HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: 7 Sep 92 11:26:08 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
>I don't think that it is dishonest to leave out a candidate whose party at
>the last election got less than 1% of the winner's votes (Bush 48'886'097,
>Ron Paul 432'179). In fact, I think that putting Marrous Name on these polls
>would be somewhat dishonest, as it provides free propaganda for a
>small extremist party.

In the UK, where the third party is much larger (around 20% of
the vote, and in fact the second placed party in about one
third of the country), it has been noted that opinion polls
conistently differ in their results. One organisation whose
practice is to ask a whole load of lead-in questions on the
parties, their policies and their leaders, before asking "how
will you vote?" consistently scores a higher third-party figure
than others which start off asking "how will you vote?". The
reason seems to be that the lead-in questions remind people of
the third party option.

It should also be noted that the opinion polls got the UK
election earlier this year wrong. They predicted a Labour
victory, we got a Conservative victory. The reason seems to be
that a high proportion of those who responded "Labour" were
non-voters (in the UK voter registration is compulsory so very
high, thus there is no point in asking whether those polled are
registered voters, they usually are, but voting itself is not
compulsory and turnout tends to be in the 70-80% region)
whereas a high proportion of those answering "don't know" or
"won't say" were in fact Conservative voters. Also the
Conservatives ran a nasty but effective campaign appealing to
personal greed, thus a lot of people voted Conservative but
were ashamed to admit it. As someone once said, "voting
Conservative is like masturbating - everyone does it, but
no-one admits to it".

I would not be surprised to see the USA campaign go along the
same lines - Clinton leads in the polls throughout, but Bush
wins the actual election.

Matthew Huntbach
From: wright@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Ted Wright)
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:30:04 GMT

>In article <1992Sep10.044420.4763@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.
nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>  Today in a speech defense expert Bill Clinton referred to Patriot
>missiles as 'being able to go through doors and down chimneys'.
>Analysts were quick to point out that he was confused and must have been
>thinking of the cruise missiles which were used in the Gulf war.  It's the
>Dukakis tank ride all over again.
>

I have never heard of a cruise missle that goes "through doors and down
chimneys". Maybe somebody is confused and is thinking of a laser guided
bomb or a TV guided bomb.

Ted Wright (wright@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12632 alt.rush-limbaugh:4374 talk.politics.misc:44204
From: pgf@srl07.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:38:46 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:

>The Bush gift list (so far this week)

>1. For Florida -- Rebuild Homestead Air Force Base.
>2. For Louisiana -- Sugar Cane import quotas and tariffs

I think this could be multiplied a hundredfold and not
undo the damage done to Louisiana's economy by Bush shutting
down drilling off such large parts of the American coast.

And since the S & L crisis was basically caused by the
collapse of the oil industry, _if_ he hadn't been
so obstructive, who knows, maybe his son would still
have a job besides scapegoat for one bank failure...

>>Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.

>Will pi work?

Hey, an excuse to buy another machine!

--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year,
do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear?
I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear.
---------
"NOAH!"                        \           \ Lewis Carrol
"Yes lord?"                     > Bill Cosby, The Story of Noah
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: A guess at the electoral votes (was Re: Some state polls)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:25:13 GMT
Keywords: electoral college, electoral votes, poll, polls, states

gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
>   Polls from last week in Missouri.   Statewide, Clinton leads by about 6
>points.  However, some other details are interesting.  In St. Louis County
>(a relatively conservative suburb of St. Louis -- and Bush needs strong
>support from suburbs to win), the results were Clinton 48-37 over Bush.

St. Louis County went 54%-45% for Bush in 1988, compared to 52%-48% statewide.

Kansas City went heavily for Dukakis though, 58%-42% in Jackson County.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:16:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.232451.15196@bnlux1.bnl.gov>, bam@bnlux1 (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>My statement stands:  In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes 
>than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES PUT TOGETHER!  This was also true in 1980.  

_All_ 3rd parties?  How come there can be many third parties?

Around here, numbers go:

1
2
3
4
5
6

so if you would order political parties in alphabetical order (as an
example), you would have a first, a second, a third (note!  only
one!), a fourth party and so on.

Perhaps you have a different system of numbers?

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: The Abortion Issue
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:19:47 GMT

GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>The main issue therefore becomes for me: "What is the appropriate
>role for government to play in issues on which there is no moral
>consensus?"  As a libertarian I conclude that the only appropriate
>answer is to stay the heck out of it and leave the decision to the
>individual who will bear the moral consequences of her own

I don't think you meant to imply that it is appropriate for government
to play a role in issues where there *is* a moral consensus.

We must ask is the fetus a person, having rights that the government
should protect.  If no, then your done.  If yes, then it gets a lot more
complicated.  Does the mother have an implied agreement with the fetus
to carry him/her to term?  If no, and the mother has the fetus removed,
her agent can't kill the fetus but no one is obligated to care for
him/her.  Can someone else take custody of the viable fetus?  (I'm
not sure custody has a meaning in the Libertarian ideal.)

If I were dictator, I'd say the fetus is a person at some viability age,
and has an implied contract with the mother to be carried to term at
that point.  Before the point of viability, the fetus as no rights to
protect.  If the mother does not abort before the point of viability,
she accepts the implied contract.

>/June

-- Roger
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Education (WAS: Re: Educational Spending)
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:04:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.092049.14197@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
 
>In article <16862D41C.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep14.101741.12698@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
>>sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1685FE58A.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>>>
>>>>3)  Suppose the vouchers drain a large portion of the students (and
>>>>money) from the public schools.  There is a critical mass of students
>>>>(and money) below which the school cannot survive.  If the only
>>>>students left are those who are too poor to afford a private school
>>>>even with the voucher, what do we do?
>>>>
>>>That is the whole point.  If the local school is soo bad that everyone sends
>>>their kids to different schools, that school should be closed down.  If I have a
>>>restaurant that serves bad food, and no one buys, I shut down.  Why
>>>should a school be any different.  This presumes that other schools
>>>are around (in all but very small towns).
>>>
>>>People vote with their feet now.  They move to neighborhoods with
>>>good schools.  This leaves inner-city schools in a lurch.  Why should
>>>people in inner cities not hav a chance to get their kids a better
>>Thank you for the response, but you did not quite answer the question I
>>asked.  I asked what if a *majority* of the students abandoned the
>>public schools, what do you do with those that are too poor to afford
>>an alternative even with the voucher.  I repeat:  What do we do with
>>them?
>>
>
>I believe that this occurs in some towns in the northeast (Vermont, New
>Hampshire, ...).  The school system pays the tuition for the students
>to go to private schools.  It is much cheaper than keeping a public
>school going, and the students get (arguably) a better education.
>
>
>sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
>sean@cae.wisc.edu
>
Thank you.  One possibility would be just to make sure the vouchers
cover the entire cost of at least some private schools.  This would
(possibly) achieve the same effect.  In Colorado, the proposal is for a
voucher of $2000 (I think).  This is more than the current tuition of
some private schools.  Some are arguing that the voucher amount would
automatically become the lower bound on tuition, since it would be
foolish for a school to charge less.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Term Limits
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:42:35 GMT

After reading the "Blame the Democrats" thread and seeing the debate over
term limitations come up, I must ask a question.  Why do some favor it?  It
seems to me that if a Senator/Representative is not doing a good job, the 
people could just vote him/her out.  And if said politician is doing a good
job, then term limitations would eliminate a good leader.  Term limitations
seems like a bad idea but I would like to hear arguements in favor of it.

  -- Scott @Brandeis
From: dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush Blinks
Date: 5 Sep 92 16:55:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <186ssnINN127@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>
>Bush has backed out of a proposed series of debates with Clinton.
>The debate time, place and format were suggested by a bipartisan
>committee.  Clinton has accepted.
>
>I suppose that between accusing Congress of spending too much and
>promising billions of dollars in spending, he doesn't have enough
>cognitive capacity to try to respond to a direct question.
>----
>    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)
>
>The family values candidate? Check out the ethical status of his sons.
>A case study in how to make hundreds of thousands of dollars by
>investing in businesses which fail.  Nice work if you can get it.

Is this a joke?  Is this a different debate than the looked-forward-to
national debates (sponsored I think by League of Women Voters)?

I can't believe Baker would not let Bush debate Clinton.
Not debating would make Bush look scared.  I think it would 
lose him the election.

david redish
From: jkollin@hardy.u.washington.edu (joel s. kollin)
Subject: Re: The Abortion Issue
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:18:38 GMT


>I am not claiming that abortion is an easy issue but I would like top
>understand why an expansionist view of human life would not apply to a
>fetus just like it should apply to slaves and war prisoners.

