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.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
281117629
label
Black Vote in 1972 - General (5)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
281117629
contentType
document
title
Black Vote in 1972 - General (5)
citationUrl
collections
Stanley S. Scott Papers
Subject Files
subjects
Republican National Committee (U.S.)
Press
Public opinion polls
Presidential campaign, 1972
African Americans
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
281117629
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1972-12-01
month
12
year
1972
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1970-08-01
month
8
year
1970
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
9539086b82bb5acc
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 6, folder "Black Vote in 1972 - General (5)" of
the Stanley Scott Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Bettye L. Scott donated to the
United States of America her copyrights in all of her husband's unpublished writings in National
Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official
duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or
organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed
in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential
Library.
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 10, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. HERB KLEIN
MR. KEN CLAWSON
FROM:
STANLEY SCOTT
$8
RALD GE R. FORD UBRARA
Black newspapers nationwide departed from tradition during the
1972 Presidential election by not overwhelmingly endorsing the
Democratic candidate.
Most black papers did not endorse either candidate, however,
President Nixon's re-election bid was endorsed by 30 percent
of the 70 papers endorsing candidates. This represents a
dramatic increase in the four percent of black papers endorsing
Richard Nixon in 1968.
There are 214 black newspapers published nationwide. Only two
are dailies. The Atlanta Daily World endorsed President Nixon.
The Chicago Daily Defender, a traditional Democratic paper,
refused to endorse either Presidential candidate. But at the
same time, the Defender gave its endorsement to three Republican
contenders: Sen. Charles Percy, Gov. Richard B. Ogilvie and
Bernard Carey, who successfully defeated the Democratic
encumbant for States Attorney.
All available information shows that about 35 percent of all
black papers leaned editorially toward supporting the President.
Among the accomplishments most frequently cited were:
The Office of Minority Business Enterprise, and aid to minority
businesses, grants for Sickle Cell Anemia studies, increased
deposits in black banks, meaningful appointments of blacks to
policy-making positions, and funds for drug abuse programs.
It is especially significant to note that about 92 percent of all
black newspapers are owned by black Democrats, many of whom are
actively involved in the local or state Democratic party organization.
Although most of these publications refused to translate to its reader-
ship the Administration's initiatives during the first two years,
- 2 -
a noteworthy change occured during the two years prior to the
election.
Blacks were encouraged to split their ticket, and all indicators
point toward wide use of this practice within the black community
this year.
Typical comments of some of the Black newspapers making
endorsements follows:
"Those who were looking to Mr. Nixon for words that soothed
the heart and salved the ego, but did absolutely nothing for the
pocketbook have received a real jolt. We hope it awakened them
from the dream through which they have slept so long. President
Nixon has been a President of deeds not disdain."
Chicago South Suburban News, 11/4/72
Attachments
RALD A. FORD ELBRARY
G
BLACK PUBLICATIONS ENDORSING PRESIDENT
Alabama
Ohio
Birmingham Mirror
Cincinnati Call and Post
Birmingham World
Cleveland Call and Post
Columbus Call and Post
Arizona
Arizona Tribune
Tennessee
California
Memphis World
Oakland Post
Berkeley Post
Magazine
Richmond Post
San Francisco Post
Black Business Digest
Seaside Post
Compton Metropolitan Gazette
ENDORSEMENTS: 21
District of Columbia
Favorable to the President but did
New Observer
not endorse:
Florida
Tuesday Magazine
Los Angeles Central News Wave
Tallahassee News
Chicago Daily Defender
Georgia
* Special Note, the managing editor,
Louis Martin, worked in the Johnson
Atlanta Daily World
Administration and is a member of
Thomasville News
the staff of the Democratic National
Committee. The traditional Democratic
Illinois
paper endorsed three Republican candidates
including a U.S. Senator, Governor
Chicago Gazette
and States Attorney.
Chicago So. Suburban News
FAVORABLE: 3
New York
Buffalo Criterion
FORD & BRAN) RALO
Major McGovern Endorsements
District of Columbia
Washington Afro-American
Maryland
Baltimore Afro-American
Missouri
St. Louis Argus
North Carolina
Raleigh Carolinian
Carolina Peacemaker
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia Tribune
Endorsements for McGovern: 6
GE RALD GERALD LBRARY 11 . FORD
JOINT CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES
SUITE 926
WOODWARD BUILDING
1426 H STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005
(202) 638.4477
NEWS RELEASE
10 November 1972
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For more information, contact:
David Aiken or Ken Colburn
(202) 638-4477
WASHINGTON, D. C. -- A survey of sample black precincts and wards in 22
major cities shows that George McGovern won about 87 per cent of the black vote
while President Richard Nixon received about 13 per cent.
The Center estimates that in 1968 Hubert H. Humphrey won 90 per cent of the
black vote and Richard Nixon won 10 per cent, based on an extrapolation of esti-
mates made by a Gallup Poll and by NBC News.
The Center's survey was based on unofficial returns in heavily black
election districts.
The Joint Center for Political Studies is a private, non-partisan organi-
zation which provides research, education and technical assistance to black and
other minority group elected officials, and to individuals and organizations
representing minority group interests.
According to the Center's survey, the city giving Mr. Nixon the largest
share of the black vote this year was Louisville, Ky., with 30 per cent. A 1968
study obtained by the Joint Center showed Mr. Nixon receiving 15 per cent of
the vote in black areas of Louisville against Hubert Humphrey.
-more-
FORD & BRARY RALA 30
HOWARD UNIVERSITY AND THE METROPOLITAN APPLIED RESEARCH CENTER, INC.
ADD ONE BLACK VOTE
The sample areas giving Sen. McGovern the highest percentage of the vote
were in Columbia, S.C. (94 per cent), Houston, Texas (93 per cent), and
Charlotte, N.C. (93 per cent). In 1968, Humphrey won 98.6 per cent of the black
vote in Houston. Comparable figures were not available for the other cities.
Althouth blacks continued to support the Democratic presidential nominee,
the Center noted widespread ticket-splitting in some black areas.
A notable example of this phenomenon was in Chicago, where approximately
55 per cent of the voters in nine sample black wards voted for the Republican
candidate for Cook County state's attorney, Bernard Carey. This vote helped
defeat Edward Hanrahan, the Democratic incumbent.
Another striking example of ticket-splitting came in Jackson, Miss., where
76 per cent of black voters opposed Democratic incumbent Sen. James 0. Eastland,
while giving 90 per cent of their votes to George McGovern.
Here are the results for each city:
McGovern
Nixon
Boston (27 precincts)
87%
13%
Baltimore (22 precincts)
85%
15%
Charlotte (8 precincts)
93%
7%
Chicago (9 wards)
92%
8%
Columbia, S.C. (5 wards)
94%
6%
Dallas (55 precincts)
89%
11%
Dist. of Col. (3 wards)
89%
11%
Gary, Ind. (4 districts)
89%
11%
Houston (9 precincts)
93%
7%
RALD 13 A. FORD Цапны.
Jackson, Miss. (8 precincts)
90%
10%
-more-
JOINT CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES
1426 H STREET. N.W.
SUITE 926
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005
ADD TWO BLACK VOTE
McGovern
Nixon
Louisville (4 wards)
70%
30%
Memphis (3 precincts)
86%
14%
Miami (1 precinct)
90%
10%
Milwaukee (28 wards)
90%
10%
Nashville (10 precincts)
85%
15%
New York (9 Assembly Districts)
82%
18%
Newark (2 wards)
86%
14%
Philadelphia (10 wards)
89%
11%
Raleigh (6 precincts)
91%
9%
Richmond (16 precincts)
91%
9%
St. Louis (10 wards)
92%
8%
Winston-Salem (6 precincts)
91%
9%
-30-
FORD A LIBRARY GERALD RALE
JOINT CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES 1426 H STREET. N.W. SUITE 926 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005
JOINT CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES
&
FORD
SUITE 926
WOODWARD BUILDING
1426 H STREET. N.W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005
(202) 638.4477
GERALD
LIBRARY
NEWS RELEASE
13 November 1972
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For more information, call:
David Aiken or Miriam Reid
(202) 638-4477
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The number of blacks holding seats in state legislatures
rose by 23 with the election of 178 black candidates in the November 7 election,
a survey by the Joint Center for Political Studies has shown.
There are now 227 black state legislators in 38 states, compared to 204
in 30 states before the election. (These figures do not include Alaska, where
races involving two black incumbents were still undecided as of November 13).
Of the 227 legislators, 103 are incumbents re-elected in this month's
balloting; 49 are incumbents who hold seats which were not up for contest in
this election, and the remaining 75 are blacks who were not in the previous
legislatures.
The figures were compiled by the Joint Center's research division, with the
aid of a network of JCPS correspondents throughout the country.
The Joint Center for Political Studies is a private, non-partisan organization
which provides research, education and technical assistance to black and other
minority group elected officials and to individuals and organizations representing
minority group interests.
According to the Center's survey, blacks were elected in three states--
Arkansas, Minnesota and Oregon--where there were none in the previous legislatures.
The three black state representatives and one black state senator elected in
(MORE)
HOWARD UNIVERSITY AND THE METROPOLITAN APPLIED RESEARCH CENTER. INC.
ADD ONE BLACK LEGISLATORS
Arkansas are the first black legislators in that state's history.
Other sizeable gains were achieved by blacks in Texas, where there are now
nine black representatives compared to only two black representatives and one
black senator previously, and in Indiana, with five new black representatives
where there were two in the past legislature.
The largest loss of black legislators occurred in Illinois, where redistricting
of multi-member house districts contributed to defeat of three incumbents, re-
ducing the number of black representatives from 14 to 11.
The number of black state senators rose from 37 to 43, an increase of six,
or 16 percent. In the lower houses, the number of black representatives increased
by 17, or ten percent, from 167 to 184 (not including Alaska).
All but five of the black legislators elected this month are Democrats. Three
state representatives and one senator are Republicans, and another senator ran on
both Republican and Liberal tickets in New York City. One senator in New York
ran on Democratic, Republican and Liberal tickets. There were 51 Republican
legislative candidates, 247 Democrats and 13 independents or members of other
parties on the November 7 ballot.
-30-
RALD P. FORD UBRART
JOINT CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES
1426 H STREET. N.W.
SUITE 926
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005
13 November 1972
BLACKS IN STATE LEGISLATURES, 1973
Table I: State Senators (Upper House)
Number of Black Senators
Prior to
After
Incumbents
Nov. 7,
Nov. 7,
Net
Re-elected
1972
1972
Change
Nov. 1972
Arizona
1
0
-1
0
Arkansas
0
]
+1
0
California
1
1
0
1
Colorado
1
1
0
1
Connecticut
1
1
0
1
Delaware
1
1
0
1
Georgia
2
2
0
2
Illinois
5
5
0
5
Indiana
0
1
+1
0
Kansas
0
]
+1
0
1
Kentucky
1
1
--
--
No election
Maryland
4
4
--
--
No election
2
Michigan
3
3
--
--
No senate election
Minnesota
0
1
+1
0
3
Missouri
2
2
0
1
Half of state senate
Nebraska
1
1
0
1
A.
FORD
Nevada
0
1
+1
0
New Jersey
1
1
- -
--
No election
GERALD
of
New York
3
4
+1
2
North Carolina
0
1
+1
0
Ohio
2
2
0
-
Half state senate
JOINT CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES
1426 H STREET, N.W.
SUITE 926
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005
Blacks in State Legislatures
Table I, Page 2
State Senators (cont'd)
Oklahoma
1
1
0
--
Half state senate
Pennsylvania
2
2
0
2
Tennessee
2
2
0
1
Half state senate
Texas
1
0
-1
0
Virginia
1
1
--
-
No election
Washington
1
1
0
- -
Half state senate
Wisconsin
0
1
+1
0
TOTALS
37
43
+6
18
NOTES:
1. "No election": indicates states where state legislative election were
not held on November 7, 1972.
2. No elections for state senate were held on November 7, 1972.
3. "Half state senate": indicates those states having staggered senatorial
terms, where either one or none of the black senators' terms expired in
1972.
RALD OF R. FORD JAHN <,
Data gathered by Research Division, Joint Center for Political Studies
JOINT CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES 1426 H STREET, N.W. SUITE 926 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005
13 November, 1972
BLACKS IN STATE LEGISLATURES, 1973
Table II: State Representatives (Lower House)
Number of State Representatives
Prior to
After
Incumbents
Nov. 7,
Nov. 7,
Net
Be-elected
1972
1972
Change
Nov., 1972
Alabama
2
2
--
--
No election
1
Alaska
2
*
*
*
Contests undecided
Arizona
3
2
-1
1
Arkansas
0
3.
+3
0
California
5
6
+1
4
Colorado
2
3
+1
0
Connecticut
5
4
-1
2
Delaware
2
2
0
1
Florida
2
3
+1
2
Georgia
13
13
0
11
Illinois
14
11
-3
8
Indiana
2
5
+3
0
Iowa
1
0
-1
0
FORD A. RALO LIBRARY
140
I
Kansas
3
4
+1
2
Kentucky
2
2
--
--
No election
2
Louisiana
8
8
--
1.
No election
Maryland
14
14
--
--
No election
Massachusetts
3
5
+2
1
Michigan
13
12
-1
11
Minnesota
0
1
+1
0
Mississippi
1
1
--
--
No election
Missouri
13
12
-1
7
Nevada
1
2
+1
0
JOINT CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES 1426 H STREET, N.W. SUITE 926 WASHINGTON. D. C. 20005
Blacks in State Legislatures
Table II, Page 2
State Representatives (cont'd)
New Jersey
4
4
--
--
No election
New Mexico
1
1
0
1
New York
9
11
+2
7
North Carolina
2
3
+1
2
Ohio
10
9
-1
7
Oklahoma
5
3
-2
2
Oregon
0
1
+1
0
Pennsylvania
9
10
+1
6
Rhode Island
1
1
0
0
South Carolina
3
4
+1
1
Tennessee
6
7
+1
5
Texas
2
9
+7
0
Virginia
2
2
--
--
No election
Washington
2
1
-1
1
West Virginia
1
1
0
1
Wisconsin
1
2
+1
1
3
2
TOTALS
167
184
17
86
FORD a. GERALD LIBRARY
NOTES:
1. "No election": indicates states where state house elections were not
held on November 7, 1972.
2. Includes one incumbent from Louisiana re-elected February, 1972.
3. Excludes Alaska, in which two incumbents sought re-election. The results
of these two races were undetermined as of 13 November 1972.
Nine states have never elected blacks to either house of the state legislature.
They are: Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah and Vermont.
Prepared by Research Division, Joint Center for Political Studies.
JOINT CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES
1426 H STREET. N.W.
SUITE 925
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005
BLACK STATE LEGISLATORS
Compiled by Research Department,
Joint Center for Political Studies
1426 H Street, N. W., Suite 926
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 638-4477
ALASKA --- undecided at press time
State House:
ARIZONA
State House:
ART HAMILTON
Dist. 22 (Phoenix)
Democrat
LEON THOMPSON (incumb.)
Dist. 23
Democrat
ARKANSAS
State House:
RICHARD L. MAYS
Dist. 3, Position 1 (L. Rock)
Democrat
Roy James
Dist. 3, Position 1 (L. Rock)
Republican
DR. WILLIAM H. TOWNSEND
Dist. 3, Position 2 (L. Rock)
Democrat
Robert Pruitt
Dist. 3, Position 2 (L. Rock)
Republican
HENRY WILKINS III
Dist. 54, (Pine Bluff)
Democrat
Odis H. Richmond, Sr.
Dist. 54, (Pine Bluff)
Republican
Senate:
DR. JERRY D. JEWELL
Dist. 3 (Little Rock)
Democrat
Sam Sparks
Dist. 3
Republican
CALIFORNIA
State House:
JOHN MILLER (incumb. )
Dist. 17
Democrat
WILLIE BROWN (incumb. )
Dist. 18
Democrat
BILL GREENE (incumb.)
Dist. 53
Democrat
LEON RALPH (incumb.)
Dist. 55
JULIAN C. DIXON
Dist. 63
FRANK HOLOMAN
Dist. 65
FORD A LIBRARY GERALD RALE
Democrat
Democrat
Democrat
Senate:
MERVYN M. DYMALLY (incumb.)
Dist. 29
Democrat
NOTE:
Victorious black candidates in CAPS; black losers in lower case; white opponents
not listed.
Page 2 - List
COLORADO
State House:
MRS. ARIE TAYLOR
Dist. 7 (Denver)
Democrat
WELLINGTON WEBB
Dist. 8 (Denver)
Democrat
FLOYD W. PETTIE
Dist. 17 (Colorado Spings)
Republican
Senate:
GEORGE BROWN (incumb.)
Dist. 3 (Denver)
Democrat
Robert Phillips
Dist. 3
Republican
CONNECTICUT
State House:
ABRAHAM GILES
Dist. 4 Hartford)
Democrat
Paul Ritter
Dist. 4 (Hartford)
Independent
CLYDE BILLINGTON, JR. (incumb.)
Dist. 7 (Hartford)
Democrat
Roy Hales
Dist. 7 (Hartford)
BRUCE L. MORRIS (incumb.)
Dist. 94 (New Haven)
Democrat
MARGARET MORTON
Dist. 129 (Bridgeport)
Democrat
Barbara Boyd
Dist. 129 (Bridgeport)
Republican
Senate:
WILBUR SMITH (incumb.)
Dist. 2 (Hartford)
Democrat
Theodore Pryor
Dist. 2 (Hartford)
Republican
DELAWARE
State House:
AMOS B. McCLUNEY, JR.
Dist. 2
Democrat
Lawrence A. Sturgis, Sr.
Dist. 2
Republican
HENRIETTA JOHNSON (incumb.)
Dist. 3
Democrat
Jesse H. Walker
Dist. 3
Republican
Senate:
HERMAN M. HOLLOWAY, SR. (incumb.) Dist. 2
FORD A GERALD LIBRAR RALD 30
Democrat
FLORIDA
State House:
MARY L. SINGLETON
Dist. 16 (Jacksonville)
Democrat
Page 3 - List
FLORIDA (continued)
State House:
JOE L. KERSHAW (incumb.)
Dist. 105 (Miami)
Democrat
GWENDOLYN S. CHERRY (incumb.)
Dist. 106
Democrat
GEORGIA
State House:
E. J. SHEPARD (incumb.)
Dist. 28
Democrat
William Holmes Borders
Dist. 28
Republican
CLARENCE EZZARD (incumb.)
Dist. 29
Democrat
Lewis Frank Beeks
Dist. 29
Republican
Eddie Webster
Dist. 29
Independent
MRS. GRACE T. HAMILTON (incumb.) Dist. 31
Democrat
JULIAN BOND (incumb.)
Dist. 32
Democrat
J. C. DAUGHERTY (incumb.)
Dist. 33
Democrat
BEN BROWN (incumb. )
Dist. 34
Democrat
Arlon J. Kennedy
Dist. 34
Independent
WILLIAM H. ALEXANDER (incumb.)
Dist. 38
Democrat
JAMES E. DEAN (incumb.)
Dist. 54
Democrat
BETTY CLARK
Dist. 55 (Decatur)
Democrat
RICHARD A. DENT (incumb.)
Dist. 78 (Augusta)
Democrat
JESSE BLACKSPEAR (incumb.)
Dist. 106 (Savannah)
Democrat
BOBBY L. HILL (incumb.)
Dist. 110 (Savannah)
Democrat
Senate:
LEORY R. JOHNSON (incumb.)
Dist. 38
Democrat
HORACE T. WARD (incumb.)
Dist. 39
A.
FORD
Democrat
ILLINOIS
State House:
GERALD
LIBRARY
ROBERT L. THOMPSON (incumb.)
Dist. 13 (Chicago)
Democrat
RICHARD A. CARTER (incumb.)
Dist. 20 (Chicago)
Democrat
*ISAAC SIMS (incumb.)
Dist. 21 (Chicago)
Democrat
Otis G. Collins (incumb.)
Dist. 21 (Chicago)
Independent
Moses Walker
Dist. 21 (Chicago)
Republican
*Multi-member district
Page 4 - List
ILLINOIS (continued)
State House:
*CORNEAL A. DAVIS (incumb.)
Dist. 22 (Chicago)
Democrat
*JAMES McLENDON (incumb.)
Dist. 22 (Chicago)
Democrat
William Stewart
Dist. 22 (Chicago)
Republican
LEWIS A. H. CALDWELL (incumb.)
Dist. 24 (Chicago)
Democrat
*PEGGY SMITH MARTIN
Dist. 26 (Chicago)
Democrat
*HAROLD WASHINGTON
Dist. 26 (Chicago)
Democrat
Maurice Beacham
Dist. 26 (Chicago)
Republican
James C. Taylor (incumb.)
Dist. 26 (Chicago)
Independent
*EUGENE M. BARNES (incumb.)
Dist. 29 (Chicago)
Democrat
*RAYMOND W. EWELL (incumb.)
Dist. 29 (Chicago)
Democrat
*ROBERT H. HOLLAWAY
Dist. 29 (Chicago)
Republican
Elwood Graham (incumb.)
Dist. 29 (Chicago)
Republican
Senate:
FRED J. SMITH (incumb.)
Dist. 22 (Chicago)
Democrat
RICHARD A. NEWHOUSE, JR. (incumb. )Dist. 24 (Chicago)
Democrat
CECIL A. PARTEE (incumb.)
Dist. 26 (Chicago)
Democrat
CHARLES CHEW, JR. (incumb.)
Dist. 29 (Chicago)
Democrat
Caleb A. Davis, Jr.
Dist. 29 (Chicago)
Republican
KENNETH HALL (incumb.)
Dist. 57 (E. St. Louis)
Democrat
James Pirtle
Dist. 57 (E. St. Louis)
Republican
INDIANA
State House:
*ROBERT FREELAND
Dist. 5
Democrat
JEWELL G. HARRIS
Dist. 5
Democrat
John I. Campbell
Dist. 5
Republican
Frederick B. Welch
Dist. 5
A
FORD
Republican
*WILLIAM ALEXANDER
Dist. 45
*JULIA CARSON
Dist. 45
RALD
*BILL CRAWFORD
Dist. 45
LIBRARY
Democrat
Democrat
1/4
Democrat
Joe Wynn
Dist. 45
Republican
Senate:
RUDOLPH CLAY
Dist. 3 (Gary)
Democrat
*Multi-member district
Page 5 - List
KANSAS
State House:
JAMES P. DAVIS (incumb.)
Dist. 34 (Kansas City)
Democrat
CLARENCE C. LOVE (incumb.)
Dist. 35 (Kansas City)
Democrat
EUGENE ANDERSON
Dist. 83 (Wichita)
Democrat
THEO CRIBBS
Dist. 89 (Wichita)
Democrat
Senate:
BILLY Q. McCARY
Dist. 29 (Wichita)
Democrat
MASSACHUSETTS
State House:
MELVIN B. KING
Dist. 4 (Suffolk)
Democrat
*ROYAL L. BOLLING, SR. (incumb.)
Dist. 7 (Suffolk)
Democrat
*MRS. DORIS BUNTE
Dist. 7 (Suffolk)
Republican
Agnes E. Moore
Dist. 7 (Suffolk)
Republican
Robert S. White
Dist. 7 (Suffolk)
Republican
*ROYAL L. BOLLING, JR.
Dist. 10 (Suffolk)
Democrat
*WILLIAM OWENS
Dist. 10 (Suffolk)
Democrat
Rodney Brooks
Dist. 10 (Suffolk)
Republican
Mildred L. Riley
Dist. 10 (Suffolk)
Independent
Edward S. Texiera
Dist. 10 (Suffolk)
Communist
MICHIGAN
State House:
ALMA STALLWORTH (incumb.)
Dist. 4 (Detroit)
Democrat
MORRIS HOOD, JR. (incumb.)
Dist. 6 (Detroit)
Democrat
RAYMOND W. HOOD (incumb.)
Dist. 7 (Detroit)
Democrat
DAISY ELLIOTT (incumb.)
Dist. 8 (Detroit)
Democrat
GEORGE EDWARDS (incumb.)
Dist. 9 (Detroit)
OF
FORD
Democrat
Erma Zampty
Dist. 9 (Detroit)
Republican
JAMES BRADLEY (incumb.)
Dist. 15 (Detroit)
Barbara Warren
Dist. 15 (Detroit)
MATTHEW McNEELY (incumb.)
GERALD
Dist. 16 (Detroit)
LIBRARY
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Stanley Tucker
Dist. 16 (Detroit)
Republican
JACKIE VAUGHN III (incumb.)
Dist. 18 (Detroit)
Democrat
MRS. ROSETTA FERGUSON (incumb.)
Dist. 20 (Detroit)
Democrat
Martha S. Williams
Dist. 20 (Detroit)
Republican
DAVID S. HOLMES, JR. (incumb.)
Dist. 21 (Detroit)
Democrat
Jessie M. Ransom
Dist. 21 (Detroit)
Republican
EARL E. NELSON (incumb.)
Dist. 57 (Lansing)
CHARLIE HARRISON
Dist. 62 (Pontiac)
Democrat
*Multi-member district
Page 6 - List
MINNESOTA
State House:
RAMOND PLEASANT
(Bloomington)
Republican
Senate:
ROBERT LEWIS
Dist. 41
Democrat
MISSOURI
State House:
HAROLD L. HOLLIDAY, SR. (incumb.) Dist.26 (Kansas City)
Democrat
Orchid Nee Jordan (incumb.)
Dist. 26 (Kansas City)
Democrat
PHILLIP CURLS
Dist. 28 (Kansas City)
Democrat
LEO McKAMEY
Dist. 36 (Kansas City)
Democrat
RAYMOND QUARLES
Dist. 63 (St. Louis)
Democrat
RUSSELL GOWARD (incumb.)
Dist. 65 (St. Louis)
Democrat
Rich Hughes
Dist. 65 (St. Louis)
Republican
JOHNNIE AIKEN (incumb.)
Dist. 66 (St. Louis)
Democrat
JAMES CARRINGTON
Dist. 67 (St. Louis)
Democrat
FRED WILLIAMS (incumb.)
Dist 78 (St. Louis)
Democrat
NATHANIEL RIVERS (incumb.)
Dist. 79 (St. Louis)
Democrat
J. B. BANKS (incumb.)
Dist. 80 (St. Louis)
Democrat
DE VERNE CALLOWAY (incumb.)
Dist. 81 (St. Louis)
Democrat
HAROLD MARTIN
Dist. 82 (St. Louis)
Democrat
Senate:
RAYMOND HOWARD (incumb.)
Dist. 4
Democrat
NEBRASKA
State House
ERNEST CHAMBERS (incumb.)
Dist. 11 (Omaha)
Jim Hart
Dist. 11
NEVADA
FORD a GERALD LIBRARY
State House
REV. MARION BENNETT
Dist. 6 (Las Vegas)
Democrat
Vetters Atkins
Dist. 6
Republican
CRANFORD CRAWFORD, JR.
Dist. 7
Democrat
Virginia Brooks
Dist. 7
Democrat
Senate:
JOE NEAL
Dist. 4
Democrat
Woodrow Wilson (incumb.)
Dist. 4
Republican
Page 7 - List
NEW MEXICO
State House:
LENTON MALRY (incumb.)
Dist. 18 (Albuquerque)
Democrat
NEW YORK
State House:
GUY R. BREWER (incumb.)
29th Assembly Dist. (Queens)
Democrat
ED GRIFFITH
40th (Brooklyn)
Democrat
WOODROW LEWIS
53rd (Brooklyn)
Democrat
SAMUEL D. WRIGHT (incumb)
54th (Brooklyn)
Democrat
THOMAS R. FORTUNE (incumb.)
55th (Brooklyn)
Democrat
CALVIN WILLIAMS (incumb.)
56th (Brooklyn)
Democrat
Albert Vann
56th (Brooklyn)
Independent
JESSE GRAY
70th (Manhattan)
Democrat
Joyce M. Aaron
70th (Manhattan)
Lib
GEORGE MILLER (incumb.)
72nd (Manhattan)
Democrat
MARK SOUTHHALL (incumb.)
74th (Manhattan)
Shirley Cuevas
74th (Manhattan)
Republican
Edward R. Culvert
74th (Manhattan)
Lib
ESTELLA B. DIGGS
78th (Bronx)
Democrat
ARTHUR 0. EVE (incumb.)
143rd (Buffalo)
Democrat
Senate:
VANDER LLOYD BEATTY
18th (Brooklyn)
Democrat
SIDNEY A. VON LUTHER (incumb.)
28th (Manhattan)
Democrat
ROBERT GARCIA
30th
Rep-Lib.
JOSEPH L. GALIBER (incumb.)
32nd
Dem.-Rep.-Lib.
NORTH CAROLINA
State House:
HENRY E. FRYE, (incumb.)
Greensboro
Democrat
JOY J. JOHNSON, (Incumb.)
Fairmont
Democrat
H.M. MICHAUX, JR.
Durham
Democrat
Senate:
ALEXANDER BARNES
Durham
RALD of R. FORD JBRART
Republican
OHIO
State House:
TROY LEE JAMES (incumb.)
9th Dist.
Democrat
THOMAS BELL
10th Dist. (Cleveland)
Democrat
IKE THOMPSON, (incumb.)
13th Dist. (Cleveland)
Democrat
Ethel Robinson
13th Dist. (Cleveland)
Republican
JOHN D. THOMPSON (incumb.)
15th Dist.
Democrat
WILLIAM L. MALLORY, (incumb.)
23rd Dist.
Democrat
JAMES W. RANKIN, (incumb.)
25th Dist.
Democrat
Ronald Morgan
25th Dist.
Republican
Page 8 - List
OHIO (continued)
State House:
PHALE D. HALE, (incumb.)
31st Dist. (Columbus)
Democrat
Lucian Wright
31st Dist. (Columbus)
Republican
C.J. McLIN, JR.
36th Dist. (Dayton)
Democrat
Edgar Ramsey
36th Dist. (Dayton)
Republican
CASEY C. JONES, (incumb.)
45th Dist.
Democrat
OKLAHOMA
State House:
VISANIO A. JOHNSON, (incumb.)
Dist. 99 (Oklahoma City)
Democrat
MRS. HANNAH D. ATKINS (incumb.)
(Oklahoma City)
Democrat
BERNARD McINTYRE,
(Tulsa)
Democrat
OREGON
State House:
WILLIAM McCOY
Dist. 15 (Portland)
Democrat
PENNSYLVANIA
State House:
LEROY K. IRVIS (incumb.)
Dist. 19
Democrat
JOSEPH RHODES, JR.
Dist. 24 (Pittsburgh)
Democrat
Vivian Lane
Dist. 24
Republican
ULYSSES SHELTON, (incumb.)
Dist. 181
Democrat
Willie Mae Dyches
Dist. 181
Republican
EARL VANN, (incumb.)
Dist. 186
Democrat
William H. Black
Dist. 186
Republican
LUCIEN E. BLACKWELL
Dist. 188
Democrat
Margaret Savage
Dist. 188
Republican
JAMES D. BARBER (incumb.)
Dist. 190
Roy E. Dixon
Dist. 190
RALD GE R. FORD UBRART
Democrat
Republican
Page 9 - List
PENNSYLVANIA (continued)
State House:
HARDY WILLIAMS, (incumb.)
Dist. 191
Democrat
Linwood Williams
Dist. 191
Republican
CHARLES P. HAMMOCK
Dist. 195
Democrat
Herbert Hawkins
Dist. 195
Malcolm X
William Ward
Dist. 195
Republican
JOEL J. JOHNSON (incumb.)
Dist 197
Democrat
Edwin Griffin
Dist. 197
Republican
DAVID P. RICHARDSON
Dist. 201
Democrat
Pearl L. Frazier
Dist. 201
Republican
Senate:
HERBERT ARLENE, (incumb.)
Dist. 3
Democrat
Henery J. Nimimons
Dist. 3
Republican
Richard Schell
Dist. 3
Malcolm X
FREEMAN HANKINS (incumb.)
Dist. 7
Democrat
James C. Shepard
Dist. 7
Republican
RHODE ISLAND
State House:
PETER J. COELHO (incumb.)
(Providence)
Democrat
GERALD R FOR
SOUTH CAROLINA
State House:
ROBERT R. WOODS
Charleston Co.
Democrat
HERBERT FIELDING (incumb.)
Charleston Co.
Democrat
ERNEST FINNEY
Sumter Co.
Democrat
B. J. GORDON
Williamsburg Co.
Democrat
TENNESSEE
State House:
HAROLD M. LOVE (incumb.)
Dist. 54 (Nashville)
Democrat
Dorothy Grown
Dist. 54
Independent
Edwin Mitchell
Dist. 54
Independent
CHARLES W. PRUITT, (incumb.)
Dist. 58 (Nashville)
Democrat
HAROLD E. FORD, (incumb.)
Dist. 86 (Memphis)
Democrat
Bernard Roberson
Dist. 86
Republican
IRA MURPHY (incumb.)
Dist. 87 (Shelby Cty.)
Democrat
LOIS DEBERRY
Dist. 91
Democrat
ALVIN M. KING (incumb.)
Dist. 92 (Memphis)
Democrat
Larry Garrett
Dist. 92
Republican
HARPER BREWER
Dist. 98
Senate:
J. 0. PATTERSON
Dist. 8
Democrat
TEXAS
State House:
SAMUEL W. HUDSON III
Dist. 33C (Dallas)
Democrat
MRS. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
Dist. 33-0 (Dallas)
Democrat
PAUL RAGSDALE
Dist. 33N (Dallas)
Democrat
G. J. SUTTON
Dist. 57E (San Antonio)
Democrat
Curtis Neal, Jr.
Dist. 57E
Republican
ANTHONY HALL
Dist. 85 (Houston)
Democrat
CRAIG A. WASHINGTON
Dist. 86 (Houston)
Democrat
BEN REYES
Dist. 87 (Houston)
Democrat
MICKEY LELAND
Dist. 88 (Houston)
Democrat
MRS. SENFRONIA THOMPSON
Dist. 89 (Houston)
Democrat
WASHINGTON
State House:
PEGGIE JOAN MAXIE (incumb.)
Dist. 37 (Seattle)
Democrat
Harley W. Bird
Dist. 37
Republican
Michael K. Ross, (incumb.)
Dist. 37
R.
GERALD
FLORA
Republican
WEST VIRGINIA
State House:
ERNEST C. MOORE, (incumb.)
McDowell County
Democrat
Page 11 - List
WISCONSIN
State House:
LLOYD A. BARBEE, (incumb.)
Dist. 18 (Milwaukee)
Democrat
WALTER L. WARD, JR.
Dist. 17
Democrat
Arthur L. Gillespie, Jr.
Dist. 17
Republican
Senate:
MONROE SWAN
Dist. 6
Democrat
Arthur J. Myers
Dist. 6
Republican
GE LIBRARY RALD R. FORD
SPEECH BY LOUIS HARRIS
President, Louis Harris and Associates
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, Washington, D.C.
November 10th, 1972
For Release: 1 PM, November 10th, 1972 -- Not Before
Right at the outset, let me assure the members of the press corps of one thing:
I don't expect this to be my last election; in 1976, and before that I suspect, you are
still going to have the polls to kick around.
The fact the Harris Survey came out to within .2 of 1 percent of forecasting
the Nixon vote last Tuesday does not prove that polls are infallible. It only proves
that if you can manage to survive a complete goof in an Oregon Republican primary of 1964,
of being 3 points on the wrong side of the British election of 1970, and of being 3 points
off in the 1968 election (albeit saying both elections "too close to call"), sooner or
later the laws of probability are bound to come your way. I like to think they still
owe me a couple.
As I have reiterated many times before in the past, my own view is that it is
patent nonsense to pretend that even modern day polling is so precise that it can produce
the correct numbers on the head of a pin every time out. We should be able to live within
the caveat that polls done correctly should be within 3 or 4 points of the winner's total
in 95 out of 100 cases. Any claim to greater accuracy must be labeled as an overclaim
that this art-science is more precise than it really is or likely will be.
FORD A. LIBRARY RALD GERALD
- 2 -
In any case, that's not what polls are all about, in my opinion. The reason for
being of poll-taking is to widen the understanding of what is going on regarding the
issues that are the dynamics of a given election. It is you fellows -- not us -- who
insist on the numbers in a head-to-head pairing between candidates. And we have to do it
so that you will be believers of the in-depth reporting which is the fun and satisfaction
of this business. It keeps us both honest, perhaps.
It is perhaps only fitting that this moment of our highest credibility should
be used to state as bluntly as I know how some of the problems we face as a profession.
The heart of the polling problem today is that public opinion surveys are taken seriously,
not only by candidates for high office, not only by important men in the seats of power
in Washington and elsewhere in America, but also by the ruling groups in Moscow, Peking,
and Hanoi, among other.
I hope keenly that poll results are taken as an accurate gauge of what public
opinion is, rather than as a lode star for a leader to slavishly follow. A great leader
can turn public opinion around - and poll results will follow. And this is a time for
that kind of leadership. For there has never been a time when trust of leadership in all
phases of American life was lower and the yearning of the people greater for new and
creative leadership.
RALD GE R. FORD UBRART
3
But, precisely because polls are taken seriously, it is utterly necessary for
polls that are reported in the public media to be properly conducted and fully reported.
The keys to this problem are two-fold: first, to have the media apply much more stringent
criteria on the quality of polls reported and only to report the full findings of those
known to be conducted in sound and responsible ways; and second, to demand of the poll-takers
themselves a policy of full disclosure.
DUI have taken an unalterable position against Congressional legislation regulating
polls and SO testified recently before the Nedzi Committee. My view is that such regulation,
however much I might not object to the initial legislation, will inevitably lead to
regulation of freedom of inquiry itself, involving the whole spectrum of the media.
However, by taking such a position, I place upon myself and my colleagues in
our field a deep responsibility to engage in a practice of full disclosure. In line with
these views, I am therefore voluntarily sending a master copy of our final computer
print-outs, copies of the questionnaire, and a description of the methods used in weighting
and sampling our Presidential pairings to the Library of Congress, not only for the 1972
but also for the 1968 Presidential elections. I intend to do the same in 1976. With this
act, I would hope that our results will then be open to anyone who cares to inspect and
analyze just how we go about making our final assessment. I would hope that all my
colleagues whose polls have been published in the media will follow suit.
RALD R. FORD
We have nothing to hide -- but we do not accept that it is the proper role of government
authority to regulate any phase of the reporting process.
Of course, I have long felt that if the only value of polls were their ability
to properly forecast who would win or lose in an election, I would long ago have abandoned
this profession. In their own wisdom, the American people are no doubt wholly competent
to make their own electoral decision without. the help of the likes of me or my colleagues
in polling. Possibly, perish the thought, even without the help of all members of the
National Press Club.
If we poll-takers have a contribution to make, it is in digging as far as we can
below the surface preferences and reporting how the American people went about making
their great decision of this past week, what the shape of a mandate might be, if indeed
there is such a thing as a mandate, and what all of the crosscurrents of the balloting and
ticket-splitting might portend for the future in our politics.
Let me begin with some basic facts of political life as they largely existed
before the political campaign of 1972 even began and as they have not changed now that
it is all over:
GERALD GE R. FORD GBRART
Fact #1: Although an incumbent President has been re-elected by a landslide
proportion, over four in ten of the American people 18 years of age and over feel alienated
from the leadership of U.S. institutions, public and private. Since 1966, alienation
among our population has jumped dramatically. Let me give you some specifics:
the number who agree with the statement - quote "the rich get richer and the poor get
poorer" unquote - has risen sharply from 48% in 1966 to 61% just this past week;
those who agree that - quote "what you think doesn't count much" unquote has grown
from 39 to 53%, a majority; the number who think. quote "people running the country
don't care what happens to people such as yourself" unquote - is up from 28 to 50% in
6 years; and those who quote "feel left out of things around me" unquote - up from
9 to 22% over the same period.
LERRARY GERALD R. FORD
There is a kind of bottom line to this sense of alienation: by 52-37%,
a
majority thinks living in this country is worse than it was 10 years ago.
Fact #2: The focus of this alienation is not nearly so much directed against
such often reported targets as protesting, young, militant blacks, or hippies on drugs,
or long-hairs who use profanity, but rather the dead aim target can best be described
as the Establishment, the people running the dominant institutions in this country.
Recently, when we asked a cross section of voters if they had to choose between a crackdown
on youthful protesters and militant blacks or a crackdown on big business pollutors of the
air and water, by 58-30%, a sizable majority vented their wrath on industrial pollutors.
Here is a roll call of just how much the establishment -- both public and
private -- has fallen from grace in the past six years: leaders of labor unions,
never highly regarded, have dropped from 22 to 15% who have a great deal of confidence
in them; the media, down from 29 to 18%; the U.S. Supreme Court was 51%, but has
fallen to 28%; the executive branch of the federal government, down from 41 to 27%;
Congress, down from 41 to 21%; military leaders, a precipitous drop from 62 to 35%;
businessmen have fallen from 58% all the way to 27%; scientists from 56 to 37%;
and educators from 61 to 33%.
The clear warning from these results is that unless the quality of life in
this country improves, the people themselves are fully prepared to turn the rascals out
who are sitting in the seats of power -- both in the public and private sectors.
Fact #3: But even more fundamental shifts have taken place in the make up of
our electorate since 1968 than during any comparable four-year period in modern political
history. One group of voters, which has received more than its share of attention, tends
to be increasingly resistant to change. They are particularly upset by issues such as
busing school children to achieve racial balance; they are bitterly opposed to granting
amnesty to draft evaders who left the country; they are opposed to easing penalties for
possession of marijuana, and they tend to feel that judges and others in the system of
law enforcement have been too permissive.
FORD & IBRARY RALD 30
- 7 -
Among those groups who feel most strongly on such issues are persons over 50 years of
age, union members, those whose education did not go beyond the eighth grade, residents
of small towns, and those with incomes between $5000 and $10,000.
This group has been called Middle America, at times the Silent Majority.
Yet the singular mark of each of these groups is that their numbers are shrinking
as a proportion of the electorate. Older people were 43% of the voters in 1968, but
made up no more than an estimated 38% in last Tuesday's voting, a drop of 5 points.
Those whose education never went beyond the eighth grade dropped from 19% of the electorate
in 1968 to 13% this year, a fall-off of 6 points. The union member vote decreased from
23 to 18%, off 5 points. Residents of small towns were 22% of all the voters in 1968,
but now are no more than 14%, a drop of 8 points. People with incomes of $5000-$10,000
were 43% of the electorate, but last Tuesday made up no more than 33%, a shrinkage of
10 points.
Taken as a whole, these groups which might be called the stand-pat or
anti-change coalition were roughly 55% of the electorate in 1968, but by 1972 accounted
for no more than an even half - - 50%.
A. FORD LIC.
RALD w
Quite a different group of voters can be found among those under 30 years of
age, those who call themselves independents rather than affiliated with either political
party, persons who live in the suburbs, those who have had some college education, and
persons in the $15,000-and-over bracket. This is the group I spoke to you about in this
room four years ago as the "new coalition for change."
The singular mark of this other group is that they are concerned and aroused
by quite a different roster of issues. They feel strongly about the quality of life,
and want tougher measures taken to curb air and water pollution. They led the way last
Tuesday toward initiating and passing pro-environmental referenda across the country.
They tend to favor legalized abortions up to three months pregnancy, two in three are
not upset by long hair, mod styles, and manners among young people, and perhaps most
of all, they want to see an era of peace between the super-powers of the earth rather
than confrontation that can escalate up to nuclear warfare. Basically, a majority of
these people are committed to change -- concrete and pragmatic, not ideological, but real.
Without exception, the pro-change coalition is rising in numbers among the
electorate. More has been said about the influx of young voters into the electorate
than any others. The fact is that in going from an estimated 18% in 1968 to 24% of
the total registered to vote this year, 6 percent, the young have by no means been the
most rapidly growing group in the voting population.
FORD & RALE BRAR 3
Independent voters have gone from 16% of all voters four years ago to 22% last Tuesday,
also up 6 points. Suburban voters jumped from 27 to 33%, also up 6 points in 4 years.
The college-educated rose from 27 to 35% of the electorate, up 8 points. And the
$15,000 and over income group literally leaped ahead from 11 to 20%, an increase of
9 percent among affluent Americans.
Taken as a whole, this group, this new coalition for change, was 45% of the
electorate in 1968, but now is also roughly 50% of all the voters in 1972. A standoff
vis-a-vis the stand-patters.
The key point about these shifts in the make-up of the electorate is that the
division in America today is between the forces for change vs. no change, rather than
between an ideological right or an ideological left, with a big fuzzy middle supposedly
making up the majority balance of power. It is my view that it is impossible to understand
what happened in this election without understanding these basic facts.
The alienation I have mentioned existed among both the change and no-change
groups, as the impressive Wallace and McGovern votes in the primaries this spring
amply testified.
RALD GE R. FORD ABRART
10 -
Just four years ago on this same platform, I posed the 1972 problem for then
just elected President Nixon in these words: (And I ask your indulgence while I quote
myself) "His massive problem as President will be to cope with the new and growing
change coalition. To build a bridge to the change group will be the acid test of the
Nixon Administration. If he makes it, without losing his no-change base, he could
easily become a two-term President. If he fails to span the gap, politically he
will find that the new change elements have grown by 1972 and that election will be
an irons on irons confrontation of the new and the old." Unquote.
The essential story of the 1972 election is that Richard Nixon seems to
have understood this lesson of a changing electorate very well indeed, and, in the
end, he was capable of putting together a majority fashioned out of both the change and
no-change groups.
Or perhaps it should be said that George McGovern, who emerged as a candidate
firmly committed to change, proved incapable of communicating a message of orderly as
opposed to radical change. And when he spent the best days of his campaign trying
fruitlessly to assure the stand-patters that he really represented no change from the
Democratic politics of the past, he weakened his credibility with those looking for
a new kind of politics.
GCRALD GE
FORD & LIBRARY RALO
11
Ponder these twin results, if you will, from our last pre-election survey,
taken five days ago: by 58-32 percent, a solid majority thought McGovern wanted to
quote "change things too much" unquote but at the very same time by an even larger
63-26 percent, a larger majority also agreed with the statement - quote "he seemed to
be a different type of political leader, but lately seems just another politician
promising each group of voters what it wants." unquote. The net result was a final,
decisive judgment that plagued McGovern from July onward and ended with a prophetic
60-29% majority on the election eve who agreed that - quote "he just didn't inspire
enough confidence as a President should." unquote.
How McGovern ended up in this position is one of the great stories of lost
opportunity in modern American political history.
From the beginning of his long drive for the nomination, McGovern's strategy
was two-fold: (1) that he would stake out an anchor point as the one Democrat who stood
for change and for the new politics, on the one hand, and (2) that the centrist Democrats
would kill each other off during the primaries. In addition, McGovern would corral an
army of young people who could deliver their vote on primary day.
FORD in LIBRARY RALD
30
12
Obviously, that strategy worked up to and through the Democratic convention.
Hubert Humphrey syphoned off a sizable chunk of the Muskie vote and John Lindsay and
Henry Jackson fizzled and dropped out. But the big surprise of the primary season
was the strength outside of the South for George Wallace. The Wallace and McGovern
phenomena had one basic appeal in common back then: both appealed to the 47% of the
vote which was alienated and both appealed to the disenchantment of voters with the
Establishment, especially big business, and the wide desire for tax reform.
A significant addition to our list of alienation items in 1972 was the propositio
that - quote "tax laws are written to help the rich not the average man" unquote
believed by a massive 74% of the voters. A staggering 91% of the public expressed a
desire for changes in the tax laws which would - quote "ease the burden on moderate
and low income families but increase taxes on higher income people and corporations. unquot
By 58-32%, a big majority felt they were not receiving quote "good value for their tax
dollars." unquote. Alienation among McGovern voters early in the year ran to 57% and
among Wallace voters to 55%.
Had Wallace entered delegates in all of the state primaries, he could have
mounted a delegate count perhaps as high as 1000 or maybe even above that, based on his
showing in the primaries.
RALA FORD JERARY
GE
The indelible fact of the 1972 run for the presidency among the Democrats was that once
everything else was wiped out, the choice at the convention might well have come down
to Wallace and McGovern, both of whom represented minority choices of the rank-and-file
of the voters of the Democratic Party.
Despite the optimistic claims of the McGovern managers that McGovern had
majority backing among enrolled Democrats, even their own polls did not show his
average support in the primary states much above the 30% mark. Our own high water mark
for McGovern among Democrats was 27%. For Wallace, it was never more than 22%.
Inevitably, the Democratic Party by the end of the primary season had boxed
itself into the position of having only minority choices left from which to select its
candidate. Of course, the tragic attempt on his life finally knocked Wallace out of
contention altogether in 1972. But the fact is that the Democratic Party found itself
with a Hobson's choice between two minority champions of the alienated, neither of whom
was likely to be electable. It proved to be prophetic and telling, indeed, when early
on in the primary season we matched both McGovern and Wallace against Nixon in head-to-head
Presidential pairings. McGovern lost by 59-32 percent; while Wallace lost by an even
larger 59-24 percent.
RALD GE Fi. FORD JBRART
Yet, probably the shift of the alienated Wallace vote to the Nixon column in
early June by an 80-20 percent margin closed the door on George McGovern's chances to
win the White House. Our own polls show that the key period of McGovern decline was not
during or after the Eagleton affair, and certainly not as a result of the July Democratic
convention, which was believed to be more significant, more appealing, and more interesting
than the Republican convention. McGovern's eclipse started during the final week of the
early June California primary.
For it was in California that Senator Humphrey found the jugular in his attack
on McGovern's initial tax reform income
stribution welfare reform package. The
latter was marked indelibly by the promise to give every man, woman, and child $1000
a year from the federal larder. This idea was roundly rejected by the voters themselves
by an overwhelming 73-15 percent and plagued McGovern right trough Election Day.
The weekend before the election, by 62-24 %, a majority still felt that his -
quote "income redistribution plan was too radical." unquote.
Well, what really happened with that plan of McGovern's in its impact upon
the voters?
RALD GE R. FORD TBRAAT
In effect, he started out by promising sweeping tax reform, and, as just reported,
that part of the program by itself would have been sweet music to disenchanted, bone-weary
taxpayers, who were seeking some relief and sympathy from someone in authority. But,
instead of promising the voters they would be the recipients of the tax reform and the
higher levies on the rich and unpopular big business, McGovern in one fell swoop went
clear past the rank-and-file of voters and pronounced the beneficiaries of the reform
would be welfare recipients. He left an army of the disenchanted out in the cold,
alienated nearly every family with an income of $12,000 or over and many of those who
aspire to making over that amount, and permanently had the label "radical" pinned on
him by a member of his own party.
It is now forgotten that in May, McGovern was only 7 points behind President Nixc
in our poll -- by a 48-41% margin. He held a lead in the East and was in striking distance
in the Midwest and West. He was ahead in the big cities and only a few points behind in
the pivotal suburbs. He led among the young, was only 7 point behind among independents,
and was only 6 behind among the $15,000 and over group. Clearly, he had a golden
opportunity to put together a coalition for viable change that could bring him within
striking distance of the President. Combined with his 4-to-1 lead among blacks, he might
even have made it in November.
RALD GE R. FORD
But after the California primary in June he slipped from 7 to 16 points behind.
He had dropped to 20 points behind before the Democratic convention ever began, and
came out of the Eagleton affair 23 points on the short end. The net impact of the
Eagleton episode was that he permanently lost his lead among young people under 30.
For by 2-1, the group on whom McGovern had staked so much felt he had taken an
insensitive stand on a sensitive issue, besides behaving like a conventional politician.
George McGovern lost the election in the period from June to October. At the
beginning, two in three voters admired him for having - quote "courage to say what he
thinks even if it is unpopular." unquote. At the end, his courage was even more admired.
But he had lost the glitter of being the anti-politics type that made him seem so
promising to so many in May.
By 3-1 voters started out admiring him for standing for tax reform, but in the
end, over 2 inevery 3 felt he didn't want to alleviate their tax load, but rather to
funnel the new sources of taxes on the rich to those on welfare.
By 2-1, voters felt he "deserved a lot of credit for being against the war in
Vietnam before others." But, in the end, he had unfortunately communicated the notion
that he favored peace at any price. By 46-33%, a week before the élection, voters said
they thought McGovern, if President, would "agree to peace terms in Vietnam which were
neither right nor honorable for this country."
in
FORD
LIBE
In the end, the main source of admiration left to George McGovern, by 53-24%,
was that "he deserved credit for giving young people faith in the political system."
This was heightened by the highly positive public response to the Democratic Convention
in early July, where majorities of 70-19% liked seeing greater representation for young
people, by 81-13% liked giving women more delegate seats, by 76-17% liked giving blacks
and the Spanish-speaking a greater role, and agreed, 73-19%, that the Democratic convention
was more "open than any before."
The last straw for McGovern came when he tried to restore unity in Democratic
ranks with traditional pork-chop appeals to the union and Catholic vote, by stumping
against right-to-work laws, opposing wage controls, coming out for aid to parochial
schools, and trimming on the abortion issue. Perhaps the most symbolic gesture of this
turnabout was his whole-hearted endorsement of Rep. Louise Day Hicks of Boston in a
state he certainly didn't win by dint of a massive turnaround of Hicks' supporters.
Rather, he slowly but surely turned off many of his original supporters among the
coalition for change. As Shakespeare put it so well, "he scorned the base degrees by
which he did ascend."
In other words, McGovern converted himself into the principal issue of the
1972 campaign.
FORD A. RALD LIBRARY E30
18 -
But, while the McGovern issue was central to 1972's ultimate outcome, the
nagging question still remains: if the country is divided 50-50 between change and
no-change, how could Richard Nixon, an incumbent, sitting President in the White House,
believed by 43% of the voters to be a "conservative" in philosophy, a man who should
have been the symbol of the Establishment, the defender of the status quo, how could
President Nixon have finished almost 22 points ahead of George McGovern, who more than
any other Democrat in 1972, won his party's nomination committed to change?
The answer to that question is to recapitulate the Nixon side of this just
ended, unusual campaign for the White House.
The story really begins back in 1970, when in the off-year elections, the
Republicans swallowed whole the prevailing wisdom that America is unblack, unpoor,
and unyoung, and that by running against militant black excesses, student protesters,
and bleeding hearts for social change, by pinning the label of soft-on-crime and
high-on-permissiveness on the Democrats, by using code words and issues such as busing
to heat up the racial issue, the Republicans might win control of the Congress, or at
least the Senate, in the off-year elections.
FORD di RALD LIBRARY
GE
Well, history recorded the fact that this tack was not successful, and that
it is difficult at best to put a party label on crime and law and order and curbing
drug abuse, and, most of all, unlike rats, we do not eat our young. In addition,
in 1970 the country had fallen into rough economic times, with prices rising rapidly
and unemployment increasing along with the cost of living.
By mid-1971, the fortunes of Richard Nixon had just about hit rock bottom and
it was no worse than even money that he could well be a one-term President. His overall
standing was on working for peace in the world and this was no better than a 48-48%
stand-off. On handling the war in Vietnam he was 61-27% negative, on handling taxes
and spending 75-23% negative, on maintaining law and order and controlling crime 63-31%
negative, keeping unemployment down 71-28% negative, keeping down the cost of living 83-13%
negative, keeping the economy healthy 73-22% negative, and on inspiring confidence personally
in the White House, he was 56-29% negative.
In two-way trial heats against Democrats, Mr. Nixon was running as much as 6 points
behind, and the Democrats had not even begun to mount a campaign against him. Clearly,
Richard Nixon was vulnerable on the twin issues of Vietnam and the economy.
In that summer of 1971, President Nixon made a 180 degrees turn in his approach
to the U.S. electorate. He opted for change. Not ideologically, but pragmatically.
Not philosophically, but practically.
FORD & LIBRARY RALE If
20
In rapid order, he announced a visit to Peking, the seat of extreme, intractable
communist power, the bete noire of countless Nixon and Republican campaigns of the past.
Then, the President on August 15th announced a freeze on all wages and prices. This
was the same Richard Nixon who had vowed he would never resort to a system of controls
to solve the nation's economic ills. Finally, the President announced he would also go to
Russia for a summit meeting after his trip to China. With almost surgical precision,
Mr. Nixon was moving to eliminate the two most obvious points of vulnerability -- the war
and the recession -- and at the same. time to make asbold bid to win re-election as the
candidate of peace.
The results of this strategy quickly changed the results in our own surveys,
and, ultimately, won him re-election.
The overall Nixon job rating among the public rose from a lowly 44% positive
that July of 1971 to 53% by that November, to 56% in June of this year, after his
Moscow trip, and then to its highest point since the honeymoon days of 1969 when
throughout October, it hovered between 59 and 60%.
On the dimension of working for peace, he rose from a 48-48% stand-off to a
67-31 positive standing.
RALD 140 A. FORD UBRART
On the economy, the 62-24% majority who thought the country was in a recession
turned around by October to a 51-34% majority who thought the recession was at last over.
The 70% who thought unemployment was rising in their own home communities shrunk to 31%.
The 56-29% negative on inspiring confidence turned into a 51-41% margin by election time
who thought he did inspire confidence in the White House.
The turnaround in the voting preference was dramatic. Instead of running
6 points behind, Richard Nixon ended up nearly 22 points ahead, a net shift of over one
quarter of the electorate, 28 points. The net gain the President made among the no-change
groups came to 16 points, or 12 points less than the general shift among voters as a whole
over that 1-1/2 year period. Among pro-change voters -- the young, independents, suburban
residents, the college-educated, the $15,000 and over income group -- the Nixon gain from
his low point was a staggering 36%, or 8 above the average.
The key point is that Richard Nixon had gone from an imminently losing position
back in the summer of 1971 to a landslide win in November of 1972. The most significant
part of all this was that he had turned the almost certain opposition of the pro-change
groups in the country into a position of solid support. Perhaps even more important,
for a man who has never enjoyed great response to his personal warmth and charisma,
he had now for the first time mustered up sizable majority backing for his personal abilit
to inspire confidence in the White House.
FORD
RALD
BRAN
14/
In an election such as this one to have just been through, it is
MAN the better part of valor to stop back and try to separate fast from myth, Eers
125 some of the deservations that come out of the results and our own polling experience
L 1972:
- Centrary to much provailing wisdom, the issus of foreign polic
the leg? and abiding thirst for peace a the part of the American people, undoubtoily
letermined the outcome in the run for the White House. Easily the biggest margin for
Miron over McCovern Vas on his ability to nagotiate with the Pussians and Chineso: 70-m
Between Vistnam and the spectacular break-throughs in Paking and Moscow, the Moninary 1
on which the alactorate made its parimary judgment was peace and foreign policy.
And it was precisely in these areas that Richard Nizon hai 0
15%
hisls
high marks from his countrymen. Well over $ scored him will on his two famous trips i
communist capitals, on working for peace in the world, on hardling relations with our all
23 well 23 the Russians and the Chiness.
on the issue of Vietnam, George NeGovern had 2 golden opportun
It. Nimon's marks on Vistnam were essentially negative, and people did not have much faith
his policy of Vistnamization. For two months, however, McCovern helped to pull the Preside
fat out of the firs on Vistmam. The succession of events, including the Jana Fonda and
Pancey Clark visits to Hanoi, the abortive sending of Pierre Salinger to Paris to use the
the stamp 3 2-0-0 Criwd as programia by 75th),
North Vistnamese, the McGovern statements that Thieu would flee from Saigon were he elected
all taken together gave millions of voters pause over how McGevera might handle the Vistnar
1351.. Emiteed of letting the quick sand run out OR President Xixon on the issue, = it h
on President Johnson, McCovern overkilled and somehow, rightor wrong, communicated the noti
a
that America should feel terrible guilt about Vistnam, on the one hand, and that he was
willing to accept peace at any price, on the other.
regun
Nonetheless, by mil-Cotcber, the Vietnan issus H23 beginning
to work against Mr. Nizon. In bombings of the North were acceptable to the public, but onl
53 look 23 there was is promise of their hastaning the day proce that 23 146
37 Caboler 15th, with no overt sign of response from Hanoi, Mixon hald no more than = 6 poll
origo over McGovern on who could bring the yar to an and forter
Then Hanoi surfaced the secret agreement of Cobober
then Dr, Kissinger confirmed the announcement, hopes for a real peace soared, tromically in effer
wring Mr. Nineu cn the Vistnan issue just in the nick of time. In the Mal days, =
PATTY McGovern pounding, there was some erosion by on the issue again. But, with his
STADILIZED
Additionce that be would live by the agreements already mails, President Nimen finally 6
LOAR the issue in the final hours of the campaign.
It must be sointed cut, however, that the American A
AX in his directive pilicis but Natur
Candersd 3 judgment about Richard Nixon A on the peace issue, not because of his rhotoric
but rather because of his acts. They road his acts in foreign policy 23 opting for che
9730 radical change.
Inn
A Co the aconomic issue, President Nixen couldhave been brough
late 23 June or July of this year. His marks in handling the economy and still bett
the 3-2 nagative. But the American people in August finally believed the recession WR:
this
0785, although fears about high prices lingered on until the very and of the compaign.
Again, McGavern aided and abotted III Nixen on this 1
321 McGovern come out strongly for a freese on prices and wages, 3 IO 11-back again, the
economic issue might easily have worked for him. Instead, in his scramble to be an 021
Pashioned Democrat with trade union people, he advocated an elimination of controls -
180 legrees in the wrong direction in terms of political effactiveness,
- I have noticed in these past few days that some have credites
the Jixen rictory to his stands on issues such 23 crime, drugy, amesty, and abortion,
Some straight facts ought to put this foolish notion to rest. Cn headling crime and IIV
and order, 23 of 5 days 250, the Nixon rating was still 61% negative, on institution abortic
nationada the livision is & close 47-42% in favor of legalising it, on his curbing drug
houses the Nixon rating 17 56% negative.
17 2732 blunter claim is that Richard Nixon HOD the election 0
the hilden issus of race, by his emphasis on opposition to busing 2nd to quotes, It is to
that most of the Wallace vote went to President Nixon, ml about half the 145
be Corred racially affected. It is 2]30 true that the S shill holas stronger views on
FORD
2100 then any other region.
Sut, when NO look at the Mixon rating 02 busing, you might be 3u
to learn that to cozes out negative, and his biggest negative can be found among
14 the South, where it is 58% negative. Ca busing, the President was amight in 2 bind,
dor hospite his protestations, it 723 still his Administration that has to order enfore
busings Cr the issue of handling racial problems, again, the Nixon rating is negative:
While it is 51% nagative among blacks, it is nonetheless negative 23 well smon
Whites. And southern whites are more critical of him on racial matters than any other :
is for those analyses which take the group which feels blacks 272
pushing too hard too fast, of course they came down hervily for Richard Nizon. But the
FORSON is simile to explain: he won the South by a margin of approximately 71% of the V:
A similar malysis at Franklin Receevelt's or John Kennedy's victories would have produc
a similar statistical artifact. In fact, one of the irenies of this analysis is that it
ignores the additional fact that in 1972, the black vote approximately donbled from 10 to
20% for Richard Hizen in this election, accounting by itself for a ? mint not shift in
the final vots.
- Had the 1972 election been settled on domastic policy, by on
could
measure 73 have Richard Nixon might have lest it, or at least it would have been much cl:
/
didamentally, what the country did last Tuesday was to gi7a
President Nixon a powerful mandate for change on the issue of peace.and foreign policy, :
to (i70 the Demecratic Congress a powerful mandate for change on domestic policy. In bot
cases, the manate, in my juigment, was more for pragnatic change, "change that works, "as
Mizen himself put it, but not the status quo,
In all likelihock, Richard Nixon will not wold a new and lasting
political majority. Es became a bridgo in 1972 between the old and the new, George McGg
ented up with neither the DOW nor the old. West might have been in 1972 and certainly
provides interesting grist for the mill for 197 was evident in the pairing we released j:
yesteriay between Son. Kannedy and Vice President Agnew, won by Kenned
51406. The young waire for by 66-30%. which may not be surrision,
carrieR the suburbs, the college-sincated, and the independents.
FORD LI
The fact is that neither political party has yet risen to match the
Ifv of the electorate, and, 23 = consequence, party regularity is all but disappeario
2 physically well
from the scens, For emaple, if/George Wallace hed remained a third party condidate, it
13 Dt inconceivable that President Nimn's total might have been closer to 47 or 48%
TALLET than 61%.
I future portands more of change, more volatility, rather than at
firming up, a locking in of a new majority hovering around some amothous center. By 1976,
the pro-change group will probably be 55% of the electorsts. The least we can say about th
future in the aftermath of 1972 is that the new, highly independent ticket-splitting change
group will be the moving force in American politicis. And any politician the ignores it do
is so 2 at his peril.
GERALD GE R. FORD FIBRARI
Massachusetts
Committee
for the Re-election
of the President
77 FRANKLIN STREET, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110 (617) 482-7990
LIEUT. GOV. DONALD R. DWIGHT, Chairman
ADELE MALONE, Co-Chairman
GREGORY W. GALLAGHER, Executive Director
JACK E. ROBINSON Black Vote Division
November 10, 1972
Mr John Wilks
National Committee For The Re-Election
Of The President
1730 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. 3rd Floor
FORD A. RALA LIBRARY 70
Washington, D.C. 02006
Dear John;
The Final Results of the Black Vote Division for the State Of
Massachusetts is as follows;
Not withstanding the well known fact that the Commonwealth of Mass-
achusetts went to McGovern. WE DOUBLED OUR 1968 PREFERENCE FOR THE PRESIDENT
Our final Voter Profile Analysis indicates that the Black Voters in
Massachusetts gave 25.1 % of their vote to the President, as opposed to 11.7 %
during the 1968 election.
Massachusetts has a very inter-mixed population once you move from
the large cities such as Boston and Springfield. The one (1) community that
can be identified as being predominantly Black residential middle class near
the metropolitan Boston area, and within the academic area of Cambridge Mass
is the Medford Massachusetts area Ward #6 Precint 1. This precint gave the
President 45.2% of their vote.
The following statistical profile documents the voter percentages ( for
purposes of authenticity only solid Black wards was included in this profile, if
I used areas that were equally mixed Black and White our percentages would be larger.)
PAGE 2
BLACK VOTER STATISTICAL PROFILE FOR MASSACHUSETTS
1972
CITY
WARD
PRECINT
NIXON
MCGOVERN
NIXON PERCENTAGE
BOSTON
8
ALL
564
1847
9
All
404
2025
12
ALL
706
4417
14
ALL
728
5912
2,402
14,201
16.9%
CAMBRIDGE
6
5
721
2263
31.8%
MEDFORD
6
1
395
872
45.2%
SPRINGFIELD
4
A
200
381
B
55
210
C
75
425
D
158
485
E
118
857
F
62
210
5
A
76
208
B
90
252
C
98
474
D
172
459
E
168
258
F
363
419
G
538
683
2,173
5,321
40.8%
WORCESTER
9
5
281
400
70.2%
TOTAL VOTE (Representative)
5,972
23,057
PERCENTAGE VOTE FOR PRESIDENT NIXON
25.8%
FORD & LIBRARY RALA
The aforementioned concludes my final report on the election percentages
if further clarification is neccessary we will be happy to comply.
cc; Mr Robert Brown
Lt. Governor Donald Dwight
Mr Stan Scott
Mr Paul Jones
Mr Edwin Sexton
THE ST. LOUIS METRO
SENTINEL
TOGETHER FOR INTEGRITY, JUSTICE, SERVICE
HOWARD B. WOODS
Editor and Publisher
SUITE 1101 SHELL BLDG.
1221 LOCUST
ST. LOUIS, MO. 63103
November 13, 1972
314 436-1800
Dear Stan:
Now that the campaign is over I thought that you might want
to see some of the coverage we gave your people out here in
St. Louis. As I indicated to the President and Herb Klein
we backed Kit Bond for Governor as well as Jack Danforth for
Attorney-General. We did not support the President editorially,
but I am enclosing for your perusal the nature of our support
for the Democratic candidate. You understand that the issues
in the city were sharply drawn and we attempted to remain sensi-
tive thereto.
We provided other assistance which your office might want to
check with your people out here.
Sincerely,
100
Howard B. Woods
Mr. Stanley Scott
Assistant to the Director
of Communications for the Executive Branch
THE WHITE HOUSE
Washington, D.C.
Enclosures
RALD GE F. FORD
ST. LOUIS' MOST CONSTRUCTIVE WEEKLY
LOS ANGELES TIMES SYNDICATE
Times Mirror Square / Los Angeles, California 90053
THE NICK THIMMESCH COLUMN
RELEASE DATE: Tuesday, November 14, 1972
BLACK NIXON: SUPPORTERS LIVE WITH BLACK CRITICISM
by Nick Thimmesch
WASHINGTON- good that President Nixon got improved support from black
voters in last week's election, though the quality of rhetoric over his appeal to
blacks worsened considerably. Black celebrities like Sammy Davis Jr. still smart
from the names they were called for backing Mr. Nixon.
No conclusive figures are available, but indications are Mr. Nixon doubled
his black vote from 1968 when he got a bare 8%. A 22-city survey of "inner city"
precincts by the Joint Center for Political Studies showed the President getting
these percentages: New York, 18%; Baltimore, 15%; Memphis, 14%; Washington, 11%;
Dallas, 11%; Miami, 10%, and Chicago, 8%.
Mr. Nixon's black campaign strategists report, however, higher preliminary
figures for metropolitan areas because the blacks in middle-class neighborhoods are
more likely to vote for him than "inner city" residents. Their survey shows
Louisville, 30%; Philadelphia, 30%; Nashville, 24%, and Houston, 17%.
One of Mr. Nixon's more remarkable showings was the 18% he notched in
FORD a RALD LIBRA
New York City's 70th assembly district, in a poor neighborhood in Harlem where
13
Republicans are as scarce as $1,000 bills.
There was nothing but shrill condemnation of Mr. Nixon by black political
leaders during the campaign, especially from the Black Caucus, ostensibly bipartisan.
And those black personalities like Sammy Davis Jr., Jim Brown, Johnny Mathis,
Billy Eckstein and James Brown, who endorsed Mr. Nixon and campaigned for him,
caught all manner of verbal abuse and threats of boycotts. Rep. Louis Stokes
(D-Ohio) said, "They have turned their backs on their own people they are dancing
to the tune of benign neglect." The Nixon blacks were called "sellouts, Uncle Toms,
political prostitutes and fools" by black Democrats including Julian Bond of the
invistature.
Los Angeles, California
Page Two
THE NICK THIMMESCH COLUMN,
Nov. 14, 1972
Georgia Legislature.
Sammy Davis Jr. got the worst of it--scores of hate letters, a bad press
and a small scattering of boos in Chicago where he was entertaining free, as usual,
for a black cause.
"I've caught real hell three times in my life," Davis told me after the
election. "When I converted to Judaism, when I married May Britt (white Swedish
actress) and when I came out for Richard Nixon. So I'm used: to it, I'm purified.
"The mandate he got vindicates the people like me who worked for him a long
time before I backed him. I figured out where his head was, and decided that's
what was best for the country, including black folks. Things are happening under
him in a solid way."
