Message from New Hampshire

Special state elections often prove unreliable barometers of national political trends. Indeed, the surprisingly decisive victory of Democrat John Durkin in last week's rerun of New Hampshire's long-contested 1974 Senate election may not say much of anything about President Gerald Ford's prospects for election in 1976. Yet if ever there was a masterly campaign aimed at current vulnerabilities of the party in power in Washington, it was Durkin's. His victory in a Republican state shows what a tempting target the Ford Administration has become, at least for the moment.

The vote finally resolved the closest Senate election in U.S. history. In the first election, ten months ago, five-term Republican Congressman Louis Wyman was declared the winner by 355 votes, out of 236,140 cast. Democrats demanded a recount, and to their delight, Durkin turned out to be ten votes ahead. A state review board dominated by Republicans found Wyman had won by a mere two votes. The issue was then carried to the Senate, but Republicans effectively filibustered to prevent the Democratically controlled body from seating Durkin. He finally yielded and agreed to Republican demands for a new election.

Not Smooth. New Hampshire Republicans expected to win the second time around, feeling that Wyman had been too complacent last November. On the surface, they had reason for confidence, since state elections normally turn on personality, experience and local issues. Wyman, a lawyer who was once New Hampshire's attorney general, looked strong on each count. He was more articulate and agile at debate; he looked and sounded like a Senator. "I have been trained for 25 years to learn how to be a U.S. Senator," Wyman boasted. Durkin, on the other hand, seemed ill-fitted to be a politician. He had never before run for elective office; he spoke too stridently, uttered cliches and gave oversimplified answers to tough questions. Also a lawyer, he could claim just five years as the state's appointed insurance commissioner and three as assistant attorney general. He conceded: "I may not be the smoothest item to come down the turnpike."

Durkin had other problems. Republicans hold a large voter-registration advantage (39% to 28%, with 33% registered as independent). The state Republican power structure, led by archconservative Governor Meldrim Thompson and right-wing Publisher William Loeb, went all-out to defeat the Democratic upstart. Loeb's Manchester Union Leader frequently assailed Durkin as a carpetbagger* from Massachusetts (he moved to New Hampshire eight years ago). Durkin was also tagged as a tool of labor unions and an advocate of big spending and big Government. Loeb even printed unsigned crackpot hate letters--purportedly from Durkin supporters--attacking Wyman.

Yet Durkin racked up 54% of the unexpectedly large vote, against 43% for Wyman and an insignificant 3% for an American Independent Party candidate. Organizationally, Durkin did so with an efficient, labor-supported, get-out-the-vote drive. On the issues, he tied Wyman to past and current Republican Party policies in Washington, a strategy that was actually aided by President Ford's campaign swing in New Hampshire on behalf of Wyman. Durkin hammered away at the high cost of heating oil, gasoline and electricity, and forecast more increases under Ford's policy of decontrolling domestic oil. That tack was effective in New Hampshire, which has been hit unusually hard by heating and electricity price hikes.

Durkin also decried the high rate of unemployment (7.7%) in a state with a relatively small labor force and blamed it on Washington. Taking advantage of his reputation as a fighter for consumers, he attacked inflation in general and the recent recession. He criticized Republican farm policies, terming Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz "Nixon's revenge" on the nation for being forced out of office.

Watergate, too, figured in the election; Wyman is under investigation by the Special Prosecutor's office for helping arrange a $300,000 contribution to Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign. The donor: Ruth Farkas, member of a wealthy New York department store family, who became Ambassador to Luxembourg after giving the money. Wyman conceded that he had been questioned by a Watergate grand jury about the Farkas affair, but refused to discuss the matter during the campaign. Wyman apparently remains in some danger of indictment, a possibility that President Ford boldly decided to ignore in choosing to campaign for him.

Wyman readily accepted the challenge of allying himself with Ford policies. He echoed a repeated Ford complaint about the evils of relying too much on Washington. "I want the Federal Government to keep its cotton-pickin' hands out of our business unless there's something we absolutely can't handle," Wyman declared. The pitch did not work. Wyman failed to carry nine of the 14 towns in which Ford campaigned for him. Nor did he win in Manchester, where California's Conservative Ronald Reagan stumped for him.

Restive State. If there is any message in Durkin's victory for the hopefuls who will enter the nation's first presidential primary election five months from now in New Hampshire, it is that the state is restive and unpredictable. Last week, at least, it was in no mood for politics as usual. The result: New Hampshire for the first time in 121 years has two Democratic Senators. That was melancholy news for the G.O.P. But Gerald Ford did not seem discouraged. Continuing his extraordinary early political travels, he took off at week's end for an arduous four-day schedule of speechmaking in Oklahoma and California.

* Loeb should know.He was born in Washington. D.C., and his official residence is in Nevada.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.