New York, April 30—The poll tells us that if Senator Humphrey had run in Pennsylvania, he would have achieved one-half the vote—well ahead of Carter. Yawn. In the first place we can’t know whether that is true. In the process of running in behalf of oneself, inevitably one runs against somebody else. What Humphrey would have achieved if he had hypothetically run can be very different from what he would have achieved if he had actually run. Senator Humphrey in recent days has all but taken a blood oath to the labor unions, tonsured himself, donned coveralls and lunch-box, and said: “Tell me what to do.” It is altogether conceivable that if he had run in his present posture, even in a state as heavily unionized as Pennsylvania, he’d have been rejected.
And, anyway, the game can be played on and on. If Humphrey had run, the poll says, he’d have beaten Carter. Well, if Kennedy had run, he probably would have beaten Humphrey —in the polls. In an actual contest, itisbyno means established that Carter wouldn’t have beaten the lot of them. You see, Carter is the Democrat on the rise. He is relatively unknown, which can hardly be said about Messrs. Humphrey and Kennedy. The growing excitement that attaches to his name may at some point lead him to the point reached by George McGovern: but I begin to doubt it.
Comments