HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: travisds@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: INFO REQ: Univ. Iowa Election Stock Market
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:58:44 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

Could someone please send me any info/email address for the Iowa Election
Stock Market Game that has been featured on NPR lately?

A fool and his money are ready to be parted.


Thanks in advance for your help!

Don
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Date: 14 Oct 92 11:52:17 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com's message of 12 Oct 92 15:48:35 GMT

MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
|Clinton looked over-rehearsed.  He seemed to be rushing to say
|everything he wanted in the time allowed.  He had an answer for
|everything, and made no mistakes.

Not to jump on you because I find myself saying this as well, but what
really does "overrehearsed" mean?  And why is it bad?  Or is it?
--
Peace.
                           "If I could find a way to get [Saddam Hussein] out
                            of there, even putting a contract out on him, if
                            the CIA still did that sort of a thing, assuming
                            it ever did, I would be for it."
                                           -- Richard Nixon
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: New Illinois Poll
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:19:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse) writes:

>In article <1992Oct3.161748.1597@wuecl.wustl.edu> gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:

>Any time a large portion of the sample is undecided it suggests that
>a large portion of those who claim to have made up their mind are not 
>really sure either.

Is this a statistics rule?  This sounds pretty far fetched to me. 
You're saying that if a large percentage (large being a relative term)
of a polled population is undecided, chances are that many of the rest
of the polled population aren't as sure as they think they are?

Would you mind elaborating on this theory please.


-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:52:24 GMT

athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>    BUSH: Larry, I don't want to tell you what I really think
> 'cause I don't have the facts. I don't have the facts. But
> to go to Moscow 1 year after Russia crushed Czechoslovakia...

So what REALLY bothers Bush is that Clinton went there 1 year after
Czechoslovakia. Ohhhh....

Alternatively, Bush could have said, "What REALLY grabs my gut and makes
me want to blow sushi is that he went to Moscow ONE WEEK after the US and
USSR agreed in Helsinki to begin talks on a Strategic Arms Limitation 
Treaty (SALT)."

But that wouldn't make too much sense, would it? Back to plan A.

And where was Bill when the Helsinki agreement came down? Bobsledding
anyone?

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17175 talk.politics.misc:52203
From: sunder@gershwin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton has already won the election!
Date: 15 Oct 1992 22:16:52 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gershwin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1bkmlrINN1s9@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@gershwin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
|> In article <1bisf2INN90e@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
|> 
|> > ABC reported that Bill Clinton is has three hundred more electoral
|> > votes than George Bush.  Namely:
|> > 
|> > 	367 for Clinton to a mere 67 for Bush
|> > 
|> > This can only mean one thing:  The race is over.
|> 
|> If you really think that, I suggest you read today's Chicago Tribune.
|> 
|> In their latest Illinois poll, Clinton's support dropped sharply from 
|> 50% the last time around to 41% after the debate. Perot picked up most of
|> that vote, and is at 13%, and Bush remained static at 28%. That makes 
|> the "Undecideds" the second-largest voting group. With a real good
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I meant to say "third-largest...".


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: vice presidential debates
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:13:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.165141.6061@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1672@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>, hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka) writes:
>>
>>... a tie means that Quayle was the real winner.
>
>Wrong.
>
>Nancy Lord *would* have won.  :-)

Nah, she'd look like a whacko when she comes out in favor of
drug-legalization.


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: Upper--middle--lower class??
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:59:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.180657.25337@telesoft.com> trevor@telesoft.com (Trevor Bourget @ignite) writes:
>
>We got our first definition from Bill Clinton in the debate Sunday.
>If your "family" makes under $55K per year then you're middle-class;
>$200K or more puts you in the upper class.  Does anyone besides me
>see a gaping hole here?  Would anyone care to guess whether Clinton
>would raise or lower the taxes on the "gap" people if he were put in
>office?

I noticed the same gap too. He was quite wishy-washy on that question
during the debate. But, that's Bill Clinton. 

CAUTION: SLIPPERY WHEN CLINTON.

;->



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Agnew (was: Bush cowardice? I think not)
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:04:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.122037.5857@athena.mit.edu>
wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
 
>
>In article <1728300006@igc.apc.org>,
>Gordon O. Perkins <gperkins@igc.apc.org> said:
>
>> Oh, and don;t forget the many men of peace, like Rev Billy Graham,
>> who counseled Nixon to drop atomic weapons, and Agnew, a true
>> patriot who left office "nolo contendre" (no contest) for taking
>> bribes while sitting on his patriotic ass in the VP office!
>
>Technical correction: the charges against Agnew regarded his conduct
>in his pre-VP days as Governor of Maryland.  There were no charges or
>allegations of law-breaking by Agnew while he was VP.
>
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
>
My memory may be failing me, but I am pretty sure that some of the
charges involved bribes delivered to Agnew after he became VP, and
perhaps in the VPs office.  I have no proof or documentation, just an
interested college undergrad's recollections.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: vice presidential debates
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:16:03 GMT

In article <1bi6fvINN61n@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@sor.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>|> "Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
>
>Your .sig is a fair description of much of yesterday's Veep debate. Seinfeld
>must be psychic.

I'd like to think of Quayle as the Boy in the Bubble.  Unfortunately,
he didn't go "psssssssss", IMHO.


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Presidential debates #2
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 17:02:11 GMT

In <Bw7vE4.1Dw.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>Actually, I heard the exact same answers from all three candidates 
>today as  I heard in the first debate.  It seemed to me that it was
>merely a second chance at presentation.  Perot lost 'cause he sounded
>the same.  Bush won mildly because he was solid.  Clinton won more 
>because he knew the moves to make wrt/ the audience and the stage.

Yeah, I noticed that especially about Perot.  At one point he was saying
EXACTLY the same things he'd said in the first debate.

Aside from that, Bush looked *really stupid* several times.  The slack
jaw, watching his watch.  Kinda wanted to go over and nudge him and
say "hey, stay awake, Mr. President".
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
  It should never be forgotten that during all the time we were studying bats,
                   bats had a unique opportunity to study us.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: goguenm@ravel.udel.edu (Matthew L Goguen)
Subject: Hello three way racing:)
Keywords: As a song says it is not over till its over;
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:54:22 GMT

  Well Perot has 14% of the vote and so and so has..
That is a bunch of trash ment for morons to digest as factual
science.  I have seen 20 and 30 point leads blown for all kinds of
stupid reasons and I am sure you have too.  Bush, to put it bluntly,
is a liar.  Clinton looks good but I still have doubts.  Perot, well
Perot is a self made corp. exec.  The guy is loaded from hard work and
a bit of luck here and there.  He probably has an ego like most exec's
and he could probably be a dictator if he had to be.  The real 
question put to voters, or should be, forget who agrees with you the
most, who is the most competent individual in this horse race that
can leed this country.  Would you bet your life on it?  You will be.

  I refuse to put a TV in my apartment, therefore I have missed the media
bombardment on this issue. (Sarcasm on: TOO BAD: Sarcasm off)  Do not let
a bunch of individuals with access to a few zilliontts of RF carry
too much weight, they probably know about the same as you do for the 
most part.  The ones to keep your eye on are the ones that know all of
it cold, or 90% of it anyway. You will not find that on the tube.  
With this thought I leave you to the election process, Mark Twain once
said:"There are lies, damn lies and statistics."
Goodnight,
Matt
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//  Matthew L. Goguen       // Choose this day whom ye  //   
//  Engineer to be.         // will serve as for me and //
//  goguenm@chopin.udel.edu // my house we will serve   //
//  Shadowmiester           // the LORD. Joshua 24:15   //
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Santa Claus Clinton
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:22:25 GMT

In article <3849@eastman.UUCP> pawlicki@kodak.com (Ted Pawlicki) writes:
>
>	I fully understand why Governor Clinton is popular. He is
>promising the moon and telling people that someone else will pay for
>it.

One feels that Ted has a short memory for forgetting Bush's
Pork-a-rama not so long ago.  I recall Russell Baker writing a column
about Bush as Kris Kringle, and how he doesn't travel in a sled, like
the real Santa does.  He goes around in two big 747's, one to hold all
the money and the other one holding all the reporters to take pictures
of him giving away the money.

	Oh Christmas Bush,
	  Oh Christmas Bush....


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 01:52:03 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland

Unlike Bush and Clinton, I heard on the news that Perot didn't even rehearse
for the debate. Yet Perot did so well. This lack of rehearsal made Perot
appear more spontaneous and genuine than the other two candidates, and it
impressed me a lot.

I'm going to vote for Clinton, though, because I think Clinton has a better
chance of beating Bush than does Perot. However, I'd vote for Perot instead
of Clinton, if I thought Perot had a chance to win.

The person to vote for is whoever you believe has the best chance of
beating Bush, and that person is still Clinton.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:48:35 GMT

My thoughts on the debate (not that anyone particularly cares...)
 
Perot looked good, and makes a lot of sense.  I still don't like him at
all, though.  Immediately after his answers, I thought they were very
good, but a few minutes later, I realized he had not said anything.
The one-liners helped to hide the lack of substance.
 
Clinton looked over-rehearsed.  He seemed to be rushing to say
everything he wanted in the time allowed.  He had an answer for
everything, and made no mistakes.
 
Bush looked generally bad.  He stumbled and fumbled his way along, with
his usual vague answers on domestic problems.  On foreign policy
issues, he looked like Clinton, reciting set-piece answers.
 
I think Bush was the big loser.  Clinton really needed only a draw, and
that is what he got.  Perot may get a little bump out of this, but not
enough to make him a real contender.  Bush has to start throwing the
Hail Mary pretty soon, or the game is over.  I don't think he can do
it.  I think Bush is dead, and only the true-blue Republicans will vote
for him.  Clinton only needs to avoid the big mistake at this point,
and he is a good enough debater to do that.
 
I think Perot helped Clinton even more than he helped himself.  Perot's
answers all attacked the Reagan-Bush years, with no real shots at
CLinton.  He even helped to blunt Bush's "patriotism" attack on
Clinton. (and *yes* that is what it is...despite Bush's whining about
"judgement.")
 
One poster in this thread thought Bush was saving his big blow for the
later debates with a more open format.  I disagree.  If Bush had a
haymaker in his arsenal, I think he would have used it here, where the
format was more conducive to it.  In this format, Clinton would not
have had adequate time to defend himself, and the lack of followups
would have let the issue stew for four days.  In the later, more open
debates, Clinton will have time to respond, and to counterattack.  No,
I think Bush has shot his wad.
 
Enough rambling for now.  I can hardly wait to see DannyQ put in
against a couple of pit-bulls.  Ordinarily, I would have pity, but I
just dislike the guy too much to feel the slightest sympathy.  I do not
think he is an idiot (although he plays the part *so* well).  I think
the debate will make him look like a bigger buffoon than ever, and
voters will see the man who is just an irregular heartbeat from the
Presidency in the worst possible light.  I look forward to it.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: 1-800-BEND-OVER
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 11:54:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.171722.8335@seas.gwu.edu>, korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman) writes:
>
>What is this obsession with "bending over"???

It's a metaphor for Perot's manipulation of the media, the election process,
and his supporters and the reaming the country will get if he's taken
seriously or (gasp) elected.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,misc.legal
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas
Organization: SPS
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:58:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.020427.4222@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:

|> Thomas has said a lot of things, and it's a bit early to see where he
|> stands on a good number of issues.  Among his lone-wolf votes were
|> dissents calling for a defendant's political views to be considered in a
|> bifurcated trial to determine whether to use the death penalty, 

Is this (Dawson?) the case where the majority said a defendent had a
first amendment right to not have his membership in a white racist
prison gang mentioned during the penalty phase of trial?

Defense lawyers routinely mention things such as membership in A.A.
Thomas said that we could rely on the common sense of the jury to
understand the implications of membership in the Aryan Brotherhood.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16371 talk.politics.misc:51262
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: "Where you protest" -- a cultural chasm
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:12:11 GMT


In article <1992Oct12.150446.14325@anasazi.com>, 
john@anasazi.com (John Moore) said:

> > Most of us who participated in anti-war protests were not
> > attacking America, nor were we in any way traitorous.
> > [Eric Sieferman]
>
> Nor were you in a foreign country. THAT is the issue (as Bush has
> clearly stated). If you want to protest US policy in the US, fine,
> go to it and there's nothing wrong with it. When you take it
> overseas, during the middle of a war, it is wrong and goes against
> 200 years of American tradition.  It's the same principle as a
> family dispute... you don't do it in the shopping mall.