Well, I haven't heard this one before, so here goes the flamethrower...

When a clump of four cells can demonstrate its humanity as well as
slaves or prisoners can, I'll be inclined to take your argument 
seriously.

A significant number of pregnancies terminate naturally, often before
the mother even realizes she's pregnant. (I believe its around 30%).
Should we institute heroic measures to save these little "babies" too?
(Of course, the money has to come from SOMEWHERE).

Or should we just wait until the fetus is its amphibian stage before we
give it citizenship? 

>Paul Kamp

Personal mail about abortion to /dev/null/pointless.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Perot Again?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:48:18 GMT

sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>  I was just watching PBS last night and the anchorpundit (or whatever)
>said she had been tipped that Perot was calling a news conference
>Friday and will probably re-enter the Presidential race.
>
>  I'm not sure how much (if any) difference it will make, but I thought
>people might like to know.

How about: Clinton wins Texas (+32 votes), still wins in California, and
doesn't lose enough other states to offset the 32-vote gain.

Can a Perot candidacy do anything other than help Clinton? Supposedly,
Clinton's pick of Al Gore was predicated on a three-way race and when
Perot dropped out all the anchorpundits deemed that Clinton's strategy
was undercut. That assessment changed when Perot all but endorsed the
Democratic ticket. Even now, his harshest criticism is reserved for
the current administration.

Another good indicator of how Perot would affect the race: all of the
complaints about his behavior (that I've seen anyway) are coming from
Bush campaign types.


---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: r2d@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (richard.del monaco)
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Education (WAS: Re: Educational Spending)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:45:30 GMT

In article <1685D8587.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

>I don't think you've been following the discussion very closely!
>
>The wealthy can of course already get the benifits of a voucher system
>indirectly. They move to small communities with other similarly wealthy
>people and set up their own small public school systems ;-)
>
>They can also, being wealthy, send their children to private schools.

...as long as they don't neglect their responsibility to the public school
system at large.

>Vouchers are for the non-wealthy who want more choice in what schools
>their children attend. Currently they are at the mercy of a state run
>monopoly that has been getting steadily worse in its ability to educate
>or even control its student body.
>
>I happen to live in a city of 8,000 with an excellent school system. We have
>our own K-8 school system- rare for a city this size around here- and high
>taxes. We would not benifit much from a voucher system.
> 
>But before I moved here, I lived in Detroit, where many parents sacrificed
>greatly to send their children to private schools to give them a good
>education, even though they were already supporting the Detroit system with
>even higher tax rates than I pay in the suburbs. In fact, the majority of
>children in the Detroit Catholic schools are not Catholic; they just have
>parents who care enough to sacrifice to keep their children out of public
>schools.

Many previous postings have dealt with the question of the privelege of private
schools to exclude students they don't want.  Private and parochial schools are
not equipped to step in and provide universal primary and secondary education.
A voucher system permits an elite few to receive a quality education.

>Bill Clinton has promised that under his worker's paradise *everyone* would
>get a college loan or scholarship. Wouldn't it be nice if we could offer the
>same for K-12 students, too? As someone who has taught the products of
>Detroit public and private schools, I can tell you exactly why the NEA and
>the other teacher's unions are fighting vouchers: It threatens their jobs
>by making them accountable for the quality of the education they provide.

I share your desire to make teachers (indeed all of society) accountable for
the quality of education provided.  This includes many reforms which have
been discussed, not excluding merit pay for teachers (which I believe the
NEA opposes).

Unfortunately, in George Bush's worker's inferno a person's access to higher
education has been linked to their ability to pay.  Now he wants to give a
subsidy to private and parochial schools at the expense of the public school
system.  This seems to me like another pay off to the Republican constituency
(the wealthy and the religious right).


Richard Del Monaco		rdelmonaco@attmail.att.com
Somerset, New Jersey		    r2d@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
Disclaimer:  I am not an official company spokesperson.
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Age and Voter Preference (was Re: Ohio Poll Results)
Date: 6 Sep 92 13:54:49
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sartre.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com's message of Sun, 6 Sep 1992 16:51:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.165114.13871@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

>Major cities in each region are:

>	NE	Cleveland
>	NW	Toledo
>	C	Columbus
>	W	Dayton
>	SE	Cincinnati
>	SW	(none)

Last time I checked, Cincinnati was in the SW corner of Ohio.  Unless
there's been some seriously unexpected plate tectonics, it's probably
still there... :-)

Most of the demographic trends in this poll were predictable -- Bush
did better with the affluent and the well-educated, and at least broke
even among males; Clinton did better with the poor, the
poorly-educated, and females.

