HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Where is ELECTORAL tally?
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:55:48 GMT
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO

In article <1992Oct07.144216.7006@bnr.ca> yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount) writes:
>Last weekend our local conservative newsletter, the Dallas Morning
>News, reported that Bill Clinton had a solid lead in enough states
>to collect 283 electoral votes. They did not explain what "solid"
>meant for some reason, but they also showed close to a hundred
>more electoral votes in states that are "leaning toward" Clinton.
>The states that were solid or leaning toward Bush were all small
>states. Only one of them had electoral votes in the double digit
>area. If there is any interest, I can try to post a summary of the
>chart.

Please do...

Greg

-- 
*******************************************************************************
Greg Lyon		             	         Student Union Attorney General
gl1@cec2.wustl.edu			                       Clinton/Gore '92 
Washington University in St. Louis - Site of the First 1992 Presidential Debate
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10090 alt.politics.bush:8909 alt.politics.elections:16475
From: root@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Super-User)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Bush: "steering America"  (NOT)
Date: 13 Oct 1992 16:08:18 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

Bush thinks we should "stay on course"..

[Holland, MI:  10/12/92]
	BUSH:  When it comes to steering America through 
	the new global economic challenges, America needs 
	a driver who knows the highway.

So he fires the people who have been doing the driving..

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- White House Chief of Staff James Baker, [...]
	has asked all members of the Cabinet and other high administration 
	officials to sign letters of resignation immediately after the 
	Nov. 3 election.

Sorry George, but when a team has a bad season, you don't 
fire the team -- it just needs a better coach.

Allan
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10742 alt.politics.elections:17093 talk.politics.misc:52129
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Date: 15 Oct 1992 20:02:52 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <1992Oct15.170937.24256@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1bk6bvINN20u@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
 >>
 >>You Perot people just might re-elect what we are all trying to unelect,
 >>think about it on the Nov. 3.
 >>
 >>-- 
 >>Timothy B. Reynolds
 >>CLINTON/GORE
 >>Election Campaign '92
 >>Houston, Tx 
 >
 >Don't let it be said the Clinton/Gore campaign won't stoop as low as the next
 >guy.  This is fear mongering on a par with anything Bush/Quayle has come up
 >with yet.
 
 >This is *not* an "unelection".  If Bush isn't relected, that's great.  But let's
 

To elect someone who we know nothing about and without a record 
that can be checked is not fear mongering it is taking a great risk.

>not forget that wel'll have to live with whoever replaces him.

Thats my point.


-- 
Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE
Election Campaign '92
Houston, Tx 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9593 talk.politics.misc:50749
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:30:42 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Oct7.072505.1166@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>	Cable rates will go up.  The broadcast networks will be able to charge
>>cable companies for redistribution, basic cable rates will skyrocket.
>
>Why would broadcasters charge for redistribution?

To increase their profits.  What, do you think they're in business for love?


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com		x 6244  ----------------+
|  I don't belong to any organized political party:  I'm a Democrat.	|
|						-- Will Rogers		|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9206 alt.politics.bush:8279
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Date: 15 Oct 1992 13:40:57 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <1992Oct15.033144.2716@netcom.com> mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye) writes:
 >skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
 >
 >>The IRS reported today that Ross (Mr. Im not part of the system) Perot
 >>due to the stashing of his money payed federal taxes only on 30,000.00
 >>of his billions last year. 
 >>Not a "insider" Pleeeeeeeease !!!!
 >
 >I don't suppose you know why?  Of course not.  You just know how to 
 >complain.  If you are too ignorant or lazy to do enough homework on 
 >Perot to know why he paid that much in taxes, they lay off.  There
 >is a LOT of information on Perot out there - including DETAILED info
 >on his wealth.  Go look it up.

Sure where do I "BUY" the book.....

The point I was making is:
Is it fair to the average working person making 30,000 per year 
to have people such as Ross Perot who I can bet made more than 30K
last year pay the same amount of taxes ? No it is not ! Ross Perot
talks all about whats wrong with this country and PACS and special
intrest while on the other hand he takes (legal) advantage of the tax
system. Not that what he did was against the law but he has no right
to the moral high ground he claims to represent, he has been lobbying
in cong. for years and securing under the table deals for gov. contracts
for years. Perot is the biggest hypocrite I have ever seen, you say Im 
ignorant ? Im not stupid enough to fall for his line. What a hypocrite.

Perot campaign stratagy:
do a TV show
hide from the media and the public
debate
hide from the media and the public
do a TV show
hide from the media and the public

I guess he still can't handle the heat in the kitchen....

Any canidate who runs and hides from the media and the people does not 
deserve to be on the same stage as Bill Clinton.


 


-- 
Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE
Election Campaign '92
Houston, Tx 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10720 alt.politics.bush:9350 alt.politics.elections:17077
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:46:00 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Debate results
 <1992Oct14.180535.26404@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>

In article <1992Oct14.180535.26404@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, mister rogers
<rogers@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov> says:
>
   [Much hypothetical bullshit from Conservative Flak Organization
    deleted]

>=============
>mister rogers
>=============

Thanks for giving me back my own post!  I've been looking for that to
deal with the "<sniff> We only had two years in the Senate" lie.

So, what's your point.  That a hypothetical list by some conservative
organization is an appropriate counterpoint to a history of the '80s
written by the President's own Director of the OMB?  That proposed
spending by Senators counters the largest deficits in the nation's
history proposed *and* approved by Bush.

Mr. Rogers is a good .sig.  This goes a long way to explaining why we
are where we are.

Hope this helps!

Jeff Luck            *The opinions are mine, but facts are facts*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University        "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU             -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:15:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.022810.3737@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <29165@life.ai.mit.edu> 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President) writes:
>
>First, a distortion:

i suppose this was written before the debate also.
i think your conclusions are a bit hasty.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 07:42:23 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.200046.13549@sequent.com? dinneen@sequent.com (Jay Dinneen) writes:
> ?
> ?Are homosexuals dangerous to children?  Give me a break.
> ?Heterosexuals are more dangerous to children than homosexuals.  I
> ?don't have statistics, but the question itself is ridiculous.
> 
> Indeed it is. 
> Ask any behavorial psychologist. The typical child molester/abuser is:
> white male, middle class, married, fundamentalist Christian, heterosexual.
> 
> Mike

True, but misleading; that's also a description of the typical NON-abuser,
since it describes the typical "Joe Average". The only statistics I've
seen that address the subject indicate that homosexual men molest children
in about the same proportion that heterosexual men do; i.e., it doesn't
seem to be related to sexual orientation. 

I might suggest, however, that certain homosexual groups (i.e., NAMBLA)
have a reputation that far exceeds their numbers. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10476 alt.politics.bush:9191 alt.politics.elections:16834
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Response to BUSH SPEECH
Date: 14 Oct 1992 23:08:07 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

	HOLLAND, Mich. (UPI)

	"If you listen to him," Bush said referring to Democrat
	presidential candidate Bill Clinton, "and to some degree 
	Ross Perot, you get the feeling that America is a nation 
	in decline.

423,000 people filed for first-time Unemployment benefits last month.

	"Of course we've got our challenges, but we should never 
	forget our people are still the best educated."
	
Nationwide, the high-school dropout rate is 29%.  
In 1991, verbal SAT scores reached an all-time low.

As an aside, Arkansas has the highest high-school graduation rate 
in the nation.

	"When it comes to steering America through the new global 
	economic challenges, America needs a driver who knows the 
	highway"

Bush's remarks here come in the shadow of reports he plans to install 
a new economic team for the next term, and drop Treasury Secretary 
Nicholas Brady and Budget Director Richard Darman.  These are the 
same advisors who wrote his campaign proposals, including Bush's 
"Agenda for American Renewal."

Bush also announced this week that James Baker would abandon his role
in the State Department (regardless of the effect on Nuclear reduction
talks with Russia) to take over as his domestic advisor.

	"You know the global economy, and we're in a global economy, 
	is in transition."
	
Ross Perot noted in his 30-minute special that the U.S. lacked an
energy policy, a high-technology policy, and several other key policies
that will be critical in a global economy.

	"In the Bush years farm income and family incomes 
	averaged the highest of any president"

Average Family income has fallen $1600.  

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:47:45 GMT

Doug Walker (walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: In article <Bw2B98.2Jw@unix.amherst.edu>, pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:
: |> StarOwl (StarOwl@uiuc.edu) wrote:
: |> : I must admit that I was impressed with Perot. 
: |> 
: |> I also have some problems with his actual policies.  The best response to them
: |> came on "Washington Week in Review" where the statement was made that they 
: |> would have been good four years ago when (as Dukakis pointed out) we were
: |> going in the wrong direction but hadn't suffered much damage yet.  It's easy
: |> for somebody with 3 billion dollars to talk of shared sacrifice, but it's a
: |> little tough on the average guy trying to make ends meet.
: |> 
: 
: So what would you do?  Keep ignoring the problem?  By saying that his
: policies would have been good 4 years ago are you implying that more
: drastic action is necessarry.  Are Clinton or Bush going to take that
: action.   Come On.
: 
I took us 12 years to crawl into this hole, I think it's unrealistic to
expect us to crawl out in four or five.  I find both the Bush and Clinton
approaches more realistic if a lot slower.  Bush, however, has already
shown that he can't control the deficit, or spending.  And when he raises
taxes he promptly finds ways to spend it all.  We're left with Clinton by
default.  His plans are a little optomistic, but more credible than Bush and
more realistic than Perot.

I would love to have Clinton get up on January 20th and say that he's not
going to run for re-election so he'll be free to make the hard decisions
needed to start digging our way out of the hole we're in.  I'd also like to
win $10,000,000 for Publisher's Clearinghouse.  I figure the odds are about
even.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Subject: Re: Amazing!
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 16:37:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.142941.4781@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>	Ahhh, I've receieved an email with the same forgetfulness.  I guess
>it's time for "Derailing the Reagan Revolution" (again) :).
>
>> It's kind of ironic to go back and watch the malaise speech by President
>> Carter, he was right, take a look around.
>
>	It's incredibly funny that you take a *decline* from the Reagan years
>as proof that the Reagan years weren't that good.
>
>	Anyway, read "Derailing" and reply (if you ca) to that.
>
>Brett                                                      

Could someone post the deficit figures before and after the Reagan
years?


-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10929 talk.politics.misc:52378
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BRAVES WIN!!! (oh yeah, Bush stuff too)
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:54:40 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <casey.719166307@snail.ecn.purdue.edu>, casey@snail.ecn.purdue.edu (Kenneth H Casey) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
> 
>>. . .  George never referred to Willie by name, nor did he use Willie's
>>picture.

	[In a campaign ad.]  There, feel better now?  That *was* the context.

	On another note, the local paper printed the same erroneous "facts"
that float around this net, I sent in a letter with the real story, and wonder
of wonders, they printed it!

> Bush most certainly did utter the words "Willie Horton" during the 1988
> campaign, but perhaps the bright colors from the flag that Bush wrapped
> around himself distracted people from that fact.
> 
> (Yes, a committee independent of the Bush campaign ran the TV spots, but
> this does change the fact that Willie Horton helped Bush get elected.)

	Or the fact that it was the Dems who cried "racism!!" then quickly
backpeddled when they found out what the real story was.  The media took it
from there.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Latest poll: one person polled, landslide for candidate X!
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:58:01 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct13.200810.5488@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> :Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
> :> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> :>>	About these "polls" with less than 2000 people....
> :>>	500 people = +- 10% error
> :>>	1000 people = +- 5-6% error
> :>>	2000 people = +- 3% error
> :>>	Statistics in action.
> :> 	Not to put too fine a point on it, but what's your source for the
> :> notion that error variance is a funtion of sample size alone?  There is some
> :
> :Our statistics class in high school.  Granted, that was way back during
> :the 1980 elections :).
> 
> Modern statisticians recognize that the total population has something
> to do with the accuracy of a survey.  

	Hi, I hate to interrupt your discourse on comparing apples to oranges,
but the discussion was about *national* elections, not small towns.  So yes,
we're talking about 100 million+ people.

> Marrou/Lord in '92

	Well, of course.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:46:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.012718.17235@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>
>I second this view ... the "media elite" view, and the "people's" view,
>as evidenced by the C-SPAN call-in, was like night and day.

Why select the C-SPAN call-in to be the "peoples" view?
Call-in shows tend to reflect a highly self-selective
population sample, by their nature.

A local TV station here had a studio audience discussion
after the debate, and the consensus was similar to that
of the "media":  Perot gave the best responses, Clinton
handled questions and Bush-comments well, and Bush
excited almost no one.

>To the media elite, it was "Clinton won, because he didn't lose."
>These guys base their analysis on yesterday's polls and their
>own prejudices instead of what happened.
>

These "prejudices" were also shown by some slightly
conservative commentators and those sympathetic to Bush:
the reasoning was that, since Bush was behind, he
needed to say something to close his gap in the polls.
Most listeners in the debate heard nothing like this
from the Pres.

>While to the people calling, Perot was honest and funny, Clinton
>was a dishonest bozo. Of the people who said they changed their minds,
>almost all went for Perot, one or two went to Bush.
>The only "Clinton" mover I recall was the guy who said he was picking
>up his Clinton/Gore sign out front and trashing it.
>
>Two best lines --
>Perot: " Well, if you're asking for experience in running up a $4 trillion
>dollar debt, I don't have that ...."
>
>Bush: " Yeah, the market went south ... whoosh ... like that,
>because they had a sudden fear that Clinton might win."
>
>Worst line -- Clinton's "McCarthyism" attack was a patronizing counterpunch
>attack, especially using Bush's own Dad as mr Hero. Why doesn't he just
>answer the question?

*sigh*  He has answered the question.  Will 
Bush ask the "question" directly to Clinton in front
of a national audience on Thursday, or will he allow
his surrogates to continue to leak slimy
innuendos?

>Yup. Bush wasn't really agressive, but he stated his case plainly and
>with sincerity and, quite frankly, came off as the most stable.
>
>He also was actually the most accurate about the state of the economy.
>We *aren't* falling apart at the seams, we are in a temporarily
>slow-growth stage. The economy will grow 3% next year, according
>to most economists - and even Clinton couldn't mess it up that quick.

Bush has been predicting increased growth in the economy
"next year" for three years now.  Simple probablility 
would suggest that he will eventually get it right.

>Pat
>	Bill Clinton: The Status-Quo candidate

        George Bush:  The Disfunctional Family Values Candidate

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:12:38 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton

In article <1992Oct13.85348.7791@ms.uky.edu>, fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
wrote:
> 
> Rick Eames writes:
> >Jeff Davis wrote:
> >
> >> Pardon. What difference does it make? Are you supposed to have one set of
> >> beliefs at home and different ones abroad? If you think soldiers
> >> are dying needlessly and your voice might spare them, are you supposed
> >> to check the map before speaking out? I've never understood that.
> >> Sorry. 
> >
> >1) It makes a difference when you misquote *anyone*.
> 
> Correct but a non sequitur. Unless there's a buried ellipsis there which
> I'm not picking up on. Ellipses should have those little dots...like
> a buried power line.

My point was that the orignal posting quoted Bush from the *debates*.  That
post was inncorrect as the President did not say that at the debates.
 
> >2) You may not like it, but WWII veterans do look at life different than
> >you or I do.  I understand where Bush is coming from because my grandfather
> >felt the same way about protestors overseas.  It bothered him a great deal.
> 
> A lot of resentment by veterans was stirred up consciously by words like
> "Demonstrating against your country." The operative/inflammable/misleading
> word being, of course, "country." The difference between "country" and
> "policy" is not a stretch to comprehend and the politicos who smudge
> the line do so deliberately.

Ah, then explain that great practice of burning the flag: a symbol of the
COUNTRY not the POLICY.  They *WERE* protesting their country if in that
protest they defaced or destroyed symbols of that country.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10588 alt.politics.bush:9282 alt.politics.elections:16964