(4 of 6)
Ford's advisers, meeting with him this week during a working vacation in Vail, Colo., also seem to have settled upon an overall "big state" strategy. Under this plan, Ford would concede the cotton South (Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina), and make a pass at the peripheral South (Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Louisiana). He would concentrate on the Midwest, notably six states that would give him a total of 104 electoral votes (needed to win: 270). They are: Michigan (21), Ohio (25), Illinois (26), Indiana (13), Wisconsin (11) and Iowa (8). If he can put those together with California (45), Texas (26) and one or two of the large industrial states of the Northeast, then he might win. That would be something of a political miracle. The President could win Ohio, which has a strong Republican organization. Illinois may be the key state for both Carter and Ford. As Chicago Mayor Richard Daley likes to point out, no presidential candidate since Warren Harding in 1920 has been elected without carrying Illinois. There, as in Iowa and Wisconsin, Ford should be going against the odds. But he might do well in farm states like Kansas and Nebraska.
The West is Carter's weakest region and thus may be a promising target of opportunity for Ford, even though he starts out far behind Carter in states like Texas and California. (The latest Field poll in California shows Carter ahead of Ford, 53% to 33%). In the Northeastern states, Ford prospects are obviously dim to dismal. He might carry Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. Besides, as Massachusetts Congresswoman Margaret Heckler observes, "Neither party has chosen a ticket that has particular appeal [in the area]." Though states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey have overwhelming Democratic strength, Carter will have some trouble getting hold of the urban ethnic vote because of his Southern Baptist evangelicalism, middle-of-the-road stand on abortion, and appeal for blacks. But it is hard to see now how such Carter weaknesses can be translated into Ford majorities in these states.
Still, as Proudhon once said, "The fecundity of the unexpected far exceeds the statesman's prudence." Jimmy Carter is himself part of a trend of political surprise in the U.S. One specter that haunts Carter's campaign strategists is that he could sweep the South by large margins, win a majority of the popular vote nationwide, and lose the election in the Electoral College because of some narrow victories by Ford in some Northern industrial states. Says Carter's campaign manager, Hamilton Jordan: "It's not a farfetched possibility at all."
In Ford's favor now is a variety of factors in the American psychology. On the whole, Americans have a greater sense of well-being than they have had in years. Despite the memories of Watergate and Viet Nam, at least a semblance of trust has returned. Ford can claim credit for restoring openness and candor to the White House. So the campaign may well focus upon the question of whom the voters trust more, Ford or Carter.
The outcome may depend almost entirely on how Carter campaigns and is understood in the next 2½ months. Carter is an unknown quantity, while Jerry Ford is not. Ford's best hope may be the air of stability and predictability that he projects, his sane and reliable image.