to each voter record by combining the Voter Registration Data
Base with selected data elements from the Reuben H. Donnelley Universal
List.
A match code was extracted for each registered voter household. For Type
1 addresses this code consisted of Zip Code, county, state, last four
characters of house number, first character of street name and first, third
and fourth character of last name. For Type 2 and 3 addresses, this code
was Zip Code, state, county, and first, third and fourth characters of
last name. A similar match code was extracted from the R.H. Donnelley
Universal List. See TAB 21.
These two sets of match codes were sorted into the same sequence and compared.
Each time a match was found, the telephone number, census tract, dwelling
size and FIND (Family Income Detector) code were extracted from the R.H.
Donnelley Universal List and appended to the Voter Registration Data Base.
The match code technique is the only feasible means of combining two
separately developed name lists. However, the actual match code used is
variable and can be adjusted depending upon the accuracy required.
The match code for Type 1 addresses was valid.
The match code for Type 2 and 3 addresses was not valid. The code in these
instances should be changed to include more characters in the surname.
The Reuben H. Donnelley Universal lists contained 1960 census tract codes.
1970 census tract data was added to each file using the Address Coding
Guide supplied by R.H. Donnelley and comparing addresses between the two
files. See TAB 22.
Peripheral Urban Ethnics (PUE) and black ghettos were determined by 1970
census tract data.
All individual voters who resided in ghettos census tracts and whose sur-
names indicated that the voter was not one of the specified ethnic groupings
(Irish, Jewish, Spanish, Italian or Polish) was designated black.
All individual voters who resided in census tracts designated as PUE were
so coded.
Because some voters had not matched the R.H. Donnelley Universal list and
hence contained no census tract codes, it was necessary to extend black
and PUE designations through entire precincts. This was accomplished on
the following basis:
1. Counts were generated for each precinct showing the total number of
households in the precinct, the number of households with census tract, and
the number of households designated as black or PUE based upon a match of
census tracts.
2. If more than 15% of the households in a precinct contained census
tract matches and if more than 50% of all census tract households were
designated black or PUE, then all households in the precinct were designated
black or PUE. The exception were names which had previously been identified
as one of the special ethnic groupings.
24
1972
COMPOSITE ELECTION
STATISTICS
and
BRIEF ANALYSIS
for
1974
Prepared by:
Manyon M. Millican
January 1973
REPUBLICAN GAINS
Due to redistricting the 24 states of the East and Midwest lost
a total of 9 districts and yet showed a net gain of 6 seats.
The 13 states of the South had an increase of only 2 districts,
yet gained a total of 5 new seats.
The 13 Western states, with an increase of 7 new districts, only
gained 2. ne seats, truly disappointing in view of the fact that
gains the 50's and 60's came where the population increased.
(13)
Redistricting
Gain
Total
gained
+7 new seats
+2R
42D - 34R
(13)
gained
+2 new seats
+6R
84D - 37R
Idwe
(12)
lost
-4 seats
+3R
51D - 70R
East (12)
lost
-5 seats
+3R
65D - 52R
+13R
242D - 193R
Voting statistics substantiate that our gains to become a majority
party uld come from the South and the sunbelt of Texas, Arizona,
New Mexico and California in addition to our base in the Midwest.
In other words, we must continue our gains in the Last and Midwest and
our giant gains in the South and the West (?). However, the
West failed to make the significant gains that statistics would indicate
it should.
the South were not what they should have been in this
writer's opinion. At least an additional 12 seats should have been
won from this area (there are 19 marginal Democrat districts alone
this area) excluding our gain of 6 new seats. (See Table v)
Of the 121 districts in the South, there are 84D to 37R seats with 29
of the Demorrcat seats uncontested. Nine of these were in Texas, 6
in Louisiana, 5 in Georgia and 2 in Florida.
: significant statistic is that in 1960 the South had only 8
memblican congressmen and in 12 years they are at 37. Yet the total
should be close to 60 had proper priorities been emphasized. A
tic that would suggest this to be a valid argument is that in
2
the same period the South went from 2 Republican Senators to 10
of 26, a gain of 500%. However, while we were making good Senate
gains in the South we were losing such Republican seats as Iowa (2),
Maine (2), Montana (1), New Hampshire (1), North Dakota (1), South
Dakota (1), Wyoming (1), Colorado (1) and Indiana (2) - a total
loss of 12 seats.
WHY NO COATTAILS? NO ORGANIZATION
It is incredible with a 60% victory by the President that we lost 4
Senate seats plus failing to keep 2 seats that were previously
Republican, not to mention the meager 12 seat gain in the House.
These losses in the Senate and poor gains in the House are primarily
due to lack of organization at the precinct and county level in
addition to poor candidate recruitment. The third ingredient, money,
was adequate in a boon Republican year for fund-raising.
We will not gain control of the Congress until we muster a national,
monolithic organizational approach at the congressional district
level consisting of precinct organization plans of find 'em, register
'em, vote 'en, and count 'cn, plus a well-coordinated national
candidate recruitment drive (plus money, of course)
It is the major responsibility of a party (nationally) to cause the
aforementioned to happen. If it is not done, then we as a party
cannot exploit the President's "New Majority", thus not becoming the
majority party nor winning the White House in 1976.
HOUSE AND SENATE RACES IN 1974
We need 26 new seats in the House and 8 new seats in the Senate to
control both. The odds are stiff to accomplish either in the next 2
years due to incumbencies and/or retirements, and just numbers in the
House. However, control of either is possible in 1976 if we do our
homework in 1974.
18 Democrats and 15 Republicans are up in the Senate in 1974, with 4
possible Republican retirees and only 2 possible Democrat retirees
and 5 of the 18 Democrats from the Deep South (and tought to beat).
However, 5 to 8 Democrats could be beaten in 1974 and, if we maintained
our strength, substantial guins could made,
CONGRESSIONAL, SENATORIAL AND GOVERNOR TALLY
* Up in 1974
** Up in 1973
TP Third Party
STATES
Electoral Votes: 141 / -4 over 1970)
1970
1972
1974
122
se Districts
69D - 53R
117 House Districts
65D - 52R
12 Governors 6D - 6R
24
ate Seats
9D - 15R
24 Senate Seats
I1D - 13R
12
ernors
4D 8R
12 Governors
6D 6R
* 3D - 5R
St
#
House
Senate
+ -
#
House
Senate
1974
Gov.
Plurality
%
1974
Conn
6
4D 2R
ID 1R
6
3D 3R
1D* 1R
Ribicoff
-
R*
+81,599
53.8
Meskill
Del
re
.1
- 1R
- 2R
1
- 1R
ID 1R
D -
Maine
2
2D -
1D 1R
2
ID 1R
2D -
D* -
-890
49.9
Curtis
Maryland
8
5D 3R
- 2R
S
4D 4R
- 2R*
Mathias
D* -
-325,243
32.3
Mandel
Mass.
12
SD 4R
ID 1R
12
8D 4R
ID 1R
-
R*
+259,354
51.8
Sargent
N. R.
2
- 2R
ID 1R
2
- 2R
ID
11:20
Cotton
-
R*
TP+4,200
46.0
Peterson
N. J.
15
SD 7R
1D 1R
15
8D 7R
ID 1R
- R*
**
Cahill (')
N. Y.
41
23D 18R
- 2R
-2
39
22D 17R
- 2R*
Javits
- R*
+730.006
51.2
Rockefelle
Pa.
27
12D 15R
- 2R
-2
25
13D 12R
- 2R*
Schweiker
D* -
-500,175
41.7
Shapp
R. I.
2
2D -
2D -
2
2D -
2D
D -
Verment
1
1R
- 2R
1
- IR
- 2R*
Aiken
D -
W. Va.
5
5D -
2D -
-1
4
4D -
2D
-
R
TOTAL
*
*
*
122
69D 53R
9D 15R
-5
117
65D 52R
11D 13R
1D 5R
3D 5R
3D 5R
TABLE II
CONGRESSIONAL, SENATORIAL AND GOVERNOR TALLY
* Up in 1974
MIDWEST STATES
(Electoral Votes: 145 / -4 over 1970)
1970
1972
1974
125 House Districts
56D - 69R
121 House Districts
51D - 70R
12 Governor
8D - 4R
24 Senate Seats
14D - 10R
24 Senate Seats
15D - 9R
* 6D - 2R
12 Governors
9D - 3R
12 Governors
8D - 4R
* 5D - 3R
States
#
House
Senate
+-
#
House
Senate
1974
Governor
Pluralitv
%
1974
Illinois
24
12D 12R
1D 1R
24
10D 14R
ID 1R
----
D
-----
--
Indiana
11
5D 6R
2D ---
11
4D 7R
2D" -
Bayh
- R
----
--
Iowa
7
3D 4R
1D 1R
-1
6
3D 3R
2D* -
Hughes
- R*
+34,483
51
Ray
Cansco
5
1D 4R
-- 2R
5
ID 4R
-- 2R*
Dole
D* -
-71,384
54
Docking
Echigen
19
7D 12R
1D 1R
19
7D 12R
ID 1R
- R*
+44,111
50.4
Milliken
linn.
8
4D 4R
2D ---
8
4D 4R
2D -
---
D" -
-116,141
45.5
Anderson
Nebraska
3
-- 3R
-- 2R
3
---
3R
-- 2R
D* -
-46,558
43.8
Exon
issouvi
10
9D 1R
2D
10
9D 1R
2D* - -
Eagleton
- R
----
--
D.
2
1D 1R
ID 1R
-1
1
--
1R
1D 1R*
Young
D -
Ohio
24
7D 17R
-- 2R
-1
23
7D 16R
--- 2R*
Saxbe
D:: -
-342,811
43.4
Gilligan
D.
2
2D --
2D
2
ID 1R
2D* -
McGovern
D* -
-23,269
45.2
Kneip
Wisc.
10
5D 5R
2D
-1
9
SD 4R
2D* -
Nelson
D* -
-125,786
44.9
Lucey
TOTAL
*
125
56D 69R
14D 10R
-4
121
51D 70R
15D.9R
5D 3R
8D 4R
6D 2R
ABLE
I
CONGRESSIONAL, SENATORIAL AND GOVERNOR TALLY
* Up in 1974
TP Third Party
STATES
(Electoral Votes: 102 / +7 over 1970)
970
1972
1974
9 1.
Districts
39D - 30R
76 House Districts
42D - 34R
13 Governors 7D - 6R
26 Se:
:e Seats
15D - 11R
26 Senate Seats
15D - 11R
13 G:
nors
6D - 7R
13 Governors
7D 6R
10 up in '74 (5D - 5R)
cat
#
House
Senate
+
-
# House
Senate
1974
Governor Plurality % 1974
#
Maska
1
1D -
1D IR
1
ID -
1D* 1R
Gravel
: Dis -
-5,045
46.9
Egan
Arizon:
3
1D 2R
- 2R
+1
4
ID 3R
- 2R*
Goldwater
- R*
+7,303
50.9
Williams
Calif.
38
20D 18R
2D -
+5
43
23D 20R
2D* -
Cranston
-
R*
+501,057
52.8
Reagan
Colo.
4
2D 2R
- 2R
+1
5
2D 3R
ID 1R*
Deminick
-
R*
+48,567
52.5
Love
Hawaii
2
2D -
ID 1R
2
2D -
ID* IR
Inouye
D* -
-36,563
42.6
Burns
Idaho
2
- 2R
1D IR
2
- 2R
ID* 1R
Church
D* -
-10,896
47.8
Andrus
Montana
2
ID 1R
2D -
2
1D 1R
2D -
D -
Nevada
1
1D -
2D -
1
- 1R
2D* -
Bible
D* T.P
-6,297
43.8
O'Callaghan
N. Mex.
2
1D 1R
2D -
2
ID 1R
ID 1R
----
Drs -
-14,195
46.4
King
Oregon
4
2D 2R
- 2R
4
2D 2R
- 2R*
Packwood
- R*
+76,072
55.5
McCall
Utah
2
1D 1R
ID 1R
2
2D -
ID 1R*
Bennett
D
Wash.
7
6D 1R
2D -
7
6D 1R
2D* -
Magnuson
- R
Wyoming
1
ID -
ID 1R
I
ID -
ID 1R
----
- R*
+30,241
62.8
Hathaway
TOTAL
69
39D 30R
15D 11R
+7
76
42D 34R
15D 11R
6D 4R
7D 6R
5D 5R
TABLE IV
CONGRESSIONAL, SENATORIAL AND GOVERNOR TALLY
it Up in 1974
** Up in 1975
*** Up in 1973
SOUTHERN STATES
(Electoral Votes: 147 / +2 over 1970)
1970
1972
1974
119 House Districts
S8D - 31R
121 House Districts
84D - 37R
13 Governors 10D - 3R
26 Schate Seats
18D - SR
26 Senate Seats
16D - 10R
Up in 1974 (7D - 1R)
13 Governors
11D - 2R
13 Governors
10D - 3R
Up in 1973 (--- 1R)
States
#
House
Senate
+ -
#
House
Senate
1974
Governor Plurality
%
1974
Mabana
8
5D 3R
2D -
-1
7
4D
3R
2D* -
Allen
D*
-
100
Vallace
Arkansas
4
3D IR
2D -
4
3D 1R
2D* -
Fulbright
Dr
-
Bumpers
Florida
12
9D 3R
ID IR
+3
15
11D 4R
ID IR"
Gurney
Drs
-
Askew
corp
10
SD 2R
2D -
10
9D
1R
2D* -
Talmadge
D*
-
Carter
Kentucky
7
5D 2R
- 2R
7
5D
2R
1D 1R*
Cook
D
/
Louislana
8
SD -
2D -
8
7D
1R
2D* -
Long
D
-
**
1975
Missionippi
5
5D -
2D -
5
3D
2R
2D -
D
-
:
N. Car lina 11
7D 4R
2D -
11
7D
4R
1D* IR
Ervin
I
R
Oklah
6
4D 2R
1D IR
6
5D
1R
- 2R*
Bellmon
D*
-
-2,181
48.1
Hall
Carolina
6
5D 1R
ID 1R
6
4D
2R
1D* 1R
Hollings
D*
-
-29,318
45.6
West
Tenne
9
5D 4R
- 2R
-1
8
3D
5R
- 2R
-
R*
+66,256
52.0
Dunn
Texas
23
20D 3R
1D IR
+1
24
20D
4R
1D 1R
D*
-
-101,369
45.0
Briscoe
irginis
10
4D 6R
2D -
10
3D
7R
ID 1R
I
R*
***
Holton
TOTAL
*
*
119
8SD 31R
18D 8R
+2
121
84D 37R
16D 10R
6D 3R
10D
3R
7D 1R
NATE INVENTORY BY REGION
1 Democrat and 5 Republicans
5 Democrats and 3 Republicans
6 Democrats and 3 Republicans
6 Democrats and 4 Republicans
18 Democrats
15 Republicans
CUSE INVENTORY (Table V)
called "safe" seats (178D and 141R) of the 435
:
marginal seats (67D and 49R) to fight over for
: control. Democrats are most vulnerable in the
th 40 of their 67 marginal seats. We are most
Midwest with 17 seats that are marginal.
the House we would have to win 67% of. the total
while not losing any of our 141 so-called "safe"
=y difficult task! That should be our objective
7% of the 116 marginal seats. Should we only
marginal seats we will then be only 7 seats away
1976.
be implemented at the county and precinct
tional districts by our national party if we are
party.
have:
ididates
4
TABLE V
HOUSE INVENTORY
Total of Marginal and Safe Districts
EASTERN (117 Districts)
M - D
M - R
Total
S D
S R
Total
21
10
31
45
41
86
:
SOUTHERN
(121 Districts)
M - D
M - R
Total
S ID
S R
Total
19
14
33
65
23
88
MIDWESTERN (121 Districts)
M D
M - R
Total
S D
S R
Total
13
17
30
38
53
91
WESTERN (76 Districts)
M D
M - R
Total
S - D
S - R
Total
14
8
22
30
24
54
67 (58%) 49 (42%)
178 (56%) 141 (44%)
116
:
319
Total Marginal
Total Safe
27%
73%
5.5. to Makeup
Democrat 243
Republican 192
51
26 seats for majority
TABLE VI
MARGINAL CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
TP--Third Party
EASTERN STATES
SOUTHERN STATES (con.)
House
%
Plurality
House
%
Plurality
Conn.
#5-R
51.1
+5,256
La.
#3-R
51.8
+4,213
#3-D
46.8
-14,947
Miss.
#4-R
47.1
+3,257
Del.
NONE
#5-R
55.2
+11,628
Maine
#2-R
54.4
+13,240
N. C.
#4-D
49.7
-971
#1-D
41.7
-26,049
7-D
40.3
-16,623
Md.
#4-R
59.2
+25,881
#3-D('70) 40.0
-13,841
Mass.
#4-D/TP
45.0
-9,433
#6-D
35.0
-26,954
#5-R/TP
53.4
+18,026
#11-D
40.5
-29,544
#12-D
49.7
-1,207
Okla.
1-D
43.9
-19,426
N. H.
NONE
#5-D
41.9
-16,367
N. J.
#1-R
52.8
+9,615
S. C.
1-D
44.9
-11,635
#3-D
46.7
-12,176
#6-R
52.5
+5,425
#4-D
42.1
-25,878
Tenn.
#3-R
55.3
+19,913
#9-D
44.2
-24,756
#5-D
37.1
-37,051
#13-R
56.3
+22,951
#6-R
55.1
+16,441
15-D
47.9
-17,749
#8-R
55.5
+18,529
N. Y.
#3-R/TP
53.8
452,069
Texas
#5-R
55.7
+15,236
#6-D
47.6
-9,449
#13-R
54.8
+15,061
#15-D/TP
43.5
-11,899
221-D
41.9
-23,580
(17-D
41.1
-19,224
Va.
#4-R
49.9
+11,998
23-R
53.4
+10,089
#6-R
54.3
+20,544
#26-R/TP
48.7
+18,262
#8-R
44.9
+8,897
#31-R/TP
54.3
+22,824
#10-R
56.6
+23,310
32-D
43.7
-20,849
Pa.
#4-D
44.1
-26,965
MIDWESTERN STATES
#22-D
40.4
-22,602
23-R
57.4
+20,536
House
%
Plurality
#25-D
44.4
-16,050
R. I.
NONE
Ill.
#10-R
51.6
+7,173
Vermont NONE
#11-D
46.8
-13,268
W. Va.
#4-D
40.0
-30,443
#21-R
54.8
+17,443
22-D
43.2
-26,228
SOUTHEIN STATES
Ind.
#1-1)
49.3
-1,811
2-R
54.1
+14,615
llouse
%
Plurality
#3-D
43.8
-22,456
#4-D
48.4
-5,833
Ala.
2-R
55.3
-19,952
#11-R
51.1
+4,241
Fla.
4-D
44.0
-18,692
Iowa
#1-D
44.8
-16,788
#5-D
44.5
-18,611
#2-D
41.3
-19,219
#8-D
42.4
-22,315
#6-R
51.4
+4,350
#11-D
39.8
-37,502
Kansas
#2-D
36.8
-29,364
#15-D
43.4
-19,601
Mich.
#6-R
50.6
+2,239
Ga.
#5-D
46.5
-9,136
#12-D
49.1
-2,944
57-D
(0.1
-17,705
#14-D
42.7
-25,518
425,040
#18-R
54.9
+22,851
-7,237
TABLE VI (con.)
:
MIDNESTERN STATES (con.)
House
%
Plurality
Minn.
#6-R
51.1
+4,744
#7-D
41.0
-39,977
Neb.
NONE
Mo.
#4-D
42.3
-22,658
#6-D
45.3
-19,045
#8-D
39.3
-27,575
N. D.
NONE
Ohio
#8-R
51.7
+1,592
#16-R
53.8
+9,711
#23-R/TP
50.1
+3,561
S. D.
#2-R
55.0
+12,750
Wisc.
#3-R/TP
54.7
+19,886
#8-R/TP
50.5
+3,504
WESTERN STATES
House
%
Plurality
Alaska
AL-D
44.8
-8,018
Ariz.
#4-R
53.5
+9,686
Calif.
#2-D/TP
22.5
-86,427
#7-D/TP
38.0
-40,500
#8-D
47.1
-11,076
#11-D/TP
37.0
-43,925
#12-R
54.0
+21,287
#31-D/TP
42.5
-16,078
#36-R/TP
52.7
+5,468
#38-D
43.7
-17,397
Colo.
#1-D/TP
47.4
-9,639
#4-R
51.4
+5,265
Hawaii
#]-D
45.4
-12,424
#2-D
43.0
-19,577
Idaho
N 0 N E
Mont.
#1-R
57.6
+11,407
Nev.
AL-R
51.5
+4,596
N. Mex.
NONE
Orc.
NONE
Utah
#2-D
44.9
-19,167
Wash.
#1-D
49.7
-1,090
#4-D
47.3
-7,697
Wyo.
AL-D
48.3
-4,872
TABLE VII
MARGINAL AND SAFE DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN SEATS
Total
M-D(#)
M-R(#)
S-D(#)
S-R(#)
MIDWEST STATES
Illinois
24
1(22)
3(10,11,21)
8(1,2,5,7,
12(3,4,6,12-20)
9,23,24)
Indiana
11
3(1,3,4)
2(2,11)
1(9)
5(5-8,10)
Iowa
6
2(1,2)
2(5,6)
1(4)
1(3)
Michigan
19
2(12,14)
3(2,6,18)
6(1,13,15,
8(3-5,7-11)
16,17,19)
Kansas
5
1(2)
4(1,3-5)
Minnesota
8
1(7)
1(6)
3(4,5,8)
3(1,2,3)
Nebraska
3
3(1,2,3)
Missouri
10
3(4,6,8)
6(1-3,9,10)
1(7)
N. Dakota
1
1(AL)
Ohio
23
3(8,16,23)
7(9,14,18-22) 3(1-7,10-13,15,17)
S. Dakota
2
1(2)
1(1)
Wisconsin
9
2(3,8)
5(1,2,4,5,7)
2(6,9)
121
13
17
38
53
WESTERN STATES
Alaska
1
1(AL)
Arizona
4
1(4)
1(2)
2(1,3)
California
43
5(2,7,8
3(6,12,36)
19(1,3-5,11,
16(10,13,17,18,20,23-
31,38)
14-16,19,
25,27,28,32,33,39,
21,22,26,
40,42,43)
29,30,34,
35,37,41)
Colorado
5
1(1)
1(4)
1(3)
2(2,5)
Hawaii
2
2(1,2)
Idaho
2
2(1,2)
Montana
2
1(1)
1(2)
Nevada
1
1(AL)
New Mexico
2
1(1)
1(2)
Oregon
4
2(2,3)
2(1,4)
Utah
2
2(1,2)
Washington
7
2(1,4)
5(2,3,5-7)
Wyoming
1
1(AL)
76
14,
8
30
24
EASTERN STATES
Connecticut
6
2(1,3)
1(5)
1(6)
2(2 4)
Delaware
1
1(AL,
Maine
2
1(1)
1(2)
Maryland
8
4(2,3,6,7)
4(1,4,5,8)
TABLE VII (con.)
Total
M-D(#)
M-R(#)
S-D(#)
S-R(#)
Massachusetts
12
3(4,9,12)
1(5)
6(2,3,6,8,11)
2(1,10)
New Hampshire
2
2(1,2)
New Jersey
15
5(3,4,9,11,
2(1,13)
3(8,10,14)
5(2,5,6,7,12)
15)
New York
39
4(6,15,17,
5(1,3.
17(7-14,16,
13(2,4,5,25,27,29,
32)
23,26,
18-22,24,
30,33,34,35,36,
31)
28,37)
38,39)
Pennsylvania
25
3(4,22,25)
1(23)
10(1-3,6,11,
11(5,7-10,12,13,
14,15,20,
16-19)
21,24)
Rhode Island
2
2(1,2)
Vermont
1
1(AL)
West Virginia
4
1(4)
3(1,2,3)
117
19
11
46
41
SOUTHERN STATES
Alabama
7
1(2)
4(3,4,5,7)
2(1,6)
Arkansas
4
3(1,2,4)
1(3)
Florida
15
5(4,5,8,11,
6(1-3,7,13,
4(6,9,10,12)
15)
14)
Georgia
10
2(5,7)
7(1-3,6,8,10)
1(4)
Kentucky
7
2(2,6)
3(3,1,7)
2(4,5)
Louisiana
8
1(3)
7(1,2,4-8)
Mississippi
5
2(4,5)
3(1,2,3)
North Carolina
11
3(4,7,11)
4(1,2,3,6)
4(5,8-10)
Oklahoma
6
2(1,5)
3(2-4)
1(6)
South Carolina
6
1(1)
1(6)
3(3-5)
1(2)
Tennessee
8
1(5)
3(3,6,8)
2(4,7)
2(1,2)
Texas
24
3(8,21,24)
2(5,13)
17(1,2,4,6,9-
2(3,7)
12,14-20,22,
23)
Virginia
10
4(4,6,8,10)
3(1,3,5)
3(2,7,9)
Totals
121
19
14
65
23
C
Election
1972
SUMMARY OF ELECTION RESULTS FOR 50 STATES, D.C.
(Complete list of unofficial returns, p. 2993-3001)
House (2 R): Incumbent Orval Hansen (R) was
elected to a third term, and Steven D. Symms (R) was
West
elected to the seat vacated by McClure.
Nevada. President: Nixon won the state's three
President Nixon defeated Sen: George McGovern in
electoral votes.
13 western states and won 102 electoral votes.
House (1 R): Republicans took over the at-large seat
Seven Senate seats and three governorships were up.
as David Towell (R), 35, defeated James H. Bilbray (D),
year. There were two party turnovers among the
34. Bilbray defeated Rep. Walter S. Baring (D) in the
races: Colorado elected a Democratic senator and
primary.
Mexico a Republican senator. There was no party
Montana. President: Nixon won the state's four
nover among the governors.
electoral votes.
Of the 76 House districts the West, the Democrats
Senator: Incumbent Lee Metcalf (D), 61, was elected
43 and the Republicans won 33. or the seven new
to a third term.
seats added by reapportionment, the Republicans
Governor: Lt. Gov. Thomas L. Judge (D), 38, was
four and the Democrats won three. Party control of
elected. defeating State Sen. Ed Smith (R), 52. Gov.
scats Was reversed, giving the Republicans a net
Forrest H. Anderson (D) is retiring.
of one representative.
House (1 D, I R): Both incumbents won re-election.
Alaska. President: Vixon won the state's three elec-
New Mexico: President: Nixon took the state's four
votes.
electoral votes.
Senator: Incumbent Ted Stevens (R), 4S, was elected
Senator: Pete V. Domenici (R), 40, will replace retir-
first full term.
ing Sen. Clinton P. Anderson (D) in the Senate. Domenici
House (1 D): Nick Begich (D), 40, was elected to a
defeated former State Rep. Jack Daniels (D).
ond term as Alaska's at-large representative. Begich
House (1 D, 1 R): Both incumbents were re-elected.
appeared in a light plane while campaigning Oct. 15.
Oregon. President: Nixon won the state's six elec-
he survived, Gov. William A. Egan (D) must call a
toral votes.
election to replace him.
Senator: Incumbent Mark O. Hatfield (R), 50, was
Arizona. President: Nixon won the state's six elec-
elected to a second term. defeating former Sen. Wayne
votes.
L. Morse (D), 71.
House (1 D, 3 R): All three incumbents were re-
House (2D, 2R): All four incumbents were re-elected.
and ? Republican was elected to the new seat
Utah. President: Nixon won the state's four electoral
as a result of reapportionment.
votes.
California. President: Nixon won the state's 45 elec-
Governor: Calvin L. Rampton (I), 58, won a third
votes.
term.
House (23 D, 20 R): All 34 California incumbents
House (2 D): Both House seats went Den atic as
re-election were successful. Democrats gained
incumbent K. Gunn McKay (D), 47, was re-elected and
seats and Republicans two, reflecting the five new
attorney Wayne Owens (D), 35, defeated incumbent
seats in California because of reapportionment.
Sherman P. Lloyd (R), who has served five terms.
Colorado. President: Nixon won the state's seven
Washington. President: Nixon won the state's nine
votes.
electoral votes.
Senator: Former State Rep. Floyd K. Haskell (D),
Governor: Incumbent Daniel J. Evans (R), 46, was
defeated Sen. Gordon Allott (R), G5, denying him a
elected to a third term.
term.
House (7 D): All six Democratic incumbents were re-
House (2 D, 3 R): Republicans had an over-all gain
elected. and the Democrats picked up the seat of retiring
seat. Incumbent James D. (Mike) McKevitt (R)
Rep. Thomas M. Pelly (R).
defeated by Patricia Schroeder (D): but Republicans
Wyeming. President: Nixon won the state's three
two other seats-one in a new district created when
electoral votes.
lorado gained one sent because of reapportionment, the
Senator: Incumbent Clifford P. Hansen (R), 59, was
in Rep. Wayne N. Aspinall's (D) district. He was
elected to a second term.
eated in a primary.
House (1 D): Teno Roncalio (D), JE, was elected to
Hawaii. President: Nixon won the state's four elec-
a third term as Wyoming's at-large representative.
votes.
House (2D): Both incumbents won re-election.
East
IcAho. President: Nixon WOD the state's four elec-
Nixon cerried 11 of 12 states in the East with 124
electoral votes. McGovern won in Massachusetts and
is
replace
retiring
Sen.
the District of Columbia, the two sources of his total of
(R).
only 17 electoral votes.
Nov. 11, 1972-PAGE
State Summaries 2
In the seven Seriate races in the East, incumbents
Senator: Incumbent Republican Clifford P. Case,
held five and lost, two. Incumbents Margaret Chase
68, was elected to a fourth term, defeating former Rep.
Smith (R Maine) and J. Caleb Boggs (R Del.) both were
Paul J. Krebs (D 1965-67), 60, and three minor-party
defeated by Democrats.
candidates.
There were two party turnovers in the five
House (8 D; 7 R): Thirteen districts re-elected in-
governors' races. In Delaware and Vermont, Democrats
cumbents-five Republicans and eight Democrats. Repub-
will replace Republicans.
licans were elected to a seat being vacated by a Repub-
or the 117 House seats at stake, Democrats_won-60
lican and to a new seat created by redistricting.
and Republicans won 51. Party control of five-seats
New York. President: Nixon won the state's
switched hands for a Republican net gain of three seats.
41 electoral votes.
Connecticut. President: Nixon won the state's eight
House (22 D, 17 R): Thirty-three incumbents-20
electoral votes.
Democrats and 13 Republicans-were re-elected to the
House (3 D; 3 R): Three Democratic and two
House from New York, which lost two seats for a new
Republican incumbents were re-elected, but incumbent
total of 39. Four new Republicans and two new Demo-
Democrat John S. Monagan, 60, lost his 5th Dis-
crats were elected.
trict seat to State Rep. Ronald A. Sarasin (R), 37.
Pennsylvania. President: Nixon won the state's
Delaware. President: Nixon won the state's three
27 electoral votes.
electoral votes.
House (13 D, 12 R): Incumbents were re-elected in
Senator: Democrat Joseph R. Biden Jr., 20, un-
24 of 25 districts in Pennsylvania, which lost two
seated two-term incumbent J. Caleb Boggs (R), 63, in a
seats through reapportionment. In the only race without
major upset. An American Party candidate was third.
an incumbent candidate, a Republican was elected in
Governor: State house minority leader Sherman W.
the new 9th District.
Tribbitt (D), 49, defeated incumbent Republican Gov.
Rhode Island. President: Nixon won the state's
Russell W. Peterson, 55, with an American Party candi-
four electoral votes.
date running third.
Senator: Incumbent. Democrat Claiborne Pell, 53.
House (1 R): Incumbent Republican Pierre S. (Pote)
won a third term by defeating Republican John H.
du Pont, 37, was elected to a second term.
Chafee, 49, former Rhode Island governor and former
Maine. President: Nixon won the state's four elec-
secretary of the Navy.
toral votes.
Governor. Democrat Phillip W. Noel, 41, the
Senator: Incumbent Republican Margaret Chase
mayor of Warwick, defeated Republican Herbert F.
Smith, 74, lost to Rep. William D. Hathaway (D), 48,
DeSimone, 42, and an independent candidate.
in an upset.
House (2 1)): Both incumbents were re-elected.
House (1 D, 1 R): Incumbent Democrat Peter N.
Vermont. President: Nixon won the state's three
Kyros, 46, won a fourth term, and Republican William
electoral votes.
S. Cohen, 32, mayor of Bangor, captured the Democratic
Governor: Thomas P. Salmon, 40. the Democrat-
seat vacated by Bathaway.
Independent Vermonters Party candidate, upset Repub-
Maryland. President: Nixon won the state's
lican Luther F. Hackett, 39, the chosen successor to re-
10 electoral votes.
tiring Gov. Deane C. Davis (R).
House (4 1), 4 R): Seven incumbents-four Demo-
House (1 R): Incumbent Republican Richard W.
crats and three Republicans-were re-elected. A Repub-
Mallary, 43, was elected to a full term.
lican was elected to the new 4th District seat.
West Virginia. President: Nixon won the state's
six electoral votes.
Massachusetts. President: McGovern won the
Senator: Incumbent Democrat Jennings Randolph
state's 14 electoral votes.
70, was elected to a third full term, defeating
Senator: Republican Edward W. Brooke, 52, was
Republican State Sen. Louise Leonard, 53.
elected to a second term.
Governor: Incumbent Republican Arch Moore, 49.
House (9 D; 3 R): Nine incumbents-seven Demo-
defeated Democrat John D. Rockefeller IV, 35, the secre-
crats and two Republicans-were re-elected. But Demo-
tary of state.
crat Louise Day Hicks, 52. lost her 9th District seat to
House (4 D): Four incumbent Democrats were TO:
Boston city councilman John Joseph Mockley, 45. a
elected. A fifth Democratic seat was abolished through
Democrat who ran as an independent candidate. Repub-
licans and Democrats split two seats vacated by Repub-
reapportionment.
District of Columbia. President: McGovern won
licans. A Republican won in the 5th District and a
the District's three electoral votes.
Democrat won in the 12th.
New Hampshire. President: Nixon won the state's
South
four electoral votes.
Senator: Incumbent Democrat Thomas J. McIntyre,
Nixon defeated McGovern in all 13 states of th:
57, won a second full term by defeating former Gov.
South and won the region's 147 electoral votes.
Wesley Powell (1959-63), 56, the Republican candidate.
In the 12 Senate races, party control switched in four
Governor: Republican Meldrim Thomson Jr., GO,
states. Republicans took over in North Carolina, Oklahom
defeated Democrat Roger J. Crowley Jr., 53, and in-
and Virginia. A Democrat will I place a Republican i.
dependent condulate Maler in Melane, 47.
the
House (2R): Both incumbents were re-clected.
Of the tizee races for povernor, oniv m No.
New Jersey. President: Nixon won the state's 17
Carolina was there a party change from Democrat :
electoral votes.
Republican.
PAGE 2054-Nov. 11, 1072
State Summaries 3
or the 121 House seats in the 13 states, 84 were won
Governor: James E. Holshouser (R), 37, was elected,
by Democrats and 37 by Republicans. There were changes
defeating Hargrove (Skipper) Bowles Jr. (D), 52. and an
in party control of nine seats for a net gain of five seals
American Party candidate. Gov. Robert W. Scott (D)
for the Republicans.
was ineligible for another term.
Alabama. President: Nixon won the state's nine
House: (7 D, 4 R): There was no change in the
electoral votes.
party breakdown. A Democrat won the 4th District seat
Senator: Incumbent John J. Sparkman (D), 72, was
vacated by Galitianakis.
elected to a sixth term, defeating Winton M. Blount Jr.
Oklahoma. President: Nixon won the state's eight
(R), 51, and three minor-party candidates.
electoral votes.
House: (4 D, 3 R): All seven incumbents were re-
Senate: Former Gov. Dewey F. Bartlett (R 1967-
elected. Alabama lost one seat because of redistricting.
71), 53, defeated Rep. Ed Edmondson (D), 53, and three
Arkansas. President: Nixon won the state's six
minor-party candidates. Sen. Fred R. Harris (D) did not
electoral votes.
seek re-election.
Senator: Incumbent John L. McClellan (D), 76, was
House (5 D, 1 R): Democrats picked up the 1st Dis-
elected to a sixth term, defeating Wayne 11. Babbitt
trict seat (Tulsa) retiring Rep. Page Belcher-(R).
(R), 44.
Edmondson's seat remains Democratic.
Governor: Dale L. Bumpers (D), 47, was elected to
South Carolina. President: Nixon won the state's
second term, defeating Len E. Blaylock (R), 53.
eight electoral votes.
House: (3 D, 1 R): The party breakdown for the
Senate. Incumbent Strom Thurmond (R), 69, was
delegation remains the same, as before, although Rep.
elected to a fifth term, defeating Eugene N. Zeigler (D), 51,
David H. Pryor, 3S, resigned his 4th District seat to chal-
and a minor-party candidate.
lenge McClellan in the Democratic Senate primary.
House (4 D, 2 R): Republicans gained one seat, in
Florida. President: Nixon won the state's 17
the 1st District
electoral electoral votes.
Tennessee. President: Nixon won the state's 10
House: (11 D, 4 R): Florida gained three seats
electoral votes.
through redistricting. All 12 incumbents were re-elected.
Senate: Incumbent Howard H. Baker Jr. (R), 46, was
Democrats captured two of the new seats, and a Repub-
elected to a second term, defeating Rep. Ray Blanton
lican won the third.
(D), 42.
Georgia. President: Nixon won the state's 12
House: (3 D, 5 R): Democrats suffered a net loss of
electoral votes.
two seats, one because of the defeat of a Democratic
Senate: Sam Nunn (D), 34, was elected, defeating
meumbent, William R. Anderson, in the 6th District,
Rep. Fletcher Thompson (R), 47. Sen. David H. Gam-
and the other because of redistricting which cost
brell (D) was defeated in the primary by Nunn.
Tennessee one seat.
House: (9 D, 1 R): The Democrats picked up the
Texas. President: Nixon won the state's 26
5th District sent vacated by Thompson.
electoral votes.
Kentucky. President: Nixon won the state's nine
Senate: Incumbent John G. Tower (R), 47, was
electoral votes.
elected to a third term. defeating Barefoot Sanders (D),
Senate: Walter (Dee) Huddleston (D), 46, was
47, and two other candidates.
elected, defeating former Gov. Louie B. Nunn (R 1968-
Governor: Dolph Briscoe (D), 49, was elected, de-
72), 48, and American Party and People's Party candi-
feating Henry C. Grover (R), 45, and two other candi-
dates.
dates. Incumbent Preston Smith (D) was defeated for
House (5 D, 2 R): The party breakdown remains the
renomination by Briscoe.
same, with a Democrat replacing a retiring Democrat in
House (20 D. 4 R : The Republicans had a net gain
the 6th District.
of one seat. A Republican defeated incumbent Earle
Louisiana. President: Nixon won the state's 10
Cabell (D), in the 5th District. Incumbent Robert Price
electoral votes.
(R), defeated another incumbent, Graham Purcell (D),
Senate: J. Bennett Johnston Jr. (D). 40. defented
after redistricting forced the two into opposition in the
Ben C. Toledano (R). 40. and John J. McKeithen (In-
13th District. Democrats were elected in the two new
dependent), 54, a former Democratic governor (1964-
seats created by redistricting.
72).
Virginia. President: Nixon won the state's 12
House (7 D, 1 R): Veters sent a Republican to Con-
electoral votes.
gress from the state for the first time this century. elect-
Senate: Rep. (1966-72) William Lloyd Scott (R),
ing him in the 3rd District to replace a retiring Democrat.
57, defeated incumbent William B. Spong Jr. (D), 52.
Mississippi. President: Nixon won the state's seven
House (3 D, 7 R): Republicans gained a sent being
electoral votes.
vacated by a retiring Democrat in the 4th District.
Senate: Incumbent James O. Eastland (D), 67,
was elected to a sixth term, defeating Gil Carmichael
(R), 45, and two independent candidates.
Midwest
House: (3 D, 2 R): Republicans picked up two seats
formerly held by Denactors
Richard Nixon carried all 12 states in the Midwest
tricts. Incural
North
Carolina.
President:
INON
won
the
seven
Senate
in
13 electoral votes.
two changed party control. lowa and South Dakota both
Senate: Jesse Helms (R). SO, defeated Rey. Nick'
Peinecrats to seats held previously by Repub-
Califianakis (D), 41
State Summaries 4
In the seven contests for governorships, five remained
House (9 D; 1 R): All incumbents were re-elected.
in the saine party column, a Democrat defeated the
North Dakota. President: Nixon won the state's
Republican governor 'of Illinois and a Missouri Republi-
three electoral votes.
can will replace a retiring Democratic governor.
Governor: Rep. Arthur A. Link (D), 58, was
The Midwest in 121 House races chose 70 Republicans
elected, defenting Lt. Gov. Richard F. Larsen (R), 36.
and 51 Democrats. Party control of five sents switched
House (1 R): Because of reapportionment. North
for a net gain of three for the Republicans.
Dakota lost one seat held by the Democrats. Incumbent
Illinois. President: Nixon won the state's 26 elec-
Mark Andrews (R), 46, was elected to a fifth term, de-
toral votes.
feating Richard Ista (D), 43.
Senator: Incumbent Charles H. Percy (R), 53, was
Ohio. President: Nixon won the state's 25 elec-
elected to a second term, defeating Rep. Roman C.
toral votes.
Pucinski (D), 53.
House (7 D, 16 R): Ohio lost one Republican seat
Governor: Daniel Walker (D), 49, defeated incum-
as a result of redistricting.
bent Richard B. Ogilvie (R), 49.
South Dakota. President: Nixon won the state's
House: (10 D, 14 R): Republicans gained two seats
four electoral votes.
in Illinois. One incumbent, Abner J. Mikva, was
Senator: Rep. James Abourezk (D), 41, was elected,
defeated in a new district.
defeating Robert Hirsch (R), 46.
Indiana. President: Nixon won the state's 13
Governor: Incumbent Richard F. Kneip (D), 39, was
electoral votes.
elected to a second term, defeating Carveth Thompson.
Governor: Otis R. Bowen (R), 54, defeated former
(R), 39.
Gov. Matthew E. Welsh (1961-65), 60.
House (1 D, 1 R): Abourezk's seat was filled by a
House (4 D, 7 R): All incumbents but one-Andrew
Republican. The other Democratic incumbent was re-
Jacobs Jr. (1)), 40-were re-elected.
elected.
Iowa. President: Nixon won the state's eight
Wisconsin. President: Nixon won the state's 11
electoral votes.
electoral votes.
Senator: Dick Clark (D), 43, defeated incumbent
House (5 D, 4 R): Wisconsin lost one Republican
Jack Miller (R), 56.
sent as a result of redistricting. (incumbent David R.
Governor: Incumbent Robert Ray (R), 42, was elected
Obey (D), 33, defeated another incumbent, Alvin E.
to a third term, defeating Paul Frazenburg (D), 55.
O'Konski (R), 55, to represent their combined consti-
House (3 D, 3 R): Because of redistricting, Iowa lost
tuencies in the new 7th District.
one Republican seat. John H. Kyl (R) was defeated
in his race. against another incumbent Neal Smith (D).
Incumbent Fred Schwengel, 65, accounted for another
(Continued from p. 2960)
Republican los to Edward Mezyinsky_(D).
Kansas. President: Nixon won the state's seven
HOUSE RACES
electoral votes.
Senator: Incutabent James B. Pearson (R), 52, was
trouble defeating Republican John H. Kyl in Iowa's
elected to a second term. defeating Arch O. Tetzlaff (D),
4th District, while David Obey trounced 30-year-veteran
46, and a Conservative Party candidate.
Alvin E. O'Konski (R) in Wisconsin's 7th.
Governor: Incumbent Robert Docking (D), 46, was
elected to a fourth term, defenting Morris Kay (R), 40.
West
House (1D. 4R): All five incumbents were re-elected.
Michigan. President: Nixon won the state's 21
Returns from the West were dominated by
electoral votes.
California, with its rich prize of five new House seats.
Senator: Incumbent Robert P. Griffin (R), 48,
Neither party had the votes to pass a partisan redistrict-
was elected to a second term, defeating Frank J. Kelley
ing bill, so they settled on a compromise that divided
(D), 47.
the five new seats this way: two Democratic, two Repub-
House: (7 D, 12 R). No seats changed parties.
lican, one tossap. That was the way it worked out. Rep.
Minnesota. President: Nixon won the state's 10
Paul N. McCloskey Jr. (R), who led an anti-war crusade
electoral votes.
against President Nixon in the 1972 presidential prim-
Senator: Incumbent Walter F. Mondale (D), 44,
aries, moved into one of the Republican districts and won
was elected in a second term, defeating Philip Hansen
it. The other Republican district went to a popular state
(R), 44. and a Socialist Labor candidate.
senator, Republican Clair M. Burgener. The two Demo-
House (4 D, 1 R): All eight incumbents were re-
cratic districts went to Yvonne Brathwaite Burke. a black
elected.
state representative, and to former U.S. Rep. George E.
Nebraska. President: Nixon won the state's five
Brown Jr. (1) 1963-71). The tossup district went narrowly
electoral votes.
to State Rep. William M. Ketchum (R).
Senator: Incumbent Carl T. Curtis (R). 67, was
Colorado's new suburban district went Republican,
elected to a fourth term, defeating Terry M. Carpenter
as expected, for State Sen. William L. Armstrong. But
(D), 72
two Colorado sents switched parties. In Denver, Democrat
re-elected.
Patricia Schroeder won an upset victory over freshman
12
Rep. James D. (Mike) McRevitt (11). And Republics
James T. Johnson won the sent held by veteran Hep.
Governer Christopher (Kit) Bond (R), 33. was
Wayne N. Aspinall (D), who was defeated in " primary
term. feating Edward L. Dowd (D).
by law professor Alan Merson.
House 4
HOUSE MEMBERSHIP IN THE 93RD CONGRESS
ALABAMA
2. Hole Boggs (D)
1. Jock Edwords (R)
HOUSE LINE-UP
3. David C. Treen (R)*
2. William 1. Dickinson (R)
4. Joe D. Waggonner (D)
3. Bill Nichols (D)
Democrats 244
Republicans 191
5. Otto E. Passmon (D)
4. Tom Bevill (D)
6. John R. Rorick (D)
5. Robert E. Jones (D)
7. John B. Breoux (D)
Freshinan Democrats 27
Freshman Republicans 42
6. John Buchonan (R)
8. Gillis W. long (D)*#
Freshman Representative
#Former Representative
7. Walter Flowers (D)
MAINE
ALASKA
COLORADO
5. John C. Kiuczynski (D)
1. Peter N. Kyros (D)
1. Potricio Schroeder (D)*
6. Harold R. Collier (R)
2. William S. Cohen (R)*
AL Nick Begich (D)
2. Donald G. Brotzmon (R)
7. George W. Collins (D)
3. Fronk C. Evons (D)
8. Don Rostenkowski (D)
MARYLAND
ARIZONA
4. James T. Johnson (R)*
9. Sidney R. Yotes (D)
1. Williom O. Mills (R)
1. John J. Rhodes (R)
5. William L. Armstrong (R)*
10. Samuel H. Young (R)*
2. Clarence D. Long (D)
2. Morris K. Udall (D)
11. Fronk Annunzio (D)
3. Paul S. Sorbanes (D)
3. Sam Steiger (R)
CONNECTICUT
12. Philip M. Crone (R)
4. Marjorie S. Holt (R)*
4. John B. Conlon (R)*
1. William R. Coller (D)
13. Robert McClory (R)
5. Lowrence 1. Hogan (R)
2. Robert H. Steele (R)
14. John N. Erlenborn (R)
6. Goodloe E. Byron (D)
ARKANSAS
3. Robert N. Giaimo (D)
15. Leslie C. Arends (R)
7. Perren J. Mitchell (D)
1. Bill Alexander (D)
4. Stewart B. McKinney (R)
16. John B. Anderson (R)
8. Gilbert Gude (R)
2. Wilbur D. Mills (D)
5. Ronold A. Sarasin (R)*
17. George M. O'Brien (R)*
3. John Poul Hommerschmidt (R)
6. Ello T. Grosso (D)
18. Robert H. Michel (R)
MASSACHUSETTS
4. Roy Thornton (D)*
19. Tom Railsback (R)
1. Silvio O. Conte (R)
DELAWARE
20. Pcul Findley (R)
2. Edword P. Bolond (D)
CALIFORNIA
AL Pierre S. (Pete) du Pont (R)
21. Edward R. Modigon (R)*
3. Horold D. Donohue (D)
1. Don H. Clausen (R)
22. George E. Shipley (D)
4. Robert F. Drinon (D)
2. Horold T. Johnson (D)
FLORIDA
23. Melvin Price (D)
5. Poul W. Cronin (R)*
3. John E. Moss (D)
1. Robert L. F. Sikes (D)
24. Kenneth J. Groy (D)
6. Michael J. Horrington 10,
4. Robert 1. leggett (D)
2. Don Fuquo (D)
7. Torbert H. Mocdonald 0,
5. Phillip Burton (D)
3. Charles F. Bennett (D)
INDIANA
8. Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. (D)
6. Williom S. Moilliard (R)
4. Bill Chappell Jr. (D)
1. Roy J. Modden (D)
9. John Joseph Mockley (D;*
7. Ronold V. Deliums (D)
5. William D. Gunter Jr. (D)*
2. Eorl F. Londgrabe (R)
10. Margaret M. Heckler (R)
8. Fortney H. (Pete) Stork (D)*
6. C. W. Bill Young (R)
3. John Brodemos (D)
11. James A. Burke (D)
9. Don Edwards (D)
7. Som Gibbons (D)
4. J. Edword Roush (D)
12. Gerry E. Studds (D)*
10. Charles S. Gubser (R)
8. James A. Holey (D)
5. Elwood H. Hillis (R)
11. leo J. Ryon (D)*
9. Louis Frey (R)
6. William G. Bray (R)
MICHIGAN
12. Burt 1. Tokott (2)
10. L. A. (Skip) Sofolis (R)*
7. John T. Myers (R)
1. John Conyers Jr. (D)
13. Charles M. Teague (R)
11. Poul G. Rogers (D)
8. Roger H. Zion (R)
2. Morvin L. Esch (R)
14. Jerome R. Woldie (D)
12. J. Herbert Durke (2)
9. Ice H. Homilton (D)
3. Garry Brown (R)
15. John J. Mcf oil (D)
13. William Lehmon (D)*
10. David W. Dennis (R)
4. Edword Hutchinson (R)
16. B. F. Sisk (D)
14. Cloude Pepper (D)
11. Williom H. Hudnut III (8)*
5. Gerold R. Ford (R)
17. Poul N. McCloskey Jr. (R)
15. Donte B. Fosceli (D)
6. Charles E. Chamberfain (F
18. Robert B. (Sob) Mathias (R)
IOWA
7. Donold W. Riegle Jr. ($)
19. Chet Holifield (D)
GEORGIA
1. Edword Mezvinsky (D)*
8. Jomes Harvey (R)
20. Carlos J. Moorhood (R)*
1. Ronold B. (Bo) Ginn (D)*
2. John.C. Culver (D)
9. Guy Vonder Jogt (R)
21. Augustus F. Howkins (D)
2. Dawson Mothis (D)
3. H. R. Gross (R)
10. Elford A. Cederberg (R;
22. James C. Cormon (D)
3. Jock Brinkley (D)
4. Neal Smith (D)
11. Philip E. Ruppe (R)
23. Del Clawson (R)
4. Ben B. Elockburn (R)
5. William J. Scherle (R)
12. James G. O'Hara (0)
24. John H. Rousselot (R)
5. Andrew Young 10,*
6. Witey Mayne (R)
13. Charles C. Diggs Jr. (D:
25. Charles E. Wiggins (R)
6. John J. Flynt Jr. (D)
14. Lucien N. Nedzi (0).
26. Thomos M. Rees (D),
7. John W. Davis (D)
KANSAS
15. William D. Ford (D)
27. Borry M. Goldwoter Jr. (R)
8. W. S. (Bill) Stuckey (D)
1. Keith G. Sebelius (R)
16. John D. Dingell (D)
28. Alphonzo Bell (R)
9. Phil M. Londrum (D)
2. William R. Roy (D)
17. Martho W. Griffiths (3,
29. George t: Danielson (D)
10. Robert G. Stephens Jr. (D)
3. terry Winn Jr. (R)
18. Robert J. Huber (R)*
30. Edward R. Roybol (D)
4. Garner E. Shriver (R)
19. William S. Broomfield (R)
31. Chories H. Wilson (D)
HAWAII
5. Joe Skubitz (R)
32. Craig Hosmer (R)
1. Spark M. Motsunaga (D)
MINNESOTA
33. Jerry L. Pettis (R)
2. Polsy T. Mink (D)
KENTUCKY
1. Albert H. Quie (R)
34. Richard T. Honno (D)
1. Fronk A. Stubblefield (D)
2. Ancher Nelsen (R)
35. Glenn M. Anderson (D)
IDAHO
2. William H. Notcher (D)
3. Bill Frenzel (R)
36. William M. Ketchum (R)*
1. Steven D. Symms (R)*
3. Romons 1. Mozzoli (D)
4. Joseph E. Korth (D)
37. Yvonne brothwoite Burke (D)*
2. Orvol Honsen (R)
4. M. G. (Gene) Snyder (R)
5. Donald M. Fraser (D)
38. George E. Brown Jr. (D)*/
5. Tim Ice Corter (R)
6. John M. Zwach (R)
39. Andrew J. Hinshow (R)*
ILLINOIS
6. John B. Breckinridge (D)*
7. Bob Bergland (D)
40. Bob Wilson (k)
1. Helph 11. Metcolle (D)
7. Corl D. Perkins (D)
8. John A. Blatnik (D)
41. Lianel Ven Deerlin (D)
2. M 1969 Marply (ii)
42. Cluir W. European (ii)*
3. Rebut 2
LOUISIANA
MISSISSION
43. Victor V. Veysey (R)
4. Edword 1. Derwinski (R)
1. F. Edword Hebert (D)
1. Jamie 1. Whitten (D)
PAGE 11, 1072
House 5
244 DEMOCRATS, 191 REPUBLICANS
David R. Bowen (D)*
15. Hugh L. Corey (D)
2. Clem Rogers McSpadden (D)*
4. Roy Roberts (D)
G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (D)
16. Elizabeth Holtzmon (D)*
3. Carl Albert (D)
5. Alon Steelman (R)*
Thod Cochron (R)*
17. John M. Murphy (D)
4. Tom Steed (D)
6. Olin E. Teogue (D)
Trent Lott (R)*
18. Edword I. Koch (D)
5. John Jormon (D)
7. Bill Archer (R)
19. Charles B. Rongel (D)
6. John N. Hoppy Comp (R)
8. Bob Eckhordt (D)
SOURI
20. Bello S. Abzug (D)
9. Jock Brooks (D)
Williom (Bill) Cloy (D)
21. Hermon Bodillo (D)
OREGON
10. J. J. Pickle (D)
James W. Symington (D)
22. Jonathen B. Bingham (D)
1. Wendell Wyott (R)
11. W. R. Pooge (D)
Leonor K. Sullivon (D)
23. Peter A. Feyser (R)
2. AI Ullman (D)
12. Jim Wright (D)
William J. Randoll (D)
24. Ogden R. Reid (D)
3. Edith Green (D)
13. Robert Price (R)
Richard Bolling (D)
25. Homilton Fish Jr. (R)
4. John Dellenback (R)
14. John Young (D)
Jerry Litton (D)*
26. Benjonin A. Gilmon (R)*
15. Eligio de lo Garza (D)
Gene Taylor (R)*
27. Howard W. Robison (R)
PENNSYLVANIA
16. Richard C. White (D)
Richard H. Ichord (D)
28. Somuel S. Strotton (D)
1. William A. Borrett (D)
17. Omor Burleson (D)
Williom 1. Hungote (D)
29. Corleton ). King (R)
2. Robert N. C. Nix (D)
18. Borbaro C. Jordan (D)*
Bill D. Burlison (D)
30. Robert C. McEwen (R)
3. William J. Green (D)
19. George Motion (D)
31. Donald J. Mitchell (R)*
4. Joshua Eilberg (D)
20. Henry B. Gonzolez (D)
NTANA
32. James M. Hanley (D)
5. John Ware (R)
21. O. C. Fisher (D)
Richard G. Shoup (R)
33. William F. Walsh (R)*
6. Gus Yotron (D)
22. Bob Cosey (D)
John Melcher (D)
34. Fronk Horton (R)
7. towrence G. Willioms (R)
23. Abraham Kozen Jr. (D)
35. Borber B. Conable Jr. (R)
8. Edword G. Biester Jr. (R)
24. Dole Milford (D)*
RASKA
36. Henry P. Smith III (R)
9. E.G. Shuster (R)*
Charles Thone (R)
37. Thoddeus J. Dulski (D)
10. Joseph M. McDade (R)
UTAH
John Y. McCollister (R.)
38. Jack F. Kemp (R)
11. Doniel J. flood (D)
1. K. Gunn McKoy (D)
Dave Mortin (R)
39. Jomes F. Hostings (R)
12. John P. Saylor (R)
2. Wayne Owens (D)*
13. R. lowrence Coughlin (R)
ADA
NORTH CAROLINA
14. William S. Moorhead (D)
VERMONT
Dovid Towell (R)*
1. Walter B. Jones (D)
15. Fred B. Rooney (D)
AL Richard W. Mollary (R)
2. 1. H. Fountain (D)
16. Edwin D. Eshlemon (R)
HAMPSHIRE
3. David N. Honderson (D)
17. Hermon T. Schneebeli (R)
VIRGINIA
Louis C. Wyman (R)
4. like F. Andrews (D)*
18. H. John Heinz III (R)
1. Thomas N. Downing (D)
Jomes C. Cleveland (R)
5. Wilmer Mizell (R)
19. George A. Goodling (R)
2. G. Williom Whitehurst (?)
6. 1. Richardson Preyer (D)
20. Joseph M. Goydos (D)
3. David E. Satterfield III (D)
JERSEY
7. Chorles G. Rose III (D)*
21. John H. Dant (R)
4. Robert W. Doniel Jr. (R)*
John E. Hunt (R)
8. Eorl B. Ruth (R)
22. Thomas E. Morgan (D)
5. W.C. (Don) Doniel (D)
Charles W. Sondmon Jr. (R)
9. James G. Mortin (R)*
23. Albert W. Johnson (R)
6. M. Coldwell Dutler (R)*
James J. Howard (D)
10. Jomes T. Broyhill (R)
24. Joseph P. Vigorito (D)
7. 3. Kenneth Robinson (P.)
Fronk Thompron Jr. (D)
11. Roy A. Toylor (D)
25. Fronk M. Clark (D)
8. Stanford E. Parris (R)*
Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen (R)
9. William C. Wompler (R)
Edwin B. Forsythe (R)
NORTH DAKOTA
RHODE ISLAND
10. Joel T. Broyhill (R)
William B. Widnoll (R)
AL Mark Andrews (R)
1. Fernand J. St Germoin (D)
Robert A. Roe (D)
2. Robert O. Tiernon (D)
WASHINGTON
Henry Helstoski (D)
OHIO
1. John Hemplemonn (D)*
Peter W. Rodino Jr. (D)
1. Williom J. Keating (R)
SOUTH CAROUNA
2. Lloyd Meeds (D)
Joseph G. Minish (0)
2. Donold D. Cluncy (R)
1. Mendel J. Davis (D)
3. Julio Dutler Hansen (D)
Matthew J. Binoldo (R)*
3. Charles W. Wholen Jr. (R)
2. Floyd Spence (R)
4. Mike McCormock (D)
Joseph J. Moroziti (R)*
4. Tennyson Guyer (R)*
3. William Jennings Bryan Dorn (D)
5. Thomas S. Foley (D)
Dominick V. Daniels (D)
5. Delbait L. Lotto (R)
4. James R. Mann (D)
6. Floyd V. Hicks (D)
Edword J. Potten (D)
6. Williom H. Harsha (R)
5. Tom S. Gellys (D)
7. Brock Adams (D).
7. Clorence J. Prown (R)
6. Edword 1. Young (R)*
MEXICO
8. Wolter E. Powell (R)
WEST VIRGINIA
Manuel lujon Jr. (R)
9. Thomas L. Ashley (D)
SOUTH DAKOTA
1. Robert H. Mellohon (D)
Horold Runnels (D)
10. Clarence E. Miller (2)
1. Fronk E. Denhulm (D)
2. Harley O. Staggers (D)
11. J. William Stanton (R)
2. James Abdnor (R)*
3. John M. Slock (D)
YORK
12. Samuel 1. Devine (R)
A. Ken Hechier (D)
Otis G. Pike (D)
13. Charles A. Mosher (R)
TENNESSEE
James R. Grover Jr. (R)
14. John F. Seiberling (D)
1. James H. (Jiminy) Quillen (R)
WISCONSIN
Angelo D. Roneollo (R)*
15. Cholmers P. Wylie (R)
2. John J. Duncon (R)
1. Les Aspin (D)
Normon F. tent (R)
16. Ralph S. Regula (R)*
3. LaMor Boker (R)
2. Robert W. Kostenmeier (D)
John W. Wydler (2)
17. John M. Ashbrook (R)
4. Joe 1. Evins (D)
3. Vernon W. Thomson (R)
Lester I Woll (D)
18. Wayne L. Hays (D)
5. Richard Fulton (D)
4. Clement J. Zablocki (D)
Joseph P. Addobbo 10)
19. Charles J. Corney (D)
5. Robin 1. Beard Jr. (R)*
5. Henry S. Reuss (D)
Benifimin S. Rose other (D)
20. James V. Stanton (D)
7. Ed Jones (D)
6. Williom A. Steiger (R)
C. Lon Kuykended (i)
7. David R. Obey (i)
8. Howard V. free Mich (i)*
(-)
TEXAS
9. Glenn R. Davis (R)
1. Wright Potmon (D)
2. Charles Wilson (D)*
WYOMING
2. M. Colina (R)
At Tano Concolno (D)
SUMMARY OF MARGINAL 1974 RACES BY STATE
STATE
MARGINAL GOVERNOR 1
MARGINAL SENATOR 2
MARGINAL HOUSE 3
New England
Maine
Curtis (D) 50.1
-
#2R
New Hampshire
Thomson (R) 41.6
X
-
Vermont
X
X
-
Massachusetts
X
-
#4D, #5R, #12D
Rhode Island
Noel (D) 52.9
-
-
Connecticut
Meskill (R) 53.8
Ribicoff (D) 54.3
#3D, #5R
Middle Atlantic
New York
Rockefeller (R) 52.4 Javits (R) 49.8
#3R, #6D, #26R, #31R
New Jersey
X (1973)
-
#1R, #3D, #9D, #13D
Pennsylvania
X
Schweiker (R) 51.9
#4D, #25D
Delaware
-
-
-
Maryland
Mathias (R) 47.8
-
West Virginia
-
-
-
South
Virginia
Holton (R) 52.7 ('73)
-
#4R, #6R, #8R
North Carolina
-
X
#4D
South Carolina West (D) 51.7
X
#1D, #6R
Georgia
X
X
#5D
Alabama
X
X
#2R
Mississippi
-
-
#4R, #5R
Louisiana
-
X
#3R
Arkansas
X
X
-
Tennessee
Dunn (R) 52.0
-
#3R, #6R, #8R
Kentucky
-
Cook (R) 51.4
#6D
Texas
Briscoe (D) 48.1
-
#5R, #13R
Oklahoma
Hall (D) 48.4
Bellmon (R) 51.7
:
Florida
X
X
#4D, #5D
Midwest
Ohio
Gilligan (D) 54.2
Saxbe (R) 51.5
#8R, #16R, #23R
Indiana
-
Bayh (D) 51.7
#1D, #2R, #4D, #11R
Illinois
-
X
#10R, #11D, #21R
Michigan
Millikan (R) 50,4
-
#6R, #12D, #18R
Wisconsin
Lucey (D) 52.4
X
#3R, #8R
Minnesota
Anderson (D) 54.0
-
#6R
Iowa
X
Hughes (D) 50.2
#1D, #6R
Missouri
-
Eagleton (D) 51.1
#6D
Kansas
X
X
-
Nebraska
Exon (D) 53,8
-
South Dakota
X
McGovern (u) 56.00
North Dakota
-
X
TAB E (CONT.)
STATE
MARGINAL GOVERNOR 1
MARGINAL SENATOR 2
MARGINAL HOUSE 3
West
Montana
-
-
-
Wyoming
X
-
(At-Large)D
Idaho
Andrus (D) 52.2
X
-
Colorado
Love (R) 52.5
X
#1D, #4R
Utah
-
Bennett (R) 53.7
#2D
Nevada
O'Call'n (D) 48.1
Bible (D) 54.8
(At-Large)R
New Mexico
King (D) 51.3
-
-
Arizona
Williams (R) 50.9
X
#4R
California
Reagan (R) 52.8
Cranston (D) 51.8
#8D, #12R, #36R
Oregon
X
Packwood (R) 50.2
-
Washington
-
X
#1D, #4D
Alaska
Egan (D) 52.4
Gravel (D) 45.1
(At-Large)D
Hawaii
X
X
#1D
Notes
1 - Where names are listed, the incumbent received less than 55% of
the vote in the last election. The symbol (x) indicates other
states with gubernatorial election in 1973 or 1974. The symbol
(-) means no gubernatoriel race in the state.
2 - Same symbols as described in note #1.
3 - House districts where the winner in 1970 received 56.0% or less
of the total vote.
* - Although Senator McGovern received more than 55% of the vote
in South Dakota, he is considered potentially vulnerable after
the 1972 Presidential race, and therefore included on the list
of marginal seats.
TAB F
PROJECTED OPERATING PLAN
FOR UPDATING THE DATA BASE
(All costs in thousands of dollars)
MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING FILES
Costs
State and Activity
1973
1974
1975
1976
Total
California
1974 (3 Cong. Dists)
-
6.0
1976 (purchase new lists)
-
60.0
66.0
Connecticut
1974 (update entire state) * -
7.5
1976
"
"
"
-
7.5
15.0
Illinois
1974 (update entire state) * -
15.0
1976
"
11
"
-
15.0
30.0
Maryland
1974 (update entire state)* -
6.5
1976
11
"
"
-
6.5
13.0
Michigan
1974 (get list from Donnelley) * -
15.0
1976
"
"
"
"
15.0
30.0
New Jersey
1974 (update 4 CD's)
-
8.0
1976 (update entire state)
-
25.0
33.0
Ohio
1974 (update entire state)* -
20.0
1976 (update entire state)
-
20.0
40.0
Pennsylvania
1974 (update entire state)* -
30.0
1976 (update entire state)
-
30.0
60.0
Texas
1974 (update 2 CD's)
-
4.0
1976 (update entire state)
-
32.0
36.0
Totals to maintain existing
lists:
0
112.0
0
211.0
323.0
Costs if candidates in states
65.0
0
211.0
276.0
denoted by asterisk (*) pay one
half the cost of updating lists.
TAB F (CONT.)
PROJECTED OPERATING PLAN
FOR ADDING NEW STATES AND CONG. DISTS. IN 1974
Full States (Races of Interest)
Cost ($ thousands)
Indiana (Senate, 4 CD) *
50.0
South Dakota (Senate, 1CD): *
15.0
Nevada (1 CD) (possibly Sen. or Gov.)
7.5
Alaska (Senate, House)
5.0
Kentucky (Senate) * (1 CD)
50.0
Oklahoma (Senate)*
37.5
Iowa (Senate) * (2 CD)
25.0
Wyoming (House)
5.0
Oregon (Senate)* (data on tape from state)
5.0
Virginia (3 CD) (data on tape from state)
1.0
Total
201.0
Total if statewide candidates
110.0
denoted by asterisk (*) pay one
half the cost of updating the lists
in those states
Marginal Congressional Districts in states
160.0
not having full data in the system.
(It is estimated that each CD will cost
$5 thousand to put into the system.
There are 32 such districts. The remaining
36 of the 68 target districts discussed in
the text of the memo are accounted for in
states where the total state has been
put in the Data Base)
The states, and number of districts in
each are as follows:
Maine (1) ; Massachusetts (3); New York (4) ;
North Carolina (1); South Carolina (2);
Georgia (1); Alabama (1); Mississippi (2) ;
Tennessee (3) ; Louisiana (1); Florida (2)
Wisconsin (2) ; Minnesota (1); Missouri (1);
Colorado (2); Utah (1); Arizona (1);
Washington (2); Hawaii (1).
MAINTENANCE AND USE OF THE DATA BASE
PROJECTED OPERATING STATEMENT
(NO INCOME INCLUDED)
Expense Items
1973
1974
1975
1976
Total
Data Base Maintenance
1
-
65,000
-
211,000
276.000
Project Administration
2
60,000
90,000
60,000
90,000
300,000
Computer Programming
20,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
140,000
Research and Development
20,000
30,000
30,000
10,000
90,000
Data Base Expansion- 1
-
270,000
-
-
270,000
Totals
100,000
495,000
130,000
351,000
1,076,000
Notes
1 - - See detail of cost by states in Tab F.
2 - Includes salary of General Manager, office space and supplies, secretary, programmers.
TAB G
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 9, 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. HALDEMAN
FROM:
W. RICHARD HOWARD
SUBJECT:
Action Plan for the Data Base
Purpose:
The purpose of this memorandum is to present a plan for the utili-
zation of the CREP data base and the volunteer/contributor files
developed for "Operation Thank You. 11 Since the election, the CREP
staff has scattered and no formal arrangements have been made
with respect to maintenance and utilization of the multi-million
dollar voter data base. Several sets of labels have been printed
and copies of data tapes have been disseminated without official
approval.
This data base can be of immediate benefit in our efforts to commu-
nicate with the New American Majority. At the direction of the
President, it can be of use to support Republican candidates in 1973,
1974, and 1976. If properly maintained, through periodic use and
updating, it will increase in value, and become a significant tool for
selected congressional and local candidates, as well as offset the
cost of several million dollars for developing another data base for
the 1976 Presidential elections.
This plan is presented as follows:
Description of the Data Base
Functional Use of the Data Base
Potential Uses of the Data Base
Coverage for the 1973-1974 Elections
Coverage for the 1976 Elections
Plan for the 1976 Presidential Election
Recommendations:
#1 - Disposition of the Data Base
#2 - Data Base Operation
#3 - Maintenance of the Data Basc
#4 - Data Base Budget
- 2 -
For each of the recommendations, objections to the methods are
outlined and selected alternatives are discussed.
DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA BASE
The CREP Voter Identification Data Base contains names, addresses,
socio-economic, geo-coding and political attitude data on approxi-
mately 40 million voters in 12 states, including 8 million voters favor-
able to President Nixon.
States with complete coverage are:
- California
- Connecticut
- Illinois
- Maryland
- New Jersey
- New York
- Ohio
- Pennsylvania
- Texas
States with records of Republicans only are three additional states
which conduct Presidential Primaries:
- Florida
- New Hampshire
- Wisconsin
For each voter record the following data is recorded:
Name and address
Household member names
Party registration
Attitude toward R. M. Nixon
Socio-economic level
Age group
Military veteran status
Ethnic Name category
Periferal urban ethnic indicator
Neighborhood type
Complete geo-coding such as precinct, ward, district,
census track, zip code
- 3 -
In addition to the CREP Voter Identification, Data Base described
above, we have developed data files for "Operation Thank You"
in a compatible format which contains names and address records
of CREP and GOP staffers (3,000), Campaign volunteers (300, 000), and
contributors of over $100 (30,000). The RNC maintains a
listing of 450,000 ethnic, civic, and special group leaders and mem-
bers. The RNFC maintains 600,000 records of contributors of less
than $100.
FUNCTIONAL USE OF THE DATA BASE
During the 1972 Presidential primaries and in the general election,
the Voter I.D. Data Base was used as an information systems tool
to support the following campaign functions:
Political Direct Mail:
issue persuasion
volunteer recruitment
contribution solicitation
Voter Identification:
walking canvass sheets
tele center call sheets
hostess-business call sheets
Voter Information Feed Back:
Nixon attitude
other candidates
important issues
volunteer
Voter Influence:
undecided mailings
get out the vote telegrams
poll watching sheets
victory squad sheets
POTENTIAL USES OF THE DATA BASE
In addition to the previous uses made of the data base, there are
soveral potential uses which should be developed.
4 --
#1 Developing Prospect List for GOP Fund Raising :
By selecting Republicans in higher income groups favorable to
President Nixon, an excellent prospect list could be developed
and tested. Bob Odell of the RNC Finance Committee has re-
quested Jim White (our consultant) to look into the cost and
feasability of this. In addition, we have a file of local CREP
contributors which RNC does not have.
#2 Issue Polling and Voter Sampling :
Selected samples of voter types can easily be retrieved for the
telephone or direct mail polling for reaction to national issues.
#3 Support 1974 and 1976 Congressional Elections.
For approved candidates, we can provide direct mail labels, by
voter types within a congressional district, and for the total state.
For candidates running in key races, we can arrange to have can-
vass sheets, telephone sheets, advertising, fund raising, direct
mail, and poll-watching sheets provided through a source other
than the Republican Party, but using our Data Base and programs.
#4 Substantive Election Results Analysis:
Using the voter I.D. 's data, we can select voter types for ques-
tionnaire surveys at the precinct level.
#5 Advance Men Support:
The data base can be used to recruit known volunteers and local
leaders to promote rally, parade, etc., turnouts for candidates
or the President. Advanced announcements and reminders can
be mailed by locality and by voter type.
- 5 - -
DATA BASE COVERAGE FOR THE 1973-1974 ELECTIONS
As presently constructed, the data base can be used to support the
1973 Governor's race in New Jersey. With an adequate mainten-
ance program, we can support up to 290 candidates in the 1974
congressional and governors' races plus various other local races
as desired by the President and the RNC.
