HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: First Election Results!!!!!!!
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:10:20 GMT

<1992Nov4.165652.7118@wuecl.wustl.edu> (Don Porter) writes:
>   [ My accusation that NPR couldn't add. ]

<TRIF.92Nov5035949@bike.rad.washington.edu> (To Run In Fear) writes:
> Not necessarily.  At the time that they were reporting 238 (instead of 239),
> that electoral vote had not yet been projected.  Therefore it is correct to
> report 238 *projected* votes for Clinton and no *projected* votes for Perot.

Yes, it is clear now from consulting other news sources, especially the
Internet, that is indeed what happened.  NPR had the corect totals
for electoral votes and states throughout the night.  The only "error"
I can accuse them of was their misleading declaration that Clinton had 
won Maine, when only three of the four electoral votes from Maine had 
been projected.  Clinton had in fact won Maine, but the implication that 
Clinton had won all four of Maine's electoral votes was not true at the 
time of the report.

The other flaw in their coverage was their failure to name each
state at least once as they placed it in one column or the other.
On radio, there is no colored map for the listener to refer to.
Early in the evening they were good at naming states, but later in
the evening, several times they would only report total numbers of
states and electoral votes.  I could usually guess which states
fell where by the number of electoral votes, but the Maine
exception threw me off on Clinton.  The other trouble was
knowing at one point that Bush had added two 3 EV states to
his column, but not knowing which 2 of the 3 states, ND, SD, and MT
they were.  

-- 
|   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
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: A New Slogan For Clinton Supporters (Was: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:55:19 GMT

In article <bill.721344029@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:

<   Got any more self-righteous accusations?
 
	Tsk. It would seem that certain people aren't going to
	enjoy the Clinton Administration as much as they had 
	planned to....

	But thanks, Eldridge, for the New & Improved slogan
	for Clinton supporters.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Subject: Re: You Got it
Summary: Another perspective  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:28:24 GMT

In article <9211042149.aa21592@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu>, davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU                                  writes...
>	Today on ABC Evening news with Peter Jennings...They showed
>	a Big Party In Bagdad because of Bush's lost....
> 
I'd party too if the chances of my country getting bombed for political
gain just dropped.

>	Well, my fellow Americans....Saddam is throwing a party today
>	and with Clinton's win...it ushers in a new era...an era in which
>	Saddam will be more aggressive.

Against what? His country was almost flattened. He has been fighting a 
civil uprising for a year now. He couldn't even beat Kuwait now.

.and era in which the U.S. will
>	have less influence in the events of the Middle East...
> 
This country is already having less influence in the world. BTW, what makes
you think that we will no longer be involved in the peace process. After
all, Carter was more successfull in that then Reagan or Bush.

>	In Poland and the other fragile democracies in E. Europe and in Russia
>	the possibility of those countries to revert back to Communism and
>	to tyranny has just shot up..

Why?

and to those who are living in those
>	countries who wanted the USA to help them, I can only say, 'I'm sorry
>	and I wish you the best'
> 
Why? What help have we given to countries that want our help in the last
12 years, except to flatten third world countries, or help petty dictators?

>	Clinton I feel, does not want America to be the Leader of the Free
>	World and his party's platform reflects this:
> 
>	In the passage about National Security, it states: "The burdens
>	of COLLECTIVE security in a new era must be SHARED..."
> 
>	That's not leadership...that just like Clinton saying (on the Gulf
>	War)..."I support the minority, but I would have voted for the
>	majority"....
> 
BZZZT! Wrong. It shows courage and leadership to allow people to run their
own countries and help share the responsibility. It takes NO diplomacy
or maturity to just tell other people what to do.
>  

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Subject: Re: Monopolies and Markets
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 18:53:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
: Cigarettes was what I said, and yes, two companies pretty much own the
: market.

Those two companies are R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris.  Interestingly enough,
they are two of the biggest contributors to the Partnership for a Drug Free
America (the other one being Seagrams, I believe).  Yeah, they're really 
interested in a "drug-free" America, as long as you don't mean THEIR drugs.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"When you're following an angel, does it mean you have to throw your body off a 
 building?" -- TMBG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:44:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.144028.1195@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> Yes, but once they've been spending 15%+ of GNP on the military for a
> while, they start feeling the need to get some of that 'investment'
> back. 
 
I doubt SA would invade their neighbors.  They're vary wary of setting off
the fundamentalist factions in their country, and a war with another Arab
country would be just the thing.
 
> How much do you want them to spend to protect OUR access to oil?  How
> high are you willing for oil prices to go?
 
The price of oil has very little to do with the costs associated with it.
SA does have a lot of influence in OPEC, but if they thought they could
more a higher profit on their oil, they'd be doing it.
 
SA, just like all the oil producing countries, wants to maximize their
profits.  Some countries think the best method is to jack the
price way up, others think you should keep the price moderate and pump a
higher volume.  It's naive to think that SA would hold down prices in the
long term simply to express their thanks.  They might do it in the short
term, but that's so we'll keep selling them weapons.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: dave@prc.unisys.com (David Lee Matuszek)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: Paoli Research Center - Paoli, PA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:47:10 GMT

Just my $0.02.  According to the vote tallies I have read, Clinton
received a majority of the votes in one state (Arkansas) and in
Washington, D.C.

IMHO, this is not exactly a "mandate."

  --dave

-- 
"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency."      -- Albert Einstein
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,ics.views
Subject: Re: You Got it
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:54:00 GMT
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <9211042149.aa21592@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu>, davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU writes...
> 
>	Well, Clinton won...and its effect around the world has
>	begun...
>	Today on ABC Evening news with Peter Jennings...They showed
>	a Big Party In Bagdad because of Bush's lost....
>	Saddam even made a personal appearance and fired his sidearm
>	into the air several times and called the NEW President:
> 
>	"A Power-hungry fool who changes colors more often than
>	a chamelon and we will act now !"

He does have a way with words, doesn't he?  This must be the first time my boy
has said something I agree with.  I am a bit surprised - I half expected him
to trying sucking up to Willy, but I guess that's just not his style...

I frankly can't see Hussein trying anything terribly cute while George is
still at the helm.  I can't imagine anything George would like more than an
excuse to snuff that little dirtbag before he leaves office.  And I'm sure
Slick wouldn't mind having him out of the way before it becomes his problem,
either.

On the other hand, Hussein is always testing the limits of his leash, and I
*would* expect him to try little stuff between now and 20Jan, *and* to really
test Slickness soon after the inauguration.  With President Taxes pre-occupied
with getting all his spending bills through Congress immediately, and a foreign
policy team devoid of any experience, there could be a window of opportunity
for him there.  Alternatively, Billy might have to slow down the Gravy Train
to deal with (gasp) a foreign policy crisis.


Dave
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Final Results (major parties)
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:02:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.030549.4807@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
>	I thought someone else would do this, but I guess no one
>else will. These numbers are from today's San Francisco Examiner.
>
>A California exit poll shows voters voting:
>-----------------------------------------------
>By Income:	Clinton		Bush		Perot
><$15,000	63%		16%		21%
>$15-30,000	51%		24%		25%
>$30-50,000	43%		33%		24%
>$50-75,000	46%		32%		22%
>$>$75,000	43%		37%		20%
>
>By Age:		
>18-29		51%		25%		24%
>30-44		47%		29%		24%
>45-59		47%		28%		25%
>60>		48%		36%		16%
>

Interesting how Perot's support was fairly uniform across
the board.  The only obvious deviation is that of the 60>
vote.

At great risk of flames and counters, and primarily to make
trouble, I attribute this to:

1) More interest in entitlements than the future of the 
   country.

2) No real concern about the debt, as they'll die before it
   has to be paid off.

3) They are the status-quo of the ruling class, and are the
   ones whose personal enrichment is threatened by a movement 
   to responsible government.

Flame away, I deserve it!



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: You Got it
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:52:34 GMT

In article <1dbb0eINN21s@rave.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
>In article <9211042149.aa21592@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu> davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU writes:

>>	Well, Clinton won...and its effect around the world has
>>	begun...

>>	Today on ABC Evening news with Peter Jennings...They showed
>>	a Big Party In Bagdad because of Bush's lost....

>>	Well, my fellow Americans....Saddam is throwing a party today
>>	and with Clinton's win...it ushers in a new era...an era in which
>>	Saddam will be more aggressive...and era in which the U.S. will
>>	have less influence in the events of the Middle East (and those

>Perhaps the reason Saddam is able to throw a party is because Bush botched
>the job in the first place...now I guess Clinton will have to clean up
>after Bush's mistakes...

The sad thing is the masses of Iraqians cheering Bush's defeat without 
ever stopping to think that they don't get to choose whether Saddam 
sticks around or not.  

Hopefully Clinton won't indiscriminately help fund thuggish dictators, 
so maybe the future will have less Sadams and Noriegas than we had under 
the Republicans.  "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
From: aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu (Robert D West)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Colorado Weather and turnout - GREAT
Date: 5 Nov 1992 18:51:36 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: mingong-ws-1.ucsc.edu


In article <1689511AA8.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>I can speak for only one precinct in Boulder, CO, but the turnout
>was amazing.  334 of 369 registered voters turned out in mine.
> 
>Jim McMaster

Turnout in four precincts in Santa Cruz: (the one where I worked and
the ones we heard about)

621 of  778
875 of 1025
1158 of 1376
309 of 416
.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:10:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.023919.15460@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> >> [Actually, base population figures don't look that different, but I
> >> seriously doubt if the Saudis would want to resort to the sort of
> >> measures that Iran and Iraq have in order to field a comparable
> >> military force.  It also would not be in OUR interests if they did
> >> so.] 
> Gee, where'd I say THAT?
 
Right up there.  You said "I seriously doubt if the Saudis would want to
resort to the sort of measures...".  We certainly wouldn't want to
inconvenience anyone else, since it's only our money, right.
 
> >Let's remember that one of the countries that was fueling Iraq's big arms
> >grab was Saudi (because they hate the Iranians).  I'm not
> >sympathetic.
> 
> I suppose you have numbers to back up this statement?
 
You must not have been keeping up with your reading on the Middle East. 
SA's funding of Iraq is pretty well known.  For that matter, Kuwait has
been a fairly big contributor to Iraq as well.  They decided they'd rather
fund Iraq than fight Iran.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22927 misc.legal:19622
From: pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: You Got it
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:19:34 GMT

In article <BxIvzM.J0n@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>In article <9211042149.aa21592@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu> davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU writes:
>>
>>
>>	Saddam even made a personal appearance and fired his sidearm
>>	into the air several times and called the NEW President:
>>
>>	"A Power-hungry fool who changes colors more often than
>>	a chamelon and we will act now !"
>
>    Saddam and his fellow countrymen still don't get it.
>
>

no kidding! i know i wouldnt feel too comfortable being near
someone shooting bullets in the air. what a bunch of dumb cows!

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Marrou < 0.3%. The *REAL* reason no one reports Marrou's totals.
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:56:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov5.061154.16556@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>One credulous person claimed to me that two million people voted for Marrou,
>another claimed 1.8% of the vote.

The 1.8% figure was an early report on the Libertarian's election results
hotline.  Apparently, early on and with not many numbers in, that's the way
it was looking.  Frankly, there was little reason to doubt it.  The end
result is much harder to swallow.  It really looked good for over a million.

According to the hotline tonight, a clear trend is developing.  Increasing
support for the LP in state level races is apparent.  People were voting
Perot for president, and then Libertarian for the rest.

I don't care if the LP only got a dozen votes.  Anyone on the ballot in all
fifty states should have their vote totals reported.

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23191 talk.politics.misc:59073 tx.politics:7119
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: PROFICIENCY TESTING: N.J. ENACTS TOUGH NEW STANDARDS
Date: 6 Nov 92 12:41:45 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

maybe we need this in TX?

       =====  GOAL THREE:  CORE COURSE PROFICIENCY  =====

*1   PROFICIENCY TESTING:  N.J. ENACTS TOUGH NEW STANDARDS
     The N.J. State Board of Ed has approved new monitoring and
assessment standards (Gray, N.Y. TIMES).  The TIMES calls the
standards "some of the nation's toughest."
     The new rules, which take effect in July, will require
testing in the fourth, eighth and 11th grades.  Proficiency tests
will be given in geography, history and civics, physical ed,
science, health, reading, writing and mathematics.
     State Ed Commissioner John Ellis said, "What we are
demanding of our kids here ... is tough, but our kids are as
bright as any kids anywhere."
     The board's decision is the last step in enacting a state
education law the Legislature approved last summer.  The law also
calls for the state to "intervene in districts that fail to meet
state standards," according to the TIMES.  Charles Mitchel, asst.
commissioner for county and regional services, said, "There are
consequences where you literally lose your right to govern
yourself."
     Six districts in N.J. currently are under the threat of
being taken over by the state due to students' performance on the
11th-grade test, which has been administered for three years.
The schools will receive a two year reprieve before the state
requires them to attain the new standards.
     Schools in N.J. have until the 1993-94 school year to attain
the new test levels.  They are also required to cut dropout rates
to below 10%.  Ellis said the plan will cost the state $9M
(11/4).


-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
 - Begin means testing of Social Security, Medicare and Farm Subsidies now. -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23859 alt.politics.marrou:2272
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Date: 15 Nov 92 18:08:32 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <92320.112633U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>
>>If Libertarians had won the election in 1932....
>>
>>Still be under a Third Reich in Europe.
>
>Last I checked, the US did not enter WWII until the 40's.

And wouldn't have entered at all under Libertarians.

>>And the US would have some dictatorial fool like Huey Long as pres..
>>
>And how would this come about?

Because the Libs would've counted on the free market to get the country
out of the depression, it wouldn't have, and there would've been a
revolution.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 23:05:56 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
: In <1992Nov04.233312.37383@watson.ibm.com> johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
: >I didn't find it particularly interesting.  For example I don't see their
: >relevance to the government artificially inflating the price of gasoline.
: 
: Then you didn't understand what you looked at.

There you go again with that holier-than-thou nonsubstantive crap.  Gasoline is
a tangible commodity.  It's not like national defense or public education.  So 
how do externalities and free riders apply?  Are you talking about air
pollution?  The government doesn't use gas tax money to do anything about air 
pollution.  Are you talking about road maintenance?  If so, what about the
people who buy gasoline, but don't use public roads?  Unfortunately I have to
guess what you're talking about, because all you do is spew a few economic 
buzz-words, and then expect everybody to swoon over your "vast knowledge".  
You posted something in another thread about how I should discuss things 
rationally.  Physician, heal thyself.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"When you're following an angel, does it mean you have to throw your body off a 
 building?" -- TMBG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wlamonac@larson.helios.nd.edu (william lamonaca)
Subject: Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN
Keywords: Willie Horton
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:10:48 GMT

In article <1119@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>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

Wrong! Most states (~45 or so) have furloughs.  In fact while Ronald
Reagan was governor of California he furloughed two convicted murderers
who then killed again while out on furlough.  In interest of fairness,
George Bush should have brought that fact up too.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics