Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

October 20, 1963 - Image 9

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1963-10-20
This is a tabloid page

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.


...'The South Is

The Great Imponderable'

(Continued from preceding page) '
to Dewey in 1948. Kennedy edged Nixon in
1960 by only 2 per cent of the popular
vote. In 1962 the state elected a Republi-
can governor and a Democratic congress-
man-at-large. Rockefeller could take the
state by capitalizing on the liberal city
votes and retaining the Republican rural
votes. Goldwater has less of a chance be-
cause he would not pick up the extra
votes, but only get support from down-
the-line Republicans. Whether it were
Goldwater or Rockefeller, the UAW would
be busy putting labor's huge vote in the
Kennedy column. Count 21 confident
votes for Kennedy in a Goldwater con-
test and 21 hopeful votes for Kennedy in
a Rockefeller contest.
MINNESOTA went to Truman in 1948.
Its 1960 margin for Kennedy was even
narrower than that of Michigan. Assum-
ing that Kennedy's popularity will mean
something, count 10 votes for Kennedy-
votes that, like Michigan's, are unsure.
MISSISSIPPI belongs to no one except
maybe Goldwater. It went to a Southern
states-rights candidate in both 1948 and
1960. Mississippi Governor Barnett is run-
ning around the country promoting a sim-
ilar effort for 1964. Its popular vote in
1960 already reflected mass discontent
with the major party candidates, for
Mississippi was the only state to cast a
plurality of its popular vote for neither.
Its electoral vote total is decreasing.
Count 7 votes for Goldwater, and in a
Rockefeller contest. 7 very doubtful votes
for Kennedy.
MISSOURI, Harry Truman's home,
gave him and Kennedy its electoral votes.
But the popular vote in 1960 was the sec-
ond closest of any state percentagewise.
Count 12 hopeful votes for Kennedy in
MONTANA went to Truman and to
Nixon. It is another close state. A 1.3
per cent vote changeover would have put
it in the Kennedy column. Assuming a
changeover of 1.0 per cent, which is con-
servative, Kennedy still could lose the
state. The safest prediction on this hard-
-to-predict state is 4 votes for Rockefeller
or Goldwater.
NEBRASKA went to Dewey in 1948 and
in 1960 gave Nixon the highest percent-
age of votes of any state-62 per cent.
But Nebraska's electoral vote is decreas-
ing from 6 for Nixon in 1960 to 5 for
Goldwater or Rockefeller in 1964.
NEVADA went to Truman and Kenne-
dy. But it is not at all solidly Democratic;
Nixon came fairly close. A safe prediction,
though, is 3 votes for Kennedy.
NEW HAMPSHIRE votes Republican. It
went to Dewey and to Nixon comfortably.
Count 4 votes for Rockefeller and Gold-
NEW JERSEY has 17 juicy votes to of-
fer in 1964. Like New York, it is liberal-
leaning. It went to Dewey and Kennedy.
Goldwater would not take it but Rocke-
feller, like Dewey, could. The 1960 election
was close-less than one per cent separat-
ed Kennedy and Nixon-and a Rockefel-
ler-Kennedy battle would be interesting,
since both would appeal to the people
there. It is hard to say, but one could
forecast tentatively a Rockefeller victory.
In a Goldwater contest, count 17 for Ken-
NEW MEXICO leans slightly toward the
Democrats. It went to Truman and to
Kennedy, the latter by less than one per-
cent. It is quite possible that Goldwater,
a neighbor, would win here. But the Ken-
nedy popularity factor leads a forecaster
to count 4 votes for Kennedy.
NEW YORK has the largest electoral
vote, though it is diminishing from 45 in
1960 to 43 in 1964. In 1948 New York nar-
rowly went to its own governor. Eisenhow-
er won 60 per cent of the state's vote in
1952 and more in 1956. In 1960 Kennedy
took 53 per cent of the state's vote as
against Nixon's 47 per cent. Against the
conservative Goldwater he would do much
better. But Kennedy's margin is not safe
against Rockefeller. New York has sup-
.ported its liberal governors before, even
against liberal opponents like Truman,
and can do so again. But Rockefeller, like
Dewey, would have no easy task. Count 43
certain votes for Kennedy in a Goldwater

contest and 43 uncertain votes for Rocke-
feller in a Rockefeller contest.
NORTH CAROLINA went to Truman
and Kennedy. Kennedy's margin was a
healthy 4 per cent-and there were no
third party popular votes at all. North
Carnlina is more moderate than other

about integration. There is some, discon-
tent about the Kennedy administration,
but not enough to sway the election. Count
13 votes for Kennedy against either Rock-
efeller or Goldwater.
NORTH DAKOTA is a solidly Republi-
can state with only 4 electoral votes. It
went to Dewey. It went to Nixon by a safe
margin. Count 4 for Rockefeller and
OHIO gave Nixon his second largest
sum of electoral votes, and by a comfor-
table margin. A moderate and conserva-
tive state, it would go easily to Goldwater.
Rockefeller would probably win it too,
since it is so Republican. But there is a
warning: Truman took it in 1948. How-
ever, this state with the Taft dynasty
would not be inclined toward the Kennedy
dynasty. Count 26 votes for Rockefeller
and for Goldwater. This would be Ken-
nedy's biggest single loss to Goldwater.
OKLAHOMA, although it went to Tru-
man, is now safely Republican. Nixon got
59 per cent of the popular vote. Goldwater
or Rockefeller would get Oklahoma's 8
electoral votes.
OREGON went to Dewey and Nixon.
Kennedy would need a vote changeover
of over 2 per cent to take the state. Count
6 votes for Rockefeller and Goldwater.
PENNSYLVANIA went to Dewey in
1948. In 1960 it went narrowly to Kenne-
dy. Rockefeller would have the chance
that Goldwater lacks here. But the safest
prediction would be 29 electoral votes for
RHODE ISLAND is the dugout of the
Democrats. A Truman state, it gave Ken-
nedy his highest margin in any state-
64 per cent. Count 4 votes for Kennedy.
SOUTH CAROLINA is no longer part
of the solidly Democratic South;, it cast
49 per cent of its popular vote for Nixon.
This is one deep South state that Rocke-
feller conceivably could take in popular

vote. Goldwater could take it easily, In
1948 it went to Thurmond. So count 8
doubtful votes for Kennedy in a battle
with Rockefeller and 8 votes to Goldwater
as the opponent.
SOUTH DAKOTA is Republican farm-
land. A Dewey state, it gave Nixon 58
per cent of its popular vote. Count 4
votes for Rockefeller and Goldwater.,
TENNESSEE went to Truman in 1948,
but by 1960it was voting Republican by a
7 per cent margin. Count 11 votes for
Rockefeller and Goldwater.
TEXAS is a big question mark. It went
to Truman in 1948. Lyndon Johnson kept
it in line in 1960, but not by much. Gold-
water could take the state. But chances
are that Johnson who is "one of the folks"
will retain it again. Count 25 votes for
Kennedy in 1964-but watch'out!
UTAH went to Truman, but its margin
for Nixon was too great for any Kennedy
fans to be optimistic. Count 3 votes for,
Goldwater and Rockefeller-although
Kennedy may take it.
VERMONT is so Republican that it was
one of the two states (Maine the other)
not voting for Franklin Roosevelt in 1936.
Dewey took it. Kennedy got only 41 per
cent of the votes. Vermont, in fact, has
never voted Democratic since the Republi-
can party was founded! Count 3 forRock-
efeller and Goldwater.
VIRGINIA has Republican strength.
Truman took it, but Kennedy didn't. A 2.4
per cent changeover would be too much
for Kennedy to accomplish, even against
Rockefeller. Count 12 votes for Rockefel-
ler and for Goldwater.
WASHINGTON is another Truman and
Nixon state, but Nixon's margin was only
2.4 per cent. Kennedy could overcome
this, but a cautious (1.0 per cent change-
over) estimate of the Kennedy popularity
gives the state's-9 electoral votes to Gold-
water and Rockefeller.

