Richard Nixon Presidential Library Contested Materials Collection Folder List

Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description

18 6Campaign Other Document List of contributions to various Democratic politicians. 4 pgs.

18 6Campaign Other Document List of contributions given by various unions to Democratic candidates for political office. Not scanned.

18 6Campaign Other Document List of contributions given by various unions to Democratic candidates for political office. 4 pgs.

18 6 11/7/1970Campaign Memo From Allin to Higby RE: projected election figures generated by the press. 9 pgs.

Friday, March 18, 2011 Page 1 of 3 Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description

18 6 11/5/1970Campaign Memo Background memo on the 1970 Congressional campaign. 4 pgs.

18 6Domestic Policy Other Document List of United States governors predicted to be elected in 1970. 1 pg.

18 6Campaign Other Document Projected House of Representatives changes in the wake of the 1970 election. 1 pg.

18 6Campaign Other Document List of Senators expected to be elected in 1970. 2 pgs.

18 6 11/17/1970Campaign Memo From Klein to Haldeman RE: Cabinet officers and other prominent figures as speakers in the 1970 campaign. 8 pgs.

Friday, March 18, 2011 Page 2 of 3 Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description

18 6 11/17/1970Campaign Memo From Dent to Haldeman RE: voter turnout in Maryland for Beall. 1 pg.

18 6 Campaign Letter Copy of a letter from Kevin P. Phillips to Mitchell RE: enclosed documents on the 1970 election in Maine, Tennessee, and Vermont, the youth effort in North Dakota, New Mexico, and Utah, and Agnew's campaign schedule. 13 pgs.

18 6 10/13/1970Campaign Memo Copy of a memo from Ruwe to Haldeman RE: states to be visited by RN in the 1970 campaign season. Handwritten notes on original added by Haldeman. 1 pg.

18 6 11/5/1970Campaign Memo Background memo on the 1970 Congressional campaign. 4 pgs.

Friday, March 18, 2011 Page 3 of 3 I Unions I (COPE) DSC 1 NCEC2 i1!:: S. A. 4 TOTAL I~ Gore $22,850 $ 9,000 $20,000 $40,000 $91,850

Moss 26,700 20,000 40,000 $1,000 87,700

Tydings 17,200 10,000 5,000 3,000 100 35,300

Hart 15,250 10,000 20,000 25,000 70,250

Burdick 18,250 1,000 15,000 29,000 63,250

Williams 53,300 15,000 25,000 1, 100 94,400

McGee 24,540 10,000 25,000 59,540

Montoya 21,100 9,000 1,000 31,100

Muskie 23, 750 5,000 1,000 29,750

Cannon 11, 100 6,000 1,200 18,300

Proxmire 22,400 9,000 5,000 14, 000 50,400

Symington 1,200 5,000 5,000 1,000 12,200

Mansfield 5,000 5,000 1,000 11,000

Jackson 11,800 1,000 1,000 13,800

Byrd 14,650 1,000 15,650

Hartke 12,570 10,000 1,000 1, 100 24,670

" Kennedy 6,700 1,000 7,700

Metzenbaum 9,500 10,000 19,500

Tunney 12,800 10,000 22,800

Stevenson 6,000 15,000 25,000 46,000

Hoff 13, 100 25,000 15,000 55,600

1 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 2 National Committee for Effective Congress 3 1970 Campaign Fund (McGovern) 4 Savings Association Pol. Education Committee Unions (COPE) DSC1 NCEC2 McG3 S. A. 4 TOTAL

Gore $22,850 $ 9,000 $20,000 $40,000 $91,850

Moss 26,700 20,000 40,000 $1,000 87,700

Tydings 17,200 10,000 5,000 3,000 100 35,300

Hart 15,250 10,000 20,000 25,000 70,250

Burdick 18,250 1,000 15,000 29,000 63,250

Williams 53,300 15,000 25,000 I, 100 94,400

McGee 24,540 10,000 25,000 59,540

Montoya 21,100 9,000 1,000 31,100

Muskie 23,750 5,000 1,000 29,750

Cannon 11, 100 6,000 1,200 18,300

Proxmire 22,400 9,000 5,000 14,000 50,400

Symington 1,200 5,000 5,000 1,000 12,200

Mansfield 5,000 5,000 1,000 11,000

Jackson 11,800 1,000 1,000 13,800

Byrd 14,650 1,000 15,650

Hartke 12,570 10,000 1,000 1, 100 24,670

Kennedy 6,700 1,000 7,700

Metzenbaum 9,500 10,000 19,500

Tunney 12,800 10,000 22,800 Stevenson 6,000 15,000 25,000 . 46,000 Hoff 13, 100 25,000 15,000 55,600

1 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 2 National Committee for Effective Congress 3 1970 Campaign Fund (McGovern) 4 Savings Association Pol. Education Committee Unions (COPE) DSC1 NCEC2 McG3 S. A. 4 TOTAL

Gore $22,850 $ 9,000 $20,000 $40,000 $91,850

Moss 26,700 20,000 40,000 $1,000 87,700

Tydings 17,200 10,000 5,000 3,000 100 35,300

Hart 15,250 10,000 20,000 25,000 70,250

Burdick 18,250 1,000 15,000 29,000 63,250

Williams 53,300 15,000 25,000 1,100 94,400

McGee 24,540 10,000 25,000 59,540

Montoya 21, 100 9,000 1,000 31, 100

Muskie 23, 750 5,000 1,000 29,750

Cannon 11, 100 6,000 1,200 18,300

Proxmire 22,400 9,000 5,000 14,000 50,400

Symington 1,200 5,000 5,000 1,000 12,200

Mansfield 5,000 5,000 1,000 11,000

Jackson 11,800 1,000 1,000 13,800

Byrd 14,650 1,000 15,650

Hartke 12,570 10,000 1,000 1, 100 24,670

Kennedy 6,700 1,000 7,700

Metzenbaum 9,500 10,000 19,500

Tunney 12,800 10,000 22,800

Stevenson 6,000 15,000 25,000 46,000

Hoff 13, 100 25,000 15,000 55,600

1 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 2 National Committee for Effective Congress 3 1970 Campaign Fund (McGovern) 4 Savings Association Pol. Education Committee Unions (COPE) DSC1 NCEC2 McG3 S. A • 4 TOTAL .~~- Gore $22,850 $ 9.000 $20,000 $40,000 $91,850

Moss 26,700 20,000 40,000 $1,000 87,700

Tydings 17,200 10,000 5,000 3,000 100 35,300

Ha:r:t 15,250 10,000 20,000 25,000 70,250

Burdick 18,250 1,000 15,000 29.000 63,250

Williams 53,300 15,000 25,000 I, 100 94,400

McGee 24,540 10,000 25,000 59,540

Montoya 21, 100 9,000 1,000 31,100

Muskie 23,750 5,000 1,000 29,750

Cannon 11,100 6,000 1,200 18,300

Proxmire 22,400 9,000 5,000 14,000 50,400

Symington 1,200 5,000 5,000 1,000 12,200

Mansfield 5,000 5,000 1,000 11,000

Jackson 11,800 1,000 1,000 13,800

Byrd 14,650 1,000 15,650

Hartke 12,570 10,000 1,000 1, 100 24,670

Kennedy 6,700 1,000 7,700

Metzenbaum 9,500 10,000 19,500

Tunney 12,800 10,000 22,800

Stevenson 6,000 15,000 25,000 46,000

Hoff 13,100 25,000 15,000 55,600

1 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 2 National Committee for Effective Congress 3 1970 Campaign Fund (McGovern) 4 Savings Association Pol. Education Committee ./

'Ul','. I.

UNIONS

(Giving through their C.O.P.E. IS)

,AITalgamated Pol. Educ. Comm.

C.O.P.E. see 11 below

D.R.I.V.E. (Teamsters) Engineers Pol. Educ. Carom. Firemen & Oilers Bro. of Electrical \,,'orkers 1 9 7 0 CAMPAIGNS (Key S, ------These figures arv not c, represent giving In 1 9

[[ lJILLlAMS , ~IcGEE BURDICK or ~O~iTOYA HUSKIE II CANNON I' PROXMIRE :1 II II ' " ~~orth Dakota__ :\ew.:J;"~s~y \'"yor;;l!"lg ;';e\~ Hexico l'taine L Nevada !\ Wisconsin ;;.;;,. '-----=:.::::~_ .. :t_.: l' " n I! //..90(;, , ­ L !j ;~ I: ;1 /I~'O- ;2. ~,::> -', Ii" :1 Ii :; I'1; !t I: " !' !; j()~- ­ 1/~:;7 _Ii -T~-----il ~t; ') '/ - , .]t>t:J - I: I' i r , 1\ I' .2 :( e)(.. ____ I, !I " .,l()/?o _ Ii ~ , . :: ! :: 'I "I,

,1" ,.

~()O-, /bot.? - 700­ i'" C? - <~ ;;'.:; ­ / ptJ::' - ;(5:2;/ ;Zcc:c ­ I - 5(.5""(70 ;;:_'0 - ­ 7.,7 t:Jo -" ,. ., ,I ii /5":)~ ,. jj - ., ~i Ii 0 ­ ., I 31t'Cl " l:So~ H -

(U?­ ,

~ ~ l - -, h .:

ma te Races) If!~plete and 6 9 -- ] 9 7 0

- 'I: ­ : SYMI:\GTO;'; ~I.\N~;F lELD JACKSO:': BYIU! HARTKE II KENNEDY ii

Missouri ~I, '11 Lma t';ashington "- --,-­ - _.,--. lndiana ;bsl:>achusetts ­

. , " , ':

-,,'­

"-; :st)t>-­ _

;(t) 0 t -

-> /1 "#'" ,,:',:;: __ } ;; ­ Ivoo ­

/e:

1 H I 'I-,

I , ,I i I , j I II f I i il ! i I , 7c;'­ i II I f , t I : I Irot>,­ 1 11 >j i , I I ! I I I i I i , i ! ~i:?o- )~"o; ­ -< t ' I i I - I ! I '-I ,. i - i -I I i ! /ip7o,­ i iI Pl7 ct':­ ,: - ; ; . - ~I I II i J I , I i I , I : i I' i I i l', I I --,­ ,--­ 11 I i--+ I I /O~O~- I I I i : t i j I I O,t'(J.­

Ir"J ­ .. . I I ./ J­ I ~~ ~7o:~ ~ 7 p (),­ I I I ; ,I I ,,­ ... _-j_..... ,­ t­ t i t-­ -- -". . -. -­ -" - - i I II I !-.-l-=:~:==:::::!k~~== ! .-t" non incumbents

¥-~--~- -~.-- - -- . ~r---'- ,~-- ··-·rr-'--·..· --­ !, TU:,;';EY HETZE~; HAeM 'I STEVENSON :1 HOFF vs. VS. il VS. Ii VS. (TAFT) ,! ;! (NURPHY) ,I CSt-lITH) (PROUTY) " Ohiu California Illinois !I Vermont

3

,I ! -1 ! .y ,I, i ;1 i I :1 ______~ --.-~ ____n_--l. _. '!i II I 'I

'I i /' l\;lEMORANllU~t jJi THE WUITE HOUSE

Novetnber 7, 1970

Larry 'Hi,gby.

FROM: MQrt Allin

Subject: A Representative Sampling of Election Predictions by Pross Hou.so. Predictions Oem. Cains Mears (AP) 12 Kirk (n Sun) few "Apple (NYT) 6 Winters (Sun) 15-30 Spading Little change Lawrence Little change Phillips below 20-30 Louie Bean (Phila. Ev. Bull.) 20 Hope {Star) t Miller (Knight) 10 ... 15 Averill.. J;'Qloy (LAT) Littlo chanae !t~vans ..Nova.k 5 . Childs 10.. 11 ~['homa6 son 10.. 12 Weaver (NYT) .3 to +10 ". 11 Average Senate .OOP Gains Mears 1... 3 Kirk (Dalt. Sun) several IUnden (Newaday) .tfew. Apple (NYT) 1-3 (or -1) Winters (BaIt. Sun) Z Lawrenco + llean (Phila. Ev.. llull.) 2-3 Broder + Sperling + Hope -+ Kraft "indonts" lor GOP Perry (Nat'l. ObserveX') 2-4 Miller (Knight) 2 .. 3 Senate (continu.ed) .QQ!: Gains

Pca:rnlan (K. C .. Star) 3 Starin (Globe) small gain Averill 1-2 Phillips • 3-5 Child. 3 ... 4 Evans-Novak 1

Averago

Governors Dom". Ga.ina Meara (AP) 4-6 ~IIinden (Ncwsday) 4-5 Apple (NYT) 5-8 Sperling (CSM) 1..7 Plli:lUps 3-5 Averill (LAT) 5 Gilbride (AP) 4-7 Witcover 7

Average 4... 600Plo8. , ,

!!l!eciCic Koy Senate Race! ­ Consonsus opinions

Victors: Chiles. Adlai Stevenson, III, Tunney. Brock, Sl'ming~n, \Y'illiams, Prouty, Cannon, Fannin, HHlL

Toss-ups: Ohio, Texas, Indiana. Conn., Utab, Now York. South Dakota., Maryland

We did botter than predictod in tho Houae, exacU, as predicted 1n the Sonate, but lOlit twico &s many allexpe4~e4 i~Govornor8hip•• , . ~dA,... ~ pkp ~ o . 0 o! . y ? .,.? r 1 lorida IJ o o o .0 . - DO o -co , , ? • _. ? • o? • ... ~O o 00. 00 , .. 0 DO _ ... 00 (J 00 fX> o , • (> 00 ()t;) 'I o -, ? ? • • + o • "',) o -/-' • p -J-. . , o • .. _-1- .,.., , . .,. t . + t- -I- . "1, () o 7• o o? .+ ?• () +- + () .." ... - o 60 00

- . f' i.. ~ ,~t

Bl.'UCO \Vintars (I tIl) Su'n: At the national level; GOP chanco!. rnay h~ better then '\tradition would sugg(~st but \lniUc;cly to gain cOllh'ol of Senate. Dctn.majol"ity ·Hmay not be changed by 11lQrC thAn a"saat or twolln the HOllSC "the lincup m«y be favol+ahly shi(ted 15 to 30 scats to the Doms... Ovc.raH "an apprehensive electorate will deny the GOP the Senate pri7.e it th~ught it had won thin spring, but it may h~dge the bet by improving prospects for a Congressional t.akcovcl· ,in two years•

.Qg.!lli.!~

Ernest. Furgcl'son (1i/1)~: "N.J. is about to witness ~970·s·n1.ost iIllpres­ sivQ po1itic~'l comeback by a man and a. party"! Williams an(l the Oems· ~·con)o'back trom the Cahill s\Vocp. .

~.rhQnlaS O'Neill (11/1) Sun: - vCl'y critical .. "Tho raucous mob (San Jose) proba'bly achieved the ;;clcction oiMurphy...

Joe I{t"a£t (11 /l) post: Rcpul)lici\n tiue" GOP to l.'ll{,kc indonts putting G01' in bctt(u' 11ositio,;I;,r-Iqt.ure.. \Vay statiQ\\ on }'oad to bettor &row in '72. }i'alling a bact turn to eCOnOll:\Y - ... 01· in VN ..... hard to sco bow ltN can bo dctcatc(l in ·7a~·r"~ , .. . .­ ,

. . ~. .. BJ'odcl' (11 /1) £~~!L RN unlikely to get Senate. 111f:toad RN likely to hear he .nul-dc only nmlnol' inl'oads on the s"l>poscdly vuhtcrablu Denl 11lajority"

wllito J)erns beld or boosted luargin or conh'o) in tho HOUGe. 'l'llU8 t .... sect-ns likoly to l'C8ult as negative Qt' ncb\t!ous, trom RN'& vtcwPQint" as 'tile campaign itsolf.

Paul Hope (11/1) Stal" Pmns to rotain Sonate conti"ol. continuod Dem HOURI) contl'ol by ~san\Q tna~gin. Chancos flt'O COP will lose 601\1.0. go~... crnorahlllB.

. otl, . . t.~\u Warl'cm \VoaVQ1' (11/1) 1:!!?)~!ll Housc alnlost Ctn·tainly,.~lQl\VO 'Uncllang~d . relative sh"cngths.. Alnlost (:o,,·tainly l{Nwoultl bail :mcb a result becal18c ruUng party "8ually 10806 41. flU . f . "'. t I: f ~. G~orgc ~(c..nn)' Os (lUl}tcd'by David Lawrence, {lO/?']} Times Pic: . i' t as predicting a robift or 3 or 4 House sents either way and may'be 2-3 J, Senate scat:J (lithel" way. Ga.ylord Mo.lson is quoted. 8.S, seeing it possible f II: ot l\ ilct gain, or loss. . PI I:'I; g. ~; .. I ..awrCll.c.Q himscll says n a. gain by the GOP would her l"ega..r<1ud as a. ~; surpl"ise. and a ~l',ailltcnallec of the> pl-asent margins in both Houses is i!-' Ii.. mo.ro Ol" lesfS expected by leaders in the two camps.. U .'. ~. ~~ ~~ ltobert Pearlnall (10/1.9) l

• predict.ed GOP ,"Vill5 in Ohio t ltla. Senate seata.

E' UPl ..... RaYlYlond 1#~hr in (lO/2.S)~~ri!.~na R~~ll.£ "knowledgeable political '.'fff' ~:'. stra.tegists of both p:ll'tics agl'eed tl}(l GOt') ato.nqq good chft.n~o of co)'ning ~f a. ~, close to RN's goal of seizhm tho·Sona.to. 'I Not to win political control but ~, idoc.logical control. .. ~{ ~.~ m,: II"l Louis Bea.al (In 10/31) Phil. I;;vcninf~ 13\1Uctim predicted a Dom gall} or "ll, ~~ ZO floats in tb.e House and a lo.s~,:ol'.a.3· i~1. the Senate. -I ~ 'Mitton Viol'st (10/2.9) Star: Fron"l thq polls "it S0ClllS clear that enough of f thc.n (ltN18 favodtes)-~'ll be (\created to confh'm that the maj()rtty of voters ~,~ in the nation havo not 8W\\ng toco1'laervative Republicanism. I, 13 too close' . ~.' to call, 243-179. without tho 13 • ~ ~ Richard Heaves (l1/1) rI'imes ll'ulin loX'ccastt Morc than lnost tho clcc"tions I!!OJ ) arc COIning to an ol1d ili-';'-bl~c of \Ulcortainty. J)ems ~e~m s\u'c to pick up (fovernornhillS. S01'HO .GOP clin~J to belief gain part.y control. Dents (: though"::. might tHid B(~at or Z. A bad showing for GOP -- pa.);ticulal"1y '\'her-~ b Veep turned up -- could n)C'.ko RN think h\-ico about til\) '71. ti<:l~(lt... If 1910 ~''" j~ L Ow .. 3

Pl"OVCS a "bust [oJ.' the oQcial b£:n:in and the Southern strategyJ RN has . shown he can guickly adapthhnself to new realities aG well as old .' myt~.n Times: Brock in Tf~.tm.· Burdick in N. Dakota. Tart in Ohio Indian.a - ? Utah -- clost.}

,-' RoUI - 10/2.8 Rocky by -- 1"/ -- ·acco~·dillg-to pops.

Miatni Herald. . poll; 61..39 Chiles.

"Dcalcin - lO/Z5t "If Dcros retain contt*ol Sen., add to' tbeir present House I' <:ontil)gcnt and gain l$OnlC gov·.ships. UN's pl'cstigc will suffer a. sharp blo~ tha.t inevitably will increase his -leg. diffs."

Deakin - 10/16: Col. Dispatch, -- 48.4% -- Motz. .... 43% TaCt.

Doyle - 10/2.8: Wise. QOP in h·Qublc. '." '"

Thifun'les..~h :.. 10th RN £ig~l1'ed he could tip enough races that he'd hav-a , a GOl' Senate and a iriendliar House. Thus thCl"O'd be amandato i~ tho Nixon dh·.::ction. Doubtl\\l ho succeeded al~d he lost some prestigo ·on VN and Mideast -- di(l so won tlu,u,'U t14"lt neither wau lJlSl'\~ t

Neil Gilbrido ... 11/3 CAP): Darns appeared likely to recapturo govcrnorGh .. froIn the' GOP in a fear of tho nation's 10 lnod populous qtatos. Thai bCGt cbancos arc in Ohio~ Fla.. , Poun... And to :retain Texas. 'J.'ho. GO scorns ccrtail~ to hold Galif. # pl"obably NY, l\tlicbigan, and Mns.$aenu8 Deros aloe alsQ lU,cly to talto govcrnorsllip in Al·k•• N. Max.. and S. Dakota ... - wbilG losing Corn\. and r.rcnn.

.#. (CSM) Sl)crling .. 1003: "rho GOP nl.ay lose at least one. amt perhaps as ~...... tunny as 5 ijovcrnol"lihipa. COl"> 10s6es in Ohio' (\11<1 At"kansas could ~ noarly cancelled out by a GOP .victor)" in Conn•.. But GOP lOalsOB in , , . • Ala., Fla. ~ NeIH."agka. "N~ Me"• ... wf)uld be.more signHiea.nt. 'rhc GOP has 2. majul,· cusadvantages -- COP incumbents hold :..11 but 11

of 30 scats _w thus they i\1"O vuh\(}t'able alldZ. ·thcl.'o is unhappiness OVC1' local issues. Ht~ncc if the CAJP holds its govel+norships it woultl be a m.ajor GOP victory. ","

10/26 ~m~~~~_pi~l:{.\tch: Two incumbent GOP Congxosslncn who rcpxQ.­ sent ccntl'~,l Ohio still hold comrai\.l)(ling loads in the socond 9. D. poll. But Dovine' n lea.d over Cood:dch has.- shrunk fronl 37.40/0 to II' 1.6. 1. ".! .. I 10/2.7 Cleveland Plain-Dealer: 'rhe Ohio Senate, race is as close as a . ~~-~.., ,~--- 1')011 can show with l)oth c.andidates holding '10%. But a breal{(lown r1 ' • shows 'raft may hold an ever-so-slight edgc on Met~enbaum. Tho paIt also shuwcc1 1.4% fOl· Kay and 18. 3% unde'cided.

", lo/is' Gallup poll (~hic. ?~u1.-Titne!)l: .oems arc holdingtheh+ lead ill th~ • race lor Houso sc.ats~ in oa2-1y Oct. Oenlsw()uld roceive 500/. of the ;.' 'vote for House seata. 44% COl' the: GOP with 60/(1 undecidod.

10/1,5 ChtSo~ Sun-:!.i~ A. sta.tc...wida voll shows Byrd with 4a~. Rawlings 380/9 and Ga~la.nd 2.0%;

lo/a5 Chi;~. ~m-Ti!!~~ St.. Clair county pI·clera Stevenson 2. to 1; 64. 91, with 35. 1~~ lC)1" Smith.

" " • .... . 10lZ7 Mh\lni Herald: ChiIcQ 60,(.. "'r. Gr4\lner 30%. Stevenson 58% -­ S;nitl~ 4ZI.'I/.. '~lilui 560/...... Ml\cGrogor 4~".t

10/1~ ~0~"..TI!!!~s: GOP have the odds against tbem in wlil\f;- could be' their last big oPl>orhmity to cal>t\U"C the Senate. Bellts4S11 lis oven bettel' financed than B\\sh and at thn I\')oment is rated a "light favurite. 1'1)0 GOPers regarded,as shoo...\n9 for r6-cl()Ption arc Hruska. Scott.. Stevens, and Rolh. Va. 's Dynl is ralc(l tho favorite OV01" his two challengel"s. Chancos £~r a 01'03S victory aro less tbnn~ 50.. SO, • '*

r 1 ------,--­

5 . 10/18 Philil) Co.t'tcr .![~~.l.:~_~~_~ 'With the help of the WH, Thurnlond a.nd a. plu\*aUty ot. white voters Watoon has a. chanco ,of winning..

10/1.7 J. J. I

10/2.6 Harry Jlodin.<:: Sen. Harold IIughes prc(Hctccl a. l"tlileat ot the 1958 mid.. tern"}. Dc,,~ upset.. During that cic.ction VP Nixon dl~livercd a. slashing attack on the opposition rnuch the way VP Agnew ha.s been uoing. In 1958, the \VB toned RN down. but it didn't help th.o GOP, i.t sustainod 0110 of tho hoavi.est n:\.id-terlU lOSGCS in US politics.

10/1.9 l'~vans &: Noval(.: quotl.':s a Goldbcl'g aide who said: "Arthur's such. '. a b~).(l candi

-"

10/~5 Iowa poll in Des Moiu(::s Register: nN st.ill leads 4 possible Dcm contenders by nHu"gins of 14 to 2.4% points. RN 46~t,., ... EMK 3Z% .. - Wallace 4%. RN 4:8% -- HUH 2.5~~ -- :\VaUacc 6%. RN 45% -- Mt\skie 29% .... Wallace '6%. i UN 41o/~ - ... J~indsny 2.3% -- V/allacc 50/.,. I In allprovnl ri\.tings UN's popularity has c1Ktngc(llittlo sin.ec May. Ap... proval or UN-s job 'handling in SUI)t.;. !l:<"I%~ May 590/0. Disapproval rating ill Sept. 30°/.; May 3Z~fo..

• • 10/7.8 .Richrnond News l.oild~l+, John FarIner; liays in an ol*(linal"Y yoar Mct.zea~bQ.wl"l couldn't boat. TaLt but this year it ll.la.y be PQB:d.ble.·

10/7.lJ. David Brodor: Jfi. Aiil'UlCsota voters l+cject HUH the can

j • DcnlS upwards of dozen in Houso "-, plus (, Statci BOlli"'" .... tlU OOP gaills even j\\st one SN\ah: scat, they have wOU a symbolic victory in revel"sinr, tJ$C tl'.r..d'l pi\lh'}rn, ~.ltho\\gh this invflh'cs 'Cnorillg (~ct that thoy leU i.U' sho):t of thcil+ orig.iu c:i:.licctors. Bui; if'Dcl'rl

,~. " ·numbers. they won't 911rc~1." dcf.;::at -- r...oc~1 varh\lltes the key this: . yeal" .. - Mismatch. - .. no ChH\l' gUidelines likely. .

White 10/2.4::. Campaign is PIa naticm~{ rC{C'l-OndUln on the foreign and military policy lca-del'ship o! RN.. • •• Meaningful ({OYQ 1ostic:! (4) would amount to a presidential vindication. n ,~ ..

Bryce Nelson LA *£i1'!l....£!. 10/l8: Syn"lington now ahead by 7-8.

R. \Vi1son 10/24: Only 'wl the g~·catc5t of luck" and the presence 01 an as yet undetected landslide ca.n RN win the (, 01" 7 neoded - .. doesnrt loole good. Everything hilS t~ bl."cak his way. RN can't win much but . conltl lose a lat..

Clymer, llaltin~2.rc SUll 10/24: LQ\vl.~l\stcin leads despite leftist labol but closo..

Beckman G'l" - 10/22: \vH ol,thnintic about Tart and Bl"Ock -- good ellance for Kleppe; Rowdy close" Also feel Prouty "lld Woickcr will do it. UN visit to Calilol'nia. hOlled to pull Murphy til rough.

Stanley Hilldcn ...~ in a .1'1,c'!!lday AnalyslB (lO/Z9) .. - ~CC$ close S,:nate races and."indicati.ons arc that tbcl-C will bQ, Ultla c:hCl-nge." He also for.csaw a net 10';s of 4-5 govcl"no1'ships. • • •

\Vin. s. White said (Oct a3 , .~ing~~::J'{e.wrl) that. if the GOll picked up .. four scats, RNts affOl.. ts would lH:"vc been. WOl"thwhilc. IC~ Ilet gabl the whole cmnpaigll wOttltl have been a disa$tor tQr RN, pcrhal). c.vou q(H,}P01· than that suffered by Trumafi in (46. .

Tbo.nas O'Neill (1011.8 ~!h tnlya in

.. •• YellDDer 5. 1910

AC

T

•

y

our ~DaI:orl&1 • c:...... _ ..._ .,.IUUU i very • f . ~ • bellat. 10•• ••

c...... "nwo. 1 • the poU••

e f r of th ey c

r ploym • y d lIZ . a· tl" t ch

u tea ho t

to the ecODQ 1 loym oa • to c ••ater.

o! C rIM a.

Pr••id t • loat p ly U •

•• 10•••• • aD I 1"."

rahi 10•••• 0 0 ae: clal. abt. t ,Iv 1'0 em. f Tie in bruka. ct Ii re.e; PI' • f arrar i • etc.

'1' a cal .1 0 197Z, r. it 't

a dt 1 ca .el Z6 • • • ra 1

0 ajor •• - 0

r.o 3

r uty ViI t b ic Y

atn

r­ • ,

Ar t t • _.cUo .",~aw,..sd

t the Ho ••J

1. 41 of ., • e a •

d

.ea.

0.1 0 ta & I.t to • t

t 191 w • ltll ao • • d

• It'a i el fr •• you • 0 y • • • • y • i 810••_ Esc: for T. •••• •• m e. y 1'. yh•• t t of

r Ian•• '1' 80 th • r y y rene •

It • tor eo Di•• t ork I'••id ••peel Y i pI c: • that • 0 t cOl' 01' C • taU. Y· tr. . Danforth Sa

I it. AI' okad Ii • biD" • atill bit •• It'. a hie

I' ,.1 t t 'f • u1 ., it .at. • Ha felt d re.

it.

or you. t to ~waUv •

dit

rt.

• f

it o W 81'. 1 the , Martin Evans- Rob't Nolan UPI AP Governors All Post Broder P. HOEe Novak Pearman ALA Wallace ALASKA ? Egan Miller Miller ? ARIZ Williams ? (R-) Williams Williams ? ARK Bumpers ? R­ Bumperl3__ .. Bum..,E.ers_ ~umpers CALIF Reagan COLO Love Love Love ? CONN Meskill Meskill Meskill ? . Meskill FLA Askew Askew Askew Askew Askew GEO Carter Carter Carter HAW Burns Burns Burns Burns IDA ? ? (R-) Samuelson Andkus Samuelson IOWA Ray Ray Ray KANS Docking Docking ? ME Curtis ? (D-) Curtis Erwin Curtis MAR Mandel MASS Sargent Sargent Sargent ? MICH ? ? (R-) Milliken Milliken ? MINN Anderson Anderson ? Anderson Anderson ? NEBR Tiemann ? R- Tiemann ? NEV ? ? (R-) ? O'CaUaghan ? NHAM Peterson Peterson Peterson N MEX ? ? (R-L__? I

Alabama 0 a Alaska ? -1 -1 -1 Arizona a a Ikkansas a a California +2 +1 +1 +1-2 Colorado +1 -1 Connecticut +1 a -1 +1 Delaware +1 0 Florida a a Georgia a a Hawaii a a Idaho a a Illinois -1 a fudiana -2 -1 -2 a Iowa a a Kansas 0 a Kentucky ? -1 ? -1 Louisiana a a Maine a a Maryland -1 -2? Massachusetts ? +1 -I? Michigan ? "'2 a Minnesota -1 -2 -1,2? Mississippi a a Missouri ? +1 a Montana a a Nebraska a -1 -I? Nevada a a New Hampshire a a New Jersey +1 +1 a New Mexico a New York +1 or 2 +1 +3 +3 N. Carolina 0 ? +1,2 N. Dakota -1 -1 Ohio 0 ? -1,2 Oklahoma a a Oregon a a a ? -1 0 a S. Carolina -1 a s. Dakota -1 -1 Tennessee a a Texas a ? +1,2 Utah -1 ? -1 Vermont 0 a Virginia 0 +1 +2 +1(?+2) Washington 0 0 W. Virginia 0 0 Wisconsin a -1 -1 ? -1 Wyoming 0 0 P~aJ'rnal1 . T~d

• >, Childs Kansas City ~ Knapp Congo1 ! Senate All E-N Phillips Broder Hope-Star Perry-NO Post Alexander Star ScriEEs Qrtly. ' ~ ALASKA Stevens Stevens Stevens Steven ARIZ Fannin Fannin Fannin Fannin Fannin Fannin Fannin Fanni~..... CALIF Tunney ? ? MurEhy Tunney ? ..... CONN Weicker ? ? ? Weicker? ? Weickj ...... DEL Roth Roth FLA Chiles Chiles Chiles Chiles Chiles? Chiles ? HAW Fong Fong -I ILL Adlai III Adlai Adlai Adlai Adlai, Stevenson Adlai Adlai ~ IND Hartke Roudy ? RoudyKouay Roudebush ? ? ME Muskie Muskie MAR Tyding s Tydings Tydings TydingsTydmg -.wtL­ Tydings Tydings Tydin~ MASS EMK ~ Kennedy MICH Hart Hart MINN HHH HHH MISSI Stennis Stennis MO Stu Stu Stu Stu Stu SYlTlington SYlTlin MONT Mansfield Mansfield NEBR Hruska Hruska NEV ,. Cannon Cannon Cannon Cannon Cannon Canno NJER WillialTls WillialTls WillialTls WillialTls WillialTls Willia NMEX ? Montoya Montoya MontoyaMontoy Carter Montoya ? NYORK Buckley ? ? Ottinger ? Ottingl NDAK Burdick Kleppe ck Burdick Burdick ? OHIO Metz Taft Taft ? Taft Taft Taft? PENN Scott RI e Pastore TENN Brock .. Brock Brock Brock Brock Brock Brock Brock ? TEX Bush .. Bush? Bush? ? Bush Benston ? ? UTAH Moss ? ? Moss Moss ? VT Prouty Prouty Prouty .l:-'routy Prouty Prouty ? ? VIR Byrd Byrd WASH Jackson Jackson WVA Byrd Byrd WIS ProxlTlire Prox. WYO McGee McGee McGee McGee McGee McGeE ..... Peal'mart Ted nougiaEl Sto1'irt Mankiewicz •.. Childs Kansas City Knapp Congo Bedell Boston Times Times AP Braden r Perry-NO Post Alexander Star ScriEEs Qrtly. Phil. Bul. Globe N. Y. L. A. UP! 11/3 Stevens Stevens Stevens Stevens Fannin Fannin Fannin Fannin Fannin Fannin Fannin ? Murphy Tunney? Tunney Tunney Tunney ? ? Weicker?? Weicker Weicker ? ? ? Roth Chiles Chiles Chiles? Chiles ? Chiles Chiles Chiles Chiles Chiles Fong Adlai Adlai Stevenson Adlai Adlai Adlai Adlai Adlai Stevenson Roudy Roudebush ? ? Roudy? ? Hartke Muskie Tvding'" Tydings Tydings Tyding s ? ? Tydings Tydings Tydings Kennedy Hart HHH Stennis Stu Stu Stu Symington Symington Symington Symington Symingta Symington Mansfield Hruska Cannon Cannon Cannon Cannon Cannon Cannon Cannon Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Montoya Carter Montoya? Montoya ? Ottinger ? Ottinger ??, ? Ottinger Burd,ck Burdick Burdick? Kleppe Burdick Burdick Burdick ? Taft Taft Taft? Taft Taft ? Taft Metzenbaum Scott Pastore Brock Brock Brock Brock Brock ? Brock Brock? Gore ? Bush Benston ? ? Benston Benston? Bush? Bush Moss Moss Moss? Moss Prouty Prouty Prouty ?? Prouty Prouty Prouty? Prou'6y Byrd Jackson Byrd Prox. McGee McGee McGee McGee McGee McGee McGee McGee I THE WHITE HOUSE I W AS HI NGTON

Novmeber 17, 1970

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. HALDEMAN

FROM: Herbert G. Klein

The attached listing is a final summary of our speaker placement activities during the campaign. As you can see, we had extensive Cabinet-level presence in all the Key States.

The scheduling operation was coordinated by Nick Ruwe. Nick, Ed Barner and Peter Amis each scheduled four or five Cabinet-level speakers. Dick Howard worked entirely on the scheduling and advancing of the First Family after his return from Madrid.

In addition to almost daily contact with the campaign managers, in the Key States, Ruwe's operation distributed speech material and political briefings to the speakers. We understand from the speakers, that these items were extremely helpful. These were prepared with help from Jim Keogh and staff, Lyn Nofzier, Ken Khachigian of my staff, and, of course, with my input.

One problem continuously hindered the effectiveness of the scheduling operation - the lack of adequate trans­ portation for Cabinet officers. The Defense Department would not provide planes to cabinet officers for political trips, and the RNC was not able to respond to the various requests, and commercial transportation always wasted an excessive amount of time. A solution to this problem should be considered before 1972, or we will lose the effectiveness of our speakers during that campaign. The cost, naturally is another factor, but perhaps we could do more with corporate airplane loans. THE WHITE HOUSE

WAS H I NGTON

C~MPAIGN APPEA~~CES

ALASKA September 16 Blount Fairbanks 21 Blount Juneau 22 Blount Ketchikan

October 7 Hickel Anchorage 8 Hickel Anchorage 9 Hickel Fairbanks 10 Hickel Fairbanks 20 Hickel Alaska 21 Hickel Anchorage

CALIFORNIA

September 17 Finch California 18 Finch California 19 Finch California 21 Finch California 23 Hardin Los Angeles 24 Hardin Los Angeles 25 Hardin Californ 26 Hickel San Diego 28 Finch Sacramento 28 Hickel California 29 Finch California 29 Hickel California 30 Laird San Francisco

October 1 Kennedy San Francisco 3 Finch' vallejo - Los Angeles 4 Finch California 5 Klein California 6 Klein Los Angeles - San Diego 7 ,Tric Anaheim 8 Mitchell San Francisco 9 Stans San Francisco 10 Stans Los Ange s -2­

CALIFORNIA (Cont I d.)

October 11 Hickel Tulare County 14 David Los Angeles 17 Hodgson California 18 Hodgson California 20 Richardson San Francisco 22 Romney Palm Springs 22 Finch Palo Alto 23 Finch Los Angeles 23 Volpe San Francisco 24 Finch Ventura 25 Finch California 27 Finch San Diego 28 Finch Los Angeles 28 Blount Los Angeles 29 Klein Los Angeles 29 Dole California 30 President & Mrs. Nixon California 31 Mrs. Nixon California 31 Klein Sacramento

November­ 1 Kennedy Los Angeles 2 Klein San Diego

CONNECTICUT

October 3 Tricia Danbury 8 Finch Connecticut 9 Finch Connecticut 12 President & Mrs. Nixon Connecticut 12 Klein Connecticut 16 Dole Connecticut 21 Dole Connecticut 29 Hickel Connecticut 30 Richardson Connecticut

DELAWARE September 24 Dole Dover

FLORDIA

September 26 Julie & David Tallahassee -3­

FLORIDA (Cont'd.)

October 13 Attorney General & Mrs. Mitchell Florida 16 Volpe Florida 22 Mrs. Nixon Florida 25 Stans Florida 26 Romney Miami 27 Dole Florida 31 Blount Tuscaloosa

ILLINOIS

September 17 Volpe Chicago 19 Dole Bloomington 21 Hodgson Peoria

October 4 Julie and David Chicago 9 Kennedy Chicago 11 Kennedy Chicago 13 Klein Illinois 15 Richardson Chicago 22 Laird Chicago 25 Rumsfeld Chicago 26 Hodgson Chicago 27 Hodgson Chicago 28 Hodgson Springfield 28 Hickel Springfield 28 Stans Springfield 28 Hardin Springfield 30 Romney Illinois

November 2 Kennedy Illinois

INDIANA

October 13 Klein Indianapolis 16 Mi tchell Indiana 17 Hardin Indiana 18 Hardin Indiana 19 Hardin Indiana 19 Hodgson Indiana 21 Volpe Indiana -4­

INDIANA (Cont' d. )

October 22 Dole Indiana 26 Dole Indiana 27 Hardin Indiana 28 Mrs. Nixon Indiana 29 Finch Indiana 29 Volpe Indiana

November 1 Tricia Indiana

October 1 Hickel Annapolis 16 Finch Maryland 17 Hrs. Nixon Hagerstown 21 Rumsfeld r.1aryland 29 Volpe Maryland 30 Stans Maryland

MICHIGAN

September 15 Finch Lansing

October 3 Stans Detroit 6 Romney Detroit 10 Romney St. Clair 19 Mrs. Nixon Hichigan 28 Volpe Michigan

MINNESOTA

September 10 Hickel st. Paul 16 Stans Hinneapolis

October 8 Laird Duluth 14 Tricia Hinneapo1is 16 Richardson Minneapolis. 17 Stans Minnesota 18 Finch Minneapolis 19 Hrs. Nixon Minnesota 20 Romney .f.Iinneapolis 28 Richardson Minnesota -5­

MISSOURI

October 1 Blount Kansas city 2 Blount Kansas City 2 Dole Missouri 3 Blount Kansas city 9 Rumsfeld Missouri 16 Klein St. Louis 17 Julie & David Missouri 19 Dole Missouri 20 Finch Hissouri 22 Stans Missouri 23 Klein Missouri 27 Hardin Missouri 28 Hickel Missouri

NEVADA

October 7 Hitchell Reno 19 Hickel Nevada 20 Mrs. Nixon Carson City 26 Finch Nevada 28 Dole Nevada

NEi'1 JERSEY . September 24 Finch Newark 29 Hodgson Atlantic City

October 6 Volpe Atlantic City 14 Volpe New Jersey 21 Julie & David New Jersey 26 Tricia NeVl Jersey 26 Volpe New Jersey 30 Hardin New Jersey

NEW MEXICO

October 13 David Albuquerque 18 Hickel Albuquerque 22 Klein Ne"lv Nexico 30 Dole New Mexico -6­

NORTH DAKOTA

October 24 Dole North Dakota 27 Hic1,-el North Dakota 29 - Tricia North Dakota

OHIO

September 4 Volpe Columbus 12 Hardin Versailles

October 5 David Cincinnati 14 Stans Canton 17 Dole- Ohio 19 Finch Dayton 21 Romney Ohio 28 Volpe Ohio 28 'l'ricia Ohio 29 Hickel Ohio 31 Tricia Cleveland

SOUTH DAKOTA

October 27 Hickel South Dakota

TENNESSEE

September 28 Blount Naspville

October 22 Stans Tennessee

TEXAS

October 6 Finch Dallas 8 Kennedy Wichita Falls & Dallas 8 Stans Dallas 9 Laird San Antonio 9 Kennedy Dallas 10 Dole Texas 16 Klein Dallas 17 Hickel Houston 21 Finch Dallas 22 Volpe Houston -7­

UTAH

September 25 Hodgson Salt Lake city

October 2-4 l(ennedy Provo 4-5 Finch Salt Lake City 6 Finch Salt Lake city 21 Tricia Provo & Ogden 21 Klein Salt Lake city 28 Hardin Utah 29 Hardin Utah 29 Kennedy Utah

VERHONT

September 26 Finch Brattleboro

October 24 Hickel Vermont

WYOMING

September 26 Dole ~vyoming 28 Stans Cheyenne

October 1 Kennedy Wyoming 2 Kennedy \\Tyoming 28 Mitchell \\Tyoming 29 Tricia Wyoming

November 1 Finch Wyoming THE WHITE HO U SE

WASHINGTON

November 17, 1970

MEMORANDUM FOR

BOB HALDEMAN

SUBJECT: Maryland Vote

Dave Markey, from Senator-elect Beall's office, advises me that the industrial area, which the President visited in Maryland, did very well for Beall in the election. The 5th Legislative District, whi(~h is known as the Essex Area, went 13,000 to 8,000 for Beall. The registration there is 28,600 Democrats to 6,260 Republicans. In the 6th Legis­ lative District, the Sparrows Point Area, Beall carried 10,000 to 7,000. The registration there is 24,840 Democrats to 4,870 Republicans. In the 7th Legislative District, which is the Dundalk Area, it was a Beall-Tydings standoff with each getting about 8,600 votes. The registration there is 25,240 Democrats to 4,000 Republicans.

Harry S. Dent KEVIN P. PHILLIPS 5115 MOOn LANa LANE BETHESDA. MARYLAND

{301)654· 7128

Sunday

Dear Hr. Hitchell:

Per my last letter, some further enclosures. Please let me know any further details you might have \-rhen you get back.

I was disgusted to hear thaft. vrelfare announcement. As you might imagine, I have a fevl more coJu::r.ns'.-1Orth of opinion on that mess.

As before, I hope that tbis finds you with time enough for golf, and that you and r1rs. Nitchell have been enjoying your HE,st Coast stay.

Sincerely, !,; , juiJ~/ In 196/., Senator Huskie '..fOn re-election by a vote of 253,000 to 127, ClOO. This success vlaS considerably S'.wllon by n) heavy straigbt DerflOcratic voting by Hepublicans in protest against the Golduatcr candidacy, and b) the staying at home of 10-207" of the Yankee Republican electorate who couldn't bear the thought of choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Under these circumstances - and despite a steady registration trend to the Delnocrats - Euskio is unHkely to do so 1,1811 as in 196/•. The enclosed xerox of a mid-AuGust poll of Ya,nkees in Hancock County, Maine, shows Euskie do~m from hls 1964 lead over the GOP candidate. The reason: a combination of trending mray from Huskie (mostly by persons '''ho cast protest ballots in 196L;.) and heavier voting by Yankee RepubHcans \-rho stayed home in 1964. This is not a big trend, but it is a factor nevertheless.

Huskie I s 6671, of the vote ,,ril] probably sJip to the 60% range because of the 8 bove trends and a lighter-thcm-pre::ddentinl year turnout in the Catholic milltowns that i'l.1.cl Haine Democratic pluralities. H01.Jever there seems little doubt that will be re-elected handily.

It would not seem \-lise for the Administration to look like it is too interested in the loraine race. GO}) candidate Bishop should bo given personal ammuni tioD against E"llSkie, so that vlhen the results are tot::l.led and Huskie ",ins, say, by 91,000 votGS and 61% of the total, nobody is erllbarrassec1 by ,too much intervention but at the same tir:!8, there ,.(ill be grounds to spread the \-lord that t.he bloom is off Huskie' s appeal.

The enclosed poll sho\<1s that thr;:; "Southern Strategylt is very unpopular among Hainetls Yankee Republicans, 55% of WhOFl think that tl:e Administration pays too much attention to the SouLh. The Hachiasport situation and Bath shiryards contract are partieularly cmbarassing. If any oil free trade :<"ones Hre to be announced shortly, it would be useful to do so before the election.

Another useful idea might be a \!Northern New'England Regional COlJ1.mission" like that for Apr'0.1achia. Industdal obsolescence and redundancy is CT'lwl in upper ?~3V Ene;land - to'.-TnS Hith 10-20% unomployment are cow.mon - and such a move H01.'.ld be \-1811-received. Jt \-lould also provlde a rebuttal to the '!Southern StrateL'Ytt innuendo, and also help bolster 1972 prospects in the one part of Ne\-l England that 1s winnable. Prouty and Bishop '"lOuld be bolstert;d.

SO!"e kind of ethnic arpoal or cultural l'8cogn:i.tion should be extended to upper No...! Fngland I s French-Can~dians ; that \-lOuld really be hit ting the Den~ocrat.i3 from tho rear. 1970 Maine l·:JocLion questiolJna.ire

1. For whom do you plan .,to vote ill November"s Senate election? (Circle one.) If<;'k .~~(Yl(. D~\-.'4t(i\';vJ .-r:·t, A) Edmund Muskie (Democrat) B) Neil Bishop (]{epubliclln)

2. For \Jhorn did you vote when Edmund Nuskie lust ran for the Senate in 1964? (Circle onc.) ';;s':L 30':z., Il) For Huskie B) For his Hepublic!?n 0ppo:J(':nt C) Don't kno\J/Didn I t vote 'F

3. Whom did you support for President in 19(,t\? (Circle one.) "lDIL.. 2?/Lc A) Richard Nixon (R:publican) B) Hubert}hlmphr0Y (DeIT;~cr~t) C) George I-lallace (independent), .o"''\.... q k')~v.J~ Dt..:l;,,4 \;~K .~

4. Whom did you support for President in 196Cl'! (Circle one.)

A) Hidlard Nixon (Repub]ican) B) John Ii'. Kenn:::dy (Democrat) C) Don It kr;,ow/Didn I t vote

L'). ',I)l') you, P ] ,8H",r) I VO •lot: f or }) TeSlu.en, .1 •v ,lxonN' J.. n -J, 9"""I':::,.

6. ~k yeu tld nk tblit tbe lJixon AJlId ni [] C!'':J. tior: pa:.:~) thO much attention Co t,he South 8. n~ not cno\~l"h to New Enr,;1Hnd? (Cirele one.) 'J"I" l' ~~U"rq ~) L I~J ~) Yes n) No C) Don't know Re: Tennessee

Analysis of the Tonnessee primary vote suggests that Congressman Bill Brock is n probable victor ('vel' Albert Gore.

Tennessee can be dividod politically into three parts (see enclosure). Brock \-rill carry Republican Ea.st Tennessee by n large maJority, Dixiecrat (and anti-Gore) Host Tennessee by a small majority, and lose moderate Middle Tennessee, but not by enough to elect Gore.

The key to Tennessee victorJ is the Wallace vote. The bulk of it appears to have gone against Gore in t.he primary, and the state' s \~allace Party leaders are vehemontly anti-Gore. Social issues continue to ouh.leigh economic issues.

Brock's ma,ior 'Weakness is his economic conservatism. ~!ere it not for Gore I s record of 1.LnSouthcrnism and unpe.triotism, Brock's economic record could be fatal. This can be approached from several directions.

A) Alli'.&~£llj3 .- Brock voted a.gainst the Appalachia progrElffi which is important to Eant 'fenncssee. Tex Ritter used this j ssue ...Ji th some effect in the pr:lmrrry, ng Gore sorno juicy anti-Brock quotes. Brock should find a W:.ly to equivocat.e on Appalachia, or come up ...Iith 80::18 proe;rammatic alternative to justify his uno!l vote. Ono idea: that thf; AppalAcbla program does not include ~11 poor parts of Tennossee, leaving out the Tennessee River counties in the west-central part. of the state, 0.13 \-rell as other poor areas, and therefore tJi'\;t~ a broader program that helps all needy Tennessee areas.

B) QQ.l').!:~3;J:.tive VQ_ting Record on~dal s..f:.£~!tJ.X! Hedi~m"..fL, In(!o:nf~ Ta~,:tc - Brock should prepare immediately, for heavy distribution in all poor sectjoDf; of the state, one page handbills explaining in simple lanGLwge hm.] he pas supported Social Security, Hedicare, tax reform and cheap pOl-ler (?VA) and pledging even more effort in the future.

Most of Tennessee's country and western music stars were active in Tex Ritter's primary campaign. They ha-lio not yet como around to Brock (nor to Gore). For one thine, neither Brock nor Go:cc has supported the music industry with respect to certain copyright and other objectives they have. Ina.smuch as tho country music people can be of tremendous assistance \·lith Hallace-leaning voters in the South and Border states in this campaign and that of 19':'.2, I strongly recom:mond that their desires be ascertained 2.nd granted to the ffiuximum fea.sibJe extent. This year, they could be of great assistance in Tennessee, Florida and Texas, ""hore country and "Testern musicians are a major cmnpaign asset (espcclany to take the (~:lge off country club types like Brock and Dush).

Albert Gors can be expected to c;:,-~'p'liGn aC!J·t nst Brock vith a nover­ endine; stream of fo1ksy cibes and popuJisL 8eo;.omics, but Gore's cocktll:U party liberalimn offers a chance to l'Gbut. Ms folksy . Broek's office Tennessee

-2­ has already responded favorably to the sU[;gcstion that the society pages of the Hashington neHspapers be researched back to 1965 for a complete list of the parties attended by Gore, the menu (the Frel1chier th~ better) and the sodety types and Northern Jiberals in attcndenc~. This ....ray, Gore's "co::n;::on touch" can be rebutted; if Brock cannot play this sort of game \wll him,:;elf, then a surroeata candidate should hit at Gore's liberal society circuitry.

Key area not to bother with lI unSouthern!1 policies -- West Tennessee (see map).

A last point to make regards Ten' cosee GOP factionalism. The East Tennessee counties that opposed Brock in the primary are old Baker organization strongholds. Presuiiiably they will be okay in the general election becausD Brock's people nOH feel that Baker is cooperating, but it might be useful for the message to be passed to Raker thair people will be Hatching for the usual GOP majorities in the First Congre::;sional district strongholds.

Final1y, I wou1d not recornnwnd that the Vice-Prenident go to Tennessee. Outside int.~Jrfercnce does not soom necessary, and there is the chance that Gore could stir up sympathy o.nd/or a backlash. The Viee-Fresident could do the job just as well by saying that h8's not going to Tennessee because he thinks the people do,m their If can kill their otm skunk themselves. II -3­

East 'l'eDnGSSee is soJJ.dJy HepubJican; Brock just needs the usual majority axd. should get it. 1 r,~iddlG and lrJest Tennesscc, Teuch of the anti-Gore vote :J[lould to Brock - of the voters will be Wnllaceites - and that should do it. The heavy Brock primary vote and anti-Gore pr:hlary vote in 'dest 'I\;nnessee suGgeD Ls that Brock Hill be able to a mD,j 01'1 ty that section, albeit H small one. If so, th.en his East rfcnness{"~o ma_jo]~i ty C8.Yl be 8xceecl Gore's Hiddle Tennessee maj ority and he will "'in. j\:cdlefl8 to m)y, the fulcru m of anti-Gore feeling in \"Testern TeEnc5seo 5.13 s()(!ial, racial and regional.

West Tennc~;see Biddle Tennessee East Tennessee State

KpykeridaJJ, 21,000 Demo. 111,000 Demo. 55,000 Rep. 77,000 ( 196/",) Hajority Najority Hajority Demo.

Baker 7,000 Rep. 28,000 Demo. 125,000 Rep. 99,000 ( 1966) Ha,iority JvL3.jori ty Najority Rep.

GOP-Crockett 56,000 Combined 26,000 Combined 88,000 Combined Primary Lead Over Gore ( 1970)

Projected Brock 10-25,000 35-50,000 Demo. 75-100,000 25-90,000 Haj orj ty ;:: Hajority Rep_ Majority Rep. H

* UnusuaJ GOP in Tcnn()[;see 2nti dTr'.t~d because of a) inten=::) ty of IiSouthernl~-ba2cd. el':'mi ty to,1ards Gore and b) local ]:',onul!'!.ritv of Drod: runninc:c:;r;,tfJ 'tJ:i nfield Dunn, \!ho played . or role j.n building GOP in Hest Tennessee I s ~;hoJ.by County (Eemph:is) Re: The Vermont Senate Race

Six years ago, ~linston Prouty won election to a second term by a margin of 88,000 to 76,000. This year he faces a much stronger candidate, former governor Philip Hoff, and polls indicate the election will be tight~

A comparison of Prouty's 1964 vote with Hoff's 1966 gubernatorial victory suggests that the t1tTO men will be fighting for an independent and liberal Republican electorate based in the cities and larger towns. Many of these people voted for Prouty in 1964 but Hoff in 1966. Indeed, Hoff's gains over the Democrat who ran against Prouty correlate with the vote cast in the 1966 GOP gubernatorial primary for a liberal Republican (defeated). Liberal RepubJican and independent votes hold the key to a Hoff or Prouty victory.

Signs of liberal Republican breaka'vlaY in the November election are already buildinG. The incumbent lieutenant':"governor, Tom Hayes, is the liberal Republican ,,,ho "laS defeated in the 1966 primary. This year, he is again running for governor in the GOP primary and he threatens to bolt if he doesn't make it, calling incumbent Governor Davis a captive of big business. Prouty ",ould be affected by a liberal bolt against Davis.

Prouty is running almost at 1964 levels in the small Yankee towns, a good slgn (see enclosed poll). Hoff is not going to do nearly as well in these areas as he did in 1966.

But the Prouty problem will lie in the liberal Republican areas: Bennington and vicinity, Brattleboro, Rutland, areas of Bur:j..ington, Barre and some of the major towns.

To this end:

1. Congressman Robert Stafford, a moderate with great appeal (especially in his home area - Rutland) should be induced to campaign for Prouty, especially in the urban areas of southern Vermont.

2. Lieutenant governor Hayes, who has no financial safe harbor to shelter in after his likely defeat, should receive a talking-to about a federal job or future in order to prevent a damaging break on his part ",ith Governor Davis (which could not help but extend to Prouty). 3. Prouty should be given any possib1 federal contracts or awards to make affecting BurJington or urban south Vermont.

4. The College Young RepUblicans should be geared up for a Prout.y effort in south Vermont (v!here affluent intelligentsia liberalism is on the upsHing) to counteract the image of Prouty as a crusty old Yankee \-lith no youth appenl. Th:i s is one area

'I: ..\ .. r..,... ,.... ~_I i ,,"'> __ ,.. ... , ... "'..- ",,4 1'1'"".,..,"0""-' r.r,'!~ 'I t4 }"\F'o ¥") fY\a" 1"1"'''' l·,r;r) ("'I T" 5. It does not look like Vermont is going to be too hard-pressed by this ,,,inter's oil short.age, but it would be good for the President to go to New England for some fuel re-assurance conference or something in which he could a) demonstrate intense concern; b) announce some new import program; or c) announce a new \.ray of handling the import quotas to be a110"led so that the import tickets are not just bonuses to Big Oil but go where they will do the most good. An oil extravaganza (public-relationsl-rise) oriented tovrards N0l-! England consumers would be a good idea now that the oil interests have been re-assured of retention of the quota system. This would a1so affect Haine, Mass and Conn.

6. The French Canadian vote in upper New England is taken for granted by the Democrats at a 6, 8 and 10-1 ratio. It is worth trying to break up. The Vice President could profitably add French Canadians to his list along with Chicanos and Indians; they are in little better shape throughout parts of N0\.[ England. A little cultural attontion and recognition would go a long way.

I don't think out-of-state speakers serve the purpose in Vermont. The best thing for Prouty would be strong assistance from Stafford (and Aiken, of course, if he would). G>

Re: Ver~1Ql}.1 (Addendum)

Prouty's office people that they have received no fj.nancial aid from \·1h1 to Houso or national party, and that some of their contributors are holding up unt.il vlashineton gives the word. They further state that the Prouty carnpaign is not yet really organh.,~d, vhiJe Domocrat Hoff has a tlght.ly-knit, effective organizatioll.

Jack Gleason is out of tmm but will advise 1'0 Prouty funds problem/lack of coordination. .+270 Vermont Election RU!lstiomwlre

1. For whom do you plan to vote in November's Senate election? (Circle one.) Jf/.:t rJ'7~ D~",'~ t/h;V} "- 3'~ A) Winston Prouty (Republican) B) Philip Hoff (Democrat)

2. For whom did you vote \.Ihell Wins ton Prouty 1&3t rcm for the Senate in 1964? (Circle one.) 7~1. (7- 0., 5'il '2,., li.. ~ A) For Prouty B) For his Democrv.tic opponent C) Don It know/Didn I t vote

3. For whom did you vote when Philip Hoff lU:3t ran for Governor in 1966? (Circle one.) 2{;George Wallace (Independent)) ,D... ",'4 /:,,-\,;vv-.{)ttl'l·,t l/ct...:. __

5. Whom did you support for Pre[;ident 1.n ]()60'! (Cirele one.)

A) Hic:hard NixOll (Hepl.lbJican) B) John F. Kennedy (Democrat) C) Don't know/Didn't vote

6. Do you plan to vote for President Nixon in 1972? (Circle one.) 7"1.. lo'L: 17;~ A) Yes B) No C) Donlt know

7. Do you think that the Nixon Administration TJ!.tvs too much attention to the South and not Cl,lOugh to Now England

Ro: North Dakota, Nml Nexico, Utah .gen~.tsLr.E·,Q.QlLL.Y..Q.\l.ih PS;f..9J::L.!~.rL..

I st.rongly believe in the enclosed project outlined by Horton B1tl.ckuell (Executive Director of the Col1oga Young Republicans) to mobilize ,J-oc."kk.h2JIl9::.§j:at;,::, student 1'1anpOV1Cr in these three races uho1'o a fei·' thousand votes could make the difference.

Norton tells Fle that the President had a long conversation a month or so ago \lith Rob Pollack, President of the College YRs, in vThich he sa:i.d that he \1ants the college YRs to get into the Senate races. These vJould be the most productive.

According to Horton, topflight references for this type of effort can be had from Louie and Lee Nunn, Bob Bitt (RNe) and Charlton Lyons, amfung others.

The Yils are already starting their operation in NeW Hexico and they have Horked out tenativo arra.ngements ",j t.h Burt.onIS poople in Utah, but they need guarantees that the money to pay organizers "rill be aVcdlable - and they need to knohT as iwon as possible so that the org~lnizors can be sent in.

The total cost '''Quld be about ~;20,OOO, and in my opinton worth more than a qvarter of a . million dollars worth of Hrtrry Trcleaven cOI?rercials. At presentJ they just don't have the money - and that is vIhy l;Jhi to House intervention is necessary.

If this c:;m be approved, it \lOuld be useful to have one of Haldemanf s people tell Blach'ol1 8.3 soon as possIble.

As I said, I thinl~ tbat Illack-...rcll is a very cO.In.hle individu3.l and kno'"s 't/co.t he i:'3 doj ng. TAi th the enthusiasti c cooperation of the Ne',r Nexico and Utah candidate's organizations, I·jorton B1ack\>lel1 of the national YR I s is already out in the t\>IO laying th3 groundHork for a substantial youth effort on behalf of Burton and Carter.

The operation can be extended quickly to North Dakota as per the previously subrnitted blueprint, but will need L"Uarantees of financing before the necessary cOnllnitments can be undertaken. Apart from any local organizational vicissitudes, the following is a .e.encr.S11 suggestion of chil1y ideological climates viz a foray by the Vice-President.

ProbabJy unpros,iuctive: t,faine, Hassachusetts, Ne1-' Hampshire, Vermont, Minnesota, Ha\1aii, Hhode Island

Dubj,ous: Connecticut, NeH York, fliichigan, Oreeon, l/Jasl1ington

In general, Agnm.J should be used in places "lhere the Administration is trying to tap a Southern-type or blue-collar Democratic trend to the GOP. Thus the rul:i.ng out of the first seven.

Specific states Hhere AGne1,.1 l,v'ould help Senate candidates are Indiana (to counter Houdebush1s increasing irritation of eonservatives); Texas (to bolster Bush's rightist appeal); Illinois (to bolster Smith among Chicago .' area lll'vl and ordcr ethnics); i>1aryland (to bolster Beall in Baltimore area, especi£Llly Baltir:lore County); California and Flodda; and conceivably NeH Jersey. if he can bo zeroed in on the Catholic industrial/bad:lash areas.

Agnew would seem useful, but for less srecific 1'eo.son8, in the Hocky Mountain states, North Dakota and AlagkH - useful more for publ:lcity purposes/media coverage of local campaign.

He would be useful in Hissouri if Danforth looks like he bas a prayer; Ohio is questionable, depending on Taft's feelings; and DelaHare \-;ould not be negatively affoct(;d. MEMORANDUM

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

October 13, 1970

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. HALDEMAN

FROM: Nick Ruwe •

With the announcement of the President's swing through Connecticut and this Saturday's upcoming political swing the situation has developed that several candidates or their managers are now declining offers of the First Family or Cabinet members on the basis of holding out hope that the President will visit their states. As an example, John Wold is declining offers in the hope that the President will go to Wyoming. For certain reasons, we know that the President will not go to Wyoming.

., No dQubt.there, are some states where the President . will not go and a list of these would be very he1pfu1o

"

cc: Mr. Finch Mro Klein November 5, 1970

BACKGROUND MEMO

NOTES: Re: 1970 Congressional Campaign

Before the President entered the campaign and urged his

Cabinet Officers to make an intensive effort - about 6 weeks prior to the election - all of the private polls we had for each of the key states indicated that our Senatorial candidate was behind in every state except Tennessee. On the basis of these polls the indications were that we would end up with a net loss of one seat in the Senate and a net loss of 30 seats in the House.

The reason the President went out on the campaign trail was as he said during the campaign that the major issues in the Senate were being decided by a majority of one or maybe two votes and he couldn't leave a situation where the President was being undercut week after week, especially in the area of foreign policy. Also, if we had lost 30 seats in the House there would have been no possibility at all of winning control of the House in 1972, which continues to be a long-range objective.

Looking at history we find, of course, that Eisenhower in 1954 and 1958, lost 57 and 13 House seats respectively. A Republican

Administration with any kind of economic slow down will always face 2 a disaster at the polls.

During the campaign in four of the key states the Democratic

Senator accused the Administration of sitting on the new unemployment figures and that they would be 6 1/2%. They also said that the Adminis­ tration was planning to close key bases in each of those states which was not true. The losses in those states and throughout the West are clearly due to the economy. The problem of 10% unemployment in

Los Angeles and Orange Counties for example. is virtually insurmountable.

In other words when the decision was made to go out and campaign, the purpose was to avoid an unmitigated disaster.

We were of course disappointed regarding the Governorships.

The President had predicted a loss of eight, instead we lost probably 11.

These losses are an indication of what might of also happened in the

Congres s and Senate had we not gone out to fight.

Some of the Governorship losses were unavoidable - the Ohio scandal. the Florida party fight. the problems in Pennsylvania. the tax • problems of Tiemann in Nebraska. the conflict of interest problems of

Farrar in South Dakota, etc.

In terms of political significance for 1972, however, it doesn't mean a damned thing. In 1960 we only had 14 Governors. yet the President carried 26 states (this was the lowest number of Governors that any party ever had). We lost two major states - New York and Illinois where we had

Republican Governors - and we won two major states - Ohio and California where we did not have Republican Governors. 3

Having a Governor of our Party would help a bit but basically the Governors don't play the political game now. They have become more non-partisan. There are no strong state political machines in most cases. Naturally we would have preferred not to lose the Governor­ ships. but losing them will not hurt us particularly for the long hall.

A rather remarkable statistical fact is that this election equalized the Republican representation in the House, Senate, and Governorships.

Where we have only 28% of the population registered as RepUblicans. the

Republican Party controls 41% of the House seats. 42% of the Governor s. and 45% of the Senate seats.

Without the economic drag, we would have carried both Houses.

Our foreign policy position is a tremendous asset to the Administration and the Party.

Looking ahead to 1972 with the war over and no new war underway, with a nuclear agreement of some sort, and with the economy up. we should be in excellent shape.

It's important to separate national elections from state elections.

When you do so and look only at the national picture. this was a remarkable showing. We gained two actual seats in the Senate plus Buckley and Benson ideologically. The House is also remarkable vs. the average loss. Except for Teddy Roosevelt in 1902 and FDR in 1934. no President has gained

seats in the House during an off-year election. 4

Peace and the economy are the only issues that matter, none of the other issues that were so thoroughly discussed, really make any difference.

It is important to recognize the outstanding work the President

did especially going into the places that were not sure winners. For instance, MacGregor had no chance at all, but he's a great guy who was making a tremendous fight. Danforth is an outstanding man who

should have had a boost and got it. Nebraska and Arizona both looked

like sure things but we still hit them just in case, and it's a lucky thing we did.

The President has never felt that you should just play it safe

or like Johnson in 1966, stay out all together. He felt he had a respon­

sibility to fight for good people and he went out and did it.

The President has always had the feeling that if people fight

for you, you've got to go out and fight for them. It was imperative,

especially in the Senate, to be sure that we didn't loose seats and it

appeared quite probable that we would if we didn't make a major effort.

The President campaigned only four week days, a couple of

evenings, and three Saturdays and it paid off where it counted in the

Senate.