Now and November

"Be not too certain that there will be an election in November 1936," shouted Father Charles E. Coughlin to his alarmed radio audience last month. What he meant was that war might take the place of an election. The political priest might be right or wrong but the fact remained that never before in U. S. history have so many extensive and intensive attempts been made so far in advance to foretell what will happen on Nov. 3.

The speculating public in 1929 was not supplied with a wider assortment of tips on the stockmarket than the assortment of tips on the next election which were last week available to U. S. voters. These tips belong to three general classes, the results of:

1) Surveys made by "trained observers," the century-old method of sending newshawks forth to test political sentiment, report how the country will "go."

2) Straw votes collected on ballots strewn like chaff across the country, a method brought to its full flower only in the last generation.

3) Tests of sentiment by personally questioning relatively small groups chosen with the object of getting a scientifically accurate sample of the voting population, a method whose use in politics is relatively new within the past year.

Aside from dozens of local researches on political trends, the major national reports to date include:

United Press. Sent on a tour from Maine to the Pacific, United Pressman Lyle C. Wilson gave it as his expert opinion that President Roosevelt would not carry any New England state next year, has an even chance from New York to the Mississippi River, is strongest in the West.

New York Times. Sending forth three crack correspondents, Turner Cat- ledge to the South, Russell B. Porter to the Midwest, and James A. Hagerty to New England, the New York Times gave their reports in a series of articles which virtually conceded all New England to the Republicans, all the South, along with Indiana, Iowa and Kansas to Roosevelt. Ohio and Pennsylvania left the Times men in a quandary.

Literary Digest. Greatest straw-vote taker, the Literary Digest, whose polls predicted with considerable accuracy Repeal and the defeat of Hoover, last week reported the tabulation of 987,000 ballots from 41 states. Its question: "Do you NOW approve the acts and policies of the Roosevelt New Deal to date?" Its answers: 41.49%, "Yes"; 58.51, "No."

Many a slur was cast upon this poll because the word "now" in capitals was conceived to imply "After all this, can you really approve the New Deal?" To this the Digest answered that "NOW" was capitalized because it took a similar poll in 1934 and wanted to register changes in sentiment. So incredulous were observers of the strong anti-New Deal returns that other objections to the poll multiplied. Harvard Economics Professor W. L. Crum pointed out in the Wall Street Journal a statistical error. In 1932, 55% of Illinois voters balloted for Roosevelt. As a group this 55% was presumably more inclined to be "liberal" than that which voted for Hoover. Therefore in any fair sample of Illinois voters, about 55 out of 100 must be of the kind who voted for Roosevelt in 1932. But of those who cast Digest ballots less than 47% reported having voted for Roosevelt in 1932. By weighing the average so as to count 55 straw votes for the group for every 47 actually cast in the poll (and making an allowance for 8% of deaths and disappearances among 1932 voters) the New Deal minority in Illinois would be 37.5% instead of 33.6% as published by the Digest. Corrected for this error, most anti-New Deal states showed considerably less anti-New Dealism, but only Oklahoma changed to the New Deal side.

Another probable error urged by many critics was that Digest ballots went to telephone subscribers and automobile owners, who necessarily do not include many unemployed, many women, many young people lately come of voting age--all groups presumably strong for the New Deal (see col. 3). To this the Digest answered that its ballot was taken just as in 1932. when the election of Roosevelt was predicted with an error of less than 1%.

Pearson & Allen. Washington's chit-chat columnists, Drew Pearson & Robert S. Allen, who broadcast a Merry-Go-Round of the Air, invited radio listeners to send in straw votes. Their question: "Should President Roosevelt be re-elected?" Their answers: 70% "yes"; 30% "no." Women were 3-to-1 for Roosevelt; men 2-to-1. Some 90% of the voters explained their reasons. Of the Roosevelt voters, 38% declared they liked the man, did not agree with all his policies--a fact that partly explains the difference between the Pearson-Allen and the Digest returns. Of those opposed to Roosevelt, 63% disliked his policies, 26% were angered by broken promises, 11% disliked him personally.

Gallup. Using the scientific sampling method, Dr. George Gallup ("The American Institute of Public Opinion") syndicates his results in the Press. His question on Roosevelt: "For which candidate would you vote TODAY? Republican? Roosevelt? Socialist? Third Party?" His De- cember results: 52.6% for Roosevelt, 47.4% for the Republican nominee. By states he found Pennsylvania and all of New England except Massachusetts definitely (more than 53%) Republican. Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois were on the Republican borderline (51 to 53%). New York squatted exactly on the 50-50 fence. Michigan, Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, Wyoming and Oregon teetered toward Roosevelt (51 to 53%). The other 27 states were definitely (more than 53%) for Roosevelt. The 27 Roosevelt states have 250 votes in the electoral college. The six borderline Roosevelt states have 53 votes more. 'A majority in the college is 266.

Starch. A Harvard psychologist, who now directs research for the American Association of Advertising Agencies, Dr. Daniel Starch, took and published his own sampling tests. His results: voters 43% for the New Deal; 38% opposed; 19% undecided.

Fortune, Conducting the third of its quarterly surveys, FORTUNE published in its January issue results of a Roosevelt sampling test. Its questions aimed to test the heat of political feeling. Its answers:

1) Roosevelt's re-election is essential for the good of the country: 31.5%.

2) Roosevelt may have made mistakes but there is no one else who can do as much good: 29.3%.

3) Roosevelt did many things that needed doing, but most of his usefulness is now over: 14.1%.

4) About the worst thing that could happen to this country is another Roosevelt Administration: 17.7%.

Those who voted for either of the first two propositions (60.8%) would presumably vote for Roosevelt at present. Those who voted for the last two propositions (31.8%) would presumably vote Republican. Those who voted for No. 2 and No. 3 plus 7.4% who voted "undecided." a total of 50.8%. are citizens whose minds may presumably be changed by events between now and November.

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