What I'm seeing here is a cultural or ideological chasm of mind-
boggling proportions, with Bush and others, including John Moore, on
one side and (I assume) Clinton and others, including me, on the
other.  Our outlooks on this subject are so different that it's almost
as if we have no common reference points for communication.

To Bush and Moore, it's a matter of faith that you don't protest
against your country's policies outside your country -- something so
obvious that it virtually goers without saying.  But Clinton and I
have no such tenet, no such axiom in our philosophies, and we can't
even see where it comes from.  First of all, I, at least, was never
even aware of this particular "American tradition," despite nearly
thirty-five years of living here and a pretty good education.
Secondly, even if this is a tradition, is there any rational reason
for it?  (To me, it looks like a "But we've always done it this way!"
type of thing.)  And thirdly, even if it is a tradition and one that
made sense throughout American history up to the 1960s, did it still
make sense in a time when America's "family disputes" were hardly
secrets overseas, when riots and protests in major American cities
were being shown on the evening news around the world the same day
that they happened?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15655 alt.politics.clinton:9102 talk.politics.misc:50334
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:55:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct7.181855.12558@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <1992Oct6.212129.29279@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>|> Democracies do not go to war with one another.

>Bullshit.

Name two.

>|> They do not threaten to destry other nations with weapons of mass destruction.

>"We will systematically destroy Japan's ability to wage war..."  Harry Truman.

If Japan had not attacked, they would not have been bombed.  Do you deny that
nations have a right to self defense.

>And France's nuclear weapons arn't exactly a gesture of good will either.

True, but has France threatened to use them on anyone?  If anyone attacks
France, then they might be bombed.  I guess you could call that a threat.

>Live in the real world.

YOu ought to try it some time.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: Re: New Indianapolis Star Poll
Organization: The Lab Rats
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:34:55 GMT

In article <Bvz570.7r9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey) writes:

}Clinton  42%
}Bush     41%
}Perot     8%

Other      9%

-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences
Libertarian candidate for Delaware House of Representatives, 23rd District

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16803 soc.culture.usa:7772 alt.politics.usa.constitution:686
From: bpjcmjr@coos.dartmouth.edu (Patricia A. Crossett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: To Vote or Not To Vote
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:55:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Originator: bpjcmjr@coos.dartmouth.edu

If you were to give a speech to a friendly audience which was somehow unaware
of reasons for voting or unsure about the voting process, what would you say
 to them? What sources would you use to convince this group to prepare
 for election day--not just for national elections, but for town,
city or regional elections?

Thank you for your ideas.

Pattie Crossett

Patricia.A.Crossett@mac.dartmouth.edu
From: aberman@cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:12:12 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <1bdnukINN69c@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes:
>

>Apropos of this, I noticed that the Repubs came out with the "Clinton
>led antiwar demonstrations in ENGLAND" charge and the "Clinton 
>travelled to MOSCOW" charge at just about the same time. Am I being
>overly cynical, or is it possible that, by the vagueness with which
>they keep referring to these two occurrences, they are trying to 
>plant the idea that "CLINTON LED DEMONSTRATIONS IN MOSCOW"? They know
>that TV watchers don't always hear every word.
>Could be, could be!

What do you mean, could be?

How many people saw the TV ad about Willie Horton raping and murdering that
woman while out on a weekend pass?

Actually, nobody did.  The TV ad showed Willie Horton, talked about him raping
a woman, and mentioned that Dukakis let's out murderers.  It got corrupted in
many people's minds that Horton murdered while out on a pass.


Andrew Berman


-- 
Andrew P. Berman           |  "This election is about who's going to be the
Dept. of Computer Science  |  next President of the United States!"
University of Washington   |    --Dan Quayle, 1988 
aberman@cs.washington.edu  |