But the age statistics are rather interesting:

>		    Age       N      Bush  Clinton    Perot    Undecided
>      ================      ===     ====  =======    =====    =========
>		  18-24      103       19       58        9       14
>		  25-34      284       44       43        5        8
>		  35-44      379       38       47        6        9
>		  45-54      350       42       42        6       10
>		  55-64      382       37       49        5        9
>		  65-74      384       38       50        4        8
>	       75-older      129       53       36        6        5

So, if the election were held today, voters 18-24 would go for
Clinton, voters 25-34 would go for Bush, voters 35-44 would go for
Clinton, voters 45-54 would be split evenly, voters 55-74 would go for
Clinton, and voters 75 and older would go for Bush.

I don't know whether the sample size is large enough to be
significant, but if so, this poll shows some interesting generational
oscillations...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: New (surrogate) poll - 10 Sep 92
Summary: Nielsen poll results
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:53:03 GMT
Organization: Banzai Institute

In days of old, when knights were bold...

The parties involved would each choose a champion to represent their
interests.  This year is a bit strange: the Republicans have chosen the
champions for both sides.  Be that as it may, here are the results from
the Nielsen survey for the last week's main event:

Position        Program         Market share
--------        -------         ------------
 1.             Murphy Brown    17.6
10.             Major Dad       13.0

If anyone wants to point out that the Republican entry is in re-runs, I
won't deny it -- this fits my conceptual model adequately.

So much for the headliner event.  In the "backup" category, we have
a default winner:

20.             The Simpsons    10.2
no-show         The Waltons     ----

----------------------------------
... and went away contented.

-- 
	Jim Gillogly
	jim@rand.org
From: toad@cellar.org (Tony Shepps)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE POLLS 6%
Date: 5 Sep 92 06:38:47 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) spews forth:
> In article <4edX6Ee00h5yM1UQJM@andrew.cmu.edu>, Conrad Poelman <conradp+@CMU.
>> Greg Franklin@violet.cci (2271) writes:
>>> I've seen the Libertarians pull this kind of dishonest trick before (who
>>> remembers "We won Dixville Notch"?), and it really does damage to their
>>> reputation, IMHO.
>> 
>> You call this a "dishonest trick"?!?  This is only minor "spin control"
>> compared to what the major political parties do!  Dixville Notch was not
>> a "dishonest trick", they actually won the election there!
> 
> No, except Andre Marrou spews out "We won Dixville Notch, we won Dixville
> Notch" and puts GREAT significance on it when he's asked if the LP is
> growing.

So the Libertarian party DID win the election there, and they're telling
the world that they did; and you're saying that this is a dishonest trick?

There's something dishonest and tricky about this picture.  But it isn't
coming from the L party or Andre Marrou.

You got something against the party ideologies, Greg, bring it out, discuss
it, let people make up their minds in an open and intelligent way.  But
don't try to pull this kind of lowball crap.

--
Tony Shepps  toad@cellar.org
Preferred address:  toad%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com
Snail mail:  P.O. Box 655, Blue Bell, PA  19422
Public access and thoughtful conversation:  The Cellar BBS  +1 215 654 9184
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Keywords: Electoral College President election
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:01:33 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <13SEP199214491335@utkvx2.utk.edu>, dchatham@utkvx2.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug) writes:
|> [Quote of previous discussion deleted.] 
|> 
|> 	If we are worried about giving small states influence in the election
|> of the President, why not simply scrap the Electoral College (which does not
|> adequate protect small states for reasons already discussed) and go to a
|> popular election with the proviso that, to win, a candidate must get a
|> majority vote in a majority of states as well as a majority of the total vote?
|> In case nobody wins (unlikely), have a runoff between the candidate who won the
|> most states and the candidate who won the most votes.

In that case, JFK wouldn't have won in 1960, since he won only 23 states, to
Nixon's 26 states (I think Harry Byrd took Alabama).
The final result, though VERY close in the popular vote count (less than 0.5%),
was at least reflective of the popular vote and the Electoral College (303 to
219).

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame