HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:08:54 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>In article <adams.720914090@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>
>>>Exit polling shows that over 50% of voters are excited about the prospect
>>>of a Clinton presidency. This includes 20% of Bush voters (source: USA
>>>Today 11/4). Give it up. Sixty percent of voters said that whatever
>>>Bush was doing, please stop it. We will, and that is Clinton's mandate.
>>
>>And 60% said either Bush or Perot is better than Clinton.  No mandate.
>
>THE issue was the economy (based on watching C-SPAN call-ins, mostly).
>
>Bush 	campaigned for 		trickle-down economics.
>Perot 	campaigned againt 	trickle-down economics.
>Clinton campaigned against 	trickle-down economics.
>
>Bush got 39% of the popular vote.  The rest of the vote is a clear 
>mandate to END trickle-down economics.

I disagree...

It was "George Bush does/does not deserve reelection."  George Bush
was NOT Reagan.  He made deals with the Demos.  He didn't take action when
people thought he should.  Many Republicans hated him.  I voted against him
because he didn't deserve reelection.  Nor did I vote for Clinton.

As it turns out, 60%+ felt that Bush should NOT be reelected, but only 43%
felt that Clinton should be.

The Democrats lost about 10 seats in the House, and at best, can pick up
one seat in the Senate.  If the runoff in Georgia goes Republican, they
will hold their totals.  And depending on what happens in the special
election in ND (Burdick seat, vacated by his death) the Republicans could
actually pick up a seat.

There was not even a mandate for 'change'...a plurality for change at the
top, but for the status quo in Congress.

 -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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith)
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:50:02 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Nov5.160945.18312@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>In article <Bx7x0C.Hx1@ns1.nodak.edu> csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith) writes:
>
>>
>>Yup.  The majority has spoken.  And the majority DID NOT VOTE FOR CLINTON.
>>57% of the poeple voted for someone OTHER THAN Clinton.  So now we have
>>a president elect that the majority of the people did not want in office.
>>
>
>you act as if this is uncommon. you must have slept thru american history.
>let me fill you in a bit.

I did not claim that it was uncommon...  I just like to point out that
6 of 10 people voted AGAINST Clinton when someone uses the word
"landslide" when referring to Clinton's election, or that Clinton was
preferred by a majority of the people.


>1) there is no requirement that the president of the us win 50%+ of the 
>popular vote.

There should be... Well, if there are 2 candidates then there should be.
If there are three, then the requirement should be 33.3%, etc...


>
>2) many presidents, inlcuding abe lincoln, have been elected and served
>successfully without this majority. in fact, at least one race (the date
>escapes me) ended with the popular vote winner losing the election.

Anyone better in history remember the date?  I don't either...

>3) we do not vote as individuals, we vote as states.

And that is wrong.  This is supposed to be a democracy, and every 
individual should have a say in who is elected pres, and not have their
say taken away and given to the winning candidate of the state.


>   the overwhelming majority of states voted for clinton.
>   a small minority of states, mostly low-population states in the plains,
>   voted for bush. therefore, bush has been soundly defeated in his
>   re-election bid.

He has been soundly defeated only by the electoral college, which 
obviously does not accurately represent the views of the population.
The population only put Clinton in the presidency by a few small 
percentage points...


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: What is a Conservative?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:45:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.230134.26099@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.152813.21375@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>Conservatives believe in limited government and the empowerment of the 
>>individual (the sanctity of individual rights a la Locke) to allow people
>>the freedom to seek their own happiness rather than to stand in a line
>>at a federal office waiting to receive what the liberals have deemed as
>>todays portion of happiness.
>
>Unfortunately, there seem to be VERY FEW true conservatives around.  Rush is
>definitely NOT one.
>
>A True Conservative (tm) would be against the RICO seizure statutes, against
>keeping drugs illegal, against keeping prostitution illegal, against making
>abortion illegal, against forced prayer in schools, etc., etc., etc.

Methinks they go around calling themselves libertarians....



And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Dear Republicans
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:17:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.001337.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.024820.14186@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>> 
>> Certainly the ones who voted against Bush are legion compared to those
>> voting against Clinton.  I'm exaggerating somewhat, but, still, 3/5th
>> of the people voted against the sitting President, the one in power.
>> Bush received a smaller portion of the vote than Herbert Hoover,
>> hardly a clarion call to keep him in the Oval Office.
> 
>Ok. Sorry! I should have clarified myself. What I mean't by "WE are still in
>power" is not that we are in the White House (symbolicaly is what I think you
>mean't) but rather the majority of the voting population voted for someone
>other than Clinton. Yes, I agree that these people are sitting on the
>sidelines, but, the voters still have the ability to voice a powerful voice. In
>fact, one that is in the  majority. The people who voted for Marrou, Perot,
>Bush and all the others are the ones who hold the majority of America,
>collectively, of course. I hope this helps with future followups.
>Disclaimers. Disclaimers.

That's fine, though given that the Perot vote would have been split
equally if he were not running, Clinton would have garnered some 52%
of the electorate.



And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Date: 8 Nov 92 23:35:05 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <BxEw0H.6yo@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov5.224301.15140@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>> Please answer how the ACTIONS taken by the Bush administration follow this
>> with:
>> 1) large % increase in white house staff
>> 2) "read my lips no new taxes"
>> 
>> If the "issue" was less taxes and less government then why did the 
>> Libertarians NOT win?  I will maintain there is little differance between
>> Rebublicans and the Democrats in the big picture of things.  Big Govn.
>> assures their survival.  And big gonv takes big $$$ to run.

>Look at it this way; Bush's easy win over Dukakis in 1988 was a stunning
>AFFIRMATION of Reagan's lower taxes-less government policies.  Clinton's
>win over Bush this year is an overwhelming REJECTION of Bush's REPUDIATION
>of Reagan-omics. 

Have you thought of running for office?  You quote #1 and #2 and
don't bother answering, instead ask your own question.
Or are you avoiding that tough question because it can not be
simply answered?


But lets look at your premise...... And look at your text below.

>note that Slick Willie got less than 44% of the vote. This election is
>simple; it's George Bush, yes or no. The "No'es" took it. The only people
>in this election who were at ALL excited were the Perotistas; every

Give It's George Bush Yes or No can not this also apply to
Ron Vs Jimmy
Ron Vs Fritz
Bush Vs Dukais

Why the double standard?
Why is Bush Vs Dukais a vote on reganomics and not a yes/no on
the two men?   Sounds like your making excuses.



-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: trif@bike.rad.washington.edu (To Run In Fear)
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle WA
	<Bx6CAM.AxI@ns1.nodak.edu> <1992Nov4.103501.23471@Princeton.EDU>
	<1992Nov4.161559.16095@mdd.comm.mot.com>
	<1992Nov4.193901.14303@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:46:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.193901.14303@m.cs.uiuc.edu> watanabe@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe) writes:

   I understand that they won't be counting the votes for Marou
   until later in the week, so they couldn't have released 
   those counts anyways.

   -Larry Watanabe

Bull-oney.  The Seattle Times printed the vote totals for all presidential
candidates receiving over 100 votes.  With 97% of precincts reporting, the
vote totals are:

Bill Clinton -- Democrat          43,713,885
George Bush -- Republican         38,150,812
Ross Perot -- Independent         19,228,530
Andre Marrou -- Libertarian          234,413
Bo Gritz -- Populist                  95,640
Lenora Fulani -- New Alliance         70,810
John Hagelin -- Natural Law           31,408
Howard Phillips -- Wash. Taxpayers    29,677
Lyndon LaRouche -- Independent        25,063
Ron Daniels -- Independent            24,997
James Mac Warren -- Independent        6,079
Drew Bradford -- Independent           4,508
J. Quinn Brisben -- Independent        2,739
None of These -- Independent           2,505
John Yiamouyiannis -- Independent      2,291
Jack Herer -- Independent              2,268
Helen Halyard -- Independent           1,501
Honest Jim Boren -- Independent          923
Delbert Ehlers -- Independent            876
Earl Dodge -- Independent                820
Eugene Hem -- Independent                384
Isabell Masters -- Independent           375
Robert Smith -- Independent              289
Gloria La Riva -- Independent            173

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.flame
Subject: Re: check THIS guy out
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:11:56 GMT
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

(Patrick Taylor) writes:
>He didn't lose in Texas ;-)  Maybe we'll secede and make him OUR President.
>

  Well, he *barely* won from the popular vote totals I last saw.  Didn't
  he win Texas by only 3 or 4% of the popular vote?  

>Get rid of Ann Richards NOW!

  Now, *this* may be an idea.

> PEROT IN '96!

  No Thanks!

-- Andy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13845 alt.politics.clinton:17027 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8493 alt.rush-limbaugh:9578
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Individual rights Re: Mr. Waffle King
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:21:22 GMT
	<1992Nov3.154347.11479@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <QKSSB3P6@cc.swarthmore.edu>
	<1992Nov11.050621.16468@anasazi.com>
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

In article <1992Nov11.050621.16468@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
   In article <QKSSB3P6@cc.swarthmore.edu> mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
   ]
   ]Conservatives give you rights if you are
   ]a) wealthy
   ]b) Christian 
   ]c) white
   ]d) heterosexual
   ]e) male

   Sometimes the amount of repetitive idiocy by the left amazes me. Above
   we have an example of someone who obviously has fallen for the most
   vulgar characterizations and mouths them here as gospel. This idiot
   probably also is using taxpayer funds to soak up a sorry excuse
   for an education at some liberal arts school.

   Sigh.

I wonder if this *idiot* were a good little Dittobrain, she might somehow be
transformed into an intelligent and mature young person pursuing an
education in order to become a productive member of society.

And, by the way, John, from what grand position of intellectual
superiority do you judge this person an idiot?  

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
And, by golly, to a soul, they all wore *suits*, in this place called Hell.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13831 alt.politics.clinton:16979 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8471 alt.rush-limbaugh:9544
From: tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:01:15 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <YOUNG.92Nov10103441@ssdd475a.erim.org>, young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
> In article <1992Nov9.143640.10283@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
> 
> >   Taxes. You see, if the money you make from the T-bills are taxed at the same
> >   rate as the money you'd make off of the business, then you'll put your money
> >   where it's safe. But, if you pay less taxes for money you make off of the
> >   business, then the tax break will offset the risk. Then your money goes into
> >   the private sector, creating jobs and helping our economy.
> 
> Ok, Greg, time for Lesson 1 of Econ 101.  And I'm asking.
> 
> Number 1: where does the guy have his million dollars before
> investing?
> 
> Second: I thought the Capital Gains Tax is on assets that are sold?
> Do they also apply to income gained from running a business as well?
> Or that derived from stocks?  If the tax is on assets that are sold,
> then I can't see how they help spur investment.  I can only see a spur
> to disinvestment: sell your assets while you can get out with lower
> taxes.  
> 
> This curious mind wants to know.
>
Suppose you live in LA where housing costs are enormous?  You have a 3 bdrm/2 bt
house and you get relocated to a place where housing is relatively cheap.  You
sell your house for 500,000 dollars.  

You will have to buy a house that costs AT LEAST 500,000 dollars or pay your
capital gains tax.  Do you want to have to buy a mansion when all you need is a
100,000 house?
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: On mandates and a scared electorate
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:20:53 GMT


Speaking of a scared electorate:

Looking over a lot of the recent posts from Bush supporters
claiming that Clinton really lost and has no mandate, 
I'd say that the main fear for some Republicans 
is that Clinton will accomplish what he wants, the nation 
will prosper, and the electoral chances of the Republicans
will be pretty darn bleak for a decade or so.

John D.
From: cjk@nic.cerf.net
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: January Surprise
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:55:43 GMT
Organization: CERFnet

In article <Nov.8.12.57.09.1992.11273@cadenza.rutgers.edu> masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes:
>crosen@world.std.com (Carl Rosen) writes:
>>I state flatly that this is a political maneuver directed by the Republican
>>Party to stall the early days of the Clinton Administration.  Nice move.
>
>And expect more. George Herbert Walker's last three months in office
>will be spent in rigging a January surprise for Clinton..
>
>Any speculation on what else it will be?

I say Hogwash....George Bushes career is over, he has been 
retired.  He'll never hold political office again, and will
probably be glad of it.  You're just looking at the worst
possible scenario. 

There will be political partisan fighting,
but it hasn't started yet.  Suggesting that Bush will have
a January suprise for Clinton is saying he does not have the
countries best interest at heart.  And that he is mean spirited
and vile. And even though I did not vote for him I say that
this is not true.

Clintons the President, There is nothing Bush can do that 
Clinton can't undue.  Or at least give private notice that
he will undue.

Chris Kevlahan
cjk@cerf.net
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: denebeim@brtph254.bnr.ca (Jay Denebeim P025)
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE
Organization: :-)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 01:01:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.235550.11214@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>You mean on how to destroy the economy and health of a nation ruled
>by a dictator, causing intense suffering within the population, and
>yet _still_ leave the dictator in place?  

Don't you think that's a little harsh?  I don't think its fair to call
Bush a dictator unless he refuses to leave office in January.

OHHHH... You ment Saddam Hussain?  Whoops, never mind...

-- 
Jay Denebeim     Address: UUCP:     duke!wolves!deepthot!jay
                          Internet: jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us
                 BBS:(919)-460-7430      VOICE:(919)-460-6934
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: None
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:44:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.155826.15548@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>In article <adams.720914090@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>
>>>Exit polling shows that over 50% of voters are excited about the prospect
>>>of a Clinton presidency. This includes 20% of Bush voters (source: USA
>>>Today 11/4). Give it up. Sixty percent of voters said that whatever
>>>Bush was doing, please stop it. We will, and that is Clinton's mandate.

hmmm, stop tax increases, deficit spending and regulation increases ...
I can't wait. :-)
>>
>>And 60% said either Bush or Perot is better than Clinton.  No mandate.
>>
>> -Steve
>
>And the Democrats lost ground in Congress as well - the Congress may in
>fact be MORE conservative now.

One would hope so.

>Democratic NY Governor CUOMO also lost face when he personally inserted 
>himself in a campaign to have NY voters pass an $800million bond act to 
>fund an infrastructure building project in NY state - The voters soundly 
>rejected it. CUOMO also backed his attorney general for the NY senate 
>seat - Republican incumbent D'Amato won that seat (in a tight election)
>even though Clinton beat Bush by 16% in NY.
>
>The only mandate I see is for Change - not for any group or beliefs,
>just change - in the economy, in politics, in elections, etc
>Again, CLINTON and Democrats do NOT have a mandate....Only the people
>do because they voted for change.

Well said ... and ve-e-e-ry interesting.
Just about everywhere except on the top of the ticket, the GOP
did okay. They picked up 5 seats in the Texas senate, and I heard
that they also gained majority in a number of Statehouses (about 7 or so)
(did they pick up Florida?). The Senate wasn't so hot, but a net loss
of one isn't bad either.
BTW, I heard Fowler-Coverdell Georgia Senate race might be going into
a runoff, but I haven't heard any confirmation on this. Is this true?

Term Limits: It was 14-0 !!! Unfortunately, these won't take effect
for a few years.  Tax limitations passed in a few States.

Final note: While there was no "mandate" for Clinton/Democrats, at least
in Washington they now have all the marbles. As we will soon see,
that counts for a lot more legislatively.

Pat

"Visualize Kemp President."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:43:01 GMT

>I believe Cinton's economics are nearer to Perot's than Bush's, except that
>he lacks the fanatical focus on the deficit.  One could say that 62% (not
>61) voted for higher taxes, infrastructure, health care, Choice...
>-- 
>David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
>Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks

Well David, you must not have heard Rush, but I believe it is the case that
an ABC exit poll show that 67% of those who voted for Clinton said they
wanted fewer taxes and less government.  If this is true, then your splendid
logical deduction unfortunately leaves the American public in ugly
contradiction, which,  unfortunately again, shows that people voted against
Bush, for any kind of change, and NOT on the issues.

Now, why don't we here the prime time media mention these points?

======================================================
 Teddy Kalivoda  ------------> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu 
   University of GA Computing & Network Services       
     Inst.of Higher Education, UGA, Athens, Georgia               
=====================================================                                                                          
	"The sleep of reason gives rise to monsters"
				        (Goya, Caprichos)