Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-12-21
WET ISSUE TO DOMINATE AS
FACTOR in 1882 CAMPAIGN
Chance for Democrats on That Platform
Dependent Upon New York
and Solid South.

Kent, is the assertion that the Demo-
cratic presidential nominee is practi-
cally bound to be a wet. If support for
so able a Judgment were needed it can
be said that practically every other OBJ
server, similarly experienced, agrees
with Mr.. Kent.
Success a Debatable Proposition.
Accepting that, assuming that the
Democrats will nominate a wet, the
question is, can they win with him?
To that question the partial answer is
that they almost certainly cannot win
with dry. The Democrats, with dry
nominee, do not have the faintest
chance of carrying New York State. To
that assertion the most inexperienced
amateur in politics will agree. And
without carrying New York State the
Democrats can hardly carry the RIA
ton.
Turn then to the heart of the ques-
ton. Can the Democrats, with a wet
nominee, win the presidency? The an
swer is that as things stand today,
assuming that conditions remain as
they are, they have a chance that is
certainly their maximum one, and a
good one measured by any standard. =
The first element in the answer is,
can the Democrats with wet nominee
carry the Solid South? To that Mr.
Kent's answer is: Everybody comedies
these Southern States as safely Demo-
cratic with any Protestant candidate,
no matter how wet" With that judg-
ment practically all observers will agree.
1t is true that five of the States in the
Democratic Solid South went Repub-
lican in 1923. practically all for the
first time in so years. But the Demo-
cratic candidate in that year, ex-Gov.
Smith of New York, was wet
and also a Catholic. The opposition to
him for these two reasons undoubtedly
overlapped and is not easy to disen-
tangle Practically all politicians adj
NIT, however, that Gov. Smiths religion
could account for the comparatively
narrow margin of votes by which he
lost most of such Southern States as
he did lose. Gov: Smith lost Texas, for
example, by 25,400 votes in total OF
100000. Can any realist in politics
doubt that this narrow margin of Q
per cent of the total vote was probably
due to Gov. Smiths religion, apart from
his wetness? Can any one doubt, in
other words, that wet Democratic
candidate, provided he is not also a
Catholic, can carry the Solid South?
docs any observer dissent from the
Judgment here expressed that the South
would go solidly Democratic, as ordi-
candidate other than the Catholic eX-
Gov. Smith? To put it the other way
round, does any well informed citizen
of the South believe that any Southern
State would go Republican just because
the Democratic nominee Is wet-such
a wet as Gov. Franklin Roosevelt, for
example?)
Solid South a Formidable Factor.
To carry the Solid South is to make
a formidable start toward the presi-
dency. True. many Democratic can
didate has had that start. and yet has
failed to win the presidency; but the
reason has been that the candidate
failed to get very far beyond the start.
In the present case wet Democratic
candidate, having the Solid South as
a start, may go very far.
To win the presidential election
candidate must carry enough States,
large and small. to give him 266 out of
total of 531 electoral votes. The 10
Southern States have ia Conceding
these ia to a wet Democratic candi-
date, let us examine his prospects else
where.
Consider a group of adjoining States.
which We may call the New York
group" consisting of New York, Massa-
chusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and
They are very wet. In all but one of
them both the Democratic and the Re-
publican State organizations are for
mally and expressly wet. In these
States many voters are wet first and
Democrats or Republicans afterward.
Can any one doubt that wet Demo-
cratic candidate would have a strong
chance to carry this New York group"
of States? And if he does, he has 80
electoral votes to add to his ia from
the Solid South, or 203 from both
groups. Two hundred and three cleo
toral votes Is certainly a formidable
start, where only 266 are needed.
Count Shows 2O3 Electoral Votes.
There is not space at this time to go
further. 1t has been shown that the
Democratic party with wet candidate
(not Catholic) can probably carry the
Solid South with ia electoral votes and
the New York group with SO cleo
toral votes. Here, with only two groups
of States-the Solid South and the New
York group-a wet Democratic candi-
date would have 203 electoral votes to-
ward needed 266.
Can it be doubted that the wet DEM
ocratic candidate would have an excel
lent chance to pick up the needed SO
electoral votes in such States as Ohio
with "a; Missouri, with ID: Kentucky,
with Is; Maryland, with 8; Montana,
with 4: Oklahoma, with 10; West Vir-
ginia, with 8; Arizona with 8; Della
ware, with 3; New Mexico. with 8;
Nevada, with 3-to say nothing of the
possibility of Illinois, with 20?
All of which is here stated as of to-
day and on the assumption that pres
ent conditions continue until the final
election, which is % months ahead
of us.