The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1928-11-08
KEEPING UP
III With
THE1,,NEWS
BY LUDWELL DENNY

who have been hearing repeatedly
during the last forty-eight hours
that prohibition was a major cause
for Smiths Overwhelming" defeat,
and especially those who have ac-
copied the official anti-saloon claim
Of practically all the credit fol
crushing AL.
Nevertheless, nonpartisan stud
of the facts and figures SHOULD
alarm the drys, and encourage the
vets.
It is true. as the drys claim, that
prohibition helped defeat Smith. But
it is not true that prohibition was
the only or the major cause. And
it is not true that he was over
whelmingly beaten by the voters.
On the contrary, the popular
election relatively was close. With
the exception of 1916 this was the
closest popular election in twenty
years. The joker, of course, is in
the electoral college system. Smith
apparently received only eighty
seven of the 531 electoral votes, or
only 16 per cent. That is no con-
ISOLATION for Smith.
But neither is it consolation for
his dry enemies. For the only test
of wet-dry sentiment is the popular
vote, and Smith has 13,000,0 900 votes,
with several million yet uncounted.
This means Smith got about AZ
per cent Of the total votes. Davis
four years ago got only % per cent;
Cox eight years ago only 81 per
cent.
ONCE Smith was thus within
~ striking distance of popular
majority, the following questions
are pertinent:
What would have happened had
his opponent been a less able and
less popular man than Herbert
Hoover?
What would have happened if
Smith had been the candidate of
the majority instead of the minority
party?
What would have happened If
Smith had been a Protestant in
stead of a Catholic?
Speculation is futile because NJ
exact answers are possible. But tn
facts behind those questions ia
from being futile, are the fundamen
tai elements in this election, in tn
Judgment of nonpartisan observer
Or put 1t another way:
The Anti-Saloon League say
prohibition was campaign faCto-
and tried to make it the majc
issue against Smith.
But there was another major fac
tor, that of sectarianism, which
generally credited with breaking IT,
solid south.
Thus by common agreement tn
extreme drys had one of the mo-
powerful allies possible. And Smit,
had the worst handicap a wet pres
idential candidate will ever have.
If one eliminates the persons who
voted against Smith on sectariap
grounds, how much would remain OF
that narrow 8 per cent margin by
which the wet candidate lost the
popular majority?
n
THE answer would seem to be
L that In this normally Repub-
lican country, any normal wet Re-
publican candidate in a normal
campaign year could be elected.
And, since the Republican party as
such is not so dry as the Democratic
party of the south, it is by no means
certain that the drys can always
prevent nomination of a wet Re-
publican.
But take the Democratic party.
Because of this years break 1t is
less under southern control, and as
minority party it is more in need
than the Republicans Of a new
leader and a popular issue, It is
not improbable that the Democrats
will choose a wet four years hence
for the same necessity of CARRYING
the eaSt-which was their sole rea-
son for nominating Smith-will be
even a greater necessity next time.
Indeed, a powerful southern
Democratic dry leader already has
intimated precisely this in praising
wet Protestant Democrat who won
in this election. Governor Dan
Moody Of Texas said yesterday the
election as Governor of New York
OF Franklin d. Roosevelt marks
for him a continuous and growing
place among the leaders of thought
in national affairs"
A comparison of the Smith with
the Davis vote four years ago il
the east indicates that Smiths vot,
in the east was more significant OF
the prohibition issue than Hoover.
vote in the south.
CMITH, the wet, apparently wol
~ Massachusetts,, thereby switch
ing over 422,00Os votes which wen
Republican four years ago. He APP
parently won Rhode Island, thereof
switching $4,000 normal Republican
votes. In Connecticut he cut thu
Republican majority to $4,000
thereby switching 100000 Republi-
can votes. And in New Jersey he
captured another 100000 Republi-
can voters.
Therefore, with Smith only abou'
8 per cent short of popular major
ity, advocates of prohibition modi-
f1cation are asking:
With wet Protestant candidate
what can keep us from winning next
time?