The Grey River Argus THURSDAY, October 22nd, 1936 ROOSEVELT OR LANDON?”

Grey River Argus, 22 October 1936, Page 4

The Grey River Argus THURSDAY, October 22nd, 1936 ROOSEVELT OR LANDON?”

TTsnally fairly reliable, straw votes this time indicating a Republican win in the Presidential election are open to suspicion. The moneyed interests are apt to drag these as well as everything else money can buy into their campaign. They may b e calculated to induce waverers to vote for Governor Landon. Strangely these straw votes do not give h’ m l» ie bigger aggregate vote, but make him the winner on a minority vote. President Roosevelt has been indicated as the recipient of raor e than half the votes going to the two main parties, but the electoral college vote, which counts in the final analysis, is accorded in a majority of about 20, out of 653, to Governor Landon. The Third Party nominee, Mr Lemke, whom the Radio Priest, Father Coughlin, supports, is expected to poll about 4 per cent, of the total; the Socialist. Mr Norman Thomas, about 14 per cent., and the Communist, Mr Browder, with the others, about one per cent. Though Mr Roosevelt has been indicated as leader in 28 States as against majorities in 20 States for Mr Landon, the latter’s electoral college majority forecasted is based on a presumption that the States he will carry will be the most populous ones, which have the greatest number of Congressional seats, such as New York. Pennsylvania, Illonois and Michigan. These are usually Republican. If only one of these were to vote a majority for the President, it is very doubtful whether his admitted ascendancy in the less populous States would not return him to White House for a further term. Those four States amongst them have 131 electoral college votes. If the Republicans v r erc to win, it would indicate not so much dissatisfaction with the New Deal, but the effect of hotter times due to the New Deal, causing voters to forget the

necessity of its confijni;i itcc in the face of Republican promises of yet better times. It is a. question of the memory and political penetration of the voters. This is less a party struggle than former elections. It is rather a. matter of judging the causes and effects of the New Deal, during the four years that Mr Roosevelt has held office. The country is unquestionably much more prosperous than when he defeated Mr Hoover. T]i e chief objects of the President have been attained. His policy has visibly influenced one country after another. He has attacked th e system of monetary control whose centre has for generations been London, a system so widely attacked of late as to show it has run its course. Both in America and Britain, particularly in the former, there is undoubtedly a great business recovery. Even capitalist papers, in claiming America has not even had a seasonal relapse in business, but a confined growth, have to acknowledge th e boom is not having the effect every previous one has had. It is not raising wholesale prices. The boom is not a price boom. Tt is a production boom and a buying boom. Thosg interests holding stocks of goods on the market have not reaped old-time benefits from price appreciation. They have had to be content mainly with an increased turnover iri commodities. The wholesale price level has been at 81 as compared with the 100 of the standard pre-slum? comparison. The failur e of prices to rise in proportion as buying rose has meant simply that moi’e people have been able to buy—-that money has purchased moi’p goods. Incidentally money lending has not expanded as trade has expanded. The commodity dollar has become a reality. Will this be ignored on election day? A recent cable said the odds wore the other way!