WEST VIRGINIA is a safe Democratic
bet. It went to Truman and Kennedy, the
latter by a good margin. Count 7 votes
for Kennedy.
WISCONSIN is a state to watch. It
went to Truman, but Nixon took it by 4
per cent. A cautious prediction is that
Kennedy will not take it in 1964. Count a
tentative 12 votes for Rockefeller and
WYOMING, despite a Truman-victory,
is Republican hunting grounds. Nixon
took it by 10 per cent; Goldwater or
Rockefeller, more surely the former,
would get its 3 votes in 1964.
for President in 1964 for the first time,
thanks to the _23rd Amendment. D.C.'s
population is half Negro, and Negroes
vote overwhelmingly Democratic. There
are enough Democrats among the remain-
ing half to put D.C. in the Kennedy mar-
gin with ease. Count 3 votes for the Presi-
STATEWISE, with a one per cent
changeover factor in the non-Southern
states, Kennedy would tend to carry 25
voting blocks against 26 for Rockefeller,
and 22 against 29 for Goldwater. With a
2 per cent changeover factor in the non-
Southern states, Kennedy would carry a
few more states.
Chances are, though, that Kennedy will
be carrying a minority of the states for a
majority of the electoral and popular
votes. Goldwater would take states with
small electoral votes and even smaller
populations proportionally, while Kennedy
would get the big states. Rockefeller
would fight on a more even par with Ken-
nedy for the big states. Assuming that
Kennedy takes California, Goldwater's
biggest bloc would be 26 votes in contrast
to Rockefeller's 43.
California's 40 votes possibly could spell
the difference between victory and de-
feat for Kennedy against either chal-
lenger, especially Rockefeller, even though
it didn't against Nixon in 1960. If Gold-
water takes California and Illinois and the
South while holding on to states that vot-
ed Republican in 1960, he would win the
election. If Rockefeller takes both Cali-
fornia and New York while retaining nor-
mally Republican states, he would defeat
Kennedy. These are a lot of "if's," and
some of them no doubt would not ma-
terialize in the face of the shrewd Kenne-
dy campaign forces, charismatic Kennedy
spirit,' and fairly good record of the
THE 12 LARGEST STATES could elect
the President in 1964. In 1960 Ken-
nedy captured 8 of them: New York,
Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois,
Massachusetts, New Jersey and North
Carolina. Nixon captured only California,
Ohio, Florida and Indiana among them.
In 1964 Kennedy probably would cap-
ture 8 of them again against Rockefeller,
and 9 against Goldwater. Rockefeller
could get New York, Ohio, Florida and
New Jersey. Goldwater could get Ohio,
Florida and Indiana-and possibly Illi-
nois. Kennedy potentially holds the pow-
If the South and the West prevented
anyone from getting a majority, the elec-
tion would be thrown in the House of
Representatives where each state delega-
tion has one vote. The Democrats hold a
substantial edge right now in total num-
ber of members, but statewise the edge is
less. Because of this and because the
South would have great bargaining power,
anything could happen-including the
election of Goldwater.
BUT THE ELECTION of Goldwater is,
all in all, little more than a small pos-
sibility. Vice-President Johnson would
prevent Goldwater from getting enough
of the South, and President Kennedy
would prevent him from getting enough
of the rest of the nation, to win.
The real danger to continued Kennedy
rule is Nelson Rockefeller, not Barry
Goldwater. And Rockefeller would need
the recalcitrance of a good deal of the
South to do it. Even so, it would be hard
for a moderately liberal challenger to

beat a moderately liberal incumbent.
Kennedy can hope for the best and
fight for the most with the security of a
man who has a good lead. Barring un-
usual circumstances, the man from Hyan-
nis Port who has never lost an election
will not lose one now.

The Art Museum across
from the Union brings a
Guggenheim show and
the New Realists to Ann

Wayne Thiebaud's "Shelf of Pies"


