To the Polls

On Nov. 2, 33 states will elect 34 senators who will take office on March 4, 1927, and thereby determine the political complexion of the upper house of the 70th Congress. The party candidates in their relative degrees of surety, probability and doubtfulness are herewith presented.

Certainties. The following Senatorial nominees, because of the traditional voting habits of their states, or for other reasons, are considered sure of election:

DEMOCRATS

Hugo L. Black of Alabama Senator Thaddeus H. Caraway of Arkansas Senator Duncan U. Fletcher of Florida Senator Walter F. George of Georgia Senator Edwin S. Broussard of Louisiana Senator Lee S. Overman of North Carolina Senator Ellison D. Smith of South Carolina

REPUBLICANS

Senator Hiram Bingham of Connecticut Senator Charles Curtic of Kansas Senator George H. Moses of New Hampshire Senator Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota Senator Peter Norbeck of South Dakota Senator Porter H. Dale of Vermont John J. Blaine* of Wisconsin

Probabilities. Shrewd observers give the edge of victory to the following:

DEMOCRATS

Carl T. Hayden of Arizona, who is opposed by Republican Senator Ralph H. Cameron.

Millard E. Tydings of Maryland, militant Wet riding on Governor Ritchie's bandwagon, who is opposed by Republican Senator Ovington E. Weller.

Elmer Thomas of Oklahoma, backed by the Ku Klux Klan, opposed by Republican Senator John W. Harreld, who is a friend of the Indian tribes and a mild denouncer of the Klan. Oklahoma is one of the few states where Klan political influence is more potent than a grimy-faced ragdoll.

REPUBLICANS

Senator Samuel M. Shortridge of California-staunch Coolidge-ite, who has incurred the wrath of Senator Hiram W. Johnson, is opposed by John B. Elliott, McAdooian Democrat.

Senator Frank R. Gooding of Idaho, who changed his mind on the World Court to avoid the hostility of mighty Senator Borah, is opposed by John F. Nugent, Democrat. The campaign is complicated by the fact that Mr. Nugent and Senator Borah are old friends.

Smith Wildman Brookhart of lowa, snorting insurgent whom regular Republicans docilely indorse, is opposed by Claude R. Porter, Democrat, able lawyer. (Young David W. Stewart, Republican, onetime marine, has a clear path to election to the seat in the 69th Congress left vacant by Senator Cummins' death.)

Senator Frank B. Willis of Ohio, running on an "I'm-a-Coolidge-man" platform, is opposed by Atlee Pomerene, onetime (1911-23) Democratic Senator, oil scandal prosecutor, lawyer.

William S. Vare of Pennsylvania, winner of the great Republican slush-fund derby, is opposed by untainted, able William Bauchop Wilson, onetime (1913-21) Secretary of Labor under President Wilson. In spite of the fact that such a Republican as Senator Norris of Nebraska (TIME, Oct. 25) is fighting against the election of Mr. Vare, in spite of the fact that his chances of being unseated by the Senate are many, it would be no less than a political revolution for Pennsylvania to elect a Democratic Senator.

Senator Reed Smoot of Utah, Mormon, pre-eminent in the financial affairs of the U. S. government, is expected to defeat Ashby Snow, Democrat, also Mormon.

Senator Wesley L. Jones of Washington, "blue law" booster, is having trouble with A. Scott Bullitt, Wet and potent Democrat. Each candidate is anxious to have Senator "Jim" Reed investigate the other's campaign expenses. A Jones advocate cried last week: "If you can get President Coolidge to come out and tell the people of Washington State that he won't let Senator Jones close the moving picture houses on Sunday, I can promise you that the Senator will be re-elected."

Doubtful States. Somewhere a wise owl once hooted: "That which is full of doubt is full of attention." And so it is with nine states where good and bad orators leap from stump to stump, where a casual epigram or a few kissed babies may make or unmake a U. S. Senator.

Colorado. William E. Sweet, Democrat, v. Charles W. Waterman, Republican. Onetime (1923-24) Governor Sweet is a radical with a millionaire background, and hence is viewed with alarm by stolid Coloradoans. Mr. Waterman's chief distinction is that he conquered Senator Rice W. Means (backed by the Klan and well-dressed Senator Phipps) in the primaries. Despite the split in the Republican ranks, Colorado is expected to return another G. O. P. Senator.

Illinois. George E. ("Boss") Brennan, Wet and Democratic, v. Frank L. Smith, Republican Dry, v. Hugh S. Magill, Independent Republican Dry. Until Churchman-School-teacher Magill entered the campaign with his purity festoons (TiME, Oct. 11), Illinois was considered safe for "Insullated" Colonel Smith. If Mr. Magill can poll 200,000 votes, "Boss" Brennan will come out of the Wetlands of Cook County (Chicago), East St. Louis and Peoria with enough of a plurality to win the Senatorship.

Indiana. (Two Senators to be elected.) Senators James E. Watson and Arthur R. Robinson, Republicans, oppose Albert Stump and Evans Woollen, Democrats. Indiana, too, was once a state thought safe for the G. O. P. Then along came a harmless-looking newspaperman, Thomas H. Adams, with a fabulous story of Ku Klux Klan "super-government" in the ranks of Hoosier Republicanism. His charges have not yet been proved, but they make good campaign material. Last week Senator James A. Reed, wary slush bloodhound, stalked into Indiana for one day, long enough to hear Senators Watson and Robinson deny any connection with the Klan's taint. Unless the Democrats can "get the goods," Senator Watson looms for reelection, with Senator Robinson as his more doubtful ticket companion.

Kentucky. Alben W. Barkley, Democrat, v. Senator Richard P. Ernst, Republican. Kentucky is usually Democratic, although it now has two Republican Senators, elected along with the Harding and Coolidge landslides of 1920 and 1924. Mr. Barkley is against betting on horse races, otherwise Kentucky might be more certain to return to its old habit of electing Democratic Senators.

Massachusetts. David Ignatius Walsh, Democrat, v. Senator William M. Butler. Here is a state with more than a million voters, where the difference between the two candidates will probably be less than 20,000 ballots. Onetime (1914-15) Governor Walsh, Irish-Catholic, Wet, is the most potent vote-getter in the commonwealth. His strength lies in Boston (outside of Back Bay) and in the large mill towns. Senator Butler echoes "Coolidge and Prosperity," and sounds pleasant to wealthy manufacturers, to rock-bound farmers, to red-brick- and-green-shutter folk from the Berkshire Hills to Cape Cod. Senator Butler has been caricatured as beseeching Heaven to send the President and Mrs. Coolidge to Northampton, to cast their votes. They expect to go.

Missouri. Harry B. Hawes, Democrat, v. Senator George H. Williams, Republican. It is a battle of personalities, with scarcely a wink separating the candidates. Both are Wet; both flay the World Court. Mr. Hawes has the blessing of Senator "Jim" Reed, who, Republicans say, is no blessing to any one. Missouri and Massachusetts are the two most doubtful states in this autumn's elections.

Nevada. Raymond T. Baker, Democrat, v. Senator Tasker L. Oddie, Republican. Mr. Baker, rich, romantic, fashionable, is popular enough among Nevada's 33,000 voters to be given a slight edge over his opponent, who is rich but not romantic.

New York. Robert F. Wagner, Democrat, v. Senator James W. Wadsworth Jr., Republican, v. Franklin W. Cristman, Independent Republican Dry. Senator Wadsworth, the culmination of all that is prosperous and Wet in the G. O. P., is favored to win from the ablest man whom New York Democrats have nominated in the last quarter century (TIME, Oct. 11). Mr. Cristman will not do much damage outside of Herkimer County.

Oregon. Bert E. Haney, Democrat, v. Frederick Steiwer, Republican, v. Senator Robert N. Stanfield, Independent. The late entrance of Senator Stanfield, the bad boy of Oregon Republicanism, has injected doubt into the campaign and given Democratic Mr. Haney unexpected hope. Oregon is usually counted safe for regular Republicans.

Summary. Tabulation of the above looks like this:

Sure Democrats 7

Sure Republicans 7

Probable Democrats 3

Probable Republicans 7

Doubtful 10

Senators to be elected 34

Granting the Democrats their seven sure and three probable Senators, they would still need to capture six of the doubtful seats to bring their total to 48** and thus be able to organize the Senate, form its committees, etc. It is improbable that the Democrats will carry more than four of the doubtful states; but whatever happens, the Democrats and insurgent Republicans when they combine will have a voting majority in the 70th Senate. In the present session this situation has been true to a limited extent. That ancient maxim may be applied to the Democrats in this autumn's campaign: they have nothing to lose, everything to gain.

House. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is safe, even though the Democrats are going to gain from five to ten seats. The present complexion of the House is:

Republicans 247

Democrats 183

Farmer-Laborites 3

Socialists 2

Total Representatives 435

*The Governor of Wisconsin, who drinks deep of LaFollettism, who defeated regular Republican Senator Irvine L. Lenroot in the September primaries.

**Since there is one Farmer-Labor Senator, Henrik Shipstead of Minnesota, 48 Senators would be a plurality.