Election Day 1946 (11-5-46)

[NormanStewart]

Background of news –
‘Tain’t so

By Bertram Benedict

“The party that wins the House in the midterm elections always wins the presidency two years later” has become a proverb in American politics.

It simply isn’t true.

Since the Civil War alone, three presidential elections have been won by the party that lost the House two years previously.

It is true that in one of these cases, the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876, the presidential result was obtained only by some skullduggery in counting the electoral vote. But it is true also that only the sheerest kind of political accident prevented the Wilson-Hughes contest of 1916 from being a fourth instance.

In 1886, the Democrats carried the House by a margin of 19 seats over the Republicans. In 1888, the Democratic presidential candidate, President Cleveland, was defeated, with 168 electoral votes to 233 for Benjamin Harrison. (However, Cleveland did have a popular majority of about 100,000).

Civil War veterans helped to defeat Cleveland. He had vetoed hundreds of individual pension bills as based on spurious claims, also a general pensions bill, until he was accused of placing “pennies before patriotism.” Also, Cleveland had outraged the feelings of many veterans (and some other citizens) by ordering the return to southern states of Confederate flags captured during the war.

Cleveland not a veteran

The president wasn’t, himself, a veteran; Harrison was, and had voted pro-pension while in Congress.

Then there was the Murchison letter. Cleveland had come out strongly for lower tariff rates. Lord Sackville, British minister at Washington, received a letter from one Murchison, claiming to be a naturalized citizen born in England, asking advice on how to vote.

The British minister fell into the trap, and answered that a vote for Cleveland would be helpful to Great Britain. The letter was made public on the eve of the election to prove that Cleveland’s tariff program would benefit England at the expense of the United States.

In 1878, the Democrats carried the House by a margin of 22 seats over the Republicans. In 1880, their presidential candidate, Gen. Hancock, received only 155 electoral votes to 214 for Garfield.

Hayes given credit

The big factor in the 1880 election was the recovery from the long depression of the 1870s, for which credit was given to the Republican administration of President Hayes. The wheat and corn crops were especially good. The Republican Party, which had been rent by dissension, closed ranks after suffering reverses in the elections in Maine in September.

And Hancock, a regular Army officer, had had no experience at all in government or politics; he was widely ridiculed for pronouncing: “The tariff is a local question.”

In 1874, the Republicans carried 74 fewer House districts than the Democrats. In 1876, their presidential candidate, Hayes, was counted in by the margin of one electoral vote. The Republicans contested the returns from some states, and the electoral commission, eight Republicans and seven Democrats, decided practically all the contests by a strict party alignment.

In 1878, the Democrats carried the House by a margin of 38 seats. President Wilson was re-elected, by 277 electoral votes to 254, only because California, with 13 votes, went for him – by 3,806 popular votes.

[NormanStewart]

Elections held for senators in 34 states

Both parties agree fight is close

NEW YORK (UP) – Voters in 34 states determine in today’s elections whether the Senate will remain under Democratic control, pass to Republicans or result in a 48-48 tie.

Leaders of both parties agreed that the fight was close. If a tie should develop, party leaders probably would work out a compromise rather than permit a stalemate when the 80th Congress convenes in January.

There are 35 Senate seats at stake in today’s elections, two in Virginia and one in each of the other 33 states. Twenty-four of them now are held by Democrats, 10 by Republicans and one by a Progressive. Maine re-elected a Republican in September.

Need 10 seats

Republicans would have to make a net gain of 10 seats to get a Senate majority. GOP leaders expected to pick up the Wisconsin seat now held by the Progressive as a start on their drive for victory.

They claimed their chances were “good” to take nine-more now held by Democrats. Democratic leaders conceded the GOP might make some gains, but would fall short of the 10 needed to get control.

Leaders of both parties agreed that the Democrats would win all the seven races in the solid South – Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia’s two.

That reduced the field for possible Republican gains to the seats now held by Democrats in Delaware, Idaho, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Maryland, Nevada, New York, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Utah, Arizona, West Virginia, Wyoming and Washington.

Claims voiced

Democratic leaders insisted they would retain a vast majority of those places. They also claimed a “good” chance of picking up seats now held by Republicans in Kentucky and California.

The fight for control of the Senate developed several interesting contests. Among them were:

MASSACHUSETTS: The bid of former Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, Republican, for the post now held by Sen. David I. Walsh, Democrat.

NEW YORK: The contest between Irving M. Ives, Republican, and Herbert H. Lehman, Democrat, was overshadowed by, and expected to be heavily influenced by the gubernatorial race between Gov. Thomas E. Dewey and retiring Sen. James M. Mead.

MISSOURI: President Truman’s home state was a hot battleground with Sen. Frank P. Briggs, Democrat, and James P. Kem, Republican, tussling for the seat formerly held by Mr. Truman. Mr. Briggs has held the seat under gubernatorial appointment since Mr. Truman resigned in January 1945 to become vice president.

OHIO: Former Gov. John W. Bricker, the 1944 Republican vice-presidential nominee, was a favorite to defeat Sen. James W. Huffman, Democrat, who was appointed to the Senate last year when former Sen. Harold H. Burton moved up to the Supreme Court. Mr. Bricker had to win handily if he expected to keep alive his 1948 GOP presidential chances.

[NormanStewart]

Nine million vets will vote; both parties claim them

Polls show ex-servicemen divided sharply; many are candidates

NEW YORK (UP) – Prodded by big veterans’ organizations, up to nine million ex-servicemen were expected to vote today. Both parties claimed their support.

Polls showed them divided sharply. Otherwise they could easily have swung the election.

Almost one in every two major party congressional candidates boasted service in one or more wars.

Others spoke of what they had done, or could promise to do, for the veteran.

395 claim war service

No matter which party won, the 80th Congress was certain to be heavily weighted with men who once wore the uniform. This was significant in the light of hot veterans’ issues that are likely to be fought – such issues as a 30-billion-dollar bonus.

Of approximately 800 Democratic and Republican candidates for House and Senate, 395 claimed war service. The biggest group – 228 – fought in World War II.

A tremendous veteran turnout was forecast by both sides. For most GIs it was their first chance to vote since induction. Despite absentee ballot arrangements in the 1944 general elections, only 2,691,000 were able to vote.

15 million men served

Close to 15 million men saw service in World War II. Observers say they came home with increased awareness of civic responsibility and in some cases with a burning desire to vote.

Groundwork has already been laid for a barrage of veterans demands on the new Congress. The big GI groups are certain to call for prompt revision or repeal of a $200 ceiling on wages-plus-subsistence that may be drawn by a veteran student.

The bonus will also come up. The Veterans of Foreign Wars and Disabled American Veterans are already on record with proposals for adjusted service pay up to $5000 per man.

[NormanStewart]

33 governorships at stake as Democrats seek to hold

NEW YORK (UP) – Thirty-three governorships were at stake in today’s elections. The Democrats sought to retain the gubernatorial balance of power they wrested from the Republicans in the 1944 Roosevelt sweep.

Maine re-elected Republican Gov. Horace A. Hildreth in September.

Prior to today’s election, there were 25 Democratic governors and 23 Republican state chief executives.

Two unopposcd

Of the 33 governorships being contested, 17 now are held by Republicans and 16 by Democrats. Sixteen incumbents are seeking re-election, eight from each party. Among the 14 governors not up for election this year, nine are Democrats and five Republicans.

Two Democrats were unopposed today – Georgia’s Eugene Talmadge, self-styled champion of white supremacy, and South Carolina’s J. Strom Thurmond.

Republican Earl Warren was certain of re-election in California. He won both the Republican and Democratic nominations.

Mr. Warren, a potential Republican presidential nominee in 1948, was opposed only by Prohibitionist Henry R. Schmidt.

Watch Dewey race

The No. 1 gubernatorial contest was in New York State where Thomas E. Dewey, 1944 Republican presidential nominee, was pitted against Democratic Sen. James M. Mead. Mr. Dewey was an odds-on favorite, but the size of his vote may determine whether he gets another shot at the GOP presidential nomination two years hence.

The Kansas contest also carried national interest. There, former Democratic Secretary of War Harry H. Woodring opposed Republican Frank Carlson, now a member of Congress. Mr. Woodring, one-time Kansas governor, sought election on a platform calling for repeal of the state prohibition law.

[NormanStewart]

Labor union restrictions before voters in 4 states

Massachusetts seeks financial statements; three others seek to oust closed shop

NEW YORK (UP) – Voters of four states ballot today on whether they shall restrict labor union activities.

Nebraska, South Dakota and Arizona decide the fate of proposed constitutional amendments which would prohibit the closed shop and guarantee the right to work without joining a union organization.

Massachusetts votes on a law that would require labor unions to file annual financial statements with the State Labor Commissioner. The statements would show the names and salaries of union officials, dues scale, fines, fees and assessments.

FEPC in California

Massachusetts takes a referendum on whether the state should increase monthly payments by $8 for recipients of old age assistance.

California decides upon the establishment of a Fair Employment Practices Commission similar to those operated by New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts. The state also votes on a proposition to fix the minimum salary of school teachers at $2,400 annually.

A proposed constitutional amendment in Alabama would require prospective voters to “understand and explain” the federal constitution instead of merely being able to read and write. The proposition would act to prevent Negroes from voting.

Labor fights amendments

Approval appeared almost certain for the constitutional anti-closed shop amendment in Nebraska and Arizona. The American Federation of Labor is reported banking on the past reluctance of South Dakota voters in approving constitutional amendments for defeat of the right-to-work amendment in that state.

The South Dakota proposal provides that “the right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or non-membership in any labor union, or labor organization.” The State Legislature approved a law containing substantially the same provision in 1945.

The Nebraska amendment is the most inclusive of the union regulatory measures. It would prohibit denial of employment to any person because of membership or non-membership in a union, resignation or expulsion from a labor organization. It forbids any employer, organization or association from entering into agreement to do so and carries its own enabling clause.

Under its terms, all forms of union security would be forbidden in Nebraska, including the closed and union shops and maintenance of membership.

The proposal is similar to those adopted in eight other states since 1943. None has yet been litigated as to its constitutionality.

[NormanStewart]

Election in South is in the bag

Status of Negro vote issue in two states

ATLANTA, Georgia (UP) – Voters in the “Solid South” go to the polls today with the election in their pockets since virtually all political preferences are settled in primary elections.

The write-in campaign for Rep. Helen Douglas Mankin, for re-election to Congress, highlighted election interest in Georgia where Eugene Talmadge, successful July 17 primary candidate, will be formally elected.

Mrs. Mankin was dropped from the ballot after a heated fight for the Democratic nomination against Judge James C. Davis.

Vote on Negro rights

Dominant election issue concerns future voting status of Negroes in Alabama and Georgia, and the right of Negroes to hold office in South Carolina, where Negro Republicans are opposing white Democrats in congressional races.

James (Big Jim) Folsom, who will be confirmed as Alabama’s new governor, has asked voters to defeat the Boswell amendment which seeks to disenfranchise Negroes.

The “white supremacy” proposal would drop a voting requirement that registrants own at least $300 worth of property and change the voting requirement from ability to read and write any section of the U.S. Constitution to “understand” any section.

Plans private club

Georgia voters will confirm Mr. Talmadge on his pledge to restore the white primary to party elections. He plans to reconstitute the party as a private club, to which only whites may belong, thus skirting the U.S. Supreme Court decision under which Negroes voted in last summer’s primary.

The South Carolina Legislature set the pattern for circumventing the Supreme Court ruling by making the party a private club. Negro congressional nominees – who haven’t a chance – are backed by a white-Negro political Republican combination not recognized by the national party.

[NormanStewart]

Simms: Election may tip off Reds U.S. back foreign policy

Fiction that nation is divided has kept Russia from coming to agreement
By William Philip Simms, Scripps-Howard staff writer

NEW YORK – Today’s elections may have considerable bearing on Soviet-American relations, on the outcome of the Big Four Council of Foreign Ministers in session here, and even on world peace.

That may sound like a Democratic or Republican handout, but it isn’t. It is the considered opinion of a high-placed United Nations personage here in an off-the-record expression to this writer.

What is delaying an understanding between the U.S. and Russia more than any other one thing, he declared, is not some great insurmountable obstacle separating the two countries, but a pure fiction – a fiction that America is split wide, open over foreign policy, especially Russian policy.

Semblance of importance

Responsible for that fiction, in the first place, is a small but extremely active group of leftists.

But a much smaller group in public life, such as Henry Wallace and Senator Pepper, give it some semblance of importance – at least in Moscow. As long as Moscow, believes in this fiction she will continue to try to exploit it to her advantage.

Marshal Stalin, Foreign Minister Molotov and other top Russians are the world’s foremost realists, as hard-boiled as they come. But while they fully intend to expand the Soviet’s sphere of influence as far as they can, they know that somewhere there is a limit.

Once they see where the limit is, they will call it a day and agree. At least for a time, to live and let live.

Moscow confused

Just now, the United Nations personage observed, Moscow is so confused by the conflicting voices in America that she does not see things clearly. The Soviet organ, Prud, for example, in an election analysis, calls it a “class struggle inside the United States,” where “American monopoly-capitalism is trying to establish world domination.”

As long as Moscow continues under the impression that the American Government is hamstrung by a “class war,” and that it lacks popular support in the foreign field, Secretary Byrnes will find it difficult to come to terms with Mr. Molotov.

If, however, the election backs those candidates who have supported the Administration’s foreign policy, whether Democrats or Republicans, it hardly can fail to have a wholesome effect on negotiations now in progress.

Parties in agreement

That is so, the observer said, because fundamentally there is no difference between the two major parties with respect to foreign affairs. Senator Vandenberg, ranking Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has supported Secretary Byrnes all along, just as loyally as Democratic Senator Connally.

Republicans and Democrats alike believe an understanding with Russia is vital to world peace. Both want such an understanding. But both agree that endless appeasement is not the way to get it.

Except for the leftists, who keep the waters muddied, Moscow would soon come to see that this is so. If what happens today, therefore, destroys the fiction of an America divided against itself, the Council of Foreign Ministers may get somewhere.

[NormanStewart]

SENATE

49 needed for majority, 35 races at stake

PARTY	NOT UP	TOTAL CONTROL	GAIN/LOSS
Republican	28 seats	51	+12
Democrat	32 seats	45	-11
Progressive	0 seats	0	-1

RACE	STATUS	CANDIDATE	VOTE	VOTE%	PRECINCTS
Alabama Senate (Special)	✓	(D) Sparkman	163,217	100%	100% of precincts reporting
Arizona Senate	✓	(D) McFarland (Incumbent)	80,415	69%	100% of precincts reporting
		(R) Powers	35,022	30%
		(C) Graham	802	0%
California Senate	✓	(R) Knowland (Incumbent)	1,428,067	54%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Rogers Jr.	1,167,161	44%
		(Pro) Corrigan	42,683	2%
		(O) Steiner	156	0%
		Scattering	1,398	0%
Connecticut Senate	✓	(R) Baldwin	381,328	56%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Tone	276,424	41%
		(S) Smedley	22,012	3%
		(SL) Aiken	3,156	0%
Connecticut Senate (Special)	✓	(R) Baldwin	378,707	56%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Cross	278,188	41%
		(S) Smedley	22,164	3%
Delaware Senate	✓	(R) Williams	62,603	55%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Tunnell (Incumbent)	50,910	45%
Florida Senate	✓	(D) Holland (Incumbent)	156,232	79%	100% of precincts reporting
		(R) Schad	42,408	21%
Idaho Senate (Special)	✓	(R) Dworshak	105,523	59%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Donart	74,629	41%
Indiana Senate	✓	(R) Jenner	739,809	55%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Townsend	584,288	43%
		(Pro) Riggs	21,008	2%
		(SL) Morris	1,523	0%
		(C) Johnson	806	0%
Kentucky Senate (Special)	✓	(R) Cooper	327,652	53%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Brown	285,829	47%
		(S) Sandefur	1,638	0%
Maine Senate	✓	(R) Brewster (Incumbent)	111,215	64%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) MacDonald	63,799	36%
Maryland Senate	✓	(D) O’Conor	237,232	50%	100% of precincts reporting
		(R) Markey	235,000	50%
Massachusetts Senate	✓	(R) Lodge Jr.	989,736	60%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Walsh (Incumbent)	660,200	40%
		(SL) Blomen	9,221	0%
		(Pro) Shaw	2,898	0%
Michigan Senate	✓	(R) Vandenberg (Incumbent)	1,985,570	67%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Lee	517,923	32%
		(Pro) Ruble	8,109	1%
		(SL) Grove	4,572	0%
		(C) Beiswenger	2,546	0%
Minnesota Senate	✓	(R) Thye	517,775	59%	100% of precincts reporting
		(DFL) Jorgenson	349,520	40%
		(RW) Carlson	11,421	1%
		(O) Shipstead (Incumbent)	15	0%
Mississippi Senate	✓	(D) Bilbo (Incumbent)	46,747	100%	100% of precincts reporting
Missouri Senate	✓	(R) Kem	572,556	53%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Briggs (Incumbent)	411,544	47%
		(Pro) Jackson	979	0%
		(S) Rinck	887	0%
		(SL) Baeff	275	0%
Montana Senate	✓	(R) Ecton	101,901	54%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Erickson	86,476	45%
		(S) Jones	2,189	1%
Nebraska Senate	✓	(R) Butler (Incumbent)	271,208	71%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Mekota	111,751	29%
Nevada Senate	✓	(R) Malone	27,801	55%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Bunker	22,553	45%
New Jersey Senate	✓	(R) Smith (Incumbent)	799,808	59%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Brunner	548,458	40%
		(SL) Butterworth	7,675	1%
		(SW) Breitman	4,976	0%
		(S) Riley	2,226	0%
		(Pro) Ridout	1,711	0%
		(O) Collins	1,676	0%
		(O) Jones	625	0%
New Mexico Senate	✓	(D) Chavez (Incumbent)	68,650	52%	100% of precincts reporting
		(R) Hurley	64,632	48%
New York Senate	✓	(R) Ives	2,559,365	53%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D-AL-L) Lehman	2,308,112	47%
		Scattering	178,694	0%
North Dakota Senate	✓	(R) Langer (Incumbent)	88,210	53%	100% of precincts reporting
		(I) Thompson	38,804	23%
		(D) Larson	38,368	23%
North Dakota Senate (Special)	✓	(R) Young (Incumbent)	75,998	55%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Lanier	37,507	27%
		(I) Nye	20,848	15%
		(I) Johansson	2,473	2%
		Scattering	26	0%
Ohio Senate	✓	(R) Bricker	1,275,774	57%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Huffman (Incumbent)	947,610	42%
		(SL) Farkas	13,885	1%
Ohio Senate (Special)	✓	(R) Taft	1,193,852	56%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Webber	929,584	44%
Pennsylvania Senate	✓	(R) Martin	1,853,458	59%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Guffey (Incumbent)	1,245,338	40%
		(Pro) Learn	17,451	1%
		(SL) Knotek	11,613	0%
Rhode Island Senate	✓	(D) McGrath	150,748	55%	100% of precincts reporting
		(R) Dwyer	122,780	45%
Tennessee Senate	✓	(D) McKellar (Incumbent)	145,654	67%	100% of precincts reporting
		(R) Ladd	57,238	26%
		(I) Neal Jr.	11,516	5%
		(I) Ross	4,303	2%
		Scattering	3	0%
Texas Senate	✓	(D) Connally (Incumbent)	336,931	89%	100% of precincts reporting
		(R) Selis	43,750	11%
Utah Senate	✓	(R) Watkins	101,142	51%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Murdock (Incumbent)	96,257	49%
Vermont Senate	✓	(R) Flanders (Incumbent)	54,729	75%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) McDevitt	18,594	25%
		Scattering	17	0%
Virginia Senate	✓	(D) Byrd (Incumbent)	163,960	65%	100% of precincts reporting
		(R) Parsons	77,005	30%
		(I) Carwile	5,189	2%
		(C) Burke	3,318	1%
		(Pro) Boorde	1,764	1%
		(S) Robb	1,592	1%
Virginia Senate (Special)	✓	(D) Robertson	169,680	68%	100% of precincts reporting
		(R) Woods	72,253	29%
		(S) Wilkes	7,024	3%
Washington Senate	✓	(R) Cain	358,847	54%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) Mitchell (Incumbent)	298,683	45%
		(SL) Morton	2,297	1%
		(SW) Swett	515	0%
West Virginia Senate	✓	(D) Kilgore (Incumbent)	273,151	50%	100% of precincts reporting
		(R) Sweeney	269,617	50%
Wisconsin Senate	✓	(R) McCarthy	620,430	61%	100% of precincts reporting
		(D) McMurray	378,772	37%
		(S) Knappe	11,750	1%
		(SL) Cozzini	1,552	0%
		Scattering	2,090	0%
Wyoming Senate	✓	(D) O’Mahoney (Incumbent)	45,843	56%	100% of precincts reporting
		(R) Henderson	35,714	44%

[NormanStewart]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

218 needed for majority, 432 races at stake

PARTY	TOTAL CONTROL	GAIN/LOSS
Republicans	246	+55
Democrats	188	-54
Progressives	0	-1
American Labor	1	0

To be updated soon…

[NormanStewart]

GOVERNOR

33 at stake

PARTY	NOT UP	TOTAL CONTROL	GAIN/LOSS
Republicans	5 seats	25	+3
Democrats	8 seats	23	-3

To be updated soon…

[NormanStewart]

Wiener Kurier (November 6, 1946)

Erste Ergebnisse der Wahlen in USA:
Sieg der Republikaner

Die konservative Einstellung überwiegt

Washington (INS) - Nach den um 8,30 Uhr MEZ vorliegenden Wahlergebnissen hat die Republikanische Partei eine Mehrheit von 31 Sitzen im Repräsentantenhaus errungen. Damit haben die Republikaner, die den konservativen Teil des amerikanischen Volkes vertreten, die seit 15 Jahren bestehende Mehrheit der fortschrittlich eingestellten Demokraten durchbrochen. Vor allem in den industrialisierten Oststaaten hat sich eine ausgesprochen republikanische Mehrheit der Wähler ergeben.

Die 31 Sitze wurden durch die Republikaner in folgenden Staaten errungen: Pennsylvanien 9, Illinois 1, Connecticut 4, New York 3, Minnesota 2, Ohio 2, West-Virginia 1, Delaware 1, Kentucky 2 und Kalifornien 1.

Bisher 8 Senatssitze gewonnen

Nach den letzten Meldungen haben die Republikaner inzwischen 8 von den 10 zur Erringung der Mehrheit im Senat erforderlichen Sitzen gewonnen. Die Senatssitze wurden in New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvanien, Delaware, Missouri, Idaho und Wisconsin den Demokraten abgenommen.

Die Verluste der Senatssitze kamen zum Teil überraschend. Vor allem erregte der Fall der demokratischen Hochburgen New Mexico und Rhodes Island außerordentliches Aufsehen.

Unter den bisher gewählten demokratischen Senatoren befindet sich der Vorsitzende des Senatsausschüsse für Auswärtige Angelegenheiten, Tom Connally (Texas). Auch der außenpolitische Berater Außenminister Byrnes, der republikanische Senator Arthur Vandenberg, wurde im Staate Michigan erneut in den amerikanischen Senat gewählt.

Auch mehr republikanische Gouverneure Bei den Wahlen zur Besetzung der Gouverneursstellen haben die Republikaner nicht nur ihre bisherigen 23 Vertreter zu behaupten vermocht, sondern nach den bisherigen Meldungen auch ihren Kandidaten für den Gouverneurposten von Ohio durchgebracht.

Mit besonderem Stolz weist die Republikanische Partei auf ihren überwältigenden Wahlsieg bei der Besetzung des Gouverneursposten des heißumkämpften Staates New York hin, der gleichzeitig als Vertrauensvotum für den bisherigen Gouverneur Dewey gilt.

„Mehr als ein politischer Sieg“

In den frühen Morgenstunden des heutigen Tages wurde in den Vereinigten Staaten die Siegesbotschaft der Republikanischen Partei, die von ihrem Vorsitzenden, Carro H. Reece, unterzeichnet war, veröffentlicht. In ihr heißt es: „Der republikanische Sieg im Kongreß ist mehr als ein gewöhnlicher politischer Erfolg. Der Ausgang der Wahlen ist ein Sieg des amerikanischen Volkes.“

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (November 6, 1946)

Landslide gives GOP Congress and state

Republican tide ends 16-year Democratic rule in House, Senate
By Lyle C. Wilson, United Press staff writer

BULLETIN

Late returns from three states today gave the Republicans a chance to win three more Senate seats, which would boost their total to 54.

Gov. Herbert R. O’Conor, Democratic candidate in Maryland, was taken from the list of conceded winners when his lead was cut to 2,765 votes with 84 precincts unreported. His Republican opponent is David J. Markey.

West Virginia Sen. Harley M. Kilgore, Democrat, held a scant lead of 2,364 over Republican Tom Sweeney, in 2,781 of 2,799 precincts.

Less than 200 votes separated Republican Patrick J. Hurley and Democratic incumbent Dennis Chavez in New Mexico. Hurley held the narrow lead in 526 out of 869 precincts.

NEW YORK (UP) – Republicans won control of Congress today in a countrywide election swing to the right after 16 years of Democratic rule.

The GOP captured the Senate on the basis of incomplete returns with a total of at least 51 seats. It elected at least 230 members to the House of Representatives – 12 more than needed for a majority.

Two Senate contests remained in doubt – New Mexico and West Virginia.

The Republican sweep in a great turnout of voters throughout the country thrust upon President Truman the difficult task of dealing with an opposition Congress during the remaining two years of his present White House term.

The 80th Congress, convening next January 3, will have Joseph W. Martin Jr., veteran Massachusetts Republican, as speaker of the House.

Sen. Arthur H. Vandenberg, who has been the Republicans’ chief adviser to Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, probably will be president of the Senate.

Lower taxes promised

Republicans have promised that the new Congress will overhaul the government. They have pledged reduced taxes and sharp cuts in federal spending in an effort to balance the national budget.

The election victory resulted in early speculation on a possible GOP triumph in the 1948 presidential race.

Democratic prospects were shattered first in the big industrial states where Franklin D. Roosevelt used to achieve his greatest New Deal-Democratic triumphs. The famous political coalition came unstuck.

Tide crosses nation

And the tide rolled on across the nation to end years of Democratic ascendancy.

Democrats were depression winners of congressional power in 1930 and 1932. Although Republicans won the House by a narrow margin in the 1930 midterm elections, Republican deaths enabled Democrats to organize it when the 71st Congress convened. Democrats took the Senate in 1932 on the coat tails of Mr. Roosevelt.

Rhode Island and Colorado outside the South and the border states checked the Republican sweep of 1946 somewhat. But as the sun came up this morning, many a Democratic battle flag came down. The list of casualties was a roll call of some big names of the Roosevelt era.

Republicans needed a net gain of 10 Senate seats and won 12. They had a chance to pick up two more. Their minimum strength in the new Senate will be 51 seats to 45 for the Democrats.

GOP wins 215

As counting proceeded today, Republicans had won 230 House seats and were leading in contests for 16 for a potential total of 246 in the new Congress. They needed only 218 seats to take House control from the Democrats.

Democratic candidates had won 180 House seats and were leading in contests for eight for a potential total of 188.

In electing 23 senators so far, the Republicans made their net gain of 12 in these states: Delaware, Idaho, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Wisconsin and Washington. All of these seats were Democratic except Wisconsin’s. That one is held in the present Senate by Robert M. LaFollette, a Progressive. He was not renominated this year.

Republicans held their own Senate seats in: California, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota and Vermont.

Democrats elected 11 senators in these states: Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming. Two Senate seats were filled in Virginia.

Maine elected September 9

All figures include returns from Maine which held its election September 9. Maine returned three Republicans to the House and elected a senator and governor, both Republicans.

Republicans have elected 20 and Democrats 12 governors, for a net Republican gain of two. This gave the GOP at least a 25 to 23 majority of governors among the 48 states. William Lee Knous, Democrat, was elected governor of Colorado, succeeding a Republican and reversing the national election trend. But the Republicans had taken three governorships from the Democrats in Idaho, Massachusetts and Ohio.

The Democratic loser in Ohio was Gov. Frank J. Lausche, who was rising rapidly to major political importance until the returns began coming in from yesterday’s election. He was defeated by Thomas J. Herbert, Republican.

Kelly machine hit

Chicago contributed some of the most spectacular election news – in the crumbling of Mayor Edward J. Kelly’s Democratic machine. Mr. Kelly and the late Pat Nash created one of the most powerful political organizations in modern American history. But on the basis of incomplete returns, Republican candidates for sheriff, treasurer and other vital machine jobs were winning.

Illinois also reported three shifts of House seats from Democrats to Republicans.

Democratic National Headquarters in Washington conceded nothing after an election watch which National Committee Chairman Robert E. Hannegan ended at 3 a.m. by going home to bed.

Republican Chairman Carroll Reece issued a victory statement calling on the Truman Administration to cooperate with the Republican Congress.

En route to capital

President Truman heard early returns aboard the presidential special train en route from Independence, Missouri, to Washington. The president started back to the capital immediately after voting yesterday. He apparently was asleep when final returns showed his hand-picked congressional candidate, Enos A. Axtell, had been defeated in Missouri’s fifth district by Albert L. Reeves, Republican.

He will learn today that Frank P. Briggs, the Democrat appointed to succeed him in the Senate two years ago, also was defeated. Mr. Briggs lost to James P. Kem, wealthy Republican attorney.

Mr. Truman took no part in the general election campaign but aboard his train last night assured newsmen that “the Democrats will win, of course.”

Dewey wins

Shift of House control to the Republicans generally was regarded as an omen of Democratic loss of the White House in 1948. Such has been the American political tradition. So the returns will set off within the Republican Party a no-quarter battle for the GOP presidential nomination.

Gov. Thomas E. Dewey of New York won an impressive personal victory yesterday. His landslide to office gave James M. Mead, Democratic candidate for governor, the worst licking such a candidate has suffered in 50 years. Mr. Dewey carried all but four counties in New York State and piled up a plurality of more than 600,000 votes.

He carried the state ticket with him, including Irving M. Ives, the first Republican in 20 years to be elected to the U.S. Senate here. The Dewey-for-President drums were beating again today.

Bricker named senator

John W. Bricker, Republican, was elected to the Senate from Ohio and from that good position will continue his presidential course.

Gov. Earl Warren of California was returned unopposed, having
both the Republican and Democratic nominations.

Harold E. Stassen, former governor of Minnesota, was not a candidate for office this year. But his candidate for the Senate, Edward J. Thye, was an easy winner.

Pennsylvania Republicans sent their favorite son to the Senate, Gov. Edward Martin. Mr. Martin will be known as the man who licked Sen, Joseph F. Guffey, Democrat, a New Dealer and the party big shot in Pennsylvania.

Lodge comes back

Back to Washington on the flood tide of Republican votes came 44-year-old Henry Cabot Lodge, grandson of the Henry Cabot Lodge who was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after World War I.

Mr. Lodge resigned from the Senate during World War II to join the Army. He defeated 74-year-old Sen. David I. Walsh, wartime chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee, who first came to the Senate in 1918.

The Brahmins seemed to have it in Massachusetts. Along with Mr. Walsh to defeat went young Gov. Maurice J. Tobin, one of the sparkplugs of the Democratic Party in New England. He lost to Robert F. Bradford, Republican. With a Bradford in the governor’s chair, young Mr. Lodge taking his seat as junior senator and Leverett Saltonstall occupying the other Senate seat, the descendants of the early settlers of the Massachusetts colony were doing pretty well for themselves.

Rep. Vito Marcantonio, American Labor Party supporter of the Communist Party line, was re-elected to the House in his New York City congressional district. It embraces the Upper East Side and part of Harlem, the big Negro community. Harlem whooped it up for “Marc” and fires burned in the streets in celebration.

Rep. Hugh DeLacy, Washington Democrat also accused of supporting Communist policies, conceded defeat soon after the polls closed. Democratic Rep. Jerry Voorhis, a notable New Dealer, was licked in California. Rep. Emily Taft Douglas, New Deal Democrat, was a casualty in Illinois.

[NormanStewart]

Truman’s man loses in Missouri

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (UP) – Albert L. Reeves Jr., son of a federal court judge, handed Enos A. Axtell, President Truman’s hand-picked candidate, a decisive beating today to win the Fifth Missouri congressional seat by a majority of about 4000 votes.

Complete unofficial returns from the 255 precincts in the district gave Mr. Reeves 40,891, Mr. Axtell 36,728. The district four years ago turned in a total of about 53,000 votes.

Mr. Axtell, young Navy veteran who was selected by Mr. Truman, James M, Pendergast, local Democratic boss, and the CIO-PAC as their candidate to “purge” Rep. Roger C. Slaughter in the August primary, moved rapidly away from the post on the basis of machine ward totals in the early tabulating.

Advisers were reported preparing a victory statement, feeling he was elected, when the tide turned suddenly shortly before midnight and within half an hour he was trailing.

Even the vote in Washington Township, where Mr. Axtell lives south of the city limits, went against him in the late returns. The heavy residential ward vote, always later than the machine wards, also were heavily against him,

[NormanStewart]

I DARE SAY —
Up to GOP now!

By Florence Fisher Parry

I think it is quite understandable why so many people of other lands coming to this country with prayers of thanksgiving in their hearts that they are at last to number among the privileged Free of this world, are so often led into the mistaken idea that in our two-party system, the Democrats are for democracy and the Republicans are not.

Or, to reverse the order, that the Republicans are for a republic and the Democrats are not. The terms are highly confusing.

For however unfamiliar they may be with our language, there is scarcely anyone living in the world today who has not heard the word “democracy” and identified it with America. So. also, for the word “republic.”

When the time comes for them to vote, it is quite natural for newcomers to join the ranks of the Democrats, thinking that Democrat means just what it says. Indeed, it is only after they have been here some time that they begin to understand that the Republican Party also is “for” democracy.

This innocence – rather than ignorance – on the part of such great numbers of our “foreign element” Americans during the past number of years, slowly has undergone a deep and painful change, and we are just beginning to see the results of this awakening.

Many recently naturalized Americans – prouder indeed of their citizenship than some native Americans are – have been in a state of confusion for a long time now. It took them some years to get the hang of this country and its political organization; and as the election returns indicate, they have in great numbers testified to a change of heart, which came to them painfully – not easily at all!

‘Yours for keeps’

For many years, they went unquestioningly to the polls and voted for what they thought was democracy because it said Democrat Party on the voting machine or on the ballot card. And it is very hard to change a habit of thought.

And now that a good many have changed; now that they have reversed themselves at last and taken the great plunge, is it were, into the unknown waters of the Republican Party, it seems to me that the Republicans have taken upon themselves a very, very sober responsibility.

That party dare not let them down!

Now it is human nature to be very worried for a while after you have taken a new step. It is natural to be doubtful and even a little mistrustful. Many, many men and women leaving the voting booth after having pulled the Republican lever for the first time, felt frightened, I am sure.

There is a line in a motion picture that is showing this week at Loew’s Penn Theater, “Holiday in Mexico.” A father says it to his child, who has made rather a fool of herself, “My love is not something given to you just for good behavior – it’s yours for keeps.”

And somehow I keep thinking of that lime in connection with the many, many thousands of first-generation Americans who, having adopted this America as their own country, have given it so much of their trust that it was their undoing, almost. It played fast and loose with then confidence and with their pride and love of it. It led them up blind alleys. It exploited and used them.

It gave them tawdry substitutes for the Liberty they had come so far to find; for the freedom they had made such sacrifice to earn. It bandied them about and filled them with false promises, and gave them false prophets to heed and to follow.

Sacred trust

But nothing, it seemed, could kill their love for America and their belief in democracy! They sent their sons proudly to fight for it. Our American Army and Navy rosters of World War II contained more foreign names than native ones among the quick and the dead.

And now that War is over and the peace they had prayed for has been turned into a mockery, they still hold to their love of America! They do not give it their love for good behavior; it’s America’s for keeps.

A change like that which took place yesterday can lead to great good or great disappointment. The party which received so many votes that it hadn’t previously gotten must feel a deep sense of responsibility. Instead of the ecstasy of victory, it should feel today the deep obligation not to be found wanting.

[NormanStewart]

Senator urges Truman to quit as president

Democrat Fulbright asks post for GOP

WASHINGTON (UP) – Senator J. William Fulbright (D-Arkansas) said today he believes President Truman should resign after naming a Republican secretary of state who would become president.

Mr. Fulbright advocated the unprecedented action because of yesterday’s election which gave the Republican Party full control of the next Congress.

When there is no vice president, as at present, the secretary of state is next in line for the presidency.

Warns of stalemate

Mr. Fulbright said President Truman’s resignation seemed to be the only way of averting a two-year stalemate between a Republican Congress and a Democratic president. He said such a stalemate might imperil United States world leadership.

Mr. Fulbright named Sen. Arthur H. Vandenberg of Michigan, the GOP’s top-most statesman in the foreign affairs field, as the most logical successor to Secretary of State James F. Byrnes and – under Mr. Fulbright’s proposal – the man who would replace President Truman in the White House.

Declaring in an interview that Mr. Truman ought to “turn the country over to the Republicans,” Mr. Fulbright added:

“If the change in sentiment is strong enough to elect a Republican Congress, it indicates the people want a change. This ought to be done.

“What can be the advantage of going along for two years in a stalemate?”

Deplores ‘defect’

Mr. Fulbright deplored the “very unfortunate defect in our constitutional system that makes it possible for the legislature to be in the hands of one party and the presidency in the hands of another.”

Mr. Fulbright said he picked Mr. Vandenberg “because of his position in international affairs.”

Putting a Republican in the White House would “give the responsibility to the party that has the power,” Mr. Fulbright said.

He added that he believes the action should be taken “from the point of view of the welfare of the world.”

[NormanStewart]

Presidential bids aided by victories

GOP election winners in 1948 picture

NEW YORK (UP) – Leading Republican presidential prospects came through the elections with thumping triumphs that will increase the rivalry for the 1948 White House nomination.

These great personal victories at the polls strengthened the bids for the 1948 Republican presidential nomination being made by:

• Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, re-elected in New York State by a whopping plurality that carried the whole state ticket with him and gave the Empire State its first Republican senator in 20 years.

• John W. Bricker, Mr. Dewey’s running mate in the 1944 presidential race, elected to the Senate from Ohio.

• Gov. Earl Warren, re-elected in California on both the Republican and Democratic tickets.

• Sen. Arthur H. Vandenberg, returned to the Senate from Michigan although he didn’t campaign because of his preoccupation with United Nations business.

• Gov. Edward Martin, a Pennsylvania favorite son, who unseated Sen. Joseph F. Guffey, long a New Deal wheel-horse, to go to the Senate.

But those men will not have the presidential arena all to themselves.

For instance, there is Sen. Robert A. Taft, the Ohio Republican who was as leading contender for the presidential nomination in 1944. Mr. Taft was not up for election this year, but he is counted by many as one of the top presidential possibilities.

Harold E. Stassen, former Minnesota governor, not himself a candidate for office now, kept a hold in the presidential sweepstakes by virtue of the easy victory of his Senate candidate, Edward J. Thye.

Two possible dark-horse prospects emerged from the elections. They are Gov. Raymond E. Baldwin, elected to the Senate from Connecticut, and 44-year-old Henry Cabot Lodge, who quit the Senate to go to war and who unseated the veteran Massachusetts Democrat, David I. Walsh, to return to the Senate.

[NormanStewart]

Senator packs election punch

BOISE, Idaho (UP) – Sen. Glen H. Taylor (D-Idaho), who made headlines when he played the guitar and sang cowboy songs on the Capitol steps, made them again today with a haymaker to the jaw of Ray McKaig, Republican farm leader.

Sen. Taylor swung while in the crowded lobby of the Boise Hotel last night after Mr. McKaig had commented about the Republican landslide. Some witnesses said Sen. Taylor hit Mr. McKaig twice, once after he was down.

Sen. Taylor said he could not remember striking Mr. McKaig a second time.

“McKaig called me a foul name,” Sen. Taylor said. “I can take the Democratic defeat, but I couldn’t take that.”

Sen. Taylor was not a candidate. His term still has time to run.

McKaig was unable to talk for nearly an hour.

“I only twitted him,” Mr. McKaig, who was rejoicing in the hotel lobby with other Republicans in the first complete GOP victory in Idaho in 16 years, said later.

[NormanStewart]

Sabath wins easily for 21st House term

CHICAGO (UP) – Rep. Adolph J. Sabath, Illinois Democrat and dean of Congress and chairman of the House Rules Committee, was re-elected for his 21st consecutive term.

Rep. Sabath received 34,286 votes against 13,995 received by Michael A. Francisco (R) in the 116 precincts of the 5th Illinois congressional district.

[NormanStewart]

Weary public turns to right to end era

Progressives included among Republicans
By Charles T. Lucey, Scripps-Howard staff writer

NEW YORK – The end of an era came today. A Democratic Party ascendancy that had run through a troubled, turbulent 14 years of American history was checked by a flood of votes from a nation demanding a change.

The Republicans, politically lean and hungry, were taking over.

Millions of people, concerned at failure of the Truman administration to set the country on even keel after the war, weary of strikes, resenting government controls and harassed by shortages and rising prices, had turned to the GOP.

The old political tradition that people never turn out a party in power when there is plenty of money – and there is plenty now – took a fierce drubbing.

Over the nation the vote meant a swing from Franklin Roosevelt’s famed “a little left of center” to the right.

How far to right?

But how far to the right is a matter the Republicans, themselves often at widely varying points, will battle out among themselves in the next Congress. A leavening of new, progressive-minded Republicans in the next session seems fairly sure.

Men whose names were known familiarly to Americans for decades past were caught in the GOP tide. They included the veteran Sen. David I. Walsh of Massachusetts, beaten by 44-year-old ex-Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge; ex-Gov. Herbert H. Lehman of New York, beaten for the Senate by Republican Irving M. Ives; Joseph F. Guffey of Pennsylvania, defeated by Gov. Edward Martin.

With veterans like Henrik Shipstead of Minnesota, Burton K. Wheeler of Montana and Robert M. LaFollette of Wisconsin already counted out in primaries, the Senate will be an almost startingly different place in the new session beginning January 3.

Presidential candidates

From the whopping Republican pluralities emerged strong contenders for the 1948 Republican presidential nomination – Gov. Thomas E. Dewey in New York and Sen.-Elect John W. Bricker in Ohio.

Everyone said their positions would be vastly strengthened if they piled up huge votes. Both of them did.

And men such as Massachusetts’ Lodge, California’s re-elected Gov. Earl Warren, Pennsylvania’s Martin and Connecticut’s Senator-elect Raymond E. Baldwin will be mentioned often in the White House sweepstakes.

From Republican leaders everywhere came the prediction that the trend established yesterday will roll on and on to make GOP victory certain in 1948.

Over the country, the pattern was much as it had been foreseen. Gov. Baldwin ran so strong in Connecticut that he carried the whole Republican congressional ticket with him – a gain of four seats over the two previously held by the GOP.

Dewey brings in Ives

In New York, Gov. Dewey ran away from Sen. James M. Mead and helped pull Mr. Ives, ex-speaker and majority leader of the Assembly at Albany, to victory over Mr. Lehman.

So it was, too, in the fight Mr. Lodge waged against old Dave Walsh, the best vote-getter Massachusetts ever saw.

The Idaho victory of Republican Henry Dworshak for the Senate over the Democratic George Donart was a sharp reverse for one of the fire-breathing Democratic liberals, Sen. Glen Taylor, who had made Mr. Donart’s election a major personal campaign.

Another Democrat of similar liberal stripe, Sen. James Tunnell of Delaware, was beaten for re-election by a relative unknown, John J. Willams, feed and grain dealer.

May defeated

Even Kentucky, where John Young Brown, Democratic senatorial candidate, had been a fixture on Sen. Alben Barkley’s coat tails through two months of hectic campaigning, returned a Republican U.S. senator, John S. Cooper, for the first time in 20 years. And the ailing Rep. A. J. May, tarred with a Mead Committee brush, went down to defeat in the mountain stronghold he long has represented in Washington.

Taking over the House means Joseph W. Martin Jr., stocky little North Attleboro, Massachusetts, newspaper publisher, will succeed to the speakership held these last few years by Texas Sam Rayburn. But there may be ahead a real battle for the majority leadership between Reps. Clarence J. Brown of Ohio and Charles Malleck of Indiana.

Group opposes stalemate

A major issue in the Senate is the extent to which progressive and forward-looking men such as Ray Baldwin, Cabot Lodge and Irving Ives may be able to dent conservative Republican policy. In the past it has been laid down on the domestic side by Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio.

These men hope for an affirmative Republican program in the next two years and oppose the kind of stalemate that has come at times in the past when the president and Congress have been of opposite parties.

[NormanStewart]

Truman’s seat in Senate goes GOP

Briggs defeated by James P. Kem

ST. LOUIS, Missouri (UP) – President Truman’s old Senate seat was snatched today by Republican James P. Kem, wealthy Kansas City attorney.

The latter’s election marked the first time since Civil War days that Missouri has been represented by two Republican senators.

On the basis of almost conclusive returns the Republicans seemed also to have picked up one congressional seat which would give them a majority in the Washington delegation.

Still in doubt was the race in the First Congressional District where Republican incumbent S. W. Arnold, Kirksville lumberman, was running neck-and-neck with a war veteran and political newcomer, Walter G. Stillwell, a Democrat from Mark Twain’s home town of Hannibal.

If Mr. Arnold wins this contest, the Republicans will have eight chairs in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Democrats five. The present apportionment is seven for the Democrats and six for the Republicans.

Almost complete reports from the state’s 4,528 precincts gave Kem 548,958 votes and Democratic U.S. Sen. Frank P. Briggs 491,093 votes.

The same returns showed that Republicans might claim congressional victories in the First District, the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, 11th and 12th.