We have good state voter records for the following 1974 races:
California
Senate - Cranston - D
Governor - Reagan - R
House - 43
Connecticut
Senate - Ribicoff - D
Governor - Meskill - R
House - 6
Illinois
House - 24
Maryland
Senate - Mathias - R
Governor - Mandel - D
House - 8
New Jersey
House - 15
Ohio
Senate - Saxbe - R
Governor - Gilligan - D
House - 23
Pennsylvania
Senate - Sweiker - R
Governor - Shapp - D
House - 25
- 6 -
Texas
Governor - Briscoe - D
House - 24
We have incomplete voter files for the following state elections:
Florida (Republicans in large counties)
Senate - Gurney - R
Governor - Askew - D
House - 15
Massachusetts (Republicans only)
Governor - Sargent - R
House - 12
New Hampshire (Republicans only)
Senate - Cotton - R
Governor - Peterson - R
House - 2
New York (Selected Counties)
Senate - Javits - R
Governor - Rockefeller - R
House - 39
Wisconsin (Republicans only)
Senate - Nelson - D
Governor - Lucey - D
House - 9
Virginia (Selected counties)
Governor - Holton - R
House - 10
- 7 -
DATA BASE COVERAGE FOR THE 1976 ELECTIONS
If the Data Base is adequately maintained from 1973-1976, we can
support at least 175 candidates in the 1976 congressional and state
races as well as a Presidential candidate in the primaries and
general election.
By 1976, we should be able to support Republican candidates in
these major congressional and state elections:
California
Senator - Tunney - D
House - 43
Connecticut
Senate - Weicker - R
House - 6
Illinois
Senate - Stevenson - D
Governor -
D
House - 24
Maryland
Senate - Beall - R
House 8
New Jersey
Senate - Williams - D
House - 15
Ohio
Senate - Taft - R
House 23
Pennsylvania
Senate - Scott - R
House 23
- 8 -
Texas
Senate - Bentsen - D
House - 24
With the recommended expansion of the data base we could support
another 120 GOP candidates in congressional and state contests
plus provide strengthened primary races.
In addition to the above states, we should consider expanding the
data base for 1976 to include the following states:
Florida
expand from Republicans in major counties to
all voters due to consistent ticket-splitting
and new support for GOP candidates locally
by Democrats.
Indiana
At minimum we should include Republicans
due to some key races and coming Republican
candidates.
Massachusetts
Should be expanded from just Republicans
to all voters.
Michigan
We have no list of Michigan - we had to lease
a mailing house list in 1972 and return it.
New Hampshire
We need to have the best possible data for
the '76 primary.
New York
We need to work closely with the GOP in
New York to develop a better list.
Tennessee
We have some coming candidates and growing
areas for the GOP.
Wisconsin
We need to expand and improve our GOP
voters list for the '76 primary.
Virginia
The state is paying to develop the list which
we can purchase and maintain in conjunction
with the state GOP.
- 9
PLAN FOR THE 1976 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
If the data base is properly maintained during the 1973-1976 period,
it will be a valuable tool in electing a Republican president in 1976.
Since the key states will not be changed drastically, and the emerg-
ing political technology of direct mail, telephone and walk-
ing canvass, voter identification, and get out the vote will not be
much different from the CREP operation in 1972, we will have an
edge going into the '76 campaign with an adequate data base to sup-
port these programs. The major difference between the 1972 and
1976 campaigns is that the GOP candidate may not be certain until
after the convention. However, planning and development for utili-
zation of the data base must begin at least one year before the gen-
eral election in order to properly integrate the direct mail, can-
vass and telephone operations. Thus, while we are planning and
designing our programs (as did CREP) in early 1976, the RNC
may have to supply mailing labels to any GOP candidate in the
primaries who can afford to pay RNC for them.
On the other hand, should a candidate warrant the unofficial support
of the President, we would encourage this candidate to contract with
the RNC data base support company to provide direct mail support,
canvass sheets, polling, telephone sheets, volunteer recruitment,
advance event advertising, and the telegrams, etc.
After the GOP convention, an agreement can be negotiated between
the successful candidate, the RNC, the White House and the com-
puter support organization, concerning the future use of the data
base.
- 10 -
RECOMMENDATION #1
Data Base Disposition
That the Republican National Committee be given title to the data base
with the written understanding that it may only be utilized under the
stipulations explained in the Operating Plan (see Recommendation #2),
i.e., White House approval of use, Washington base operation and
maintenance, general mailing monitoring, break even cost to the
GOP candidates, etc.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
Alternative #1 Corporate Form
A general business or non-profit corporation could be formed to hold
title and operate the data base.
Disadvantages
1. Would not necessarily strengthen the GOP candidates
or the RNC.
2. White House and RNC lose control unless the White
House secretly controls the operation. This would pre-
sent a real problem if and when the secret control was
discovered.
3. The major problem with corporate form is raised by
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The Act
prohibits any contribution to a political party by a cor-
poration. It would be argued that the sales of data are
bargain sales resulting in contributions to the Republican
Party and therefore prohibited by the Act.
4. Additional problems are raised if the corporation is
dissolved. Any distribution of the data at that time to the
Republican Party would be a direct contribution of prop-
erty under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
Accordingly, the corporation could not be dissolved by
distributing the property to the Republican National
Committee or an individual candidate.
-
5. In addition to the above problems under the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971, there would be potential
- 11
tax liaiblity on dissolution. The normal rule is that a share-
holder receives a capital gain when the property is distributed
on dissolution; equal to the difference between the fair market
value of the property and the shareholder's basis in the cor-
poration.
Alternative #2 - Unincorporated Committee
1. The data could be retained by CREP or transferred to a similar
unincorporated committee. This form would avoid any problems un-
der the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. This would not help
strengthen the GOP and we would not have direct control.
2. The major disadvantage of this form is the lack of limited liability.
The members of the committee would be individually liable for con-
tracts. From a tax standpoint, the committee would be structured
in a form that would be taxable either as a trust or corporation in
order for any tax to be on the committee. This would avoid individual
tax liability on the members of the committee.
Alternative #3 - Unincorporated Trust
The data base could be placed in trust for the RNC.
Disadvantages
1. The trust would be basically self-defeating since the
RNC would be the benefactor, however, RNC and the
White House would lose direct control to the trustees.
2. While the trust is not subject to the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971, such organizations may become
subject to future legislation.
3. The profitable sales of labels, etc., by the trust
would be taxable.
4. Accumulated income of the trust would be taxable.
5. The trust could have limited life with all of the inherent
difficulties of the dissolutionment.
Specific Recommended Actions
1. That a. letter be sent to U.C.C. indicating the designated represen-
- 12 -
tative of the President for all data base items. Since all of the
Political Direct Mail and computer staff of the CREP have ter-
minated with CREP, I recommend that our representative be
either Kathleen Balsdon or Mr. Jim White (former CREP staff),
who is our computer consultant. Either way, Jim is our expert
in residence and would be responsible for management of the data
base project.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
2. That the remaining assets of the computer data base which
consist of extra tapes, tape racks, etc., be swapped with U. C. C.
for future services including shipping the data base and further
documentation of the data base. A draft contract for the desired
services has been prepared.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
3. That the RNC arrange a suitable area for storage of a duplicate
copy of the data tapes at RNC Headquarters under secure conditions.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
RECOMMENDATION #2
The proposed operating plan is dependent upon the approval of recom-
mendation #1 concerning the disposition of the data base, and the
approval of the budget as recommended.
The Republican National Committee will provide mailing labels or
computer letter services at break even cost to any Republican can-
didate with the stipulation that all returned mail will be supplied for
data base maintenance and that a representative will be allowed to
"monitor" the use of the mailing labels.
During 1973 and early 1974, we can utilize our labels to generate
some direct mail of non-political materials under the franking pri-
vilege for incumbent congressmen to help make their seats safe
for the 1974 elections. This will also allow more thorough main-
tenance of the data for each state.
Any other use of the data base must be approved by the President
(or his designated representative) upon the written explanation of
the proposed use. Thus, no candidate may use the data base for
- 13 -
canvass sheets, poll watching, etc., without written approval from
the White House.
Since the RNC does not have a computer facility nor a professional
computer systems staff and no one at RNC is familiar with the data
base, it must be maintained by persons who are thoroughly familiar
with its coding, structure, and use. Furthermore, we have found
that the White House or the RNC would have much better control of
the data base and attain much more responsive service if the data
base was operated here in Washington by persons who have demon-
strated an understanding of responsiveness to the RNC and the
White House.
All revenue from the sales of mailing labels to candidates will be
applied against the maintenance cost and hopefully in the long run period
will offset the total maintenance expense.
Any changes, additions, and/or deletions to the data base will be
approved in writing by the RNC and the White House representative.
Recommendation
That the operation of the data base be managed as outlined above.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
RECOMMENDATION #3
Data Base Maintenance
That maintenance of the data base be accomplished by stipulating that
all users of the list must agree to provide returned mail and that the
RNC computer support organization will work with the RNC and local
GOP county chairmen to obtain listings of additional voters. It is
anticipated that within the four year period, the sales of labels to can-
didates will offset the cost of list maintenance.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
The maintenance of the data base encompasses many operations. These
- 14 -
include adding new voter names, deleting obsolete voter names,
correcting records, changing portions of records and editing all of the
changes. Data preparation and maintenance should be conducted for
the RNC by the computer support organization. It is important that
specific states be updated prior to key elections in those states.
According to the operating plan one of the stipulations for use of the
data base mailing lists is that all undeliverable return mail be pro-
vided for list purging. By making the mailing labels available to
Republican Senators, Congressmen, and Governors, and local
officials under our monitorship, we should obtain adequate mail re-
turns for list maintenance.
The RNC will have to work with local GOP county chairmen to obtain
lists of newly registered voters. This was done successfully in ob-
taining lists for the CREP project. California is an exception since
the Secretary of State provides updated lists.
Additional list updates can be purchased from organizations such as
the telephone companies and mailing firms at a nominal cost.
Alternative #1
If the data base is not adequately maintained for the next four years,
a new data base will have to be developed for 1976. This is not
feasible since the cost would be excessive and since the RNC would
have great difficulty getting cooperation from local officers due to
loyalties to several Presidential candidates. To try to develop a
data base after the convention is an impossible task.
Alternative #2
Another alternative would be to scrap the data base and let the 1976
Presidential candidate contract with mailing firms to do direct mail
from an "occupant" list, and conduct canvassing with cold canvass
forms. Needless to say, this is a step backward.
15 -
RECOMMENDATION #4
Operating Budget
The operating budget is illustrated at three alternative funding levels,
Level 1 is a bare bones funding level for continuous data base main-
tenance, but no data base expansion. Level 2, provides for expansion
of the data base into five additional key states which we do not now
have an adequate data base. Also, a moderate research and develop-
ment effort is funded to seek methods of cost cutting without impairing
responsiveness. Level 3 provides funding for data base expansion
into eleven additional states and the R&D budget.
All of the cost figures are based upon break even cost levels for com-
puter services, in order to provide labels to candidates at the lowest
possible costs.
Recommendation
That the proposed project be funded at Level 2, with an allocation of
$200, 000 from remaining CREP funds. The cash flow, audit, and
financial reporting arrangements should be administered through
the Republican National Finance Committee.
Additional funding needed for 1975 and 1976 would be funded through
RNC after submittal of financial statements and revised budget pro-
jections.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
Alternative Level 1 - (See Table 1)
The lowest alternative budget provides for funding the maintenance
of the present data base with no bata base expansion or improvement
over the next four years. Income is based upon minimum sales of
labels and $30,000 of surplus property at U.C.C. remaining from
the campaign. Expense items are for data base updating, project
administration, label printing and computer programming.
This funding level is not recommended because we need to expand
the data base to cover the presidential primary in Michigan and
all voters in Florida, New York, and Indiana. The State of Vir-
ginia is computerizing their voter lists and they will be available
at minimum cost.
- 16 -
Alternative Level 2 - (See Table 2)
This alternative level of funding is similar to Level 1 except that
it provides for expansion of the data base in Michigan, Florida,
New York, Indiana, and Virginia. It also provides for a $20, 000
per year R&D budget to lower our cost.
This funding level is recommended with the approach that we
need more complete coverage in Michigan, New York and Florida.
Indiana is needed for some key races in '74 and '76, and because
5 of the 11 Congressional seats are marginal, 3 Democrat and 2
Republican. Virginia is naturally a no cost inclusion and does
have 4 marginal Congressional seats held by Republicans. The
return on the investment of $146, 000 for this expansion will be
several new seats and significant aid in holding some marginal
seats.
Alternative Level 3 - (See Table 3)
The highest of the projected budgets provides for significant ex-
pansion of the data base. In addition to the five states included
in level 2, it provides for inclusion of Missouri, Minnesota,
Georgia, Tennessee, Washington and Oregon.
This funding level was not recommended for several reasons.
Although the costs of including these six states might be signi-
ficantly offset by additional sales of labels, they are not consi-
dered key states. After discussions with Jim White, I feel that
if we desire to do so, he may be able to expand into the larger
counties of some of these states with money which has been
saved through cost reduction. The question is, would we want
to apply cost savings to lowering the price of labels to candidates
or to expansion into new states? We will conduct a study of the
cost of including the larger counties in every state with nine or
more electoral votes.
Projected Budget - Level 1
Income Items
1973
1974
1975
1976
Total
Label Sales
$120,000
$480,000
$200,000
$640,000
$1,440,000
Surplus Property
30,000
30,000
150,000
480,000
200,000
640,000
1,470,000
Expense Items
Data Base Maintenance
50,000
250,000
200,000
100,000
600,000
Project Administration
60,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
300,000
Label Printing
60,000
240,000
100,000
320,000
720,000
Computer Programming
20,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
50,000
190,000
580,000
390,000
510,000
1,670,000
Deficit
($40,000)
($100,000)
($190,000)
$130,000
($200,000)
Table 1 - Projected Budget : Alternative Level 1
Projected Budget - Level 2
Income Items
1973
1974
1975
1976
TOTAL
Label Sales - Old D.B.
$120,000
$480,000
$200,000
$640,000
$1,440,000
Label Sales - Expanded D.B.
80,000
24,000
180,000
284,000
Surplus Property
30,000
30,000
150,000
560,000
224,000
820,000
1,754,000
Expense Items
Data Base Maintenance
50,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
590,000
Project Administration
60,000
90,000
90,000
120,000
360,000
Label Printing
60,000
240,000
112,000
400,000
812,000
Computer Programming
20,000
40,000
20,000
40,000
120,000
Research & Development
20,000
20,000
20,000
15,000
75,000
210,000
550,000
422,000
775,000
1,957,000
List Expansion
Michigan
15,000
15,000
Florida
30,000
30,000
New York
60,000
60,000
Indiana
40,000
40,000
Virginia
1,000
1,000
146,000
146,000
Deficit
($60,000)
($136,000)
($198,000)
+$45,000
($349.000)
Table 2 - Projected Budget: Alternative Level 2
-
Projected Budget - Level 3
Income Items
1973
1974
1975
1976
TOTAL
Label Sales - Old D.B.
$120,000
$ 480,000
$ 200,000
$ 640,000
$ 1,440,000
Lable Sales - Expanded D.B.
80,000
40,000
310,000
430,000
Surplus
30,000
30,000
150,000
560,000
240,000
950,000
1,900,000
Expense Items
Data Base Maintenance
50,000
160,000
210,000
210,000
630,000
Project Administration
60,000
90,000
90,000
90,000
330,000
Label Printing
60,000
240,000
120,000
425,000
845,000
Computer Programming
20,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
140,000
Research & Development
20,000
30,000
30,000
10,000
90,000
210,000
560,000
490,000
775,000
2,035,000
Data Base Expansion
Michigan
15,000
15,000
Florida
30,000
30,000
New York
60,000
60,000
Indiana
40,000
40,000
Virginia
1,000
1,000
Missouri
16,000
16,000
Minnesota
14,000
14,000
Georgia
12,000
12,000
Tennessee
12,000
12,000
Washington
10,000
10,000
Oregon
5,000
5,000
146,000
69,000
215,000
Deficit
($60,000)
($146,000)
($319,000)
+$175,000
($350,000)
Table 3 - Projected Budget: Alternative Level 3
DATA BASE INDEX
Title
Count
Category A - Voters Lists
A-1
California Voters
A-2
Connecticut Voters
A-3
Florida Republican Voters
A-4
Illinois Voters
A-5
Maryland Voters
A-6
New Hampshire Republican Voters
A-7
New Jersey Voters
A-8
New York Voters
A-9
Ohio Voters
A-10
Pennsylvania Voters
A-11
Texas Voters
A-12
Wisconsin Republican Voters
Category B - Contributors
B-1
Contributors $100-999 FCREP
16,253
B-2
Contributors $100-999 Rep. Con. Comm.
7,413
B-3
Contributors $1,000 FCREP
3,560
B-4
Contributors above $1,000 FCREP
3,200
B-5
Direct Mail Contributors - Rep.
B-6
Direct Mail Contributors - Demo.
B-7
Contributors - Florida Primary
B-8
Primary contributors - New Hampshire
601
B-9
Primary contributors - Michigan
459
B-10
Contributors to local CREP
B-11
Primary contributors - Maryland
77
B-12
Primary contributors - Wisconsin
850
B-13
Sustaining contributors - spec. list
Category C - Volunteers
C - 1
Local CREP volunteers
90,237
C-2
CREP telephone center volunteers
31,381
C-3
CREP telephone center supervisors
2,682
C-4
State CREP volunteers
C-5
Washington CREP volunteers
113
C-6
RNC Washington volunteers
310
2 -
Title
Count
C-7
Rep. primary volunteers
C-8
Volunteers - hostess-business
2,228
C-9
Hosts & Hostesses for Nixon
190
C-10
Rep. Direct Mail Volunteers
C-11
Primary volunteers - Florida
5,033
C-12
Primary volunteers - New Hampshire
257
C-13
Primary volunteers - Michigan
849
C-14
Direct Mail contributors - Demo.
C-15
Primary volunteers - Maryland
8,053
C-16
Primary volunteers - Wisconsin
1,485
Category D - Campaign Staff, Political Chairmen & Leaders
D-1
State CREP Committee members
137
D-2
State CREP staff
591
D-3
State CREP top 6 performers
367
D-4
CREP - Wash. staff directors
D-5
CREP - Wash. staff
375
D-6
RNC - Wash. staff directors
184
D-7
RNC - Wash. staff
D-8
County/Reg. Rep. and CREP Chairmen
3,907
D-9
Hostess/Business Chairmen
1,106
D-10
State Press staff
90
D-11
CREP officers
D-12
County finance chairmen
D-13
County Republican chairmen
D-14
Ballot Security
D-15
State Finance Committee
D-16
Asst. to Ballot Security Chairman
D-17
Ballot security lawyers
D-18
Women leaders for Nixon
D-19
GOP convention delegates 172
1,189
D-20
GOP alternate delegates 172
1,178
D-21
Cal. campaign - Anne Graham
215
D-22
Cal. speakers - Anne Graham
419
D-23
European Committee Chairmen
D-24
City Chairmen for Nixon
533
D-25
Special Ballots directors
1
D-26
State CREP staff
165
D-27
CREP state chairmen
28
D-28
CREP co-chairmen
27
D-29
CREP vice chairmen
3
D-30
CREP exec. directors
23
D-31
Hutar co-chairmen list
28
- 3 -
Title
Count
D 32
Hutar volunteer chairmen list
36
D-33
Hutar Advisory List
148
D 34
CREP county chairmen
385
D-35
CREP state & local surrogates
560
D 36
Nat'l Comm. members
165
D 37
State Central Comm. Chairmen
60
D 38
State Central Comm. Vice Chairmen
111
D 39
County Chairmen
3, 707
D-40
State Exec. Comm. members
93
D-41
County vice chairmen
2,146
D-42
Campaign surrogates
31
D 43
Economic spokesmen
7
D-44
CREP state chairmen
8
D-45
Women spokesmen for Admin,
36
D-46
CREP youth field staff
7
D 47
Nixonette Chairmen - general
446
D 48
Nixonette key list
21
Category E - Nationalities/Ethnics
E-1
Ethnics - undefined
147
E-2
Spanish-speaking
E-3
Jewish
E -4
Catholics
E-5
Black voters
E-6
Nationalities/Heritage
E-7
Latin Americans
20
E-8
Korean Americans
1
E-9
Latvian Americans
39
E 10
Lebanese Americans
2
E 11
Lithuanian Americans
29
E 12
Polish Americans
39
E 13
Puerto Rican Americans
1
E 14
Rumanian Americans
15
E 15
Russian Americans
15
E 16
Scandinavian Americans
14
E 17
Serbian Americans
12
E-18
Silesian Americans
2
E 19
Slovak Americans
6
E -20
Slovenian Americans
16
E -21
Thai Americans
3
E-22
Ukranian Americans
63
E -23
Spanish-speaking
1,087
E-24
Mexican American Comm
E -25
Mexican Americans CREP
114
4 -
Title
Count
E 26
Ethnic/nationalities leaders
4
E 27
Albanian Americans
4
E 28
Arabic Americans
2
E -29
Armenian Americans
14
E 30
Bohemian Americans
1
E 31
Byelorussian Americans
34
E 32
Bulgarian Ame ricans
11
E 33
Chinese Americans
26
E 34
Cossack Americans
3
E- 35
Croatian Americans
9
E 36
Cuban Americans
9
E 37
Czech Americans
8
E- 38
Estonian Americans
16
E- 39
Filipino Americans
20
E- 40
French Americans
1
E- 41
German Americans
47
E- 42
Greek Americans
13
E 43
Hungarian Americans
70
E- 44
Indian Americans
1
E- 45
Irish Americans
5
E 46
Italian Americans
51
E 47
Japanese Americans
152
E- 48
Jewish field leaders
67
E- 49
Chinese Americans
100
E- 50
Ethnics/Nationalities
13
E- 51
Spanish-speaking state chairmen
18
E 52
Black state chairmen
27
E 53
Black dinner participants
40
E- 54
Black dinner participants volunteering to speak
535
E 55
Black Steering Committee
80
E 56
Black surrogates
16
Category F - New American Majority - Other Categories
F-1
Volunteers - local Democrats
F-2
Youth for Nixon
4, 573
F-3
Older Americans
173
F-4
Veterans
30
F-5
Farm families - ranchers
73
F-6
labor leaders
301
F-7
Veteranse leaders
98
F-8
State farm chairmen
54
F-9
Key agricultural volunteers
59
F 10
County farm chairmen
661
- 5
Title
Count
F 11
Agri-business leaders
26
F 12
State farm committees
412
F 13
Veterans
F 14
Veterans speakers
28
F 15
Democrats for Nixon
76
F 16
Veterans state chairmen
57
F 17
Veterans - card list
248
F 18
Older volunteers - state
F- 19
Democrat supporters
1, 386
F 20
Farmers CREP
71
F 21
Labor Task Force - CREP
41
F 22
Older American state chairmen
52
F 23
Veterans for Re-election
75
F -24
Older American county chairmen
15
F -25
Senior Voters for Action
38
F -26
Demo. VIP's favorable
22
F 27
Demo. contributors - Nixon
1
F 28
Demo. volunteers - DFN
2,319
F 29
Demo. vice chairmen - DFN
15
F 30
Farmers for Nixon state chairmen
136
F 31
Student fieldmen
104
F 32
Young voters
38
F 33
Youth spokesmen
600
F 34
College organizations for Nixon
138
F 35
State youth convention directors
64
F 36
College directors for Nixon
40
Category G - Citizens Groups
G-1
Lawyers for Nixon
108
G-2
Physicians for Nixon
1
G-3
Citizens
211
G-4
Lawyers
38
G-5
Business & Industry leaders
61
G-6
State Citizens Comm.
73
G- 7
Optometrists
11
G-8
Business women
G-9
Physicians & health professors - favorable
G 10
Physicians CREP
70
G 11
Dentists CREP
72
G 12
Farmers CREP
71
G- 13
Regional business and industrial leaders
23
G- 14
State business and industrial leaders
75
Lawyers for Re-election
176
G-15
- 6
Title
Count
G-16
Citizens state directors
46
G- 17
Architects & Engineers - favorable
43
G 18
Environmentalists/Professionals
7
G-1 19
Veterinarians
67
G-20
Pharmacists
50
G -21
Motorcyclists
57
G-22
Community leaders
54
G-23
High performance Industry leaders
55
G-24
Optometrists
60
G-25
CPA's
58
G-26
New car dealers
55
G-27
Insurance agents
47
G -28
Travel agents
58
G -29
Real estate brokers
59
G-30
Life underwriters
70
G-31
Petroleum marketers
47
G-32
Hair dressers
57
G-33
Savings & Loan execs.
47
C 34
Securities industry execs.
40
G-35
Volunteer firemen
16
G-36
Mutual savings bank execs.
7
G-37
Hot rodders
56
G-38
Business & industry leaders
4, 287
G-39
Young Lawyers Adv. Comm.
50
G-40
Lawyers Nat'l. Adv. Comm.
28
G-41
Lawyers State Comm.
368
Category H - VIP's, Local Politicians, Athletes, Celebrities
H-1
VIP list - Republicans
H-2
VIP list - Democrats
H-3
Misc. VIP list
111
H-4
Athletes for the President
496
H-5
Celebrities - Secretaries
4
H-6
Favorable mayors
H-7
Favorable state legislators
H-8
Favorable athletes and sports execs.
132
II-9
State legislators
25
II- 10
Favorable mayors
40
H-11
Favorable county officials
19