HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan R. Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Ozone Man theme song
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:28:21 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sl930@cc.usu.edu writes:

>In article <Nov.6.15.06.45.1992.10055@gandalf.rutgers.edu>, shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan R. Hagan) writes:
>> sl930@cc.usu.edu writes:

>I'll tell you what kind of minds came up with this.  Minds that are concerned
>that you can take a good thing and go too far.  Minds that think that if it is

Good things certainly can be taken too far.  I don't know that that is
happening here.

>okay to blast V.P. Quayle for 4 years, Gore should be able to handle a little
>needling as well.

Quayle deserved it.  Needling Gore just because Quayle has been riduculed for
the past 4 years is a pretty lame exuse.

>More than anything, it was humor.  Lighten up a bit, you'll live longer.

I see very little to laugh on this issue.  There are enough people who 
don't take this seriously without you encouraging them.  Why don't you
write a silly song about AIDS patients and the people working to help
them?  Or how about writing a song about the people doing cancer research?

>Oh, and as for my mother watching what I'm doing, I don't know.  But
I can tell >you my father isn't around to watch very often... He has
been in Antarctica >quite a lot in the last 8 years.  He's a
Geophysist, doing atmosophiric >research on the ozone layer.  You
should hear him talk.  But then, you have >already learned all about
the environment in elementary school, right?

What does he tell you?  "Don't worry son, the hole isn't that big.
At the rate its going, it won't even effect us until after you and
I are both dead, so who cares."

I don't personally know any geophysists, but I know enough scientists
to know that if you that scientists uncover facts, but they when they
interpret them, they do so subjectively.  Meaning that the degree to
which a certain finding is severe is often a matter of opinion.

I bet if you ask your dad that, he would agree.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: yost@adobe.com (David Yost)
Subject: Re: Perot's Vote Percentage State-by-State
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:20:28 GMT

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.

And anyone else who has information like this, please post also.

Thanks.

 --dave yost
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: Norman.Miller@launchpad.unc.edu (Norman Miller)
Subject: Re: * THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON!?! *
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:22:37 GMT


Don Mcgregror is unhappy with Special Prosecutor Walsh, calling him
and his staff scumbags and blaming them for spending a lot of money
to investigate what he, McGregor, regards as low-level misdemeanors.

Trouble is: Walsh, a former ABA president and life-long Republican,
was appointed pursuant to an application by Attorney-General Meese.
And he did so because Irangate was no small matter.  

Now if McGregor wants to call Meese a scumbag, that's fine with me.
If he wants to call Meese's boss a scoundrel hiding behind the mask
of a genial dithering idiot, also fine with me.

What's especially interesting, though, is that McGregor--along with
resentment-consumed haters like the Senator from Kansas--is ready
to make a Federal case out of something that may not be even a mis-
demeanor but a clerical error.
--
   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:23403 alt.politics.marrou:2202 talk.politics.misc:59451 alt.politics.clinton:16762
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Let's Clarify This a Little (was Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?)
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:05:39 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Nov5.231959.15249@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>
>Let's clarify this.  Read this carefully, read this three times until you
>understand what is says and what it doesn't say:
>
>According to some polls taken just before the election, where the voter
>was asked the following question:  "Who would you LIKE to see become the
>President", anywhere from 52 to 57% of the voters said "Perot".  Period.
>
>Perot is not the Pope.  The Pope was not on the ballot, but Perot was.
>Perot was the first "wish" of the electorate as President (I don't know who
>came in second or third, though).  This cannot be denied unless one can
>show that these polls were flawed (one was done scientifically by CNN who
>decided not to air the results since it would "confuse" the electorate!).
>
>Why is Perot not now selecting his Cabinet?  Because a large number of voters
>use the principle of "strategic" voting, rather than "ideological" (or voting
>your conscience).  I covered what I thought of that in a prior post.
>
>Anyway, the second (or third) wish of the people, and not the first, will
>occupy the White House the next four years.  But the voters have spoken,
>the bastards! (a famous quote)  :^)

I think that's a very presumptuous conclusion you make, based on very, very
little evidence.  Just accept the facts: Perot lost.  He made a very impressive
showing for a third-party candidate in America, but in the end, he lost.  
Eighty percent of voters did not vote for Perot (and in my opinion, those who
did are extremely naive).  You want to believe that in some ephemeral way, he
really won, but the fact is that he didn't win.  He lost.

    - Dave Borden
      borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: Results for other than Demopublicans or Perot?
Followup-To: /dev/null
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:56:24 GMT


In the referenced article, the poster summarizes our (LP) positions in
a reasonably fair manner *EXCEPT* when he gets to foreign policy,
which is bizarrely characterized as "isolationist".

Just thought I should correct that rather strange parody of our views.
Saying that the US should not meddle or be the world's policeman is
hardly 'isolationist'.

As for the rest of the article, where he says that our views aren't
acceptable to most people, this is merely speculation since most
people simply haven't heard of us or if they have they don't consider
our candidates seriously so they don't think about our positions.
I've found that most people *do* have large areas of agreement with
us, especially wrt being pro-choice and wrt being against foreign
meddling, and *most* especially wrt shrinking the government.  Those
local candidates we've gotten elected have almost uniformly campaigned
on this issue......
--
  Robert Bickford        /-------------------------------------\
  rab@well.sf.ca.us      | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                         \-------------------------------------/
From: sshankar@myria.cs.umn.edu (Subash Shankar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:12:12 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

In article <1992Nov9.002423.20866@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>[About Wallace's effect on Humphrey-Nixon election]
>I wonder if Gallup did a poll showing the second choice of
>Wallace voters.  

I don't have  a reference on me, but polling data showed that Wallace
took 7 Humphrey votes for every Nixon vote.

--
Subash Shankar
sshankar@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: What if...
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:39:40 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov5.023044.15241@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
]In <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:
]
]
]>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.
]
]Well, this is the popular mythology, but don't you believe it.  You
]put a bunch of untrained civilians up against trained troops and what
]you're going to get is a bunch of dead civilians.  Oh, it would no

A lot of those civilians are former trained troops, and a lot have
more combat experience than the current military.

]doubt get VERY ugly, but if he could rely on the military and police
]to even TRY to follow such orders (he can't -- no commander in his
]right mind would dream of doing this), a military dictatorship just
]wouldn't be all that hard to do in this country.  A lot of people TALK

Keep in mind that a commander can count on his troops to follow lawful
orders, but would find it much harder to get his troops to put down
a civil insurrection against a military dictatorship.

]a good fight, but are too comfortable to fight.  Hell, look how many
]of our Constitutional rights have already been taken and people even
]VOTE TO CONTINUE IT.

This is true. A lot of people who say they would fight would change their
minds when they found out what a military dictatorship could do to them
and their loved ones. However, even under the rule of Hitler, the Yugoslavians
were able to tie down 7 divisions in their little country. The citizens of
the USA could do better.
]
]So those who would actually fight would be a minority, and the rest
]would be more than happy to inform on them to earn brownie points with
]the authorities.

No, only a few would inform. Most of the rest would do their best to
not attract attention of either side.
-- 
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
"Modern liberals are the termites in the structure of our society."
  John Moore
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: gletty@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Bruce Gletty)
Subject: Re: First Election Results!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:11:51 GMT

dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>In article <DOEL.92Nov4115007@bbq.bae.bellcore.com> doel@bae.bellcore.com (Michael Doel) writes:
>>
>>This leads to a question I had while watching last night.  I was mostly
>>tuned in to NBC's coverage.
>>
>>Shortly after the polls closed in New Jersey, NBC projected Clinton the
>>winner.  This despite the fact that Clinton was only leading 43% to 42% with
>>about 40% of the vote counted at the time.  Later, they had several states
>>listed as too close to call where the margin at the time was about six
>>points with about the same percent reporting.  What's the deal?  How do they
>>make their projections?
>>
>>	a) go with the pattern of results counted so far - can't be with
>>		above example
>>	b) go by exit polling data - not very reliable
>>	c) go by pre-election polls - may work in some states, but what
>>		poll would be more reliable than 40% of the state reporting.
>>
>>To me, it just seems these networks are a touch too eager to call a state
>>for one person or another.
>>
>I think they use the exit polls.  They are eager because they want to
>be first.  They think it makes them look good and gets more people to
>watch.  Its the good ol' market at work.

I have always wanted to organize a 'lie to the exit pollers' group to thwart
such behavior. They award states based on 0% of the votes. I kind of lean 
in the direction of 'no election night coverage' count the votes first then
say who won. (But this will never happen.)
-- 
This post is mine, and does not necessarily reflect the views of C.C.S.O.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: MITI as a model for US industrial policy?
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:13:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

In article <BxGJK7.Gu4@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>I think that just points out that MITI isn't as smart as some people give
>them credit for.  They also encouraged Japanese companies to make big
>investements in ship-building.  Another loser industry.

And in HD TV, another few billion down the rat hole on technology
that's now looking pretty outdated.  They've not made a dime on it yet
and now it looks like they won't either.

Despite their productivity, which is high, the Japanese standard of
living is relatively low.  They're just shooting themselves in the foot
with all their protectionism and subsidies.

And yet we continue to hear loud calls for a U.S. version of MITI.

No thanks.

-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
- FICA isn't a retirement plan. Your money's already spent. You'll get zilch.-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: trif@bike.rad.washington.edu (To Run In Fear)
Subject: Re: First Election Results!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle WA
	<1992Nov3.095734.12310@Princeton.EDU>
	<16894B72A.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> <rticdqk@zola.esd.sgi.com>
	<10251@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
	<DOEL.92Nov4115007@bbq.bae.bellcore.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:12:52 GMT

In article <DOEL.92Nov4115007@bbq.bae.bellcore.com> doel@bae.bellcore.com (Michael Doel) writes:

   Shortly after the polls closed in New Jersey, NBC projected Clinton the
   winner.  This despite the fact that Clinton was only leading 43% to 42% with
   about 40% of the vote counted at the time.  Later, they had several states
   listed as too close to call where the margin at the time was about six
   points with about the same percent reporting.  What's the deal?  How do they
   make their projections?

	   a) go with the pattern of results counted so far - can't be with
		   above example
	   b) go by exit polling data - not very reliable
	   c) go by pre-election polls - may work in some states, but what
		   poll would be more reliable than 40% of the state reporting.

   To me, it just seems these networks are a touch too eager to call a state
   for one person or another.

They use a combination of a and b.  If the exit polls show a clear winner (I
don't know what criteria they use), they will call the outcome as soon as the
polls close, with no actual votes counted at all.  If the exit polls do not
show a clear winner, they can use the actual vote counts that have come in
to assist in their decision, comparing what has been reported from a precinct
with their exit polls.  Exit polls are usually quite reliable---people like
to have the chance to say why they voted.

In many states, 40% of the state reporting is *very* unreliable.  Here in
Washington, the Seattle metropolitan area precincts tend to report first,
giving Democrats large initial leads which diminish as rural precincts report.
Therefore, it not only depends on how much of the state has reported, but
what precincts.  

One of the funniest things that happened last night is that the Ohio Senate
race was called *for* Glenn when he was actually losing in the reported
precincts, and you will note that he did win that race.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: NYT (6-17)--Clinton on Cuomo & Supreme Court
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:59:10 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Nov04.220531.4489@uvmark.uucp>, scholl@uvmark.uucp (Kathryn Scholl) writes:
|> In article dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith) writes:
|> >If nothing else, Cuomo would be a "good" choice for the Supremes to prevent
|> >him from making a '96 primary challenge.
|> >Actually, this points up a basic problem that Clinton will have with Supreme
|> >Court choices.  It's payback time for the Republicans in the Senate.  After
|> >the Bork and Thomas hearings, anyone Clinton nominates had better be squeaky
|> >clean, and willing to be publicly humiliated for it anyway.  I'm afraid we're
|> >likely to see slightly liberal versions of David Souter.
|> 
|> 
|> What about Lawrence Tribe, of Harvard?  I don't know much about his
|> personal life (i.e. the 'squeaky clean' stuff), but I always thought
|> he would be the obvious choice.

Nope. A LOT of Southern Democrats wouldn't vote for him. Ernest Hollings,
David Boren, Johnston, Reid, Breaux, possibly even Nunn, would like someone
less liberal. Tribe, from what little I know of him would be the liberal version
of Bork, and the same senators who voted against Bork because of large
black populations in their states would probably also vote against Tribe
because of the large conservative populations in their states. Add all
the Republicans to that list and you've almost crossed 50.


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Rockville)
Subject: Re: President-elect Clinton lying already
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:07:19 GMT

ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:

>  SO GO TO IT, MIRACLE WORKERS!  YOU ASKED FOR A MANDATE, YOU GOT IT! COME
>1996 YOU WILL NOT HAVE A SINGLE EXCUSE IF EVERY ONE OF THE PROMISES YOU
>MADE DOES NOT COME TRUE.  WE READ BUSH'S LIPS AND THREW HIM OUT AFTER FOUR
>YEARS, WE'LL DO THE SAME THING TO CLINTON IN 1996 IF EVERY PROMISE UTTERED
>FROM HIS LIPS DOES NOT COME TRUE.  ENJOY THE NEXT FOUR YEARS.

Friend, there's a difference between not perfectly accomplishing every bit
of an agenda and GOING BACK ON EVERY PROMISE MADE.  It's not as if Bush had
to raise taxes but kept everything else perfect; remember his promises re-
garding new jobs, the environment, education, etc.?  About the only promises
he kept were the ones he made to the right wing.  I expect a much rosier four
years than you do, I'm afraid.  You're lucky though; whether Clinton does a
good job or a bad job, things will go your way.  I wish I could be that
lucky.......
-- 
Michael T. Chaffee        |****COLORADO BOYCOTTER******|  ______    
mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu | Professional Slapthologist |  \    /     HATE
Member, Universal Life Church, Sect of Loons           |   \  /  can never be
Annoyance Theatre Platinum Member |     Evil Genius    |    \/  a FAMILY VALUE
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Re: Perot's Vote Percentage State-by-State
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:54:32 GMT

>    DC            4

Gee, go figure!  Why do you think it might be that Washington
D.C. only voted 4% for Perot when the national average was 20%?
Could it be self-preservation?


-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu       |  United We Stand. 
Rice University                    |  Whether or not you accept it, you are 
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr           |  responsible for the actions and 
XUV Holographic Microscope Project |  inactions of your government. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: Ozone Man theme song
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:34:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.010122.60450@cc.usu.edu> sl930@cc.usu.edu writes:
>Sung to the tune of "Nowhere man" with extreme apologies to the Beatles:
>
>He's a real Ozone Man
>living in his Ozone Land
>Making all his nowhere plans 
>for nobody.
>
>Has a warped point of view
>knows not where he's going to
>He's not a bit like 
>you and me
>
>Ozone Man please listen,
>you've got brain cells missing.
>Ozone man, the world doesn't
>like your plan.
>
>He's as blind as he can be,
>all he sees are CFCs
>Ozone man can you see 
>truth at all.


Not bad. Any variations on the "Tax Man"  for Clinton? :-)

John Korman
From: liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Network Projections (Re: Who won Georgia?)
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:43:27 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1dbghkINNt0p@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
>  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?

  Clinton won Georgia by 1%, but that's not the point.


  The strange thing was how the networks were projecting winners in
states with only 2 or 3% of the votes counted.  I found this annoying.
They had declared New Jersey going to Clinton, but, being in the
region, I had access to more accurate numbers.  The race in New Jersey
was close all night, with Bush almost tying Clinton several times
(Clinton finally won 43%-41%).  They also declared Pennsylvania to go
to Clinton with only 2%(!) of votes counted.  This was especially
annoying because everybody here knew that the early returns were from
the metropolitan districts of Philadelphia and Pittsburg - Democratic
strongholds - and not much from other parts of the state were polls
showed Bush leading.  (Pennsylvania did go to Clinton by 10%,
however.)

  After watching last night's ABC news special on the election, some
light can be shed on this.  The networks had conducted extensive exit
polls, but to their credit, they did not release them.  It was said
that all three major canidates practically knew who won a day before the
election, but this data was kept away from the voters.  So the early
projections of the networks (all of them turned out to be correct),
were not only based on actual vote counts, but also on their exit
polls.  That's why they were able to so confidently project winners in
some states as soon as their polls closed.




  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections