HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Have these states been called?
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:10:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO

<1992Nov4.224525.14561@wuecl.wustl.edu> (Don Porter) writes:
> Please send email, and I will summarize to the net, along with
> my complete list of states, electoral votes, and winners.

As promised, here's the list:

For Clinton:

STATE		EVs	cumulative EVs
-------		---	--------------
ARKANSAS	  6	             6
CALIFORNIA	 54	            60
COLORADO	  8	            68
CONNECTICUT	  8	            76
DELAWARE	  3	            79
DIST. COLUMBIA	  3	            82
GEORGIA		 13	            95
HAWAII		  4	            99
ILLINOIS	 22	           121
IOWA		  7	           128
KENTUCKY	  8	           136
LOUISIANA	  9	           145
MAINE		  4	           149
MARYLAND	 10 	           159
MASSACHUSETTS	 12	           171
MICHIGAN	 18	           189
MINNESOTA	 10	           199
MISSOURI	 11	           210
MONTANA		  3	           213
NEVADA		  4	           217
NEW HAMPSHIRE	  4	           221
NEW JERSEY	 15	           236
NEW MEXICO	  5	           241
NEW YORK	 33	           274
OHIO		 21	           295
OREGON		  7	           302
PENNSYLVANIA	 23	           325
RHODE ISLAND	  4	           329
TENNESSE	 11	           340
VERMONT		  3	           343
WASHINGTON	 11	           354
WEST VIRGINIA	  5	           359
WISCONSIN	 11	           370



For Bush:

STATE		EVs	cumulative EVs
-------		---	--------------
ALABAMA		  9	             9
ALASKA		  3	            12
ARIZONA		  8	            20
FLORIDA		 25		    45
MISSISSIPPI	  7	            52
NORTH CAROLINA	 14	            66
SOUTH CAROLINA	  8	            74
VIRGINIA	 13	            87
INDIANA		 12	            99
TEXAS		 32	           131
OKLAHOMA	  8	           139
KANSAS		  6	           145
NEBRASKA	  5	           150
SOUTH DAKOTA	  3	           153
NORTH DAKOTA	  3	           156
WYOMING		  3	           159
UTAH		  5	           164
IDAHO		  4	           168

-- 
|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Subject: Re: Bush Tampering with Key Economic Figures
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:58:43 GMT

In article <1dopg6INNims@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov9.165227.9680@wixer.cactus.org>, reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan) writes:
|> |> When Clinton takes office in January he will find that many key economic
|> |> statistics have been tampered with for political reasons.
|> |> 
|> 
|> [allegations of Bush falsifying data deleted]
|> 
|> |> Pretty serious allegations...  If any of this turns out to be true, Bush
|> |> should be brought up on charges.
|> 
|> I saw John Liscio (ex-USN&WR) on TV over the weekend, and it was his opinion
|> and that of a lot of Wall Street economists that if at all, the figures reflect
|> a much-too conservative estimate, and that when the revisions are made after more
|> complete data come in, they will probably be UPWARD revisions. He also said
|> something about the New York Post being about as good at economic reporting
|> as they are at news reporting, which was bad (his opinion, not mine).
|> 

|> Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

That's an interesting opinion, but the market tends to vote with is
dollars. The period after those figures came out was business-as-
usual despite the expressions of surprise about how high the figure
was. If the market believed those figures, where was the market
activity? An article I read (I believe it was the NY times) interviewed
wall street economists who said the new Bush figures didn't reflect
how bad the economy was, and didn't change their view. Market activity
corroborates this story alot better than it corroborates the John Liscio
story you told.
			- Lee Campbell
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:21:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.113309.20644@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> mohr@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Gordon Mohr) writes:
>
>>In article <JASON.92Nov6092924@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>>}	If it wasn't for Reagan, Bush would have never got into
>>}office.  If people didn't want more of Reagan, Dukakis would be the
>>}president right now. (that thought makes gives me the shivers)
>
>That thought makes my mouth water. With a ballooning deficit, the house
>post office and bank scandals, a potential stalemate w/Saddam still in
>Kuwait in the middle east, and a continuing recession, a Dukakis
>presidency would've done for the country what the Florio governorship
>did in New Jersey: give the Republicans veto-proof majorities in both 
>houses. (and, of course, the Presidency too)
>
>- Gordon Mohr
>- mohr@cory.berkeley.edu
>

Talk about a missed opportunity!

- Ted D.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22695 alt.politics.marrou:2106 talk.politics.misc:58273 alt.politics.clinton:15876
From: aberman@cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:53:16 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <Bx97L1.C0n@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:


>What this tells me is that FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT of the voters do not
>believe that Bill Clinton should be President.

Ok, look everyone, let me tell you what a "mandate" is:

If Clinton had won by 1 vote, he would have a mandate.

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."



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?  


Here's a prediction that should warm the hearts of all the moderates
in the world who were scared by the rise of the right-wing Buchanan/
Robertson/Limbaugh crazies:

	Through the Reagan/Bush years, the nuclear-freeze/radical-unions/
democratic-socialist/pro-revolutionary-central-america groups all
suffered greatly in power and numbers.   Although I disagree with
many of the stated aims of the above groups, and although I considered
many of them unreasonable/crazy, I do not consider them more crazy
than the Buchanan/Robertson/Limbaugh crowd.

I expect by 1996, Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson will be *far* less powerful
than they are today.  That's the effect of a successful presidency on his
opposition.  And I fully expect Clinton to be successful. His model is Roosevelt,
not Carter.


>Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4

Andrew Berman





-- 
Andrew P. Berman           |  "I have no idea what White House statement was
Dept. of Computer Science  |  was issued, but I stand by it 100 percent"
University of Washington   |    -- Richard Darman
aberman@cs.washington.edu  |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: Norman.Miller@launchpad.unc.edu (Norman Miller)
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:57:39 GMT

In article <10411@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <6931@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>
>>Walsh is a Republican, so arguments that he was pro-Clinton don't add up.
>
>Do you know this for a fact?
>

Walsh is a Republican appointed by a Republican court to which a
Republican Attorney-General applied.  He's also a former president
of the ABA.  This is the man whom the alleged champions of being
tough on crime try to besmirch.  

I must confess: it's fun to watch these birds writhing in fury.

>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Norman Miller
nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23671 talk.politics.misc:59930 alt.fan.dan-quayle:6707 alt.rush-limbaugh:9592 talk.politics.drugs:7456 talk.politics.guns:24086
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN
Summary: The Willie Horton ads were fair.
Keywords: Willie Horton
Date: 9 Nov 92 06:26:31 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Oct25.174415.5558@leela.cs.orst.edu>
chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
>the cynical road is to assume most people don't even know how often Willie
>Horton-types are furloughed, and play it up, giving voters the impression
>that furloughs are some hideous plan cooked up by Michael Dukakis.
>It's crap.

A. Only in MA could a person convicted of murder and sentence to life
without possibility of parole be let out for the weekend, as Willie Horton
was.

B. Michael Dukakis signed his furlough.

C. Michael Dukakis didn't sign MA's furlough plan into law, but he was on
record as supporting it (including as I understand it, by vetoing a bill to
change it, but I can't confirm that).

In otherwords, it was a legitimate issue, and the ads were fair.  Sorry.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22954 talk.politics.misc:58597 alt.politics.perot:5262 alt.politics.marrou:2149 alt.politics.libertarian:1687
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 6 Nov 1992 13:50 MST  
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <TRIF.92Nov6003410@bike.rad.washington.edu>, trif@bike.rad.washington.edu (To Run In Fear) writes...
>whatever reasons they might have.  I suspect they defected to Perot, or else
>the Libertarians never would have garnered the nearly million that they got
>in '88.  But I don't think that it is true that 3/4 of the Libertarian vote

The Libertarians didn't come anywhere near a million votes in 1988.
Ron Paul received less than 500,000 votes in 1988.  The LP peaked
in 1980, when Ed Clark received nearly a million votes, with the
help of national TV advertising funded by his running mate,
billionaire David Koch.  In 1984, LP candidate David Bergland
did about as well as Marrou, despite being on the ballot in
fewer states.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:17:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.174133.2700@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
> The economy today is in much better shape than it was when Carter was elected.
> It is very likely that 4 years from now Clinton will be able to ask you if
> you are better off now than in 1992 and get a resounding yes.  If it all
> comes tumbling down the next year, he still wins reelection.
 
The only problem is that the interest on the national debt is compounding
at alarming rates.  Some have claimed that 1995 or 1996 could be the
magical year that the US can't meet interest payment obligations (the
author of "Bankruptcy 1995" for example).  I think that's probably
overstating the case, but I do think it will be very serious.
 
I mean, there are essentially three parts of the budget.  Interest
payments and entitlements make up a big lump, and they are fairly
incompressible without major political action.  The remaining portion of
discretionary spending would have to be really slashed to make any real
changes.  That's not likely either.  So when 1995 and 1996 rolls around
and interest on the debt reaches 65% or 70% of the budget, what are they
going to do?
 
You essentially have a Catch-22 situation.  When the economy is bad people
become very aware of the deficit and there are a lot of calls to fix it
"once things get better".  Of course no one is going to attempt to reduce
the deficit during a recession for fear of dragging the country down
further. 
 
But once things pick up, people forget there was ever a problem.  "Maybe
the deficit isn't such a big problem after all" they think.  And what
President is going to risk major political damage to fix the problems. 
Not to mention that the act of trying to fix the deficit could potentially
throw the country back into recession.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton
From: dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey)
Subject: Perot and 96
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:55:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.191044.5928@seas.gwu.edu> korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman) writes:
>
>
>For the sake of the country, I hope that these issues are addressed fully.
>If not, I will support another Perot candidacy in '96.
>
>John Korman

Exactly right - I would love to see the Clinton/Gore 
performance be so good for the country that in 4 years
I am out there saying "four more years".  I will only 
say "four more years" if that is really what I want! 

The only thing that really matters is the nation; from 
the good health of the nation, the people will have an
environment where they can succeed.  

If 4 years from now we hear from the Clinton people what
we just heard from Bush ("give me four more years to 
finish what I started (3 days ago)") then I predict that
the United party will be there, and maybe even Ross Perot
will be there, ready to enforce real accountability.

Count me in.  United we stand.

-- 
Doug Humphrey    Express Access Public Access Internet   Voice (301) 220-2020
doug@digex.com   Dialup: (301) 220-0462 Login as "new"   Email info@digex.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I say it again, in the land of the free; use your freedom of choice." -DEVO
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Voter Turnout By State
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:58:54 GMT

In <1992Nov9.054202.28409@panix.com> dfl@panix.com (Danny O'Bedlam) writes:
>In <2785@tymix.Tymnet.COM> filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:

>>Someone requested stats on voter turnout state by state.  Here it is,
>>from AP 4 Nov 1754 EST:
>>State           1992    1988
>>Alaska          50.75   55.74
>>California      45.42   47.07
>>Hawaii          41.42   43.49
>>Oregon          55.14   57.33
>>Washington      50.70   53.43

>	The five westernmost states all went DOWN, whereas every other
>went up.  I would connect this to the continuing practice of media
>networks of jumping the gun with exit polls and announcing too much

Really?  You have evidence (or any reason to think?) that they did this
*more* this year than in 1988?  If anything, I would guess it was the
opposite.  The networks didn't call an actual winner -- though it was
obvious who was going to win -- until 10:45 or so.  In 1988, it was
called much earlier than that.

>factual or interpretive information prior to the polls closing in
>all states.  As good an argument as ANY for a universal poll closing time.

Except that a universal poll closing time would be very inconvenient,
given the 3-hour time difference.  Either polls are closing very late on
the East Coast or very early on the West Coast. (9-6? 10-7? 11-8?)

Anyway, it doesn't matter, since exit polls can be used at any time,
whether the polls are closed or not.  The media agreed this year to not
release exit polling results until the polls are closed in each state,
but if the polls didn't close until 10:00 or something I suspect the
media would renege on that promise.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Ozone Man theme song
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:32:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
XXXDate: Fri, 6 Nov 92 00:27:03 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
XXXMessageID: <A7205B6718040642@steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com>
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com

In article <Nov.6.15.06.45.1992.10055@gandalf.rutgers.edu> Susan R. Hagan,
shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu writes:
>By the way, how old are you two?  Does you're mother know that you're
>playing with her net account?  Actually, most children understand the
>importance of preserving our environment.  They are taught about it
>in school.  I'm at a loss.  I can't imagine what kind of mind(s) would
>make up something like this.

Actually I was relieved to see that not everyone buys into Mr. Ozones
'wierd science.' His policies place almost every life form on earth
ahead of man's. What is worse it is unclear that any of the predictions
from his book are based on the real facts. 

As to your remark about most children, I agree. That is one of the
problems we face in the schools today. While we are worrying our kids
about the 'terrible' state of the environment, we are not teaching
them to read and write. Let them learn how to do those basic things
and they will make up their own minds about the 'important' issues
that we adults are concerned with.

        Steve Martin
        steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22721 alt.politics.marrou:2110 talk.politics.misc:58302 alt.politics.clinton:15901
From: belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:38:58 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

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.

Dave
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23743 talk.politics.misc:60049 tx.politics:7278
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: MITI as a model for US industrial policy?
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:18:22 GMT
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar

In article <BxLzzM.905@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.181248.20804@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>> From who? There are plenty of 'trade hawks' around, but from what I've seen
>> the idea of an American MITI has pretty much been abandoned, even by those
>> who at one time were associated with the idea of 'industrial policy'.
> 
>I believe there is either a bill or at least a proposal in Congress right
>now to allocate a few hundred million dollars to start up a US MITI
>focused on high-tech markets.
>-- 
>Doug Andersen
>hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com


That still doesn't answer my question. There are a lot of 'proposals' in
Congress, many of which are there for some symbolic reason and won't be
going anywhere.

Who is the sponsor of this proposal, what does it consist of precisely, and
what are its chances of being enacted into law?

It would also help if we could agree on exactly what MITI does, and what
an 'American equivalent' would be expected to do. I am frankly not very
clear on this.

Is MITI empowered to order a company to produce, or not product, a certain
product or product line? Is MITI empowered to order a company in or out
of a certain market?


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:32:08 GMT

  Richard Mulac writes:

>  Wow!  Now we have a real "education" President in Bill Clinton.  Someone
>who uses proper English words like "How're" when communicating to millions
>of Americans in his campaign commercials (How're you doing?).  Maybe he
>wants the Arkansas dialect of English to become the official language of
>the US.  I can see it now.  In six months the White House is going to look
>like the set from The Beverly Hillbillies.  Chelsea will have all her
>"pets" living on the White House lawn and in the swimming pool.   (^:}

     That's what I'm proudest of about America -- we don't have petty class
distinctions here! :-)
     Why is it that so many assume that people with Southern accents are
stupid, just because they drawl? I grew up in California. I use words such as 
"like" and "dude" a bit more often than is socially acceptable here in the 
Buckeye State. And yet, despite this speech impediment, I still manage to be an
honors student. Go figure. :-)
     I know, Richard, it was a joke. And I did laugh. But I still wanted to 
make the point that the way someone talks is no indicator of how much gray 
matter is above the voice box. For example, anyone who listens to George Bush 
when he's in hyperkinetic mode isn't going to be too impressed, right? :-)
     With that, I will step off my soap box and continue as before. :-)

                                        Steve
///
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    They gave me differential calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    So they gave me integral calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    Now I have vector calculus, and...I'm starting to lose consciousness...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections