HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (JUNE GENIS)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: U.S. election results (was Re: Other candidate totals:)
Date: 11 Nov 1992 18:37:01 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1992Nov11.123208.7929@nntp.hut.fi>,
>With 99% of the nations precincts reporting:
>
>candidate                    votes        party affiliations
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bill Clinton          43,728,375 (42.910%)    Democrat, Liberal
>                          370 EV = (32 states + DC)
>George Bush           38,167,416 (37.453%)    Republican, Conservative,
>                          168 EV = (18 states)  Right2Life
>Ross Perot            19,237,247 (18.877%)    unaffiliated
>Andre Marrou             278,528 ( 0.273%)    Libertarian
>Lenora Fulani            211,742 ( 0.208%)    New Alliance
                          ^^^^^^^
>Bo Gritz                  97,601 ( 0.096%)    Populist, America First
>John Hagelin              44,521 ( 0.044%)    Natural Law
>Howard Phillips           39,391 ( 0.039%)    Taxpayers
>James MacWarren           27,464 ( 0.027%)    Socialist Workers
>Lyndon LaRouche           25,688 ( 0.025%)    Independents for Economic Recovery
>Ron Daniels               25,404 ( 0.025%)    Campaign for a New Tomorrow
>Drew Bradford              4,605 ( 0.005%)
>Jack Herer                 3,452 ( 0.003%)    Grassroots
>Helen Halyard              3,068 ( 0.003%)
>J. Quinn Brisben           2,789 ( 0.003%)    Socialist?
>None Of These [etc.]       2,525 ( 0.002%)    none of these
>John Yiamouyiannis         2,316 ( 0.002%)    unaffiliated
>Honest Jim Boren             980 ( 0.001%)
>Earl Dodge                   953 ( 0.001%)    Prohibition
>Delbert Ehlers               876 ( 0.001%)    unaffiliated
>Eugene Hem                   395
>Isabell Masters              395 (tie)
>Robert Smith                 290
>Gloria La Riva               178              Workers (all votes from N. Mexico)
>                     101,906,199

I've been told by usually reliable sources that the figure for
Fulani is wrong by a large factor due to an error in reporting fromn
New York.  I've been unable to get the exact number but I was told
it's closer to 80.000 than 200,000 and that she actually finished
behind Gritz.

/Jujne
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23727 talk.politics.misc:60027
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Date: 13 Nov 92 22:12:37 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <bill.721443005@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:

|>Tell me that every announcement regarding economic health,
|>trade developments and so forth, in the last month was not
|>timed by the current administration to help the President as
|>much as possible in his re-election attempt.

OK, I'll tell you.  Those numbers are released on a set schedule.  They were
neither advanced or delayed because of the election.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mike Brokowski)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:58:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.195316.25441@beaver.cs.washington.edu> 
aberman@cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berman) writes:
> [deletia]
>
>Ok, look everyone, let me tell you what a "mandate" is:
>
>If Clinton had won by 1 vote, he would have a mandate.

I suppose you can define a mandate however you wish.  However,
most people take a strong mandate to mean that the candidate
was elected by such a majority that he can claim the people
have strongly endorsed his agenda and therefore the 
legislature should beware public wrath and pass his programs.
If Clinton won by just one vote, he certainly can't claim 
that any sort of overwhelming majority supports his ideas.

>Clinton can take *anything* he has said during his campaign
>and say the following:
>
>	"I campaigned on XXXXX, and I won the election.  More
>people voted for me than for anyone else and I have earned the
>right to try my stated programs."

Sure he can, but the legislature can say, "Ha.  You may have
won, but not even a simple majority thinks the programs you
want us to pass are best."

>Sorry, all you right-wing Republicans, that's the way the American
>System works. The President gets an enormous amount of power
>by virtue of being president, *not* by virtue of how many people
>voted for him.  All it takes is someone willing to use that power.
>Anyone wanna guess whether Clinton is the type to use power given
>to him?  

Sorry, but Clinton's "power" (in this unscientific sense) is that 
*given* to him by the people through the Constituion, oh Great 
Oracle of democracy.  The folks in legislative branch are the
only ones who can turn his ideas into reality.  If he cannot 
convince them that these are what the people want (or that they
have some other reason to favor them, in the real world), then all
of his hot ideas are just hot air.

BTW, not everyone who disagrees with you is a "right-wing
Republican."  I certainly am not.  It's just that the American
System (tm) has a few more safeguards than allowing anyone who
gets elected to autocratically "try [his] stated programs."
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Bush's 1993 budget
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:00:01 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1


	With the election over I am about to unsubscribe to this
newsgroup. But before I go I would like to remind everyone (that cares)
that Clinton's budget doesn't start until late 1993.
	So if the economy takes a downturn between now and next
fall you can blame that on Bush as well. I had plenty of arguements 
with Republican's in this newsgroup about how the recession of '81-83
was Carter fault eventhough Reagan was president. So let's be fair here,
and give credit or blame where it is due.
	Adios everyone.

Garrett@Ingres.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22895 alt.politics.marrou:2142 talk.politics.misc:58513 alt.politics.clinton:16108
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:01:24 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell) writes:

>gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) writes:
>
>>In article <Bx7rGq.43x@world.std.com> adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) writes:
>>> Bill Clinton, Dem 43,688,671 - 43 percent
>>> George Bush, GOP (i) 38,109,410 - 37 percent
>>> Ross Perot, Ind 19,089,432 - 19 percent
>>> Andrew Marrou, Oth 278,528 - 0 percent
>>> Lenora Fulani, Oth 211,742 - 0 percent
>>> Bo Gritz, Oth 97,601 - 0 percent
>>> John Hagelin, Oth 44,521 - 0 percent
>>> Howard Phillips, Oth 39,391 - 0 percent
>>> James Mac Warren, Oth 27,464 - 0 percent
>>> Lyndon LaRouche, Oth 25,688 - 0 percent
>>> Ron Daniels, Oth 25,404 - 0 percent
>>> Other, Other, 22,822 - 0 percent
>
>>It's a real landslide for Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party!
>
>>Right.
>
>>What this tells me is that FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT of the voters do not
>>believe that Bill Clinton should be President.
>
>Would you agree then that this is a MANDATE against both Bush and Perot?
>Even Walter Mondale got a larger percentage of the vote than they did.

And Dukakis had a higher vote total than Clinton.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22769 alt.politics.marrou:2120 talk.politics.misc:58356 alt.politics.clinton:15968
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:10:55 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

>	In my opinion, people voted against George Bush and not for
>Clinton.  This assertion is supported by the endless negative press in
>the last few months.  Why did people vote against Bush?  Because he
>abandoned his conservative platform that got him elected.  People
>wanted Reagan II and didn't get it.  To add to this, Clinton had to

I don't think people wanted Reagan II.  Perot made sure that people thought
about the deficit.  People who worry about deficits don't want Reagan II.

>around the country were defeated.  The American people want less
>taxes, less government, and prefer a moderate to conservative
>ideology.

I think this is something that hurt Perot and helped Clinton.  Perot
made it clear that, if we are to get the deficit under control, there is
going to be more taxes and less spending.  People *want* less taxes,
but they realize that they won't get them.

Given that, who do you vote for?  Perot had no position on too many
important issues.  If taxes are going to go up and spending is going to
go down, I want to make sure that I vote for someone who will cut
the programs I don't like, and leave intact the programs I like.

Perot's lack of a position on these things ruled him out, leaving
Bush and Clinton.  People wanted a change, so they voted for Clinton.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: Its starting....
Organization: None
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:55:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.185153.8913@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.210109.13703@news.acns.nwu.edu> lyman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Kenneth Casey) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov6.191220.16336@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>>Boston Mayor Flynn has already asked for help
>>>(Dow Jones 11/4/92)
>>>
>>>NYC Mayor Dinkins feels he missed out on some $40Billion and
>>> has sent a request to Clinton for more aid for NYC - amount
>>> unknown.
>>>(WFAN Radio 11/6/92, NY Times 11/6/92)
>>>
>>>"Scores of interest groups ... are dusting off their agendas,
>>>plotting strategy and figuring out how to place loyalists in the
>>>Clinton adminstration. The pressure from groups ... will be
>>>enormous. Unions want a law barring hiring of strikebreakers,
>>>AIDS activists want more research money, Pro-choice groups want
>>>abortion-rights legislation, Advocates of those with low incomes
>>>want more social welfare spending. The list goes on and on. They're
>>>going to feel he owes them."
>>>(Bergen Record 11-6-92)
>>>
>>>And this gem:
>>>"Longtime Clinton observers in Arkansas say he has a tough time
>>>saying no to people".
>>>(Bergen Record 11-6-92)
>>>
>>>---
>>>
>>>Need I say more?
>>>
>>>He is my President and I wish him well - but I didn't vote for him because
>>>I was fearful of precisely this happening.....Hide your wallets folks!
>>
>
>lighten up, no matter who won people would be asking for stuff.  and as for
>wallets to be hide...bush got to everyones with his 2nd biggest tax increase
>in history.  and who flew around handing out pork and 100% government disaster
>relief for florida/hawaii etc?  good ol' bush-the-liar, that's who.  who
>racked up more debt that any president in history?  who had the largest 
>defecits...yep...mr.-tax-and-spend-liberal in republican clothing...that's 
>who!  let's wait and see what clinton does before judging him.  funny how
>everyone wants to judge him based on what they think he will do, but no one
>wanted to judge the liar for what he has done!

Lets be a little fair - I happen to like Bill Clinton but voted for Ross
Perot - I didn't vote for Bush because he attempted to undo what Ronald
Reagan did (IMHO Reagan is *still* the best President in my lifetime).

I didn't vote for Clinton because I was worried about all the Democrats
who shut out after 12 years who would implore Bill Clinton to give them
what they want - catering to special interests, lobbyists and other
groups. I was worried Bill would be unable to ignore their enormous
pressure and would cave in - and thus cost us $$$$$$.

And as I said - its starting.....

Joe
joec@morgan.com



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:57:00 GMT

In article <BxAHHH.2u5@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>  Reagan was a fiscal moron, not a fiscal conservative. I'm not a fiscal
>or any other kind of conservative but I respect the intelligence of the
>real ones too much to class Reagan's policies on the economy along with
>theirs. He just postponed the effects of his borrow and spend approach
>to come home to roost on somebody elses watch. You can argue about how
>much fault COngress has, but that doesn't absolve Reagan from clearly
>unconservative economic policies. 

I think this is a very important point and it deserves much more attention.  
Historically, people who were fiscal conservatives considered government debt 
as something to be avoided at all costs except during special circumstances
(temporary debts during war or recession were OK), and rightly so.  Supply
side voodoo was considered wacko.  

Those 1980's Republican Party-liners are in for a big disappointment when they 
finally figure out that the party line changes from decade to decade.  That's 
the price you pay when you let someone else do too much of your thinking for 
you, whatever your political (or other) position is.

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: You Got it
Summary: Another perspective
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:10:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.002824.4264@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes...
>In article <9211042149.aa21592@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu>, davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU                                  writes...
>>	Today on ABC Evening news with Peter Jennings...They showed
>>	a Big Party In Bagdad because of Bush's lost....
>> 
>I'd party too if the chances of my country getting bombed for political
>gain just dropped.

Especially if you were *so* undeserving.

> 
>>	Well, my fellow Americans....Saddam is throwing a party today
>>	and with Clinton's win...it ushers in a new era...an era in which
>>	Saddam will be more aggressive.
> 
>Against what? His country was almost flattened. He has been fighting a 
>civil uprising for a year now. He couldn't even beat Kuwait now.

Oh really?  Wishful thinking like that will really protect the peace.

>..and era in which the U.S. will
>>	have less influence in the events of the Middle East...
>> 
>This country is already having less influence in the world. BTW, what makes
>you think that we will no longer be involved in the peace process. After
>all, Carter was more successfull in that then Reagan or Bush.

Horsehockey.  Carter arrived at a politically expedient treaty which
conveniently ignored the roots of the problems.  George Bush has been the
first president since 1948 who has tried to treat fairly with the Arabs and
Palestinians, and to use the enormous leverage this country has on Israel.
I have my doubts that Slickness will have the courage to risk political
backlash in this country by keeping to the "no settlements or no loans"
policy George has set.  And without a fairness to the Arabs, you will have no
peace treaty.


Dave

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pat@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan)
Subject: Re: Who won Georgia?
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:33:23 GMT

Richard A. Mulac (ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
>
>  What happened with Georgia?  On election night I thought Clinton had won
>the state, but on Wednesday people were posting on the net that Bush had
>actually won it.  On ABC, CBS, and CNN Wednesday night, they still showed
>Clinton winning the state.  What was the final outcome?

GEORGIA
   Electoral Vote: 13
   99 percent
   x-Clinton, Dem 1,005,889 - 44 percent
   Bush, GOP (i) 989,804 - 43 percent
   Perot, Ind 307,857 - 13 percent

--
"I have a cunning plan." -- Baldric
                                                             patrick m. ryan
     nasa / goddard space flight center / oceans and ice branch / hughes stx
                     pat@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov / zmpmr@charney.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:17:22 GMT

In <Zb==SM#@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:

>In article <1992Nov5.061433.226@europa.lonestar.org>, tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>|> In article <Bx3H4H.L83@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>|> 
>|> 25% of your taxes are wasted paying interest on the national debt.

>Who says that the 25% comes from taxes?  Maybe it comes from additional
>debt purchases.  In which case, the interest is being paid by people
>who are *voluntarily* giving money to the government, rather than having
>it forcefully extracted from them.  Just a different perspective.

Just a bit disingenuous, wouldn't you say, Jim?  If you assume that
the interest is being funded by borrowing rather than taxes, you
simply assume that the debt will NEVER be paid on.  And the idea that
a loan is voluntarily GIVING money strikes me as just a bit odd.
Unless, once again, you assume that it will never be repaid, of
course.  Then it is indeed 'giving' money.

>|> 
>|> Time for a summary.  If the government didn't spend 25% of our tax dollars 
>|> on debt interest, each of us could benefit in one of the following ways:
>|> 
>|> (1) have a 25% tax cut without losing government services
>|> (2) have 25% more government services
>|> (3) take an additional 5-6 weeks vacation time per year without loss of 
>|>     income.
>|> (4) some combination of the above.
>|> 
>|> What is actually happening of course is:
>|> 
>|> (5) Your money/work time/government services go into the bit bucket instead.
>|> 

>The problem with this analysis is that the amount we pay on interest is
>going to cover things that we have already spent money on.  If we weren't
>spending the money on interest, there are many things we wouldn't currently
>have.  Think of it this way.  Lets say that in 1980 you bought a house.
>Let's say your mortgage payment is $800/month.  Today you could say, gee
>if only I wasn't spending $800/month on principle and interest I could
>afford to buy more, work less, etc.  Of course, you wouldn't have the
>house either.

You're assuming we're getting something tangible for the money.  We
mostly aren't.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Its starting....
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Co., New York, NY
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:12:20 GMT


In an earlier posting I indicated my problem with voting for Bill 
Clinton was not the man but all the liberal democrats, lobbyists
et al who would come looking for money, power, etc.

ITS 3 DAYS LATER NOW - READ ON.....

Boston Mayor Flynn has already asked for help
(Dow Jones 11/4/92)

"In his victory speech Tuesday night, Bill Clinton spoke about
the "need to reform the political system and reduce the influence of special
interests."
  But in their euphoria over Tuesday's landslide, Washington's cadre of
Democratic lawyer-lobbyists aren't listening. In fact, they began cashing in
on a Clinton administration long before any voters went to the polls, and
even Republican-connected firms appear to be in no danger of perishing, The
Wall Street Journal reported.
(Dow Jones 11/5/92)

" Politically connected Manatt, Phelps, Phillips & Kantor, the large,
bicoastal law firm is home to Clinton campaign Chairman Mickey Kantor
and former Democratic National Chairman Charles Manatt. The firm does legal
and lobbying work for an array of corporations including Japan's NEC Corp.,
Philip Morris Cos., the cable television industry and several big oil
companies.
  In mid-October, Mr. Manatt invited representatives from about 30
corporations -- Manatt Phelps clients as well as would-be clients -- to his
Washington law office to get an insider's briefing on the Clinton campaign.
  According to one participant, Mr. Manatt introduced Mr. Kantor, who outlined
the priorities of a Clinton-Gore administration and answered questions on
issues ranging from export controls to telecommunications. Among those in
attendance were officials from General Electric Co., for whom Manatt Phelps
does some legal work (and would like to do more), Bell Atlantic Corp. and U S
West Inc. Spokesmen for those companies declined to comment."
(Dow Jones 11/5/92)

NYC Mayor Dinkins feels he missed out on some $40Billion and
 has sent a request to Clinton for more aid for NYC - amount
 unknown.
(WFAN Radio 11/6/92, NY Times 11/6/92)

"Scores of interest groups ... are dusting off their agendas,
plotting strategy and figuring out how to place loyalists in the
Clinton adminstration. The pressure from groups ... will be
enormous. Unions want a law barring hiring of strikebreakers,
AIDS activists want more research money, Pro-choice groups want
abortion-rights legislation, Advocates of those with low incomes
want more social welfare spending. The list goes on and on. They're
going to feel he owes them."
(Bergen Record 11-6-92)

And this gem:
"Longtime Clinton observers in Arkansas say he has a tough time
saying no to people".
(Bergen Record 11-6-92)

---

Need I say more?

He is my President and I wish him well - but I didn't vote for him because
I was fearful of precisely this happening.....Hide your wallets folks!

Joe
joec@morgan.com



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: electoral college vote for Perot?
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:28:45 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article CLu@sci.kun.nl, hugh@cs.kun.nl (Hugh Osborne) writes:
>Just a quick question.  All the results that I saw given here (the
>Netherlands) gave Perot zero votes in the electoral college.  How sure
>is this?  I noticed that his best result was in Maine (about 30% ?).  It
>seems that Maine is one of the few states that does not (necessarily)
>give all its votes in the electoral college to the first past the post.
>Since Maine must have at least 3 votes, does this mean that Perot gets
>one of them?
>
>--
>Hugh Osborne                              Dept. of Informatics

Maine apportions votes by congressional district, not by % of popular vote.
If Perot had won the popular vote in any district, he would have been
awarded an electoral vote.

--f2











Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton