OCR Text |
Show COX'S VOTE GET-! TiNG CLAIM IS ih FALSE PRETENSE Columbus, Ohio, There is a big surprlso In store for tho Democrats who wero deluded Into giving Governor Gov-ernor Cox tho nomination on tho strength ot his claim that bo I a great "vote getter" In Ohio. Only goneral Ignorance ot actual facts enable en-able his political henchmen to carry through this deceptive argument argu-ment with the Democrats from states other than Ohio. Tho racts, based on cold, Incontrovertible Incon-trovertible figures from the election etnUstlca In tho offlco of the Secretary Secre-tary of State ot Ohio, are that Governor Gov-ernor Cox never won a atralght-away atralght-away fight against the Republicans. He first wormed Into the executive chair In 1012 as the choice of a, minority of the electorate o account of tho Progressive split in the Republican Re-publican party. , i When Cox came for re-election In 1914 two years later he was decisively decisi-vely defeated", although the Progressives Pro-gressives still polled a strong voto for their gubernatlonal candidate. In 1916 Cox profited by tho duplicity du-plicity and deceit of Wilson's slogan "Ho kept us out of war" and so ho ngaln sidled Into the governor's chair by a thin-Ice plurality of 6,-616. 6,-616. In 1918 Cox managed to slip Into tho governor'schalr by a pluara- Mty of less than 12,000. Thoso who htivo an Intimate knowlodgo of politics know that Cox's election In J 1918 was nothing more than a fluko. It was duo to tho disaffection , on tlio part or a special Interest In n sliiglo county which normally Republican Re-publican went for Cox. In moro detail de-tail tho history of the four state contests con-tests In which Cox has been a candidal candi-dal e for governor Is as follows: In 1912 the thrco candidates for ! governor and their votes were: Cox, 139,323; Urown (Republican) 272,500; and Garford (Progiesslvo 217,903. Through this division of tho Republican Re-publican ranks Cox was elected by a pluarllty ot 166,823. The analysis analy-sis ot tho official returns shows that tho Republican voto In that year was S09,403: This moans nothing else than that Cox was a minority candidate by the margin of 1 1,0 80. In 1914, after Cox had served ono term as governor and had made his "rocord," he was defeated by Willis who camo through with a plurality over Cox of 29,270, desplto the faot that tho Progressives ran tholr own ticket and polled 60,904 for Oar-ford. Oar-ford. In this 1814 elecUon Willis 'received 52S.0T4 rotes while Cox received 491,904 vote. In 1916 Cox M a beneficiary ot I tho "Kept u out of war" docepUoa, I polled G68.I18 rotes to 561,601 for WUlts. Cox's pluarllty was only 6,-616. 6,-616. This give anoother line on CoxGs boasted voto getting strength for tho fact la that Cox In this election elec-tion ran 82, 798 rote behind Wilson, Wil-son, head of the Democratic Uckot. In 1918 Cox was eloctod by a pl-rallty pl-rallty ot 11,944, receiving 486,401 votes ,and 474,459 for Willis. Th analysis ot tho rote for this year showB that had It not been for a defection de-fection in Hamilton county (Clncln-nalt, (Clncln-nalt, normally Republican by ot least 25,000 that Cox would havo lost tho election. Theao nro tho facts about r Cox's vaunted "voto getting" ability. In Ohio. Tho outcomo of tho San Francisco Fran-cisco convention shows that tho Do mdcrntlcs of other stall's took tho I word of Cox and his managers for It. Hut, a fair forecast of what will happen to Cox In Ohio this year, facing as ho will a-united Republican party with Senator Harding at tho head of the ticket, Is to be seen In Senator Harding's voto lu 1914 whon Cox was defeated. In 1914 wnen Oox, lost the Btate by 29,270 votes, Harding, candidate for tho United Statos Senate, carried Ohio by 102,373. This does not begin be-gin to give a. fair Idea of Sonator Harding's personal and party strength In Ohio because while Cox was losing the state by 29,270 rotes and Harding waa carrying the state by 102,273 rote, Senator Harding not only had Hogan, tho Democratic candidate for senator to take cans of, but also had to stand the loss of 67,509 rotca which went for Oarford Progressive candidate tor senator. Rut this year it is far different. Hon. Arthur L. Ovforf, who WM Harding's Progressive opponent In 1014 for the senate, presided at the old fashioned rally at the Republican state convention and took the lead In declaring that the Progressives of Ohio are solidly behind Harding and Coolldge tor the 1920 campaign. An attendant fact which show that Cox will havo to face an absolutely united unit-ed Republican party la that the "late unpleasantneea" of the primary cam paign in which for the time being there wore "Wood Republicans' and "Harding Republicans" has been entirely en-tirely wlpd away. |