Nixon-haters claim Davis will get a tax break for his support, that singer
James Brown's radio stations will have their licenses protected, that Floyd B.
McKissick, former CORE director, sold out for a federal grant for a North Carolina
housing project he is sponsoring.
"Man, I don't owe the government a cent, says Davis. "I just paid
$300,000. I always pay my taxes. That's a bunch of jive."
Singer James Brown has no reason to think the FCC will lift his station
licenses--no matter whom he supports. Jim Brown, the one-time football-great-
turned actor, is 50 formidable and independent-minded a figure, nobody, black or
white, dared to charge him specifically with "sellout." Brown would either
wilt such an accuser with a stare or throw him into the bushes.
The reason President Nixon's resident blacks, Bob Brown and Stanley S. Scott,
were able to recruit a surprising number of famous blacks to the President's campaign
is that blacks increasingly are thinking in terms of a piece of the action, through
black initiative and enterprise. The Nixon Administration has placed a record
number of blacks into federal positions and increased funding of minority
A
FORD
enterprises to a current level of $1 billion a year.
RALA
his
-more
GE
Los Angeles Times Syndicate
Los Angeles, California
Page Three
THE NICK THIMMESCH COLUMN
Nov. 14, 1972
$1 billion a year.
It is ironic that Sargent Shriver, who set a record for wild
rhetoric in the campaign, didn't have one minority person running a regional
office of Office of Economic Opportunity (0E0) when he was director. Mr. Nixon's
appointee, Phil Sanchez, the first authentic poor person to run OEO, appointed
enough minority people to these posts that they now comprise a majority of the
regional directors.
Increasingly, the loudmouths among Democratic black leaders are betrayed
to be rhetoricians and little else. Julian Bond, for example, spends much of his
time in lecture and TV appearances and is hardly the most effective black in the
Georgia State Legislature. A hard-working but undramatic state senator named
Leroy Johnson is. Conversely, the poorest performing black in the U.S. Congress
is also the loudest mouth-Walter Fauntroy Jr., who declared that Sen. George
McGovern would reward blacks with jobs on a quota basis.
As black voters become more practical in their political judgments (they
clobbered Edward Hanrahan, the Democratic state's attorney in Illinois), they will
become stronger in both parties, and the republic will be better for it.
Copyright 1972, by Newsday. Distributed by Los Angeles Times Syndicate.
RALD GET R. FORD <, UBRART
November 16, 1972
Mr. Stanley J. Scott
Communications Coordinator
The White House
Suite 173
Washington, D.C. 20006
Dear Mr. Scott:
I wish to take this opportunity to personally thank
you for allowing us to work with you in the re-election
of the President.
We are grateful and elated to know that our efforts
in the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois played
a significant role in getting President Nixon re-elected.
In my opinion, President Nixon has always been con-
cerned about ALL AMERICANS, all of the time.
If we may be of further assistance to you, please do
not hesitate to call.
Warmly,
Dr. E. Marie Johnson
State Chairman
ILLINOIS BLACKS FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
EMJ/mdj
RALD GE R. FORD
e. marie johnson and associates, inc.
CORPORATE & EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANTS
520 NORTH MICHIGAN AVENUE
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60611
(312) 329-1870
Harris: Election Showed
Sharp Racial Divisions
NEW YORK POST, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1972
By LOUIS HARRIS
The recent Presidential
This disenchantment among
vote was most sharply di-
blacks with the federal gov-
The confidence rating among they have shared in the gen-
blacks is 20 per cent for those eral recovery that has been
vided according to race, with
ernment represents a com-
who run the press. The fig- taking place in the economy.
blacks going 79-21 per cent
plete turnaround in only a
ure is 19 per cent for Con- By 60-15 per cent, a sizable
for Sen. McGovern while
few years. When Lyndon
gress, 23 per cent for the majority of blacks tends to
President
FREDERICK
MUSEUM of
DOUGLASS
AFRICAN ART
INSTITUTE
316-318 A ST. NORTHEAST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 (202) LI 7-7424
November 27, 1972
Mr. Stanley Scott
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Scott:
Congratulations on your work in the election campaign! Now
that plans are being made for the inaugural festivities, I hope
you'll be able to keep in mind the availability of the Museum as
a location for entertaining some of the many guests who will be
here for the celebration.
As well as the possibility of using the Museum for social
events, you may want to consider arranging tours for people who
have a special interest in the Museum's area of concern. We'll
be glad to cooperate in any way and look forward to hearing from
you soon.
With best regards,
Sincerely yours,
C.T. Martin
C.T. Martin
Assistant Director for Programming
& Community Relations
CTM/mb
RALO 13 a. FORD LIBE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 27, 1972
TO: Stan Scott
FROM: Bob Brown
For your information.
RALLO OF R. FORD VIBRARY
LOS ANGELES TIMES SYNDICATE
Times Mirror Square / Los Angeles, California 90053
THE NICK THIMMESCH COLUMN
GERALD GE R. FORD UBRART
RELEASE DATE: Tuesday, November 14, 1972
BLACK NIXON : SUPPORTERS LIVE WITH BLACK CRITICISM
by Nick Thimmesch
WASHINGTON--It's good that President Nixon got improved support from black
voters in last week's election, though the quality of rhetoric over his appeal to
blacks worsened considerably. Black celebrities like Sammy Davis Jr. still smart
from the names they were called for backing Mr. Nixon.
No conclusive figures are available, but indications are Mr. Nixon doubled
his black vote from 1968 when he got a bare 8% A 22-city survey of "inner city"
precincts by the Joint Center for Political Studies showed the President getting
these percentages: New York, 18%; Baltimore, 15%; Memphis, 14%; Washington, 11%;
Dallas, 11%; Miami, 10%, and Chicago, 8%.
Mr. Nixon's black campaign strategists report, however, higher preliminary
figures for metropolitan areas because the blacks in middle-class neighborhoods are
more likely to vote for him than "inner city" residents. Their survey shows
Louisville, 30%; Philadelphia, 30%; Nashville, 24%, and Houston, 17%.
One of Mr. Nixon's more remarkable showings was the 18% he notched in
New York City's 70th assembly district, in a poor neighborhood in Harlem where
Republicans are as scarce as $1,000 bills.
There was nothing but shrill condemnation of Mr. Nixon by black political
leaders during the campaign, especially from the Black Caucus, ostensibly bipartisan.
And those black personalities like Sammy Davis Jr., Jim Brown, Johnny Mathis,
Billy Eckstein and James Brown, who endorsed Mr. Nixon and campaigned for him,
caught all manner of verbal abuse and threats of boycotts. Rep. Louis Stokes
(D-Ohio) said, "They have turned their backs on their own people they are cancing
to the tune of benign neglect." The Nixon blacks were called "sellouts, Uncle Toms,
political prostitutes and fools" by black Democrats including Julian Bond of the
Georgia Legislature.
(MORE)
LOS Angeles Times Syndicate
Los Angeles, California
Page Two .THE NICK THIMMESCH COLUMN. Nov. 14, 1972 Georgia Legislature.
Sammy Davis Jr. got the worst of it--scores of hate letters, a bad press
and a small scattering of boos in Chicago where he was entertaining free, as usual,
for a black cause.
"I've caught real hell three times in my life," Davis told me after the
election. "When I converted to Judaism, when I married May Britt (white Swedish
actress) and when I came out for Richard Nixon. So I'm used. to it, I'm purified.
"The mandate he got vindicates the people like me who worked for him a long
time before I backed him. I figured out where his head was, and decided that's
what was best for the country, including black folks. Things are happening under
him in a solid way."
Nixon-haters claim Davis will get a tax break for his support, that singer
James Brown's radio stations will have their licenses protected, that Floyd B.
McKissick, former CORE director, sold out for a federal grant for a North Carolina
housing project he is sponsoring.
"Man, I don't owe the government a cent," says Davis. "I just paid
$300,000. I always pay my taxes. That's a bunch of jive."
Singer James Brown has no reason to think the FCC will lift his station
licenses--no matter whom he supports. Jim Brown, the one-time football-great-
turned actor, is so formidable and independent-minded a figure, nobody, black or
white, dared to charge him specifically with "sellout." Brown would either
wilt such an accuser with a stare or throw him into the bushes.
The reason President Nixon's resident blacks, Bob Brown and Stanley S. Scott,
were able to recruit a surprising number of famous blacks to the President's campaign
is that blacks increasingly are thinking in terms of a piece of the action, through
black initiative and enterprise. The Nixon Administration has placed a record
number of blacks into federal positions and increased funding of minori
enterprises to a current level of $1 billion a year.
RAL GE FORD (BRART
-more
Los Angeles Times Syndicate
Los Angeles, California
Page Three
THE NICK THIMMESCH COLUMN
Nov. 14, 1972.
$1 billion a year.
It is ironic that Sargent Shriver, who set a record for wild
rhetoric in the campaign, didn't have one minority person running a regional
office of Office of Economic Opportunity (0E0) when he was director. Mr. Nixon's
appointee, Phil Sanchez, the first authentic poor person to run OEO, appointed
enough minority people to these posts that they now comprise a majority of the
regional directors.
Increasingly, the loudmouths among Democratic black leaders are betrayed
to be rhetoricians and little else. Julian Bond, for example, spends much of his
time in lecture and TV appearances and is hardly the most effective black in the
Georgia State Legislature. A hard-working but undramatic state senator named
Leroy Johnson is, Conversely, the poorest performing black in the U.S. Congress
is also the loudest mouth-Walter Fauntroy Jr., who declared that Sen. George
McGovern would reward blacks with jobs on a quota basis.
As black voters become more practical in their political judgments (they
clobbered Edward Hanrahan, the Democratic state's attorney in Illinois), they will
become stronger in both parties, and the republic will be better for it.
Copyright 1972, by Newsday. Distributed by Los Angeles Times Syndicate.
FORD & RALE LIBRARY
10
Committee
for the Re-election
of the President 1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 333-0920
December 6, 1972
Mr. Stan Scott
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C.
Dear Stan:
Just a note to say that I enjoyed working with you during the
re-election campaign. Although we were not given the media budget
to implement our communications programs among Black voters as
extensively as any of us wanted to, I think your efforts will be seen
in changing voting patterns in elections to come.
Sincerely,
Bill
William D. Novelli
WDN/kw
RALD A. FORD TBRART
me