The entire CCA effort, though, is directed to electing a mayor this January. No matter which CCA candidates win Council positions, the Association's most important task as a unit comes in selecting the Mayor, for he sets the government's tone, and, more practically, casts deciding votes on both the Council and School Committee.

Political foreshadowings indicate all four CCA-endorsed incumbents will win re-election. The CCA hopes to supplant one of the five present independents, several of whom trailed the ticket two years ago. The Association's leading candidate for this fifth slot is Edward T. Sullivan, elected with CCA support to the School Committee in 1957.

This task is hardly simple. Sullivan is a labor leader whose convincing personality and name hopefully will win him support from districts normally unsympathetic to the Brattle St. campaigners. Yet perhaps his greatest advantage, the name Sullivan, might lead to such confusion that voters will pick the wrong man entirely.

This possibility exists since one Council incumbent, former Mayor Edward J. Sullivan, is vacating his seat. It is conceded, however, that his brother, amiable former Rep. Walter J. Sullivan, will take the seat, and perhaps even top the ticket. This group of Sullivanites have consistently led the anti-Harvard, anti-CCA factions of the city.

As if to prove the point, Walter J.'s principle campaign posters say: "Make no mistake. Vote for Walter J. Sullivan." The CCA's long-standing pressure to push voters away from choosing strictly the Sullivan name might backfire this year. In this election the CCA has endorsed two Sullivans, Edward T. for Council and Charles M. for School Committee.

After conceding one seat to Walter J. Sullivan, then, this leaves four seats held by independents to which the CCA hopes to elect one of its five non-incumbent candidates.

Mayor McNamara, though finishing well down the 1957 ticket, also seems guaranteed re-election, simply through his position and prestige as Mayor. When he won two years ago, McNamara was a true independent, aligned neither with the CCA nor with the Sullivanites. This neutrality paved the way for his election as Mayor. His voting record as a frequent ally of the CCA bloc may hurt him in some districts, yet be a distinct help to him elsewhere.

Alfred E. Velucci, self-styled bearer of the Italian voter's burden, has all but publicly announced his candidacy for Mayor. This same Velucci however--Harvard's most volatile attacker--trailed the ticket last time and barely won re-election. At recent City Council meetings, Velucci has received informal ribbing about his precarious position. His strong Portuguese vote may be pre-empted this year by CCA-endorsed Manuel Rogers, although if Rogers is eliminated early from the count, his second place votes would presumably go to Velucci. Two minor Italian candidates have reportedly joined the race simply to take first-place votes from Velucci and DeGuglielmo; how much this may hinder Velucci is difficult to judge.

Incumbent Charles A. Watson has jumped off and on the CCA bandwagon during his several terms on the Council. At present, he is making loud noises in his opposition to the inner belt route highway that city consultants advised run through the Cambridgeport area from the B.U. Bridge up Brookline Ave.

Watson lives in this section, and hence is couting on strong support from his neighborhood because of his vigorous stand. This boils down to a straight play for votes since Watson can scarcely claim to influence the State highway department in its choice of a route.

John D. Lynch, the oldest member of the Council, has been around so many years that sheer momentum will probably elect him. A formerly CCA-endorsed candidate (he has since bolted), Lynch is noted for his reactionary stands on fluoridation, Communism, and spending. Some observers think Lynch has the least chance among the incumbents to gain re-election, because, they say, many of his supporters are dying off.

By necessity then, the CCA must try for the post of one of these weaker Councillors, without endangering its own incumbents at the same time.

The prognosis for the City Council heavily favors the incumbents, plus Walter J. Sullivan. This prediction seems inevitable, from the consideration of recent history. Cambridge voting simply follows personality, name, ethnic background, and familiarity, rather than issues. Since the incumbents have remained in the public eye, some of them for years and all of them at least more than the new candidates, they must be favored.

This prediction is further enhanced by the current issueless campaign, when large groups of citizens are not aroused to vote as they were two years ago. At that time a School Committee issue concerning 17 controversial appointments stirred the CCA virtually to demand that the education of the city's children not be subject to personal political feuds. In 1957, there at least was an issue of the "ins" versus the "outs."

Why, one might wonder, are 31 candidates vying for nine City Council posts in an issueless campaign? This large group includes the perenial outs--usually old men from a small, ethnically-tight community within the city--and several new-comers.