f,.. ...'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 1964. 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- water. 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- nedy. 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 Goldwater. 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 Kennedy. 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 Goldwater. 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. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA gets to vote 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- dent. 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 President. 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- erhouses. 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 Arbor Wayne Thiebaud's "Shelf of Pies" POP ART: AN EXPRESSION OF- MOIJERN By MIRIAM LEVIN 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- partment. 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. by Kennedy: Will the incumbent position, charisma and family do it?