HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: Those Wacky Conservatives! (Analysis)
Organization: Mississippi State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:33:28 GMT

[is so, is not, is so....deleted]

>|>Oh, and by the way, if any of you out there can explain something to
>|>me, I'll be happy.  Rush has said many times (most recently in a USA
>|>Today interview) that the popularity of his show increases by 430+ 
>|>listeners a second.  How is that possible?  That's 13.5 billion people
>|>per year.  Even if Rush picked up every single person in the United
>|>States, it would only amount to 8 people per second.  I sure hope
>|>that Rush isn't lying in order to make people think that he is more
>|>popular than he actually is...

>Get a clue.  This is why you are in such a huff about Rush--you just
>don't understand what his show is all about.  It is for
>e-n-t-e-r-t-a-i-n-m-e-n-t.  And that is what the whole 430
>listeners/second deal is all about.  When you gain understanding of
>that, you probably be a little more relaxed.

Well you not using the same formula as he would make for you getting
different answers (basic idium of math...).

I would bet he is using 'air-time' (3 hours/day) and you are using
global time (24 hours/day) and then he is only looking at the last
poll.  Here is what I think he is using:


	listeners today (13.5 M) - listeners at last poll (12.5 M?)
	___________________________________________________________

			time on air between polls 

maybe I am wrong, why not write him and ask.

Another possibility...he may not know math (he never said he did  ;-)

Chad

--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Network projections
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:48:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.014401.5873@jho.com>, harrison@jho.com (Mark Harrison) writes:
> 
> The thing that bothers me is how everyone was so convinced that
                                   ^^^^^^^^
> network projections were a BAD THING in 1988, but a GOOD THING
> in 1992.

****************WHEEEAHH  WHEEEAHH  BS ALERT BS ALERT*******************

DO NOT use all inclusive words like EVERYONE!!!!!!!  I supported Bush in 1988
AND Regan before him and still hated the A**holes on the networks who want
to call one or the other a winner with 4% of the vote counted.....

Plus something noone has mentioned is the FACT that ABC news on the evening
newscast (before even the first poll closed) said (DIRECT QUOTE) "Since WE
promiced not to predict results of the election until the polls close, we 
will not do that, but, the winds of change are in the air."

I immediately changed channels.  Face it the Networks (at least the three
major ones) are A**HOLES who want to affect the election for their own
benefit.

> 
> I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that it usually helps
> the poll leader, which was Bush in 1988 and Clinton in 1992.
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Hi, this is Captain Kirk.  I can't | Mark Harrison     harrison@jho.com
> answer my communicator right now..."| Richardson, TX    (214)669-2853

Larry Billings
From: n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu (brian h. harper)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:33:21 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>=mrsmart@cs1.bradley.edu (Robert Knautz) writes:
>=>I heard (I think) Peter Jennings use the term "Electoral Mandate" in
>=>describing Clinton's win.  Can somebody please tell me what the hell
>=>.....
>=
>=Hmph.  How short memories are.  Do you remember the Reagan Landslide
>=vs. Mondale?  Fritz got few elect. collage votes but was within a few %age of
>=Ron in the popular vote.  Yet the 'major news sources' (aka Peter Jennings)
>=describe it as a landslide.
 
"a few"? Try 18%!!

>=So the media is being consistant here.

>The Reagan landslide was not only electoral (Fritz had 13 EVs to 526?
>for RR) but also in "popular vote" (had been defined as margin of
>>10%). The margin here is 370 BC to 168 GB, and the popular vote cannot
>be directly compared with the 1984 results as we had three viable
>candidates running that gathered more than 5%. If I am not mistaken,
>thanks to my friend Robert Book, I think this is the closest margin of
>victory in the EC in a while.

Since '76. Carter had 297, Ford had 240. Carter won the pop.vote by 2%. THAT
was close. This election was closer than the last 3, but still not that
close. And Perot's outstanding showing makes it hard to compare with any
election in previous years.

-Brian Harper


>Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
>	My humor button seems to blinking randomly. Read at your own risk.
>I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
>good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:07:01 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

This morning (Wednesday) I heard the outrageous poem about
"Deathocrats".  I know it's a long shot, but if anyone has
the text of this gem, would you please post it?

Thanks!
--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,misc.test,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:49:56 GMT

In <1992Nov5.034239.3528@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:



>Since George is on his way out, we will no longer need alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
>alt.rush-limbaugh, or alt.politics.bush.  I will be sending out the
>rmgroups for these three groups.  Also, since Clinton is now president,
>I will create alt.president.clinton.  Since the volume should be large,
>we'll hold on to alt.politics.clinton for a while.

Forget it! You think that just because Bush is no longer in power that
suddenly none of us are going to be interested in what Rush has to
say?!

Keep the Limbaugh groups. If you wanna kill something, try
alt.fan.dan-quayle.

Michael
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:06:26 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article 15835@mr.med.ge.com, gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes:
>By the way, I hear that Clinton now wants to raise the tax on gosoline. So much
>for just increasing taxes on the rich. I'm sure the increase at the pump will
>more than offset what pittance we get back next april 15th. Looks like the 
>middle class is going to foot the bill anyway. Is anyone really suprised?
>If what I hear about this gas tax increase is true, Clinton's promise about a 
>tax break for the middle class has already been broken, even BEFORE he gets 
>into office. 

I'm not going to substantiate your claim regarding a gas tax by Clinton
but I would like to make one point here.  The republicans have raised
EVERY kind of tax that you can think of (state, local, social security,
property, etc.) during the watch of Reagan and Bush and they seemed to
poopoo this without much fanfare.

Lowering the MARGINAL federal income tax rate is all they talk about.
If you include ALL federal taxes (social security, excise taxes, etc.)
then the tax-cutting reputation of the republicans doesn't look so
good.

Note:  I'm not defending Clinton or his policies in particular here.
I'm just trying to point out that the only tax that seemed to get the
attention of Reagan and Bush was the marginal federal income tax.

---
===============================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Computing Systems			Office	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com				FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
		reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
		my management or my mother
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: lorenmo@microsoft.com (Loren Moore)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle My Hero !!!!!!!!!!
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:01:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

***Very funny stuff deleted*** Some of the best Dan Quayle humour I've seen
posted to the net! Well. Let me add my own two bits.

You see, at the post-election concession speech we got to see many of Dan's
supporters up close and personal. And when he came on to give his speech, 
he was barraged with boisterous crowd vocalising their wish for him to
run at the next presidential election. They were shouting '96', '96', '96'...

But the funny thing was a group of his most ardent followers. In the noisy
din, you could just barely make out what they were saying: '69', 69', '69'...

daemien
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Limbaugh makes a point better then anyone.
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:03:50 GMT


Today's version of the Rush Limbaugh show is a rebroadcast of the show
he did a couple of weeks ago, when he open the show saying he had seen
the truth, and would vote for Clinton, then spent the rest of the show
denying he ever said it, that it was in the past, and it made no
difference, it's what he is now that matters.

A better argument that Bill Clinton's past is irrelevant, that what he
is NOW is the only important thing, has never been made.

Looks like the electorate agreed with him.

Thanks, Rush!!!  
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //   No God, Know Peace   /\     * 
*                    Kelley L. Miller  //  Know God, No Peace    /P \    *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //                        /____\   *
*****************  James Trafficant for US Senate, 1998  *****************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
In-reply-to: steve@celia.UUCP's message of 6 Nov 92 19:15:55 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Nov5.000942.29995@EE.Stanford.EDU> <2098@celia.UUCP>
	<1992Nov6.151933.18739@osf.org> <2101@celia.UUCP>
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:18:17

One minor point:

Though the Republicans did make gains in Michigan, this morning's
(liberal) Free Press reported a misposting (60 were transposed) in a
district where the Republican won by 54 votes.  Hmmm... Anyway, it
appears that the state house will be equally divided along party lines.

I guess we are all subject to the old curse, "May you live in
interesting times."

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7862 alt.politics.clinton:15701 alt.politics.bush:13084 alt.rush-limbaugh:8961
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Date: 5 Nov 92 00:09:42 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

In article <1d8sc3INNs7r@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:

>Hmph.  How short memories are.  Do you remember the Reagan Landslide
>vs. Mondale?  Fritz got few elect. collage votes but was within a few %age of
>Ron in the popular vote.  Yet the 'major news sources' (aka Peter Jennings)
>describe it as a landslide.
>
>So the media is being consistant here.


First, the percentages between reagan and mondale were a little more
widespread than those for clinton/bush.

Second, mondale won only one state(minn) as well as the
people's republic of washington d.c., a FAR greater
difference than clinton/bush.

