Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1940-11-10

THE presidential, congressional and
State elections Tuesday demon
strated again that politics is an inexact
science and that in crucial times the
best laid plans of candidates, campaign
managers, scientific poll takers, jour-
nalistic prophets and partisan subor-
dinates are not much more than guesSes
on what $4,000, 900 Americans will do in
the secrecy of the polling booths.
Now that the returns are in, an au-
topsy on the Republican hopes may
disclose which of the prediction symp-
toms were true and which were only
superficial
Varying a political axiom, You can't
beat something with nothing" This
aphorism applies to the 1910 campaign
just as it did in 1896, when Alfred M.
Landon of Kansas approved the objec-
tives of the New Deal but deplored
Rooseveltian methods. Their converses
applied in 1882, when Roosevelt, then
a two-term Governor of New York, Of
fered the voters a detailed program, in
Guiding governmental economy, as a
remedy for the Hoover depression.
Wendell L. Willkie, a political I'M
known two years ago, was also me
too, but" candidate, much to the cha
grin of many of his prominent support
ers and of the Republican Senators and
Representative seeking reelection. The
last-named group had difficulty in ex-
planning to their constituents why they
had opposed New Deal legislation which
had the public Endorsement of the Re-
publican presidential candidate.
Local Conditions Influential
Some Republican members of Con-
gress refused to try to reconcile these
conflicting views, saying privately that
in the election 1t was every man for
himself" This deprived the Willkie-
McNary ticket of needed local support.
If the Republican candidate had been
Senator Taft of Ohio or Senator Van
denberg of Michigan the lot of the con-
gressional campaigners would have been
much happier.
This is one reason why the congress
sional elections do not form consistent
national pattern. Local conditions and
personal popularity influenced these
contests more than broad national issues
Many voters were disappointed by the
refusal of the presidential candidates to
be specific about the national issues.
Those issues, however, were present.
The two greatest factors in deciding the
voters we're the war situation and the
personal security of each individual
The slogan of Don't change horses in
the middle of the stream" proved more
effective than denunciations that the
third term candidate" was not "the
indispensable man" he claimed to be.
Personal security has always been g
major factor in national elections ano
it influences the millionaire as we'll as
the relief beneficiary. The lower-income
groups have long shown an abiding
loyalty to the President and Mrs
Roosevelt for the New Deals pledge
to work for the greatest good of the
greatest number.
Failure of Debate Natural.
The failure to debate the national
issues was a natural outcome of the
two campaign strategies. 1t was also
good politics. Willkie had no domestic
program of his own except that ne and
his supporters would administer the New
Deal better than the original sponsors
of the reforms. He was unable to make
a case that the New Deal had been
badly managed. Mayor La Guardia OF
New York expressed the view of many
independent voters when he said that
he preferred to take a chance on the
known faults of Franklin D. Roosevelt
rather than on the unknown virtues Of
Wendell l.. Willkie.
The President saw no need to debate
the issues, saying he would answer only
the deliberate falsiflcations of his rec
ord" Politically considered, his ridicule
of Martin, Barton and Fish" was more
effective than any defense he could have
made of his own administration or any
outline he might have given of his
prospective program. Tactically, it was
up to the challenger" to present a
program such as Mr.. Roosevelt put up
in 1882. Had Willkie been specific in
such q program, the incumbent New