T HE EXHIBITION of Pop Art at the
University of Michigan Museum of
Art brings to Ann Arbor a group of the
most talked about works in recent years.
The controversy arises from the very
nature of the works involved. The soup
can paintings of Andy Warhol, the seven
foot high hamburgers of Claes Olden-
burg, the rows of brilliantly lit pie slices
depicted by Wayne Thiebaud and the
cartoon productions of Roy Lichtenstein
all have one thing in common: the use
of the ordinary objects or images with
which anyone living in our impersonal
industrial society comes in daily contact.
These objects are singled out by the
artists and underlined via multifold en-
largement or repetition. Hence, the name
Pop Art is derived from the use of popu-
lar images.
However, the work of other artists in
the group shows a different approach to
subject matter and conception. Un-
like Warhol, Oldenburg, Thiebaud and
Lichtenstein, the artists Jasper Johns,
Jean Tinguely and Robert Rauschenberg
take the ordinary and impose their own
order upon it, transform it into another
reality. They are not just concentrating
on one subject, bringing it before the
viewer to be judged. but they themselves
are judging and reacting to reality when
they rearrange it for their own purposes.
It is for this reason that the term
"Pop Art" is not as inclusive as that of
New Realists, a name which. carries with
it the sense of a return to reality after
a decade and a half of abstract expres-
sionism. All these artists are interested, in
one way or another, in the things that
make up our culture, our present reality.
However, they are not, as some have
claimed, the inheritors of the Dada move-
ment of the. 1920's. The materials which
the new realists use may be similar in
their homely qualities to Marcel Du-
champ's urinal in "Ready Mades."
Duchamp presented the actual object to

the art world under the heading of "A
Work of Art," but the new realists always
transform the object somehow, either by
painting it, enlarging it to enormous pro-
portions, repeating it ad infinitum, or
visually recreating the image very care-
fully in another media. In addition, Pop
Art has none of the ferocious nihilism,
sarcasm, and cynicism of the Dadaists.
The dominant expression in the New
Realist attitude is one of cheerful ac-
ceptance, humor, and often of a sly
tongue-in-cheek. There is vulgarity at
times but it is the vulgarity of our bill
boards and blaring TV commercials, and
not the embarrassing shock which Du-
champ's urinal was meant to produce in
the moral and aesthetic depths of the
viewer. Pop Art amuses one rather than
outrages; when it does administer a shock
the jolt comes from the outlandishly
bloated images of common objects or the
garish colors or the ceaseless repetition of
one image.
In spite of the fact that these
works can be entertaining, there
remains the problem of artistic value.
This is the question which is most often
asked by those viewing the works of this
group for the first time. What shocks
them most is the choice of subject. But
in art there is no rule which declares
that such and such is acceptable as sub-
ject matter and that all else is banned
from the artist's repetoire. However,
the crux of the argument, it seems to
me, lies not in whether the subject mat-
ter is acceptable, but whether the treat-
ment of reality, of whatever realm, shows
imagination and artistic creativity. In
other words, what counts is the artist's
own personal vision and its successful
expression through the manipulation of
formal values. Does the artist take real-
ity and wield it in, such a way that he
puts across his message?
THE PRESENT exhibition is divided in-
to two parts. The Guggenheim seg-
ment displays only paintings by six of

the best artists, as selected by Lawrence
Alloway, curator of the Solomon R. Gug-
genheim Museum. The other part of the
show is composed of a variety of works
in several media by artists both in the
Guggenheim show and others belonging
to the movement. These were assembled
by Mr. Samuel Sachs II, Assistant Di-
rector of the Museum of Art, and Pro-
fessor Irving Kaufman of the Art De-
The supplement is in many ways the
more interesting and enlightening part
of the exhibition from an art apprecia-
tion point of view. Aside from the crudely
executed and meaningless works of Peter
Saul, Rosalyn Drexler, and Claes Olden-
berg, there is much which is delightful
to the eye as well as being food for
mind and spirit. Here one finds that Tom
Wesselman does more than great Ameri-
can nudes. He has here an interesting
still life in which he uses a glass of beer,
Coke bottles, coffee cans, a roast and
an apple and lemon in an attempt to
work out problems of relationships be-
tween shapes, between solids and voids,
and between textures. Here Wesselmann
is using pop idiom, but his manner of
employing it, while straight forward and
brash, is traditional. It is important to
get past the visual image to understand
what the artist is doing. Then and only
then can one criticize.
Jean Tinguely's radio drawings are in
reality mechanical and electrical parts
which are arranged on a clear plastic
base and which move and emit radio
programs whose music is turned into
rhythm by the syncopated beat of a
revolving motor. These machines of sight
and sound are wonderfully constructed
so as to remove the vision of the reality
and substitute another one of pure noise,
beat, and movement. At once it is the
idea of what the machine can do and
what it is doing.


Kennedy: Will the incumbent position, charisma
and family do it?

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan