The following discussion of dark horses in the presidential race was written for the Crimson, in connection with its forthcoming poll, by E. P. Herring, instructor and tutor in Government.

What chance of winning the Democratic nomination has any one of the dark horses listed in the CRIMSON's presidential primary poll? For one of a prophetic turn of mind, picking the winner of the Irish Sweepstakes offers less hazard and much greater reward. The dark horses on the CRIMSON's string are Senator Bulkley of Ohio, Governor William II, Murray of Oklahoma, Samuel Seabury of New York and former Senator James A. Reed of Missouri. Down in this shadowy side of the paddock are a crowd of other aspirants who are more than willing to run if given the opportunity. The list of those that have been mentioned as possibilities is a long one: it includes Senator Robinson of Arkansas, Senator Lewis of Illinois, Governor White o Ohio, Cordell Hull of Tennessee, David F. Houston, Melvin A. Traylor, and John W. Davis have likewise been suggested. These dark horses are exceeded in blackness only by the dinginess of their chances of even being seriously mentioned in the convention.

Dark Horse or Bete Noir

The selection of a dark horse is, of course, determined by the availability of the candidate, by the skillful maneuvering on the part of his managers and by a favorable combination of circumstances that sweeps him forward at the right moment. One can not predict what good luck will effect or political connivance secure but the availability of the CRIMSON's dark horses can be examined. From this point of view Seabury, Bulkley, Murray, and Reed appear in turn not as a possible dark horse but as a bete noire. To one or another important element within the Democratic party each of the candidates would be persons non grata.

Should Be Colorless

The successful dark horse on the other hand is usually colorless. He is the man without active enemies, without a striking record in national politics. He is essentially a compromise candidate brought forward when a deadlock has been reached between more outstanding aspirants. Consider James K. Polk in 1844, Horation Seymour, Democratic nominee in 1868, James A. Garfield in 1880, and Warren G. Harding in 1920.

A "Compliment" to Reed

James A. Reed has stated that he would "consider it a compliment" to have the Missouri delegation to the convention pledged to him in 1932 as in 1928, but this is scarcely to be taken as placing him in the running as a potential candidate. His influence in swinging his support to some one of the major candidates may prove important, but his past record does not designate him as the logical selection for a deadlocked convention. His reputation rests upon his success as an inquisitor, revealing corruption and discovering rascals by means of Senatorial investigations. He is highly unpopular in some quarters.

Seabury and His Enemies

The case of Seabury is similar. His claim to national attention rests upon the notoriety of the enemies he has made. he has doubtless chosen his enemies well but his selection as Democratic standard bearer would be regarded by many as not only a repudiation of Tammany but f Smith and perhaps of Franklin Roosevelt as well. Although Cleveland and Wilson were probably aided by the opposition of Tammany it is highly dubious that a storm of public indigation against machine politics will sweep Seabury to victory. Today one can not see so much as a single portending cloud upon this political sky.

Murray Not a Unique Phenomenon

It has been argued by some that a great popular gust of feeling will carry Murray forward. It is a bit difficult to consider Alfalfa Bill seriously as a human being, and much more so to attempt evaluating his chances for the presidency. Figures such as Murray are by no means unique phenomena in the corn and cotton belt. Mounte banks and demagogues have attracted large followings before. Stockless Jerry Simpson talked to thousands in his day. Murray stands for a powerful element but his strength is likewise his weakness. He represents class and sectional interests that the Democratic Party must attempt to reconcile rather than emphasize. He is clearly not a compromise candidate.

Bulkley Most Nearly Qualifies

Bulkley perhaps comes nearer than the others to meeting the qualifications of a dark horse. His state of course, is in his favor, but he is far from being the only man with presidential aspirations coming from a pivotal state. The diminutive figure of Baker makes that of Bulkley look very small at this time. Moreover, it is by no means certain that Bulkley's avowed wet stand is a point in his favor.

In a word, each of these aspirants possess certain positive claims to prominence which make him a challenging figure in the public eye but which may cause him to be regarded askance by political managers looking for the safe and harmless candidate behind whom a tired convention can swing into line. They must be sure that their dark horse possesses none of the attributes of a white elephant.