Enemy fleet wheels directly into line of fire of U.S. battleships, cruisers, destroyers
By Ralph Teatsorth, United Press staff writer
…
Yanks in water ringed by bullets to keep off curious sharks after carrier sinking
…
Poll gives Democrats 57% majority in city but vote of only 40% in balance of state
By George Gallup, Director, American Institute of Public Opinion
New York City, which in the last presidential election cast more votes than the combined total of 16 states, shows a trend away from President Roosevelt in the latest balloting conducted by the Institute.
However, the President still leads in the city by a substantial majority of civilian votes.
Balloting was completed shortly before Roosevelt’s visit to New York City Oct. 21, when he spent most of the day touring the city. Consequently, the figures do not indicate the effect of that visit. A new survey will measure any last-minute changes in sentiment.
Up to the time of the President’s visit, the survey found the following situation:
NEW YORK CITY
(Civilians only)
| Roosevelt | 57% |
| Dewey | 43% |
This represents a shift of four percent away from Mr. Roosevelt in the city since the 1940 election, which he received 61 percent.
A survey during registration week in New York City indicates the turnout increase over expectations will not necessarily help the Democrats more than the Republicans. It was found that the new registrants divide about the same as old registrants in their preferences for Governor Dewey or Mr. Roosevelt.
Upstate is GOP
In previous years, the city has cast about half the vote in New York State. This year, the indications point to a somewhat higher ratio for the city as against the rest of the state – a likelihood which will bring cheer to the Democrats.
Upstate New York continue to follow its traditional political pattern, being overwhelmingly Republican. Institute balloting there points to an increase of 2.0 percent in Republican sentiment since 1940.
UPSTATE NEW YORK
(Civilians only)
| Dewey | 60% |
| Roosevelt | 40% |
The 12-year trend in the city and upstate is shown below. The percentages are in terms of the vote for Roosevelt.
| NYC | Upstate | |
|---|---|---|
| 1932 | 71% | 44% |
| 1936 | 75% | 45% |
| 1940 | 61% | 42% |
| Today | 57% | 40% |
For the state as a whole, the balloting indicates no change since the recently reported figure of 51 percent for Governor Dewey, 49 percent for Mr. Roosevelt.
New York has been a comparatively close state in quite a few elections. In 1940, President Roosevelt carried it with only 52 percent of the major party popular vote. In the 1870s and 1880s, in three presidential elections in a row, the outcome in New York State was determined by only a few thousand votes.
Winston Churchill was frank in his report to Commons on his Moscow negotiations and the Polish-Russian deadlock. Not that he told all. But he did reveal again that Britain in general is on Russia’s side.
While Mr. Churchill recognizes the right of the British people and Commons to such information, our President keeps Americans in the dark regarding American negotiations and policy on this subject and most others.
Mr. Roosevelt’s fear of losing Polish-American votes on Nov. 7 doubtless is an additional reason for his silence, though his secret diplomacy is almost as complete when he is not in a political campaign. As usual he is bidding for votes on both sides of the fence, in this case for the pro-Polish and the pro-Russian votes. That was not so easy after Mr. Dewey came out for the Poles. But the President then tried to stay on both sides without really binding himself to either.
He had Senator Wagner of New York make this statement on Pulaski Day:
I believe with every fiber of my being that the complete independence of Poland – the complete restoration and protection of its boundaries reflecting the history and aspirations of the Polish people – is one of the things for which we are fighting this war… I know that this has always been the aim and intent of the administration of Franklin Roosevelt.
That is a broad pledge, but Mr. Wagner cannot commit Mr. Roosevelt.
In fact, four days later, when a group tried to smoke out the President on the issues of Polish territorial integrity and freedom from puppet control by Russia, Mr. Roosevelt brushed them off with an evasive generality – “to reconstitute Poland as a strong nation but also as a representative and peace-loving nation.” That is a paraphrase of Stalin doubletalk, and as such most acceptable to pro-Russian voters.
But while Mr. Roosevelt plays politics and secret diplomacy with this Polish-Russian deadlock – which might be broken by a fair and open American policy – it is prolonging the war and jeopardizing the peace. Even Mr. Churchill, who unblushingly favors the Russian territorial grab, admits that:
Anything like a prolonged delay in settlement can only have the effect of increasing division… and hampering the common action which the Poles and Russians and the test of the Allies are taking against Germany.
Since Roosevelt’s secret diplomacy has only prolonged the deadlock which interferes with united action against Germany, the least the President can do now is to state American policy openly. He owes that to the American troops. And that is only fair to both Poles and Russians, as well as to the other United Nations. For the American Congress and people are not, and cannot be, committed to any secret deal.
President Roosevelt was in good voice Friday night, as he told his story of the progress of the war.
He claimed the credit, as he was entitled to, for picking Gens. Marshall and Arnold and Adm. King to run the war. They are so good at it that Mr. Roosevelt’s opponent, Governor Dewey, has said that he would keep them running it. Which makes it unanimous.
In developing the rest of his story – of how this country, in the three years since Pearl Harbor, mobilized its military strength, helped munition our allies, built the grandest navy and army and air force, checked the enemy’s advance and took the offensive – Mr. Roosevelt gave himself none the worst of it in the telling. Which is to be expected, of course, in an election year.
It was a clever speech by the cleverest politician of our time.
Yet, after granting credit for the Marshall-Arnold-King selections, the President’s other implied claims will have to be salted down a little on a cold morning-after analysis. After all, neither Mr. Roosevelt, nor Harry Hopkins, nor even Harold Ickes, built all those warships, landing craft and airplanes with his own hands, Other Americans had something to do with that, and we know some industrial workers and managers who contend it was done “in spite of Washington” and notwithstanding all the boards, commissions, bureaus, alphabetical agencies and cross-purposed directives.
And it is not a matter of record that the New Deal actually discovered sulfa drugs, penicillin and blood plasma, so it is hardly due credit for the fact that a smaller percentage of soldiers have died from wounds in this war than in the last war.
Anyone with a short memory listening to the President’s speech would get the impression that when Pearl Harbor came, he was ready for it.
If so, why did those same military commanders lament to Congress that we were unprepared? Why did we spend so many months retreating?
How explain those third term promises that we would not have to give up any of our social gains, that we could have enough bullets without cutting down on butter?
Why was he so insistent that Congress go home, and not stick around pushing the defense program?
Why his failure to lay in those stockpiles of rubber, tin, etc., authorized by Congress?
And why did we have to muddle through the Defense Advisory Council, the Office of Production Management, the Supply Priority and Allocations Board, the War Production Board, the Office of War Mobilization, etc.?
The Commander-in-Chief and Candidate-in-Chief told a thrilling story of American accomplishments at home and in the field. But a true account of his leadership through all that requires a few shadings.
By Robert Taylor, Press Washington correspondent
The “apathy” toward the election that politicians were complaining about a few weeks back has entirely disappeared as the campaign swings into its last nine days, and in its place is an interest on the part of voters amounting, in some cases, to zeal and bitterness.
The campaign suddenly came alive within the past two weeks, apparently with the realization that Pennsylvania, still standing 50-50 in the Gallup Poll, may decide this election for the nation.
Republicans, knowing they have a chance to carry the state, are sniffing victory for the first time since 1932, and they have intensified the efforts of their organization to whip up interest and get out the vote.
Democrats, with the knowledge that this election is not just another coasting party with President Roosevelt certain to raise a safe majority for the ticket, have redoubled their efforts to bring every available vote to bear.
One sign of awakening interest is nationwide. Estimates of the total vote have jumped from 39.5 million to 47 million – or a vote of 76 percent, as compared with a total vote in 1940 of 80 percent, of the eligible voters.
Indications are that, in Pennsylvania, the vote will be higher than 76 percent and most county leaders are making their estimates on an 80 percent vote (Four years ago, Pennsylvania turned in an 82 percent vote).
Registration totals not decisive
Democrats always campaign in Pennsylvania against a Republican majority in total registrations, so a big vote – anything above 75 percent can be classified as big – is usually hailed as an advantage to the Democrats.
One puzzling feature about this year’s election, however, is that registration figures, with the exception of those of some small or politically stable counties, don’t mean what they say, and that the vote can go against the majority of the party registration.
In the places where the fight is hottest, therefore, county leaders are almost unanimously of the opinion that the state will be won by the side that gets out the highest percentage of its vote – by stirring up the voters with campaign issues, by personal appeals and by hauling them to the polls, if necessary.
They’ve been working along this line and, in the process, they have discovered what may be the deciding factor of the election – the existence in populous counties of considerable groups of voters who just aren’t saying anything about the election.
This vote is reported in many counties and is described as a “quiet” or a “silent” vote. It occurs in farm, mining and industrial counties and it 1s variously estimated at from 10 to 15 percent of the county registration. It has been found in both Republican and Democratic counties.
They can’t tell which way
The unclassified vote shows up in the public opinion polls under the heading of “undecided,” and is estimated as representing the same proportions of Roosevelt and Dewey sentiment as that expressed by the voters who speak their minds.
County leaders of both parties are banking heavily on this silent vote to help them increase their own majorities or cut down the opposition’s, but, at this writing, they can’t be sure which way it will go.
A 10 percent silent vote in the more heavily-populated counties could amount to some 200,000 voters who apparently are going to keep their own counsel on how they’ll vote. In a race as close as this one, they can decide the election.
By Royal Arch Gunnison, North American Newspaper Alliance
…
Housing shortage frets film folks
By Erskine Johnson
…
Like Life with Father it has to do with the ‘good old days’
By Howard Barnes
…
Guild production, due here on Nov. 6, took New York by storm
By Florence Fisher Parry
…
Crosby stooge rises from curb
By Si Steinhauser
…
G.I. Joe will get network breaks
…
Holding spoils losers’ great closing bid
…
…
Redskins choice to trim locals before 3,000; halfbacks make debut
By Carl Hughes
…
The QAnoner from Colorado ran a gunnut restaurant small business before she decided to run for office. So you are wrong.
First off, political disagreements there, though I’m not a fan of that Colorado gal either, but for different reasons.
Second, even if that were the case, one example of that should never be enough justification to destroy all small businesses. I doubt the local BBQ place where I am is an extremist hub.
Most small businesses aren’t by themselves political.
Oh, and cut it with the QAnon crap. I know just how much the media has overhyped it for so long, but the fact of the matter is… it’s a pretty lousy fringe only taken seriously by old folks in Facebook and those who are misinformed.
And it gets really complicated the more you analyze the ones the media declared to be “QAnon.”
she openly believes/ed in QAanon and pretending a problem does not exist does not make it go away.
It’s not the problem with small business, so please cut the shit. If a few screwballs are in a charge of a few small businesses, that doesn’t mean every small business is a front for screwball views. I know what you’re saying, but it isn’t ignorance if all small business is at stake.
Once again, try telling that to my local BBQ.
Also, QAnon again. For someone claiming to kick back against conspiracy theorists, you sure do sound like one where QAnon is concerned. If everything is extreme to you, nothing is.
It’s not MY fault that the small business is the backbone of the modern american far-right, and besides I bet that local BBQ owner voted for trump twice and thinks unions should be outlawed.
It’s just plain not the backbone of anything except the wellbeing of those who own them, people with families mainly. Are they supposedly evil, then? No. Are they “far-right”? These people aren’t Gerald L. K. Smith.
Also, how the hell would you know about the BBQ owner? You haven’t met him and I never once hinted at his political views. I will tell you this, he didn’t vote for Trump in 2016. And voting for him doesn’t necessarily make one an evil person, Kindly stop gaslighting.