HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Previous Libertarian showings (was Re: New poll results)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:55:46 GMT
Keywords: electoral vote, electoral *votes*, tiny error.

king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>It must have been a maverick elector, but I notice that the Libertarians
>>garnered 1 electoral vote in 1972.
>
>                                                              I take it
>that John Hospers and Theodore Nathan were the people on the Libertarian
>ticket that year?

Well, I checked and you're close, but it's TheodorA Nathan. While I'm
here, here are the capsule biographies I have, which should be in anyone's
collection of Libertarian trading cards:

     HOSPERS, John - Calif. (Libertarian) June 9, 1918- ; director of
     school of philosophy at University of Southern California.
     Candidacy: P - 1972; one electoral vote

     NATHAN, Theodora Nathalia - Ore. (Libertarian) Feb. 9, 1923- ;
     broadcast journalist; National Judiciary Committee, Libertarian
     Party, 1972-1975; vice chairperson, Oregon Libertarian Party, 1974-1975;
     Candidacy: VP -1972; one electoral vote

The faithless elector was a Virginian named Roger MacBride, a Nixon elector.
Legally, electors are not bound to vote for any particular candidate, but
they almost always are faithful to their party.

MacBride was the 1976 Libertarian Presidential candidate. :-)

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:03:22 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <Sep.11.10.33.24.1992.23584@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

>For instance, regarding a particular liquor tax, there were subregulations
>for different categories of liquor.  Instead of counting the entire
>liquor tax increase as one increase, he counted the increase on each
>category as one.  So he counted, what should have been, 1 tax increase
>as 5.

If Arkansas is anything like Georgia then each of the alchohol taxes is
considered independent.  It is quite possible, and not infrequent, to
raise the tax on liquor without touching the tax on beer.  It is possible
to raise the tax on wine without disturbing the tax on liquor.

If congress were to pass a single bill that simply stated that every tax
you had ever heard of was to be increased by 10%, would this bill qualify
as only one tax increase, or would it be fair to add up each individual
tax that the bill caused to be raised.

I agree that adding up the number of tax increases is silly.  What I want
to know is by what percentage taxes went up or down while the subject was
in charge.

BTW, why does everyone insist on lumping the Reagan and Bush tax increases
together whenever they make these comparisons.  It's not like the VP has
veto power or anything.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Previous Libertarian showings (was Re: New poll results)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:03:49 GMT

In article <1571@cogsci.ucsd.EDU>,
king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>Well, I *could* quibble and say I had said electoral votes, plural, but
>that doesn't seem fair.  For whatever it's worth, my almanac only noted
>the maverick elector in a footnote, and didn't list a party.  I take it
>that John Hospers and Theodore Nathan were the people on the Libertarian
                       ^^^^^^^^
>ticket that year?  For what it is worth, the elector came from Virginia.

Pardon me, but that was "Theodora", more commonly known as Toni,
Nathan that ran with Hospers.  That renegade elector, whose name was
Roger MacBride and who went on to become a Libertarian Party
candidate himself, was chosen as such for his expertise on the
Electoral College (he'd written a thesis on it).  He thus made Ms.
Nathan the first woman in history to receive an Electoral College
vote -- 12 years before Geraldine Ferraro.  Perhaps still a footnote
to history but one worthy of note.

/June
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12820 alt.politics.marrou:1107
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarian Elector History (Was: Previous Libertarian showings)
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 10 Sep 1992 22:53 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Sep10.174152.28736@esd.dl.nec.com>, mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes...
>From article <1571@cogsci.ucsd.EDU>, by king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King):
>> 
>> the maverick elector in a footnote, and didn't list a party.  I take it
>> that John Hospers and Theodore Nathan were the people on the Libertarian
>> ticket that year?  For what it is worth, the elector came from Virginia.
>> 
>> jking
> 
>The maverick elector was Roger McBride, a Republican who could not stand
>voting for Nixon.
> 
>Close, but not Theodore Nathan.
> 
>McBride voted for Libertarian candidates John Hospers and Tonie Nathan.
>Tonie Nathan was the first woman to receive an electoral vote in the U.S.

McBride was then the next LP candidate for president, in 1976.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:27:06 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

> After reading the "Blame the Democrats" thread and seeing the debate over
> term limitations come up, I must ask a question.  Why do some favor it?  It
> seems to me that if a Senator/Representative is not doing a good job, the 
> people could just vote him/her out.  And if said politician is doing a good
> job, then term limitations would eliminate a good leader.  Term limitations
> seems like a bad idea but I would like to hear arguements in favor of it.
> 
>   -- Scott @Brandeis

First it is wrong to limit the number of terms a president can have and all
others can have unlimited terms.

Unlimited terms produce career politicians who get more and more powerful.
Eventually they get so powerful that they can not be beaten in elections.
At this point they are out for themselves at the expense of the government
and the people. Good examples of this would be the house check writing and
post office scandles.

I would also offer the suggestion that is the reason we don't get good 
people running for president, they would have to give up to much power
in the congress and senate. Who was the last presidential candidate to
run while still in either house McGovern in '72.

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 01:12:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.235839.8370@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> mhl@spirit.ece.cmu.edu (Mikko H. Lipasti) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.174558.25653@dg-rtp.dg.com> gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes:
>>
>>Currently, the most conservative estimate I've seen says that some 3
>>million Americans are now infected with HIV.  Better than 90 percent of
>>them do not even know that they are infected.  But one thing is for
>>sure, they will die slow, agonizing deaths, and probably will have
>>unwittingly spread the disease to others for many years before the first
>>AIDS indicators appear.  The last time I checked the average cost to
>>treat an AIDS patient for one year was $177,000.  Multiply that times 3
>>million -- not to mention the thousands who already have AIDS.  Quite a
>>sum.
>>
>
>Let me do the math:
>
>            $177,000 per patient per year
>         x 3,000,000 patients
>        ==================================
>           531 billion dollars per year
>
>Isn't this roughly one-third of the entire federal budget (in the ballpark
>anyway)?
>
>Who is going to be willing to and able to pay for this?
>

Those three million people are infected and don't have full blown AIDS.

The main "cost" of AIDS is in the lost productive capacity of all 
these people who die young...everyone dies...and most of the cost
of the health care people use is in the last few years of life...
AIDS really isn't that more costly than other ways of dying...or
at least that is what the early indications are in Canada.

The "cost" is the lost wealth the victims would produce...not
the health care costs.

Gerald

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE POLLS 6%
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:58:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.174850.19245@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>For example, farmers receive around $50 billion per year;

Why you heartless monster!  The average American farmer is a only a millionaire,
and makes just under $125,000 a year.  What, you wanna make 'em starve??!! ;-)

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: Mon,  7 Sep 92 12:44:40 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <Btz1D2.K61@well.sf.ca.us> <NEERI.92Sep3183718@iis.ethz.ch>
  <1992Sep7.112608.19319@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>

>Also the
>Conservatives ran a nasty but effective campaign appealing to
>personal greed, thus a lot of people voted Conservative but
>were ashamed to admit it. As someone once said, "voting
>Conservative is like masturbating - everyone does it, but
>no-one admits to it".

It figures.  We live in a time of financial Victorianism.  Substitute
"sex" for "money" and "orgasms" for "profits", and you can freely
convert back and forth between 19th century sexual puritan rhetoric,
and 20th century social-democratic finanancial puritan rhetoric.

H.L. Mencken defined puritanism as "the haunting fear that someone,
somewhere may be happy".  When someone decides to use his or her
penis/vulva/money to attain happiness in a solitary way that does not
put Society first, the puritan calls it perversion/impurity/greed.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Educational Spending
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:58:29 GMT


In article <16854DE35.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, 
MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) said:

> Do you believe that the trouble with schools is simply that we don't
> pay enough to teachers and administrators? Perhaps you'd be very
> surprised learn that private schools pay far less than public
> schools- and turn out far better educated and better prepared
> students.

Don't private schools generally have a lot more leeway than public
schools in deciding which prospective students to admit and in
disciplining/expelling troublemakers and poor students?  If so, it
isn't too surprising that, all other things being equal, the private
schools turn out a better "product."

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12514 alt.flame:12572
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Date: 6 Sep 92 15:32:39 GMT
Organization: insert anything here

oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>If you ask me, the Bush supporters seem to be lacking zeal and I wonder if
>the Republicans are getting just a little too laid back and really do think
>that Bush is Truman or something.  Notice that Clinton is not running like
>Dewey.  Clinton is campaigning aggressively and his volunteers are 
>volunteering aggressively.

	Every time I hear something like this I have to laugh, almost
uncontrollably:  Bush has compared himself to Truman, other people have
compared him to Truman, etc...


	Clue:  Truman was a Democrat.

	If the Republicans are so hot for a "new Truman" to enter the White 
House, why don't they just give up now and let us elect a Democrat?

	I know "wouldn't be *prudent* at this *juncture*".

BBC, hoping to see GHWB crash and
burn in November.
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 21:29:27 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

>
> >   Doesn't it work that way anyway?  Doesn't each state have a number of
> >   electoral votes based on their population?
>
> >That's my point.  Preserve the electoral college, without it the small
> >states have zero protection against the big states.
>
> I don't get your point.  If the number of electoral votes is based on
> the population of the state, the smaller state gets less votes either
> way.  So how are they protected?
>

The EC provides a certain level of protection to the smaller states, but not
*full* protection.  States like Alaska and Nevada would be totally
insignificant in an election decided on popular vote.  With the EC, however,
they have 6 electoral votes.  The votes of folks in large, traditionally swing
states (like PA and IL) still have more value to a candidate, but the
small-state voters aren't completely left out.



>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Educational Spending
Organization: NASA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:57:38 GMT

Roger Collins writes
> >William December Starr writes
> >> Don't private schools generally have a lot more leeway than public
> >> schools in deciding which prospective students to admit and in
> >> disciplining/expelling troublemakers and poor students?  If so, it
> >> isn't too surprising that, all other things being equal, the private
> >> schools turn out a better "product."
> 
> You guys say this as if it were bad.  If some kids can't behave, why
> should any school let them stay and disrupt the rest.

  This goes back to an age-old educational question:  When your tax dollars go  
into the school system, what do you gain?  The two typical answers are:

        (a)  Your children receive an education.
        (b)  You enjoy the benefits of living in an educated society.

Obviously, both answers are correct.  But the interests of (b) are not served  
by simply throwing out the discipline cases.

Regards,

Steve
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Age and Voter Preference (was Re: Ohio Poll Results)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 19:40:55 GMT

yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>
>>Major cities in each region are:
>
>>	NE	Cleveland
>>	NW	Toledo
>>	C	Columbus
>>	W	Dayton
>>	SE	Cincinnati
>>	SW	(none)
>
>Last time I checked, Cincinnati was in the SW corner of Ohio.  Unless
>there's been some seriously unexpected plate tectonics, it's probably
>still there... :-)

Ouch! A touch of geographical dyslexia there...

Also, one important fact I left out: the poll was conducted 8/31-9/3.

>Most of the demographic trends in this poll were predictable -- Bush
>did better with the affluent and the well-educated, and at least broke
>even among males; Clinton did better with the poor, the
>poorly-educated, and females.

Right, but don't leave out the white/non-white gap:

            Religion       N      Bush  Clinton    Perot    Undecided
    ================      ===     ====  =======    =====    =========
               White     1847       42       43        6        9
           Non-white      155        9       84        1        6

This huge difference could be at the root of some of the other correlations.

>But the age statistics are rather interesting:
>
>>		    Age       N      Bush  Clinton    Perot    Undecided
>>      ================      ===     ====  =======    =====    =========
>>		  18-24      103       19       58        9       14
>>		  25-34      284       44       43        5        8
>>		  35-44      379       38       47        6        9
>>		  45-54      350       42       42        6       10
>>		  55-64      382       37       49        5        9
>>		  65-74      384       38       50        4        8
>>	       75-older      129       53       36        6        5
>...
>I don't know whether the sample size is large enough to be
>significant, but if so, this poll shows some interesting generational
>oscillations...

Good point about the sample sizes, but taking them at face value, how about
this hypothesis:

               Clinton
      age     plurality    dominant group
      =====   =========    ==============
      18-24      +29       Young eco-terrorists
      25-34       -1       Young Reagan Republican hanger-oners
      35-44       +9       Boomers and Camelot Wannabees
      45-74  even to +12   Laid-off people screwed by the New World Order
      75-up      -17       Think Reagan was a real heart-throb in the movies

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Poll results AL AZ VT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: na,local
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:45:13 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep2.183417.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
]Indeed it is!  I really can't tell you why, except that Arizona's state
]Republican party has been such a joke (Evan Mecham, Fife Symington, the
]AzScam scandal) that a lot of people are forswearing the GOP and looking

AzScam mostly caught liberal democrats, not republicans. Evan Mecham
is indeed a dweeb  of the worst order, and has scrambled the party.
Fife is just a governor, not a joke.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL ...erk  glugh   mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore on foreign policy
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:44:50 GMT

anders@athena.mit.edu (Anders W Hove) writes:

>While Clinton is for an active military, he also wants a lean military.  Where
>Bush has proposed hardly any cuts in wasteful, Cold War oriented programs like
>Star Wars and the B-2, Clinton wants a smaller, more flexible force structure. 
>This involves cuts of tens of billions of dollars over the next five years. 
>Why?  It is Clinton's belief that a nation with a failling economy isn't really
>strong no matter what the size of the military budget (the Soviet Union proved
>how ephemeral military might can be).

Yeah, like 'Slick Willie's' endorsement of the much needed Seawolf
attack submarine that the Pentagon wants to scrap as 'unneeded in the
Post Cold War.' Seems he was pandering to the union vote in
Connecticut. This will probably be his primary defence spending
principle - jobs in Democratic congressional districts. This hardly
makes me feel good about his ability to make decisions in the long
term interests of national defence. 

				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot Again?
Summary: is Perot going to run, or just endorse?
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:20:46 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>I was just watching PBS last night and the anchorpundit (or whatever)
>>said she had been tipped that Perot was calling a news conference
>>Friday and will probably re-enter the Presidential race.
>>
>>  I'm not sure how much (if any) difference it will make, but I thought
>>people might like to know.
>
>How about: Clinton wins Texas (+32 votes), still wins in California, and
>doesn't lose enough other states to offset the 32-vote gain.

I take it, though, that this is still raw rumor.  One possible hint
will be where he ends up calling the press conference, if he does.
If it's in Little Rock, I think we can safely rule out another run. :-)

As for your analysis:  sounds reasonable enough, but Perot was *really*
big in CA, and given that 17% in the most recent poll would vote for
him today anyway, he could actually win there.

My analysis is that Perot is probably not re-entering the race if he
does anything at all.  More likely is that he will say something to
his former supporters about the upcoming election.  But I doubt we
would see an outright endorsement of any kind.  What we might see is
a denunciation of some of the nonsense issues that have been bubbling
around recently, or possibly a formal presentation of the former Perot
Economic Plan now that Bush has come out with something.

>Can a Perot candidacy do anything other than help Clinton? Supposedly,
>Clinton's pick of Al Gore was predicated on a three-way race and when
>Perot dropped out all the anchorpundits deemed that Clinton's strategy
>was undercut. That assessment changed when Perot all but endorsed the
>Democratic ticket. Even now, his harshest criticism is reserved for
>the current administration.

I don't think a Perot candidacy would really help Clinton too much,
actually.  And I wouldn't say he "all but endorsed the Democratic
ticket".  But right now, I would find it hard to believe that Perot
thinks he can run a winning campaign if he didn't think that in July,
which makes me deeply skeptical about the rumor.

>Another good indicator of how Perot would affect the race: all of the
>complaints about his behavior (that I've seen anyway) are coming from
>Bush campaign types.

Well, sure; at the time when Perot was more active, Clinton really
didn't have anything to gain by joining *that* catfight.  Had Perot
stayed in this long and polled strongly, Clinton would have had no
choice but to attack him.  That's how politics is.

>Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com

jking
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Your Government Costs You TWICE What You Paid This Year!!!
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 22:04:23 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>According to Ross Perot in "We The People", covering just the deficit
>this year would require that each person's income taxes be DOUBLED.
>
>Do you think you're getting your money's worth?

God forbid.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct