The Tough One

In its first edition on election night, the New York Times, which had the most elaborate election-reporting machinery of any U.S. daily, headlined: HARRIMAN DEFEATS IVES FOR GOVERNOR. When Harriman's lead diminished, the Times recalled 80,000 copies of its first edition and chartered special planes to replace the out-of-town copies with a new edition. In successive editions, the Times tried to keep up with the results by running three different lead editorials. The first congratulated Harriman, who "has been elected." This was junked for a noncommittal substitute on the "sportsmanship" of elections. The final edition once more congratulated Harriman who "appears to have been elected."

Electronic Cousin. For papers everywhere, the 1954 election was tough to cover. In the seesaw New Jersey race, the New York Post ran a banner head line: CASE LEADS HOWELL. Under it was a picture of "Senator-elect Howell, who defeated Republican Clifford P. Case." In Oregon, Eugene Register-Guard Editor William Tugman wrote an explanation of why the Democratic senatorial candidate, Richard Neuberger, lost, next day took it back with an article headed: NEUBERGER WINS AFTER ALL, MAYBE, HUH? FINE ARGUMENT FOR VOTING MACHINES. CBS

Radio and TV newsmen were not helped by the erroneous mathematical conclusions of

Remington Rand's electronic calculator, Univac (see RADIO & TV). But the Detroit Times did better with Univac's cousin UDEC (Unitized Digital Electronic Computer). By carefully feeding UDEC the vote from key districts, the Times predicted that Democrat Patrick McNamara would win over Republican Senator Homer Ferguson, even though Ferguson's defeat was not certain until eight or nine hours later.

If newsmen were sometimes confused by the close vote, few at least were embarrassed by it. Unlike the 1948 elections, when most political reporters simply rode the campaign trains, this year hundreds of reporters roamed the country interviewing voters, politicians and local newsmen. The week before election, they rechecked their first impressions, scaled way down their predictions of a Democratic landslide.

Poll Trouble. Aging (74) Washington Evening Star Reporter Gould Lincoln, dean of national political reporters, traveled through 17 states right up to election time, predicted within three the number of Democratic governors, the Democratic margin in the Senate within one seat, and a Democratic majority in the House within a dozen seats. Both the A.P. and New York Times sent last-minute squads of reporters out to check their earlier surveys. As a result, on election eve they predicted a small Democratic majority in the House and said the Senate race would be very close. U.S. News & World Report was not so lucky. It predicted a 55 to 79 Democratic majority in the House and a five-seat Democratic margin in the Senate.

Many of the polls were way off. The powerful New York Daily News's poll, whose gloomy reports caused the Republicans to change their whole campaign in the state, predicted that Harriman would win by a comfortable 8.8% margin in its last poll, reduced his lead to 5.2% in its "weighted" figures. He actually led by less than 1%. In New Jersey, the Princeton poll predicted a landslide for Democratic Senatorial Candidate Howell, who lost to Republican Case. Palmer Hoyt's Denver Post predicted in its poll that Democratic Senatorial Candidate Carroll would win, but he was beaten by Republican Allott. Said the New York Daily Mirror: "The polls were all wrong, including the one published in the Mirror."

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