Taft, Ike& Arithmetic

How can the Republicans, after 20 years in the wilderness, go about estimating whether Taft or Eisenhower is the champion to pit against the Democrats? In the long history of popular politics, only two ways of tackling this problem have been devised: 1) the polls, and 2) the pols.

Last week the Gallup poll issued the latest and most significant of many samplings, all showing that Ike will draw more votes than Taft. Gallup matched Taft and Ike each separately against Estes Kefauver and Adlai Stevenson. Results:

Stevenson 45%

Taft 44%

No opinion 11%

Kefauver 50%

Taft 41%

No opinion 9%

Eisenhower 59%

Stevenson 31%

No opinion 10%

Eisenhower 55%

Kefauver 35%

No opinion 10%

As the pols well know, polls have been wrong. But they have been right far more often. And the Gallup poll has never been anywhere near so wrong as this one would be if Taft were, in fact, as strong a Republican figure as Ike.

Bob Taft derides the polls. A delegate who agrees with him must fall back on the only other method ever devised of forecasting candidate strength. That method is to add up the opinions of the pols--the practical politicians--on how public sentiment stands in their localities.

At this moment, Taft seems to have more delegates, but a far different picture emerges from a closer study of where Taft's delegates come from and where Eisenhower's come from (see map).

In the doubtful states where the 1952 election will be decided, far more delegates (most of them practical politicians) have gone for Ike than for Taft. Most of Taft's convention strength lies either in 1) states where the G.O.P. candidate has little or no chance to win in November, or 2) states which the Republicans are almost sure to win, if any Republican has a chance to reach the presidency in 1952. Taft is strong in the states that are already converted and the states that are unconvertible. Ike is especially strong in the states that can be converted.

If the states are divided into categories, the real Ike-v.-Taft picture becomes clearer. Group I is formed by states which have not gone Republican in the last four presidential elections and which stayed Democratic in the Republican congressional upsurge of 1950. Group I states line up thus:

GROUP I

State Electoral Vote Taft Delegates Ike Delegates

Ala. 11 9 4

Ariz 4 10 2

Ark 8 7 3

Fla. 10 16 1

Ga 12 Contested

Ky 10 19 1

La. 10 2 Contested

Miss 8 Contested

Mo. 13 4 20

Mont. 4 7 1

Nev 3 7 2

N.M 4 8 3

N.C 14 14 11

Okla 8 7 4

R.I 4 0 8

S.C 8 6 0

Tenn. 11 20 0

Texas 24 Contested

Utah 4 14 0

Va 12 11 1

W.Va. 8 15 1

190 176 62

In this group, Taft outdraws Ike by nearly 3 to 1, yet everybody, including Taftmen, knows that Taft has practically no chance to carry any of these states in November. By contrast, Ike's strength in Democratic states comes largely from those with normal Democratic majorities of less than 60%, e.g., Missouri, Rhode Island. Ike has a chance to carry these in November. In general, the more thoroughly Democratic a state is, e.g., South Carolina, the more its Republicans are likely to be pro-Taft.

In addition to his 176 convention votes from these Democratic states, Taft has eleven others from areas that have no chance whatever of contributing to a G.O.P. victory in November. The eleven delegates, from the District of Columbia and the territories, represent areas without votes in the national election. Thus, of 464 convention votes which Taft has this week, 187 (or 40%) come from areas that in November will be barren, or almost barren, of practical results. If Taft's sterile 187 votes are subtracted from his 464 total, he has 277 convention votes from those parts of the country where the G.O.P. either has the lead or a good chance of getting it. Eisenhower has 63 votes (including one Virgin Islands delegate) from areas of little or no Republican hope. If these are subtracted from his present convention strength of 389, Ike has 326 votes outside the Democratic citadel. That leaves the present score of votes in the effective area:

Eisenhower 326

Taft 277

Hard-Core States. In the past 16 years, there has been no large group of consistently Republican states comparable to the solid Democratic states. However, there are a few states which have been consistently Republican since 1938, and many more which have shown definite signs of return to Republicanism. Most of them lie in the traditional Republican heartland, the Central States.

Of the twelve states in the Midwest, all except Missouri went Republican in the congressional elections of 1950. With the three northern New England states, they form the Republican hard core, which is lined up thus:

GROUP II

State Electoral Vote Taft Delegates Ike Delegates

Ill. 27 59 1

Ind. 13 30 2

Iowa 10 9 15

Kans. 8 2 19

Me. 5 5 9

Mich.* 20 10 10

Minn./- 11 0 4

Neb. 6 15 1

N.H. 4 0 14

N.D. 4 8 1

Ohio 25 36 0

S.D. 4 14 0

Vt. 3 0 12

Wis. 12 24 0

152 232 88

In the hard-core Republican states, as in the hard-core Democratic states, Taft's convention delegates outnumber Ike's almost 3 to 1.

If the Democrats get all the Group I states and the Republicans all the Group II states, the electoral vote in November from these two groups will stand:

Democrats 190

Republicans 152

There are 531 votes in the electoral college; 266 are necessary to elect a President. Reasonably assured of 152 from the Midwest-New England hard core, the Republicans in convention face these questions:

P: Where will the other 114 votes come from?

P: Which candidate--Taft or Ike--can do better in the doubtful states where these 114 votes lie?

P: Which can break out of the Central Valley and win votes in the battleground states of the East and West Coasts and the Rocky Mountain area?

Among the practical politicians of the battleground states, Eisenhower has few, if any, old friends, and Taft has many. But the desire for victory in 1952 is apparently stronger than friendship. Here is how the committed delegates from the states of this third group line up:

GROUP III

State Electoral Vote Taft Delegates Ike Delegates

Calif. 32 Favorite Son

Colo. 6 2 15

Conn. 8 0 21

Del. 3 7 4

Idaho 4 14 0

Md. 9 Favorite Son

Mass. 16 3 29

N.J. 16 6 31

N.Y. 45 1 85

Ore. 6 0 18

Pa.* 32 2 13

Wash. 9 4 20

Wy. 3 6 2

189 45 238

With the pols, the men who know the doubtful states best, it's Eisenhower 5 to 1. Of Ike's present committed convention strength of 389 votes, 61% comes from the battleground states. Only 10% of Taft's present convention strength comes from these areas.

Moreover, Maryland's favorite son, Governor Theodore R. McKeldin, has announced that he prefers Ike to Taft, and at least 18 members of his 24-man delegation are ready to go Ike when McKeldin releases them. California's favorite son, Governor Earl Warren, is known to favor Ike over Taft. A careful canvass of California's 70 delegates shows that those favoring Ike outnumber those favoring Taft at least 3 to 1.

Taft's weakness as the Republican candidate in November is particularly glaring in California and New York. Few professional politicians or neutral observers think that he can carry either state against Stevenson, Harriman or Kefauver. California has gone Democratic in presidential elections for the past 20 years. New York went Republican in 1948 only because Henry Wallace's 500,000 cut into Harry Truman's vote: Dewey, strong as he was in his own state, carried it by only 61,000.

If the Democrats hang on to their "solid" Group I states and win New York and California, they will have an electoral vote of 267, one vote more than they need for victory.

Governors' Choice. Bob Taft said last week that the only obstacles to his campaign for the nomination were "newspapers and governors." Of the 25 Republican governors, only three, Jordan of Idaho, Lee of Utah and Brunsdale of North Dakota, have announced their support of Taft. Their states have a total of twelve electoral votes. The Republican governors of 13 states have announced their support of Ike. The 13 (Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin) have 146 electoral votes in November. In addition, the governors of Maryland and California, with 41 electoral votes, prefer Ike to Taft.

How is this one-sided line-up of the governors to be explained? When a party is out of power nationally, the governors who are members of that party take on special importance. They (rather than the Senators) handle the lion's share of the party patronage. They usually speak for and are responsible to the party organizations in their states. On them falls the pressure of local leaders who want a winner in November. The Republican governors are for Eisenhower for the same reason that the delegates from doubtful States are for him. They think he will win.

Uncommitted Republican delegates now number 149. When they get together at Chicago they will have a chance to look hard at the arithmetic and the geography of the G.O.P. position. They can ask the California delegates whether Taft has a good chance to carry their state. They can ask the New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Oregon delegates whether Taft has a good chance to carry those states.

After they get the answers, simple addition and subtraction will give the answer: Ike is far more likely than Taft to win in November.

* The bulk of Michigan's 46-vote delegation is uncommitted.

/- Twenty-four of Minnesota's delegates are committed to Favorite Son Harold Stassen. taft is conspicuously weak in this state.

*The majority of Pennsylvania's 70 delegates are uncommitted.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.