HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philip@reed.edu (Philip Moore)
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore in the Northwest
Keywords: broadcast, clinton, northwest
Followup-To: t.p.misc
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:53:48 GMT
Summary: wasted vote

In article <1992Oct2.184057.5518@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>>Lunch says one of the
>>biggest challenges for the local Perot volunteers is to combat the
>>perception that a vote for Ross Perot is a ``wasted vote.''

Larry King had his political analyst on the radio show last week.  The
reporter said he had just gotten off a plane with Rep. Tony Coello whom
he asked who would vote for Perot. Coello said the people who vote for
Perot are the people who don't care if CLinton or Bush win.  That means
a coalition of the people who think that the system is so screwed up that
neither demopublican candidate will make any difference and the people who
think that the individual candidates are cut from the same "I'll do anything
to get elected" cloth.  With five weeks of slam ads and the reporting of how
little this session of Congress accomplished still left before the election
I see Perot's chances growing tot he point where people will actually start
to see that he has a chance.

One thing the pollsters out there ought to try to measure this phenomenon is
to ask two questions.
1) Without regard for who you will actually vote for rank in order the
candidates you would prefer to have as the president: Bush, Clinton, Felani,
Gritz, Marrou, Perot
2) If the election were held today who would you vote for?

This would give us a handle on what people actually believe is a wasted
vote, a vote for a candidate who they don't think will win or a vote for
a candidate whose victory will make no difference.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14372 alt.flame:13069
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:31:33 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Chris Bartz writes:
>
>I would have expected Ross Perot to be smart enough to conduct some kind
>of scientific poll if he really wanted to know what people think.
>Maybe this 'poll' gives us some indication of how he would run his
>electronic town hall :)
>

Perot has come up with the electronic town hall idea to mediate his
lack of votes/allies in Congress were he to win. His aw-shucks
manner on Larry King, his instamatic, preset-answer polling 
techniques are tryouts for methods to deal with an overwhelmingly
recalcitrant Congress. 

If you think the lad gets a little testy now, wait until some Congressional
committee chairman tells him to go soak his head. Or indicates a close-at-hand,
albeit hidden-from-view site for him to store a corn cob. 

Growth industry following a Perot victory: Private Investigations. Discretion
is Our Watchword.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15318 alt.politics.clinton:8660 alt.politics.bush:7863
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Mr Bush or Pres. Bush?
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:48:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <1992Oct5.191316.19376@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born) writes:
>>Mr.  Bush or President Bush?  About 3-4 weeks ago in US News and 
>>World Report's Washington Wispers column reported that the 
>>Clinton campaign was putting out the word that they wanted to 
>>stop referring to Bush as President Bush and start referring to 
>>him as Mr. Bush, to help diminish his stature.  Supposedly, the 
>>media has come on board with this.  Has anybody noticed this 
>>usage (blatantly) by the media?
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
No. All articles I see still say Pres. Bush. 

>>If this is true, it is real sneaky!

>Wouldn't it be just like the Democrat Party to play subliminal semantic
>games like this!


Oh you mean the way that Bush couldn't even say the word "Clinton" intil
a couple of weeks ago? Come on people nobody has a monopoly on dirty tricks
during a campaign. If anything they both use the same tricks over and over
on each other. There is no moral high ground during a campaign, just once
in a while one side will be lower then the other.

Stan Knight
|Show me a clean campaign and I'll show you an unemployed candidate| 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:55:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.145805.4642@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>Jonothan Kozol in _Savage Inequalities_ had an interesting point, at
>least in regards to educational funding.  He noted that conservatives,
>when they argue that poor schools should not be funded because we do
>not have enough money to help all our children, are constructing a
>more pessimistic vision of America than the liberal who believes that
>our country is wealthy and idealistic enough to guarantee a decent
>start for all our kids.

I have never heard a conservative argue that poor schools should not be
funded "because we do not have enough money to help all our children."
I _have_ heard the argument that poor schools have no right to
expect  continued taxpayer support.  I've also heard the argument that
_no_ amount of money can by itself ensure quality education for children
whose parents fail to accept responsibility for establishing the sort of home
environment that is necessary for school learning. 

Effective schools are those which strive to instill a similar sort of
responsibility among their students.  They assign meaningful homework; they
expect their students to do it; they hold high academic expectations for
students; they attempt to promote traditional values concerning the 
importance of working and studying.  When parents respond in kind to these
efforts, there is a powerful learning effect.  Note that this process is
not one that can really emerge out of large increases in spending.  Instead,
it springs mostly from the life and learning philosophies of schools, students,
and parents. 

By the way, Jon Kozol is one of the last people I would turn to for 
advice on anything.  Read his book on Cuba.  Anyone who speaks in such 
glowing terms about one of the worlds largest concentration camps does
lose some credibility.



-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu

From: Tom.Cavender@f2020.n112.z1.fidonet.org (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Polls, endorsements, deba
Date: 18 Sep 92  18:00:00 EST

-> 2) A bunch of Silicon Valley CEO's called a press conference to
-> endorse Clinton for President.  Here at HP it is noted that John
-> Young is a
-> long time Republican who is going to vote Democratic for the first
-> time.
-> The CEO's noted the inability of George Bush to lead as their biggest
-> reaason for the joint endorsement. (OUCH!)

Get ready for an even bigger >>OUCH!<<

According to the New York Times today (9-18-92), none other than Arthur Laffer, dubbed by some "the father of supply-side economics", has said that Bush has been a disaster economically and he is going to vote for Clinton.

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 
20 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:56:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.210646.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>
> How can we look up to a President who was afraid to defend his country? How
>can we look up to a President who- in a church, before his friends, family, a
>priest and God could not uphold a promise to remain faithful to his wife? How
>can we look up to a President who sees nothing but doom and gloom in the
>American work place? How can we look up to a President who has experimented
>with drugs... particularly in an age when drugs controls our streets, and
>murders children? You've choosen an interesting thread. Now let's see how many
>other flaws we can find in "Billary" Clinton. 
>Here endith the lesson.

I'm so glad you noticed we'll have a President Clinton.

Now for the quick rundown:

1) Clinton believed the Vietnam war was wrong and immoral.  A
President who searches his conscience before going to war?  Far, far
better than invading Panama, deciding to fight Iraq only a couple of
weeks after the invasion of Kuwait, before sanctions were even in
place, etc.

2) Jennifer Fitz...  But I won't say anything if you won't.

3) Doom and gloom in the American workplace: if we continue the
Shrub's economic policies.  In any case, we've seen real wages drop in
the past decade, etc.

4) Drugs.  Pot?  In the Sixties?  Hmmm....

5) Killing kids: what's our infant mortality rate?  Very bad for an
industrialized nation, no?  Well, as long as they're black and from
the inner cities, who cares, right?

>		
>		 --VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)   
							^^^^

My school loves acronyms.  How 'bout, "Assist in Republican Clue Hunting?"

--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.censorship
From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:11:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.154402.5410@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.144840.10335@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <28SEP92.22145685@vax.clarku.edu> htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>The columnist had an amusing editorial the other day. The general point
>>>involved the irony of the chairman of the President's Council for Physical
>>>Fitness making movies in which he (Schwarzenegger, not the Presid) breaks
>>>into police stations and uses an automatic weapon to mow down officers.
>>
>>What a completely nonsensical view.  Take note:  Arnold was playing a
>>_bad guy_.  In the end, he gets killed by the _good guys_.  I know this
>>is a hard concept to grasp among those who have a hard time telling the
>>difference, but still it's an important one.
>
>Gee, when Ice-T portrays a character in one of his songs that supports
>killing police, the Republicans are up in arms.
>-- 
>           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
>          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
>         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637

Dig.  Ice T's work (as well as his public statements) supports killing
cops.  Arnold's work does not.  There are two different messages here.
This is a very difficult distinction, I know.  But strive if you can
to grasp it.
-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15250 alt.politics.clinton:8589 alt.politics.bush:7812
From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:50:11 GMT
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC

In article <1992Oct3.185844.6156@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.185527.22191@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>Effective schools are those which strive to instill a similar sort of
>>responsibility among their students.  They assign meaningful homework; they
>>expect their students to do it; they hold high academic expectations for
>>students; they attempt to promote traditional values concerning the 
>>importance of working and studying.  When parents respond in kind to these
>>efforts, there is a powerful learning effect.  Note that this process is
>>not one that can really emerge out of large increases in spending.  Instead,
>>it springs mostly from the life and learning philosophies of schools, students,
>>and parents. 
>
>This does not preclude providing suffient textbooks (up to date ones,
>and not the 10 year-old discards from other districts) for all the
>students, lab equipment, plugging holes in the ceiling, etc.  This is
>the main thrust of Kozol's argument.  He also brings up a number of
>court decisions in Texas and somewhere else (I don't recall where)
>that stated that there is no reasonable excuse for the enormous
>disparities in the facilities between wealthy and poor districts.  For
>instance, a lack of good textbooks would crimp anyone's ability to do
>homework, even if they are well motivated.
>

I taught in a large urban school district for several years.  There was never 
any problem getting textbooks.  In fact, we threw textbooks away about every
4 years to buy new ones.  The biggest problem was persuading our students
to take their textbook home to study or do homework.  I have relatives and
friends who teach in the same district at other schools.  They report to me
that when their schools have a choice between spending money on textbooks
or on "workshops" (lunch provided, of course), that staff and administrators
choose the latter.  I'm not saying that schools such as those described by
Kozol don't exist, but I am saying that his argument does not apply to
the vast majority of urban schools.  Something else is at work here, not
some simple "inequality" boogeyman.
>>
>>By the way, Jon Kozol is one of the last people I would turn to for 
>>advice on anything.  Read his book on Cuba.  Anyone who speaks in such 
>>glowing terms about one of the worlds largest concentration camps does
>>lose some credibility.
>
>I haven't seen his book on Cuba.  This is the first book by him that
>I've read.
>
>
>
>--
>"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
>				-- Homer Simpson
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: United We Stand And Deliver
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:04:07 GMT

In article <16870B049.M23231@mwvm.mitre.org> M23231@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>In article <Bv5KKL.Hnr@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com>
>dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
> 
>>
>>In article <Bv5Iv4.I6D@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>In article <Bv5HEF.ELu@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>>Query: are you more concerned with a little more taxes now,
>>       or dire economic straights when the bills come due?
>>       Certainly the latter does not qualify as "as little
>>       interference as possible"?
>>
>****************
>Do you mean "economic straights" or "economic straits"? I think I've been
>receiving the "economic straights"--otherwise known as the purple shaft.
>****************

Um, the latter, as if you didn't know.  Maybe now you can answer
the question?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: locker@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Locker )
Subject: Larry King and the Dead Horse
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:03:38 GMT


Criminy, hasn't he had enough already??? Who in his or her right mind would
vote for a guy who *still* doesn't know whether running is worth it?  What
in the hell would this guy do in office once he reached a stalemate in any
negotiation? Quit on the spot?  

Or would he try to fire Congress?  (Don't tell Bush I said that)  :)

sorry for the tirade, just had to get my 2c in.

--
Jon Locker		"Mister, we could use a man like
UIUC			 Hoybut Hoovuh againnnn ... "
			 - Archie & Edith Bunker, 1973
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Party Registration
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:37:58 EDT

In article <1992Sep30.132053.3243@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
> From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
>>In Ohio, you just walk in the polling place, sign your name in a register,
>>and tell them whether you want to vote in the Republican or Democratic
>>booth. Maybe selecting one at this point is a de facto registration,
>>but you can change the next time around with no paperwork.
>>
>>The parties must be able to get a list of who voted in what primary, as
>>I get mailings from the Democrats and never from the Republicans (whose
>>primary I have never participated in).
> 
> Here in the UK, we find this absurd. Political parties are
> private organisations, if you want to join one fine, send your
> fees off to its headquarters, sign whatever it is you have to
> sign to join it, pay whatever fees they ask.
> 
> Elections, however are secret. Surely the idea of a polling
> booth for the different parties goes against the very idea of a
> secret ballot, it's more like the old USSR. Also, how can a
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Candidates for both parties are in the same booth. During the primaries
you can only vote for candidates from one party or the other. I don't
see what the problem is here...

> political party function if it has no control whatever on who
> joins it? If anyone can walk in off the streets and be signed
> up as a member of a political party, able to decide who its
> candidates are and what is to be in its platform, what is to
> protect a party from being taken over by people opposed to all
> it stands for?

Because in America we have the freedom of association. If I want to
participate as a Republican or a Democrat, that's my choice. I can
change my mind the day of the election if I like :)

> 
> Matthew Huntbach

-Garrett


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: Mr Bush or Pres. Bush?
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:11:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.191316.19376@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born) writes:
>>Mr.  Bush or President Bush?  About 3-4 weeks ago in US News and 
>>World Report's Washington Wispers column reported that the 
>>Clinton campaign was putting out the word that they wanted to 
>>stop referring to Bush as President Bush and start referring to 
>>him as Mr. Bush, to help diminish his stature.  Supposedly, the 
>>media has come on board with this.  Has anybody noticed this 
>>usage (blatantly) by the media?
>>
>>If this is true, it is real sneaky!
>
>Wouldn't it be just like the Democrat Party to play subliminal semantic
>games like this!

Gimme a break.  Both sides play this kind of game all the time.  The
Republicans are much better at it.  Maybe what you should be saying is,
"Wow, the Democrats are finally learning to play like the big boys!"

Tom

-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
"I like Bill Clinton tremendously.  I know him from the governors' conferences.
The Democrats nominated their best person, a very able fellow.  The country is
well served by that choice." -Bush's re-election chair in NJ (Thomas Kean)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Subject: Mr Bush or Pres. Bush?
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 16:55:19 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.13 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

Mr.  Bush or President Bush?  About 3-4 weeks ago in US News and 
World Report's Washington Wispers column reported that the 
Clinton campaign was putting out the word that they wanted to 
stop referring to Bush as President Bush and start referring to 
him as Mr. Bush, to help diminish his stature.  Supposedly, the 
media has come on board with this.  Has anybody noticed this 
usage (blatantly) by the media?

If this is true, it is real sneaky!
--
Christopher J. Born

born@ralvm48.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Larry King and the Dead Horse
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:32:11 GMT

In article <BvBnA3.A81@news.cso.uiuc.edu> locker@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Locker ) writes:
>
>Criminy, hasn't he had enough already??? Who in his or her right mind would
>vote for a guy who *still* doesn't know whether running is worth it?  What
>in the hell would this guy do in office once he reached a stalemate in any
>negotiation? Quit on the spot?  
>
>Or would he try to fire Congress?  (Don't tell Bush I said that)  :)
>
>sorry for the tirade, just had to get my 2c in.
>
>--
>Jon Locker		"Mister, we could use a man like

You speak for many.

The efforts of HR Perot to run for President remind me
of the efforts of Francisco Franco to remain dead.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14902 talk.politics.misc:49052
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:43:47 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <1af5d2INNat8@eagle.natinst.com>, chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.010551.1471@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>  I don't.  I think that, if you are going to have the system, you must be
>>ready to accept the consequences.  You don't like that???????????
>>
>>		CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>  Personally, I think that much of any other system just serves to preserve the
>>Republocratic PUKE that we have to put up with.
>>
>>  Bend over, Chris, and bend over a little more when the Republocrats want you
>>to.
> 
> Your getting a little personal now aren't you?  I believe this thread
> started about Perot's stupid 800 number and if it is an accurate method
> to determine if he should run.

  It's not personal against you, Chris.  It's personal against the
Republocratic stranglehold on progress that is on the USA and only Perot can
attempt to break.

  Once (or if) Perot is out of the picture, with a Clinton win, he can do what
he wants.  He'll have big majorities in both houses.  I think we'll be
infrastructured to $500B deficits.
 
> Not that its relevant to this discussion but I would like to see Perot
> run because throwing a wrench in the system might just be what it needs
> right now.  I couldn't support Perot for many reasons but if he wants
> to run then he should go for it.  I also think his non-candidacy (so far)
> has helped bring attention to other third party candidates.

  And that's another reason why I hope Perot does well.
 
> Lighten up Mike, you were (are?) making claims that 1,000,000 people
> called Perot's number to tell him to run.  You also claim that not
> very many people want him out of the race.  I was disputing these
> claims - thats all.

  All I said was that it takes a significant number of people to make that
anount of calls in a 12-16 hour period.
 
						Mike Falkner

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14559 alt.politics.clinton:7655 alt.politics.bush:7059