This year's Massachusetts election boils down to a contest between two Democrats, both of whom are assured of reelection. Senator John F. Kennedy '40 has often commented "I am not running against Foster Furcolo;" however, he is.

In a year which everyone concedes is quite favorable to the Democratic Party, Kennedy has been an extremely busy politician. The Senator did not originally intend to run hard, but all plans were changed when the September primary returns made their way to his vacation desk.

It was not that returns foreshadowed trouble in his race for reelection; on the contrary, he outpolled his Republican opponent by a two to one margin. Senator Kennedy's anxiety arose from the fact that he ran 4,000 votes behind Governor Furcolo.

Therein lies the tale of this year's campaign, and it is an interesting, unusual political situation. For although neither Democratic candidate is worried about retaining his position, each is quite concerned about the size of his margin and the effects it will have on his future ambitions.

Kenedy's political hopes are common knowledge, although he has yet to throw his hat in the ring--he wants to be President of the United States. However, the fact that Governor Furcolo wants to become Senator Furcolo in 1961 seems to have received little publicity. Nevertheless, this situation is the key factor in the campaign. It has had two direct effects.

First, it has healed any rift which existed between the two men. A conflict in personalities and philosophies started several years ago when Kennedy was coming into national prominence and Furcolo was still a Congressman. At that time Furcolo told a gathering of ADA officials that the organization had outlived its usefulness and should disband. The Senator, as well as the ADA, was quite disturbed by this and let Furcolo know about it. Some people feel that Kennedy's subsequent failure to campaign was the cause of Furcolo's defeat in the 1954 Senatorial election.

The dispute flared into the open during a campaign broadcast when Furcolo showed up late and drew the verbal wrath of Kennedy. Unfortunately for both men, several reporters overheard the exchange and gave it wide coverage in the press.

However, as one of Kennedy's campaigning strategists phrased it, "we're all friends now." They need each other, and any differences have been smoothed over, at least until after the election. Senator Kennedy must have a solid Bay State delegation behind him if he hopes to get anywhere in 1960, and he realizes that Furcolo will be an important part of that delegation. Similarly, Furcolo knows that he would have little chance in the Senatorial race without Kennedy's support.

It will do Kennedy no good at all merely to win this election; he must win big. Should he fail to lead his ticket--as happened in the primary--his reputation as a vote-getter will suffer immeasurably and with it his hopes for the Presidential nomination.

The second effect of these ambitions became evident recently. The holder of the Senate seat that Furcolo is aiming at has responded to the cry. Senator Leverett Saltonstall has entered this year's race on an unprecedented scale. Ostensibly, he is out to help the Republican ticket; actually, he is drawing the lines of battle for his own fight in 1960. Therefore, what seems on the surface to be a rather routine election is actually the first stage of a battle involving the political futures of the three top Massachusetts office-holders.

Another contest has perhaps even greater state-wide significance--the fight for control of the Legislature. Never in the history of the Commonwealth have the Democrats held majorities in both the House and the Senate. This year however, they go into the election with a fairly comfortable majority in the House, and trail by the slight margin of 21 to 19 in the Senate.

Three Republican-held Senate seats are in danger. One of these is held by Otto F. Burkhardt (R-Westfield) who defeated Democrat John J. O'Rourke by the scant margin of three votes in 1956. The two are fighting it out again this year, and O'Rourke would seem to have the edge. Two other GOP seats--in Brookline and Newton--are going to the challengers.

A friendly Legislature would be helpful to Furcolo but there is a more important consideration. A new census will be taken in 1960 and Massachusetts will probably lose two or three Congressional seats. The Legislature will reapportion the state's districts, and the Republicans are harping on the possibility of a gerrymander should the Democrats win. Actually, gerrymander is a strong possibility no matter who wins.

With all these issues, one would expect large public interest in the campaign. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, Bay State party leaders report voter apathy--despite the high stakes riding this fall.

The Republicans, facing an uphill battle, are most disturbed by this apathy. Besides the general Democratic trend which seems to be prevalent throughout the country, the Massachusetts branch of the Grand Old Party has a number of peculiar problems in its struggle to recapture the State House.

Last spring this did not seem to be the case. Governor Furcolo had been roundly defeated by his own party on an attempt to initiate a state sales tax, and certain scandals in his administration were revealed. A floor fight for the Democratic Attorney General nomination had raised the issue of bossism and threatened to turn the Convention into a free-for-all. The Republicans were convinced that they had the issues and the candidate--George Fingold, the only man to survive the 1956 Democratic sweep.

Suddenly all this changed on September 1, when, as the Boston Globe headlined, "Fingold Drops Dead." With the primary eight days away, the GOP found itself without a candidate to head the ticket, and, moreover, without a single incumbent on the entire state-wide slate.

Christian A. Herter, Jr. '41 and Charles Gibbons--both of whom had originally sought the nomination for Governor--unselfishly stepped forward to offer their services. After a hasty exchange of telegrams and three ballots, the State Committee picked Gibbons, who had received only 42 votes at the Convention.

Rather than ease the situation, this only brought new problems. The ballots had already been printed, and the Committe had the option of printing and distributing hundreds of thousands of stickers or relying on a write-in vote to nominate Gibbons in the primary. Even with a feverish effort, they could not prevent the mismarking of thousands of ballots.

Just as the Gibbons forces were getting organized for the campaign, more trouble developed. Charles B. Rugg, a Republican State Committee Counsel, warned that there was some question as to the nominee's legal eligibility, since he had run for State Senator as well as Governor in the primary. It took a favorable ruling from the Democratic Attorney General to clear up the matter.

Starting with a hastily-formed organization. Gibbons had the additional difficulty of raising campaign funds. Only recently has he begun to receive the necessary money from the badly deflated Republican war chest.

Although Gibbons served in the state legislature for over 10 years--including two as Speaker of the House--he has not held an elective office for close to two years. Coupled with his late start, this has presented him with a real obstacle--getting himself and his position known to the electorate. In a year characterized by public indifference, this is an almost impossible task.

The Republican nominee is hitting on three main issues: waste, 'wild spending' by the Administration, and an excess of poor political appointments.

Gibbons is quick to point out that Massachusetts, for the first time in its history, failed to have a balanced budget this year. He claims that the Governor is planning to call a special session of the lgislature after the elections to impose new taxes in order to change this situation.

He himself, rather than increase taxes, would cut down on costs.

The usual charge of corruption has come up during the campaign, especially in regard to the Department of Public Works. Specifically, the charge is that large sums of money were spent on rented power lawn-mowers--money that went to "dummy corporations" and other dubious sources.

A legislative committee headed by Sen. Phillip G. Bowker (R-Brookline) recently exonerated the Administration of any wrongdoing in this case, but Gibbons has termed this a "whitewash."

For his part, Gov. Furcolo has been running on his record, emphasizing the positive achievements of his administration. He is especially proud of his educational program, which will provide for the establishment of nine junior colleges and large amounts of state and private scholarship funds.

A key issue in the campaign, the Democrats say, is unemployment. The recession hit the state hard and Furcolo points out that his administration extended unemployment insurance benefits from 26 to 39 weeks and liberalized the vocational retraining program during the crisis. Furcolo mentions that his bill to float a $50 million bond issue to finance state projects and create jobs was killed by the Republican controlled Senate.

This battle between the Governor and the Senate is another issue which should help the Democrats. Last spring, Furcolo proposed withholding state income tax; this, he said, would cut down the large number of tax delinquents in the state and bring in the millions of dollars needed to balance the budget without putting any additional burden on the people. The Senate killed it on three separate occasions after it had passed the House.

One issue the Republicans were counting on never materialized--the state sales tax. Originally proposed by the Governor last spring, it was defeated by both parties in the legislature. During the campaign, Gibbons has said that he too would sign such a bill if it came to him. By failing to exploit this issue, many observers feel, Gibbons has lost a big opportunity.

Besides these issues, Furcolo has other advantages working for him. Of Italian and Irish extraction, the Yale-educated ('33) Governor with a large family has a common-man appeal which Gibbons has not had time to build up. He amassed the largest vote ever given to a Democratic gubernatorial candidate in the last primary and defeated a popular Lieutenant Governor in a year in which Eisenhower was sweeping the state. Gibbons is running hard and has made gains--notably in the western part of the state--but at this stage of the game it doesn't look as if he has the horses to win in a Democratic year.

Because of the undeniable popularity of Kennedy, Republicans were not too eager to run against him. The nod finally went to Vincent J. Celeste, an East Boston lawyer and one-time aid to former Governor Christian Herter. He has never held an elective office and lists as his experience the fact that he ran for Congress (against Kennedy) in 1950 and was an alternate delegate to the 1956 Republican national Convention.

Celeste is trying to arouse the voters on the issues of labor racketeering and civil rights. "I abhor elected officials who give lip service to law and order and then conspire with the labor barons to enhance their political futures," he told a Christian Science Monitor reporter recently.

Kenedy is playing the role of the statesman. He never mentions his opponent's name, nor does he discuss the Sherman Adams case. The Senator sticks to a discussion of what he has done in the past and what he plans to do in the future regarding state issues. He talks about civil rights, labor benefits, and protection of Massachusetts industry.

Celeste voices optimism about his chances but even Republicans admit that he has no hope of unseating the fair-haired boy.

The only real trouble the Democrats face this fall is in the race for Attorney General. Here deep wounds caused by a convention and primary fight, as well as the personal appeal of the Republican candidate, have given the Democrats real cause for concern.

Before the convention last June, Endicott (Chub) Peabody seemed to have the edge over Edward J. McCormack, Jr., nephew of the Democratic Congressional majority leader. When the party convened, however, a fierce battle ensued and police had to be called in to prevent a riot. Amid charges of vote buying and fraud, McCormack won the nomination. Peabody immediately announced he would contest the decision in the primary.

The primary fight was fierce and bitter. Although McCormack won by a comfortable margin, Peabody showed suprising strength. He has since endorsed McCormack, but has done almost no campigning for him.

Meanwhile, the Republican nomination went to Chris Herter, Jr., a personable figure and able campaigner. As the Democrats fought among themselves, Herter built himself up in the public image as a candidate untainted by corruption and politics. Recently he has been using taped recordings of Peabody's convention speeches denouncing McCormack, with Democrats in the background yelling "fraud."

McCormack has had governmental experience as President of the Boston City Council, but his name is not as familiar around the state as Herter's. He has denied the charge of bossism, and tried to patch up the party rift.

Despite this, however, large group of Peabody supporters are working actively for Herter. His campaign headquarters predicts a 75,000 vote victory. Democrats are confident, but they concede that if any Republican has a chance of winning this year, Herter is the man.

This is a report from a small CRIMSON team that surveyed political sentiment in the pivotal state of Massachusetts. Team member was Mark H. Alcott, who journeyed hither and thither.