So, I hardly think that the media is(sic) being consistant.(sic)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:12:45 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Those Wacky Conservatives!
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Nov7.175837.18237@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, htuttle@nyx.cs.du.edu
(Harry Tuttle) says:

>Nevertheless, I do feel that Mr. Limbaugh's days are numbered.  This kind
>of arch-conservative vitriol that he is spewing cannot have any staying
>power.  The hate and divisiveness that he encourages (along with other
>notable Republicans, such as David Duke and the two Pats, Buchanan and
>Robertson) will not last.  Democracy is not isolationism.  Yes,
>democracy is freedom of speech, and I support Mr. Limbaugh's right to
>speak freely.  In fact, I encourage it, because that it is what will ruin
>him in the end.

So, you haven't listened to his show, then?  Most people will actually
      -listen- to a person before condemning him.

Say, read any good books lately?

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8101 alt.politics.clinton:16237 alt.politics.bush:13421
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.ru
Subject: Re: Rush grasps at straws
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:22:26 GMT
Organization: ACME products - artillery division

fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:

> I saw him on TV last night, and despite my distaste for the
> man I have to admit he was very funny.  He doesn't seem to
> be at all upset about the outcome of the election, which
> doesn't surprise me a bit.

Look at it this way; When Reagan was elected, did Gary Treudeu (sp?)
wail and gnash his teeth? Just the opposite..
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: S.O.S.: Help save Dan Quayle from the raging liberals
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:31:35 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Nov8.182503.26468@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert Davis) writes:
>Greetings fellow dittoheads!  Over in alt.fan.dan-quayle, the Vice President
>is undergoing a ton of unfair bashing by a mob of jealous, resentful, 
>loathsome people of the L word persuasion.  Those far-left-wing liberals
>just won't let up on him, or those, very few of us, who are defending him.
>We could use a bit of help in defending him against all of those false
>accusations that they have been flinging at him.  They're also picking
>on Jessie Helms.  Thanks for any help!    

Picking on Mr Potatoe Head and Mr "Tobacco-subsidies for Death"?  Oh Gasp!
How terrible!  Seen they'll be picking on another republican, David Duke!
Those damned liberals are such NASTY people - when Mr Potatoe head says
something boobish, they actually are so underhanded as to report it
rather than cover it up in the sense of fair play.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8254 talk.politics.misc:59232
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:28:47 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@mahogany126


In article <1992Nov7.150918.22011@oz.plymouth.edu>, m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
> 
> I love this conversation about Clinton's supposed landslide.  The best
> comedy I've seen in wuite some time.  Perhaps if you say it enough
> times, people will believe that winning by 5% of the popular vote is a
> landslide.

No matter how you slice it, Clinton won 100% of the White House.

> On the other hand, here in New Hampshire, we had a true LANDSLIDE.
> Govenor-elect Merrill (R) won by a whoping SIXTEEN points over Arnie
> (Broad Base) Arnesen.

Given that NH is a Republican dominated state, that's not bad.

Let's compare that to the 1990 Gov race:

Judd Gregg (R)            176,560   63%
J. Joseph Grandmaison (D) 101,496   36%
    (source: The World Almanac Book of Facts, 1991, p 97)

That's a 27% margin.  So the Dems gained 9% in 2 years.

>                        She tried to convince the New Hampshire people
> that it was actually a victory.  We it was, a Merrill victory was a
> victory for the people of New Hampshire who don't want our state to
> become like Maine or the People's Republic of Massachussets.
> 
> Perhaps if Ms. Arnesen says it enough, people will actually believe
> it.  She might even convince us that we actually WANT a broad base
> tax.  In the meantime, Merrill has a true MANDATE.

NH went for a Democratic president for the first time since 1976.


-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:57:40 GMT

In article <mrsmart.720887073@cs1.bradley.edu> mrsmart@cs1.bradley.edu (Robert Knautz) writes:
>I heard (I think) Peter Jennings use the term "Electoral Mandate" in
>describing Clinton's win.  Can somebody please tell me what the hell
>that is supposed to mean?  A true mandate can only come from the
>popular vote.

It pains me to say this but I would point out that the Electoral College 
is designed to magnify victories to give the victor the momentum of a 
mandate.  It is _very_ important to have an energetic Executive, as the
Founders wisely forsaw, because the Legislature has a tendency to 
seize all powers from the other two branches of government.  Jefferson
warned us specifically about this. 

A weak Executive is a threat to liberty, that is what Nixon's crime REALLY is.

>If they are going to call this a mandate, then Bush
>certainly had one in 1988, and he at least got a popular majority.  If
>the popular press think they are going to pass someone who received
>only a plurality(sp?) of the votes as having a mandate, they are
>sorely mistaken. 

