 It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope. A television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company. Maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight introducing a special post-election edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope. Joining Larry Lusser, our permanent editor, our CBS News correspondent, Robert Trout, and chief editorial writer for the New York Herald Tribune, August Heckscher. Well, the elections are over, but because of their closeness and protracted nature, we decided to alter the format of our Chronoscope program tonight. And instead of interviewing one distinguished guest, we thought we'd interview two of them, both noted political reporters, and to try to find out from them, if possible, just what really happened in those elections. I think I'll start by asking Bob Trout, what is the situation right now, Bob? I'm not going to be able to tell you what really happened last night, Larry. I don't think anybody can, but I can tell you what the situation is. The Democrats did, of course, get control of the House of Representatives, and they did it by 29 seats. The present lineup for the next Congress is going to be the Democrats 232, the Republicans 203. But, of course, the fascinating thing about it all is that the Senate is still in doubt, and it may be more than a month before we do know who's going to control the Senate. That's not certain. It hinges now on the two states on both sides of the country, New Jersey and Oregon. In New Jersey, the Republican candidate Clifford Case is very narrowly ahead by about 800 votes, I think. Of course, it'll be an official recount. It may take a month. And in Oregon, when I last looked at the tickers, the Democrat had suddenly gone to the lead, Mr. Newburger, leading the incumbent Republican Senator Guy Corden, by about 710 votes. The state's almost in. Republicans have to take both these states. If they take both, there'll be a tie. Republicans 48, Democrats 48 with independent Senator Morse, and then, of course, Vice President Nixon will break the tie. In other words, you won't have to reorganize the Congress if it's a tie vote? The Senate? It was a tie vote. The Republicans organized the Senate. The Vice President votes to break it, to break the tie. But if the Democrats win in Oregon tonight, or whenever the recount comes, it's all over, and the Democrats have the Senate too. Well, I'd like to find out from Augie, there seems to be a revolt. There seems to have been a revolt, Mr. Heckscher, against those who were in. But the electorate seemed to take it out on the governors rather than on the Senators. How do you account for that? I would suppose the answer to that is, Larry. I really hadn't thought of the question before that, like everything else in these elections, the causes seem to have been rather spotty and local. Where there was a popular senatorial candidate, for example, like Margaret Chase Smith in Maine, she was re-elected, but where the governor was unpopular, he was not re-elected. And I would say that in many places where the governors were not re-elected, you would find that there were local reasons for that happening. Well, nevertheless, how does the possession of these, the majority of the governorships actually affect the whole situation so far as the presidential elections are concerned in 1956 with the Democrats in the possession of the majority of the gubernatorial commands? Well, I think the effect is really indirect. In the first place, it affects the whole atmosphere of politics today. Insofar as one party controls the governorship, it helps set the atmosphere and create the general pattern of feeling for one party instead of another. For example, Governor Dewey here in New York was an early backer of President Eisenhower. He really worked out here in New York State, many of the ideas and approaches which later were effective in Washington. And then, of course, when the presidential conventions come up, the man who is governor has a control over the delegation, which the man who does not have that gubernatorial seat, of course, can't pretend to. He doesn't have the patronage. He doesn't have the public power and so on. So the man who is, for example, the governor of New York State wields a tremendous power when it comes to the convention of 1956. Well, Bob, crowd, you've covered many a political convention, a presidential convention. Isn't it true that the governors of these states actually do control those delegations when they go to the conventions and the Democrats in control of the New York, New Jersey and Connecticut? It will have a very powerful influence on the 1956 elections and the nominations at any rate. Well, the nominations, yes. The governors almost always do control them. Yes, indeed. Because that may by itself create great rivalries, don't you think so, and greater difficulties within the convention. Each governor becomes, so to speak, a favorite son with candidates that he wants backing him. Well, August, you think some new personalities have arisen out of these elections? Personalities which may have political aspirations in the future for higher rank, for the top names on a future ticket? Oh, yes, I would say definitely. That's the interesting part of any election. But here in New York State, Congressman Jack Javits, it seems to me, has risen like a star in the Republican firmament. And I don't know where he'll end up, but certainly a man who has that vote-getting power is going to be on another ticket another year. Well, how do you feel about the elevation of Harriman if he still holds this gubernatorial lead in the event of a recount? How do you feel this will affect his presidential aspirations, Bob Trout? Well, I don't know about his aspirations. Anybody who has done what Mr. Harriman has done is a naturally considered candidate. Larry, for instance, in Ohio too, like Governor Frank Lausche, the Democratic governor who always wins in that Republican state, is considered to be a contender now in the 1956 Democratic convention. But Governor Lausche has made the customary statement. He said, I don't want to make any speeches outside of Ohio until 56 is over. And last night, remember, Averill Harriman said, not too strongly maybe, but he said his candidate is Adley Stevenson. Incidentally, Mr. Truman said that today too. Did you know that? Yes. Well, Bob, I'd like to ask you something about the pollsters with whom you worked rather closely at election campaign headquarters. What happened to all the pollsters in this campaign and those Univac machines? Didn't they make some... Didn't they predict a big Democratic sweep? I don't know what happened. That's the old question. I don't know. Yes, the machines at one time had a couple of results that didn't come out that way. But I guess I just don't understand what makes that machine work in the first place, Larry. I don't understand the principle of it. Well, August, how would you account for the tendency of the pollsters to predict a big Democratic sweep and then find it falling apart towards the end? Well, I noticed that one newspaper here in New York which had conducted a poll claims a success today because they are only 2.5% off in the vote. Well, if you're 2.5% off, that can make a tremendous difference, particularly when the results are as close as they have been in many contests. August, in the view of the closeness of the Senate race, do you think that this minimizes the fears that there was of a cold war between the President and the Congress? Oh, yes. I don't think that the expression cold war was ever really descriptive, and I don't think President Eisenhower really felt it was descriptive of the situation that would result. It will be a little more difficult for the President to confer with men other than his own parties. The possibility of investigations in the hands of the Democrats will be used against the Republicans. Well, I'd ask Bob about that. With the Democrats in control of the House, Bob, do you think that the investigations will be the order of the day by the Democrats and possibly that the Dixon Yates contracts will be brought up in the future by Democratic investigators? In one short but strong word, yes. Yes, Dixon Yates is going to be heard from a good deal, and of course there's still a very good chance if the Democrats win one of these two states, Oregon or New Jersey, the Democrats will have all the Senate committees, too, including Senator McCarthy's committee, all the committees. It does seem ironic, doesn't it, that Senator Case, if he should win after being denied support by Senator McCarthy, if he should win, he will ensure that Senator McCarthy remains chairman of the Senate Investigations Committee. But what do you actually think happened to the influence of Senator McCarthy in this election? Well, I would say that on the whole, Senator McCarthy received very little comfort from these elections. He wasn't campaigning actively for the Republicans. The one Republican whom he said he opposed, Clifford Case, has either won or has come so close to winning that it's really a political miracle. And I just don't feel that he can take much comfort or satisfaction from what's happened. And Representative Kirsten lost, too, in Wisconsin. Yes, that's true. And then there were, of course, one, it's hard to say, as I said, these elections are spotty. What we would say is a right-wing Republican like Mr. Meek in Illinois lost, a right-wing Republican like Mr. Bender in Ohio won. Did you see any pattern to these elections, August Heckscher, in a philosophical way? Did the liberal wing of the Republican Party do better than the right wing, would you say? No, I would hesitate to make a broad generalization because I think in doing so, we'd attract from what is the wonderful aspect of an election that has no pattern, that is full of individual paradoxes and strange occurrences that are hard to explain. Certainly, the liberal Republicans here in the East did well, hurt her and salt and stall, did well, large on the other hand, lost. I've lost, but Case and Javits, one, say in the West, you find the right wing dividing, one losing, one gaining. And look at Oregon, it's a liberal Democrat, Newburger, who is now just slightly ahead of the conservative Republican guy, Gordon. Yes? Well, Bob Trout, would you say that unemployment played a role in this election? And I was thinking particularly of Michigan, but then when I look at Ohio, I find that even Mr. Loushey didn't pull Senator Birkin, although there's widespread unemployment in Ohio. But in Michigan, do you feel unemployment did count there against the incumbent Senator? Well, that's part of the fascinating thing about all these elections, isn't it, Larry? You're never really sure just why what happened did happen, but everyone seems to think, maybe just because it's the easiest thing to say, that it was the unemployment in Michigan that knocked out Republican Senator Ferguson. He was a very important Republican, head of the policy committee, but Michigan, Detroit, especially Wayne County, was supposed to be the center of the unemployment situation in that area, and Senator Ferguson really went down, didn't he, to a political unknown, Pat McNamara. Well, it still seems confused. Thank you very much, Bob Trout and August Heckscher. It appears from what we saw in the elections and what we heard tonight that only a few things are certain. One thing was certain, there was no public apathy. Obviously, there were more people voting in this election than it ever took part in a midterm election in the country's history. And one thing was proved, too, that the American voter remains completely unpredictable, completely independent. Not even the most complicated machine or the most brilliant political analyst can chart the voter's behavior in advance, not here in this country. Voters seem to cross party lines, they cross union and business loyalties, and it seems that one kind of farmer votes differently from another kind of farmer. A dairy farmer doesn't vote the way a corn and hog farmer does, and a grain farmer votes differently. What appears to me at least is some kind of unusual political balance. Aside from local issues, I think the most important things that occurred in this election was that people were voting in favor of peace, in favor of prosperity, and their own pocketbooks. Well, the cry of recount is still in the air tonight, and nobody can predict the results until all the votes are finally and officially counted. So I'd like to thank August Hexer and Bob Trout again for being tonight, and to say good night to all of you. The opinions expressed on the Launcine Chronoscope were those of the speakers. The editorial board for this special edition of the Launcine Chronoscope was Robert Trout and August Hexer, with Larry Leser, our permanent editor. How many of the things you own will be serving you ten years from today? Probably not your present car, most surely not your present television set. Well, just think of this, a barring accident or abuse. The Launcine watch which you buy and give this Christmas will be actually better than new, at this time in 1964, and there is, of course, a reason for this. For almost a century, Launcine has been acknowledged as just about the finest watch made anywhere in the world. Of all the world's fine watches, only Launcine watches have been honored with ten World's Fair Grand Prizes, twenty-eight gold medals, so many honors for accuracy and fields of precise timing. Yes, the Launcine watch which you give this Christmas will be a treasured memento for years to come, consulted daily with confidence, for greater accuracy is of traditional Launcine quality, and every Launcine watch is designed as a style leader, and yet you may buy and proudly give a Launcine watch this Christmas for as little as seventy-one-fifty. And may we suggest that if you pay the price of a Launcine, insist on getting a Launcine, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored Christmas gift, premier product of the Launcine Wittner Watch Company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us every Monday, Wednesday and Friday evening at this same time for the Launcine Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Launcine, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, a distinguished companion to the world-honored Launcine. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Launcine and Wittner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, agency for Launcine Wittner watches.