Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-01-25
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDACY
FOR SMITH LOOMS IN 1882
Selection Believed Probable If Power
and Prohibition as Well as Business
Status Are Issues.

ular vote, 15,016,443 out of a total of
So. 408.639, was AZ, 1t is the popula-
vote that Is the true index UG a candl-
dates strength. A quite slight redis-
redistribution as chance might readily
work. would have given him quite for
midable strength even in terms OF States
carried and electoral votes.
The popular vote for the last three
Democratic candidates was:
Democratic
Year Candidate Popular Vote
1928 Smith 15,016,443
1924 Davis S,386,503
1920 Cox 9,147,353
Make the comparison on yet a DIFF
ferent basis, the proposition Of the total
popular vote won by Smith anS by the
preceding Democratic candidates:
Democratic Percentage -
Year Candidate Popular yoNs
1929 Smith ia
1924 Davis @
1929 COX ~
Measured by any standard. looked ~
from any viewpoint Smiths popular
votl in 1928 was genuinely remarkable.
TrA-. the popular vote OF his opponent,
NJ. Hoover, 1892 100. was similarly re-
EAarkable But compare the popular
vote of the Democratic Smith in 1928
with that Of the Republican Coolidge
in 1924 and that Of the Republican
Harding in 1920-Smith's popular vote
in 1928, 15,016,443. was only barely
short of the vote that elected Coolidge
In 1924. which was 15,725,016, and also
almost as great as the popular vote that
elected Harding in 1920, 16,152,2Oo.
Personal Following Great.
It seems fair to say. as deduction
from these figures. that Smith has a
net personal following Of something ap-
preaching 100000 votes-4,000,0 900
voters who will come out and vote for
Smith, but not be moved by other
Democratic candidates. This personal
following Of at least 100000 Is net,
after deducting the number OF Demo-
cratic votes in the Southern States ana
elsewhere who will not vote for Smith.
It is doubtful If any other Democratic
leader has a purely personal following
anything like so large as Smiths.
It is familiar and sound aSSump-
ton, too sound to need argument, that
whoever is the Democratic candidate IN
1882 will do better than in 1928; that
Democratic fortunes are In the ascend
ant and that any Democratic candidate,
whoever it may be. in 1882 will come
closer to winning than In 1928. Even
Republican leaders admit that as things
now look they cannot hope to be as
strong next year as they were In 1928.
Not q few Republican leaders are will
ing to admit that If prosperity Is long
delayed, and If the Democrats manage
their fortunes carefully from now on,
they (the Democrats) may have an even
chance to win next year.
Consider this better fortune OF the
Democrats next year on the assumption
that Smith may be the candidate,
Smith in 1928 lost Texas-but he lost
it only by a vote of 367.036 for Hoover
to 34l ,O32 for Smith. That Is, Smith
lost Texas by roughly. 10000 votes in
a total of 100000. Expressed in terms
Of percentages, Smith lost Texas by 3lz
per cent of the total vote. Is 1t not
fair to assume that under the changed
conditions expected to exist in 1882
that narrow margin OF $4,000 votes, or
net swing back to Smith and give him
that State? Only $4,000 votes would
need to switch. A swing of $4,000 votes
in Texas back to Smith could readily
be accounted for by the changed cond1-
tons likely to exist next year.
Defeat Carries Little Weight.
Similarly New York. Smith lost New
York with it's As electoral votes) in
1928. He lost it by margin extremely
narrow, considering the size of the
State. Smiths New York vote in 1928
was 2,089,863. President Hoover's
slightly greater vote was 2,193,344. That
is. Smith in 1928 lost New York State
by 1O3,481, by 21a per cent Of the total.
There is probably no politician in either
party and no observer who would deny
that under the changed conditions Of
next year those ,481 votes and more
than those would swing to Smith If he
we're the Democratic candidate. Less
than SO 900 voters would need to switch.
It must not be imagined that defeat
in one election Is reason for not re-
nominating the same candidate. Bryan
lost in 1895 and was renominated In
1900, although Bryan's isSue-free silver
had receded; whereas. Smiths issues
have grown. Bryan was renominated
yet again in 1908. although his early
issue had by that time totally diSap-
peared and 1t was necessary for him to
have a new issue. Similarly, Cleveland
was renominated after he had lost, and
upon the final nomination, won.
The net of which is that Smith Is
very much in the Democratic picture.
Accurately appraised, Smith is probably
a little farther to the front of the pic
ture than any other one candidate. He
will continue to be q possibility until
the convention has opened. If turmoil
should arise in the convention and
heated controversy among various can
didates, Smiths name is the one carry
ing a larger possibility of emotional
stampede in his favor than any other.
What is said here Is based in large
part on the premises that the issues be-
tween the two parties will be power and
prohibition. There is always possibility
that one or the other of these issues
may fail to develop If the Democratic
party should not go wet. or If the Re
publican party should not be dry-in
that event, obviously, prohibition would
not be an issue.