I could not agree with you more.  The Imperial Congress is the real problem
and I suspect that even Clinton will have his difficulties with them.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. facts
Date: 8 Nov 1992 02:12:16 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <BxC827.J9r@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>Yup; the media has been badmouthing the economy for ten years, trying to

The media hypes "individuals" and how THEY are effected.  Who'd listen
to a story about how well Bill Gates is doing.  Yet the out of
work laborer is a good "human interest story."

>for the Wall Street Journal) has emphasized the negative. But things
>aren't now, and never were, as black as they painted it.  The economy IS
>on the rebound, however weakly (and the weakness is due mostly to the
>lingering efects of the 1990 tax hikes) and will continue to do so.

If one assumes the DJIA is a good metric, the market ROSE in the start
of 90 and only in the last few months had a bit of a sell off.  If the
tax hikes were going to depress things BEYOND what the rest of the
market (and hence the economy) can handle.

Along these lines, historically, the market is up no matter WHO/WHAT is
in charge.  It takes some very BAD moves on the part of a prez to 
effect the economy as a whole.  (Nixon's freezing at the cash register
and Carter hi interest rates are two examples) 

Is it in the best interest of ANY political party to screw the 
economy over?

>Neither Bush NOR Clinton will be responsible for the improvement, but

Yet they will be in charge, thus culpable.  That's the risk when you
take the job.  Reagan can wear the label "The man who was at the
helm when the market took it's biggest dollar drop in history."
(A very Rush-ian label too I might add.)

>watch for Dan Rather to point out about a zillion times that as soon as
>Clinton was elected, the economy started to take off. (It won't take off;
>it'll continue to stagger up 'till Slick Willie and George Mitchell pass
>the first tax hike, at which time it'll plummet, and
>Clinton/Mitchell/Foley will pronounce it a "delayed reaction to the
>fiscal irresponsibility of Reagan/Bush". ) 

Could be.  Could even be what is said will be true too.
The economy is a big amophius blob and it's hard to say where someone
pokes caused a push somewhere else.  Assuming:
1) The debt run up by Reagan/Bush is to be blamed on them.
2) Such a debt is bad.  (hence irrsponsible)
3) Such a debt will effect the economy.
Any "push" that is "bad" can be blamed on the debt, and (via guilt
thru association) on Reagon/Bush.  Is such fair?  No more fair
than the testing of the modulus of elasticty Rush does of the truth
on his show.
 


-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8385 talk.bizarre:37686
From: jvogel@math.rutgers.edu (jeff vogel)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Limbaugh's Falseness Revealed
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:37:09 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Fascinating article in the New York Times today. It seems that our dear,
dear idol, Rush Limbaugh, not long before his radio show went on the
air, hosted a New York radio talk show with a highly liberal slant.
He had often complained that his views, while popular, were not getting
good ratings, and that he had some interesting ideas for what to do if the 
show was cancelled.

It is clear to me that he is really a closet liberal, only pretending to
be a closed-minded idealogue in order to appeal to the more common of the
common man and make a lot of money.

Anyway, I strongly recommend the article. 

					- Jeff Vogel
					Truth and Beauty Party
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle My Hero !!!!!!!!!!
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:58:38 GMT

enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>   To the cultural elite: Whether you agree or disagree with Mr. Quayle's
>stands on the issues you must admit that through the great personal tragedy 
>Dan suffered at your hands, he has stood up for his beliefs.

    To which great personal tragedy are you alluding? Did he loose any 
close relatives? Did he loose his job or his home? I know that he's been 
the butt of a great many jokes, but I would hardly call that a personal 
tragedy. Just think of Dan's future on the lecture circuit: he can hold up 
a flash card with the 'e' in potatoe scratched out and have the audience 
rolling in the aisles. I admire Dan Quayle for standing by his beliefs, but 
he neither deserves nor receives my sympathy or my pity.

>  He has done this without compromise for political gain.  We must ask 
>ourselves if we could have done the same. 

    Yeah, we "cultural elite" Democrats could ask ourselves that, but the 
answer would be an unqualified "yes". What do you think happened to *our* 
candidates in '80, '84, and '88?

>The good thing about this election is that through CSPAN America finally saw
>the real DAN QUAYLE and what they saw was good.

    Amen to that. He sure was a hoot. Too bad it'll be years before the rest 
of us from Indiana live down his vice presidency but then we all have our 
crosses to bear.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton