Public Opinion and The Presidential Election of 1948

p RESIDENTIAL elections are significant subjects for the study of public opinion. In them the public opinion process can be studied somewhat objectively. This process as analyzed elsewhere by the writer' includes a challenging of some procedure, a defense-advocacy debate, contradictory propaganda procedures, and a decision with accompanying redefinition of the issues. The presidential election of 1948 when measured against the aforementioned pattern of a public opinion process yields interesting results. No one of the presidential elections in the history of the United States affords more significant data than does the latest one. It not only fooled practically all the public opinion experts, but fooled them badly. It misled most of the leaders of both parties and it successfully defied the mathematical experts who seek exactness and predict in terms of numbers and percentages.2 In some ways the Presidential Election of 1948 was unique in the history of the nation. After the election a Republican commentator said: "Let's admit that against great odds Mr. Truman won an extraordinary victory and made monkeys of all the columnists, editorial prophets, poll takers, political logicians, and 'trained' observers in the country."3 And then, more significantly still, Mr. Kent added: "Let's admit that he is the only Presidential candidate to achieve the unprecedented political miracle and create the unsuspected 'ground swell."' It is this unsuspected ground swell of public opinion with which this paper deals. After the election an editorial writer in Life stated that President Truman "was doser to public opinion than anyone realized."4 He was closer to public opinion than the "experts" suspected because he was creating a ground swell of public opinion that measurement techniques failed to record. Although the President did not win the support of a majority public opinion, he came 2,000,000 votes closer to doing so than did his main opponent. At least he won a clear majority of votes in the electoral college. To say that Governor Dewey would have been elected if he had received 35,000 more votes properly distributed in three States needs to be considered alongside of a parallel statement that if President Truman had received a few thousand more votes in each of eight States where Governor Dewey had a close call he would have had a clear majority of the voting public and definitely increased his 303 electoral votes. To much the same degree that prior to the election people were sure that Dewey would be "the next president," people after the election were certain that Truman was the central figure in turning the tide of public opinion and of producing the effective ground swell of public opinion. He "caught the nation's fancy," says his press secretary.5 Of five explanatory factors cited by Frank R. Kent, first place is given to the possibility that Truman's success was due "to the appealing personality of an inherently decent man, unaided and alone gallantly fighting on when even his closest friends felt that there was no chance."6 There is little question but that President Truman's personal courage was recognized by large numbers of people and that it appealed sufficiently to a significant percentage of them to turn the election in his favor. His courage was exhibited against odds that would have completely overcome a less daring spirit. His press secretary says: "If he had any doubts about winning, he kept them to himself. He inspired us all to believe that he would win."7 Shortly after his nomination in July he announced decisively to the members of the White House staff: "We are going to win. I expect to travel all over the country and talk at every whistle stop. We are going to be on the road most of the time from 1 Fundamentals of Social Psychology (New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 1942), pp. 448-51. 2 No attempt will be made in this paper to fathom the reasons for the glittering error of the pollsters. My colleague, Dr. E. C. McDonagh, is making an analysis of this phenomenon. 3Frank R. Kent, Los Angeles Times, November, 1948. 4 Life, 25: 37, November 15, 1948. r Life, op. cit. I Los Angeles Times, op. cit. 7Charles G. Ross, Colliers, 122: 87, December 25, 1948.