HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Subject: Re: Perot's Vote Percentage State-by-State
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:09:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.022028.26825@adobe.com> yost@adobe.com (David Yost) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.224954.11713@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>>(p.s., this table only looks at the actual vote.  I'd be interested to see,
>>state-by-state, how the polls looked just prior to the election which asked
>>the question:  "Who would you LIKE to see for President?", not "Who are you
>>voting for?"  I've heard some of these polls put Perot support at well over
>>50%! of the electorate.  Comparing the two can show us the states where
>>voters were more likely to vote strategically (e.g., "I don't want to waste
>>my vote and I don't want to see candidate xyz become President"), and where
>>voters were more likely to vote ideologically (or voting their conscience,
>>that is, "I will vote for the candidate I want to see as President").  Does
>>anybody have any of this data?  I know it was taken by CNN (but not reported
>>by them because it would "confuse" the voter), for example.)
>
>Please post every piece of information you can about
>any polls that asked the right question, and about
>the CNN story you allude to.

There's no such CNN story.  It was just misinformation spread by
the Perot campaign.  No doubt they really got their information from
Scott Barnes -- CNN doesn't know of any such poll.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Who won Georgia?
Date: 5 Nov 1992 16:01:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


  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?

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1461 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22640 talk.politics.misc:58197 alt.fan.dan-quayle:6290 alt.rush-limbaugh:9037 talk.politics.drugs:7290 talk.politics.guns:23548
From: entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Willie Horton's Legacy (Was Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN)
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:04:08 GMT
Reply-To: entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

In article <1992Nov4.042950.2105@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.
physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.192648.20381@sequent.com> jwk@sequent.com (John "Just Say
 Noe" Kramer) writes:
>>In article <YOUNG.92Nov3132637@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org
 (Peter Young) writes:
>>>
>>Seems to me that if Bush was locked up four years ago a lot people might
>>be alive today who aren't.
>
>Name one, asshole!
>
>Ted
>
>-- 
>            
>
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu

Name one asshole?  Nothing could be easier.  Ed Meese.

But to respond to the challenge seriously, there's a whole lotta folks
in Panama died for a not real good reason at the behest of Bush.

Erik Timmerman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Airline overregulation.
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:21:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.031227.16773@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> Now look at how long they've been losing money for and how much we're
> talking about in losses.  Has the airline industry had ANY profitable
> years since 1980?
 
Yes, they have.  Everyone in the airline industry agrees that they are
having big problems.  Same thing happened in the early 1980s.  But to
claim that all the airlines are going under is the height of chicken
littlism.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22970 alt.politics.bush:13411 alt.politics.clinton:16206 alt.politics.perot:5266 talk.politics.misc:58622
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush and Cuban Missile Crisis
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:16:27 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Nov4.094159.28852@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>
> ... One thing both sides said would be disastrous was to push the USSR to
>crisis and complete collapse.  All agreed that would be a very destabilizing
>and potentially disastrous situation that would be extraordinarily difficult
>to manage.  The liberals argued that our defense spending was creating a
>situation that would lead to complete collapse.  Conservatives said that
>they were simply accelerating the natural processes that would lead to the
>USSR's conclusion that they had to make fundemental changes and reduce their
>military spending.  Liberals said the conservatives were going to create
>collapse when the spending was not necessary to cause the changes that had
>to come....

A column in our local paper (the Sacramento Bee) by one of the USSR-experts
that have been in and out of government during the past 20 years said that
in the author's opinion, the rulers of the USSR were aware of their econo-
my's imminent collapse back in the Khrushchev era.  Khrushchev tried to loos-
en the grip of the Communist ideology on the economy and was just beginning
to succeed when Gary Powers's spy plane crashed.  The military regained all
its paranoia and Khrushchev had to backtrack and was eventually deposed and
discredited.  In the author's opinion Reagan's "evil empire" rhetoric rein-
forced the Soviet military's paranoia and actually extended the Cold War by
10 years.  The collapse of the regime 10 years after it was ready to collapse
means only that the republics' economies are in 10 years' worth worse shape
and that a peaceful economic recuperation is 10 years' worth less likely.

How delaying the end of the Cold War by 10 years is equivalent to "winning"
it seems to be the same category of question as how arming Iraq immediately
before it invaded Kuwait helped Bush to "win" Desert Storm.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		--------------------+
| "Science, as actually practiced, is a complex dialogue between data and   |
| preconceptions."				- Steven Jay Gould	    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Andy Lipscomb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Vote Totals
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:13:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Vanderbilt University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

Hello!  I am working on a project to find out what the Electoral College counts
would have been under various electoral rules.

I would appreciate it if anyone could send me the following data:
Vote totals for each state (top 4 and anyone receiving 1% or more)
Vote totals for ALL candidates in CA
Names of candidates carrying each congressional district


Andy Lipscomb
lipscoja@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Bitnet: lipscoja@vuctrvax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Its starting....
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1992Nov9.185153.8913@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<1dora4INNia5@travis.csd.harris.com>
	<1992Nov11.155706.15003@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> <BxKGGp.CGJ@ssesco.com>
	<acWo02eS2an201@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:26:33 GMT

In article <acWo02eS2an201@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (Joel Hanes) writes:


>   The entire problem is the electorate -- that's right, you.
>   Me.  Your aged grandma.  We the people -- we're the problem.
>   All of us.

We are certainly a large part of it.

>   Reagan's genius was that he sold the nation, for eight years,
>   on the idea that if we just cut taxes, especially on the`
>   well-to-do, a wonderful lunch would appear and trickle down
>   to everyone.  Without sacrifice, hard choices, or investment.

While no Reagan fan am I, I believe he got away from what seemed to be
working with the 1986 tax reform bill.  I wish someone that knows more
about it would comment.

>   As a nation, we bought into this malarkey because it was easy
>   and asked nothing of us.  Now we don't want to hear different,
>   though the truth stares us in the face.

no doubt

>     If in 1993, we reduced the defense budget to ZERO, and reduced
>   all "discretionary" spending (the parts over which Congress and
>   the President can haggle without changing the entitlements laws)
>   to ZERO, we would still have a budget deficit -- mandated entitlements,
>   (largely to the middle class) and interest payments on the national
>   debt are together larger than federal revenues.

I believe your are in error here.  I think excluding the defense budget,
if you reduced discretionary spending to 0, we would have a budget deficit.
I could be wrong.  I thought the defense budget was discretionary spending.
If someone will site a source, I will stand corrected.

   ---
>   Joel Hanes

 
--


Matt Landrum                    | mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "There's a fine line between 
Starkville, MS  39759           |  stupid and clever" -- Spinal Tap
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's plan our best and only hope for the future
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Date: 9 Nov 92 08:43:00 CDT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1992Nov07.003024.35527@watson.ibm.com>, johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
> : I know that 'free enterprise' is a shibboleth here, but why do I have
> : so much trouble distinguishing it from the jack system [as in f**k you,
> : jack - I'm all right].
> 
> If more people would use their hands to do something besides hold them out,
> they might be all right too.  And it's our fault for letting them think that
> the government owes them a comfortable living.

	Oh, I just *have* to respond to this one...  In another thread, you
just ABHORE the No-Pass/No-Play rule, because they have the right to free
choice.  They should play football (a "comfortable" living) on a free ticket,
and you think it's unfair that the have to put up with a little discomfort
on things like not failing classes.  Here, you're bitching about some of 
those very same people!  Maybe they don't want to make lots of money, John!

	You obviously haven't thought some of this through, since you
can't have it both ways, John...  Although I do agree with you on these
three lines.  Don't you see that you encourage them to take hand-outs at
the early stages, and then hope to take it away later?  

> John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
>         My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: What if...
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:33:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.173915.18011@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James or Brian) writes:
>	What if Bush loses the election, but  decides that holding
>onto the Presidency is more important  to him than obeying  the
>electoral results.  Is there  any   obvious way he  could say 'no'
>and make it stick? What steps would he  have to  take to  stay in
>power?
>
>						James Nicoll

This sort of thing is not possible in the USA, although common 
enough in some countries.

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22529 alt.politics.marrou:2076 talk.politics.misc:58059
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Marrou < 0.3%. The *REAL* reason no one reports Marrou's totals.
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:11:54 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

Some folks would have you believe that the media is conspiring to keep
the onslaught of Libertarian voters from the public's knowledge.  One
credulous person claimed to me that two million people voted for Marrou,
another claimed 1.8% of the vote.

Marrou ended up with less than 0.3% of the vote.  He barely beat out Lenora 
Fulani.  The real reason no one reported Marrou's votes was because they
were only slightly less meaningless than Lyndon LaRouche's.

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
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22617 alt.politics.bush:13154 alt.politics.clinton:15793 alt.politics.perot:5156
From: homeier@aero.org (Peter Homeier)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: LIKELY VICTORY FROM UNLIKELY VOTERS!!!
Date: 5 Nov 1992 16:48:35 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: superman.aero.org

I am sorry for posting the previous article about unlikely voters showing
up to pick Perot for President.  As the election showed, the support for
Perot was nowhere near the high levels that the article suggested were
possible.  I feel really bad about this, because I never want to say
anything that is not true.  I substantially misled the readers here, and
may have increased expectations of Perot supporters without substance.
I apoligize to anyone who was hurt by having those expectations raised and
then dashed; I feel with you.  It was not my intention to deceive; but in
my heart, I wanted to believe very badly that Perot had a chance, and I
allowed this to cloud my judgement about the credibility of the unlikely
voter reports.  Please forgive me.

My congratulations to President-Elect Clinton!  He has won an honest and
significant victory, and clearly properly represents the American people;
and he won it on the issues, for which I commend him.  The American people
have made their choice, and it is all of our duty to honor him and support
him as our President.  Again, my sincere congratulations.

Peter Homeier
homeier@cs.ucla.edu
-- 
"In your majesty ride forth victoriously in behalf of truth, humility, and
 righteousness; let your right hand display awesome deeds."  -- Psalm 45:4
                     __
Peter V. Homeier    <;_><    homeier@aerospace.aero.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:57:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.193542.4478@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> >It certainly qualifies as an impediment to a free market.  Bankruptcy
> >protection is one of the most abused laws on the books.  It could
> >certainly use an overhaul.
> 
> But it is NOT Federal regulation.
 
Now who is using reduction ad absurdum?  Who cares whether it's a federal
law or a regulation formulated by the executive branch.  The fact is that
the government, but allowing bankrupt companies to continue to compete, is
impeading the free market.  How in the world can that be proof that
markets don't work?
 
> My, you're such an absolutist, Doug.  How about if they only take over
> 90% of the market?  That's more than enough to exert monopoly power.
> Reductio ad absurdum is a lousy reasoning tool, no matter how useful
> it may be in political rhetoric.
 
Sarcasm Fred, sarcasm.  I agree that 90% would be enough of a monopoly to
be called a monopoly.  But there isn't a chance in hell that one airline
is going to run 90% of the business in this country without some sort of
government protection.  You keep talking about the entry costs.  But look
at the market right now.  Razor thin profits are the norm, even in good
times.  Yet we continue to have new companies pop up all the time.  Maybe
they don't serve LA to NY, but who cares, most trips aren't cross-country.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: kevinf@athena.mit.edu (Kevin A Frisch)
Subject: Re: The US - laughing stock of the world
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 06:17:31 GMT

 In <1diocbINNa2b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A.
Mulac) writes:

>  I can't believe it.  President-elect Bill Clinton's mistress, Gennifer
>Flowers, posing nude in this month's Penthouse.
>
> We have gone from the envy of the world

 questionable...

> to the butt of it's jokes.

 more like it

>If his judgment allowed him to choose for a close trusted friend a person 
>who would spill true or untrue details of an intimate relationship to the
>press and embarrass him by posing nude in a magazine, what kind of people 
>will he pick to help him run the country using that same "judgment"?

  I don't understand how you can condemn Bill Clinton for having
a female friend who chooses to pose for Playboy--something that most
non-exreme-right-wing'ers consider to be an OK thing to do. 

  Are you telling me that you ,oh one-of-great-judgment have never had
a friend do something you disagreed with? Well, if your answer is yes, I 
bet you have some pretty boring conversations....

>I guess one thing we'll be short of during the next four years is family
>values at the top. I just hope he doesn't turn the White House into a
>brothel like Kennedy did.  What a black eye on the United States of
>America.  Oh, the shame of it all!

  Perhaps I will just decide this post is a joke....
  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Kevin


       ...still in search of a sig...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22571 talk.politics.misc:58109
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What if...
Date: 5 Nov 92 02:26:49 EST
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Nov3.160347.18507@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>>jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James or Brian) writes:
>>
>>> 	What if Bush loses the election, but  decides that holding
>>> onto the Presidency is more important  to him than obeying  the
>>> electoral results.  Is there  any   obvious way he  could say 'no'
> 
>>the government.  That won't happen.  First of all, the army wouldn't
>>obey those orders even if Bush gave them.  Second, I don't think that
>>even Bush would give orders like that.  
> 
> And 3rd, everyone in this country is so heavily armed, and so wired
> into the belief in their inalienable rights so as to be willing to die
> for them, that a military coup is exceedingly unlikely to be
> successful.
> 
> People in the government and in the military know this, which is why
> they've never tried it before.  I'm not sure why the NRA never brings
> this point up.
> 
> -- 
> --
> curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
> My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
>  -If you vote against Bush, be fair and throw out Congressional incumbents too-

This is also why the Right to Bear Arms is such an important part of The
Constitution, and it primarily this reason that it was put in there in the
first place.

-Garrett



Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23877 alt.politics.marrou:2285 soc.history:9431