Averell Harriman might have been playing coy and waiting for the New York Democrats to draft him; on the other hand, he may be betting on a Stevenson victory and an appointment as Secretary of State. In any case, by sitting back and letting John Cashmore snatch the senatorial nomination, Harriman assured Irving M. Ives, the incumbent, of a victory. For, during the past six years, Ives, a strong advocate of civil rights and a bi-partisan foreign policy, has made himself all things to New York's heterogeneous voting population. A man of Harriman's national prestige might have given Ives a close fight. But Cashmore, Borough President of Brooklyn, who is an intense but relatively inept politician, hasn't a chance.

Cashmore does not even have the support of a disgruntled Liberal Party, which was ready to campaign vigorously for Harriman. Dissatisfied with Cashmore, the Liberals nominated George S. Counts, a professor of education at Columbia. The four to five hundred thousand votes that the Liberals are thus pulling from Cashmore in this manner, make the Democrat's election virtually impossible. Even the regular party machine men, led by Tammany boss Cavmine De Sapio are pessimistic at the loss of Liberal support and awed by Ives' personal popularity; they have not been working for Cashmore.

Ives, who has been campaigning vigorously for Eisenhower, has a record which appeals to both New York City liberals and up-state conservatives. While in the state senate, he wrote the first FEPC law ever passed--the Ives-Quinn Law passed in 1946. In the United States Senate, he and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota introduced a similar bill, and when it was defeated by a fillibuster, Ives proposed a cloture bill. Besides favoring FEPC, he has supported the Anti-Lynching and Anti-Poll tax bills. He pleased New York's large groups of immigrants by campaigning against the Walter-McCarran Immigration Act. Ives is strong on foreign aid, having advocated ECA, MSA, Point Four, and aid to Korea.

Against this, Cashmore places a record of twelve years as Brooklyn Borough President, with little to qualify him as Senate material. The Liberals realized this and feared that Cashmore would hurt Stevenson's chances in New York, since the machine idle for the Senate nominee would not be helping in the Presidential race either. And while Ives was gaining votes for Eisenhower, there would be no strong candidate to help Stevenson. Attempting to drum up Liberal interest in the campaign, they nominated Counts. The Liberals know their man will lose, but they feel that they can help win the state for Stevenson.

New York's forty-five electoral votes are still very much in doubt, despite the extreme one-sidedness of the Senate race. The polls give Eisenhower an edge, but th larger number of undecided voters (about twelve percent) leave Stevenson a good chance to salvage the state.

The Republicans are optimistic however. A new, vigorous Governor Dewey has sent his strong organization canvassing for voters while most of the Democratic machine lies dormant. Besides this, there has been a tremendous increase in voter registration--particularly in Republican districts. On the "southern tier" of countles there was an 18% gain, in Queens it was 21%, and in Nassau it was 52%. These are all Republican strongholds. On the other hand, registration did not rise so much in the usually Democratic cities. One plausible explanation of the suburban and upstate gains in registration is the influx of city people to the suburbs. If this were the only reason for the rise, Democrats might rejoice. But in the cities registration has been heavier in traditionally Republican districts. Perhaps this is partly due to the strong Dewey-Ives campaign, which has been steadily plugging Eisenhower, while the Stevenson forces have had little help and less organization.

At this stage, Stevenson must capture over 70% of the undecideds to carry the state. Against a strong Republican state ticket, an effective organization, and a popular presidential candidate it will not be easy.