HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Time poll 1988
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:11:10 GMT
Organization: AT&T


 Time magazine poll, 1988

 D = Dukakis
 B = Bush

                            Dem      Rep                    final
                           conv     conv                    vote
                             |        |                       |
 60-|------------------------|--------|-----------------------|-------       
    |                        |        |                       |              
    |                        |        |                       |              
    |    DDDDDDDD            |DDDDD   |                      B|              
    |            DDDDD       |        |                       B 
 50-|------------------------|-----DDD|B-------------BBBBBBBB-|-------       
    |                        |        | BBBBBBBBBBBBB         |              
    |                 DDDDDDD|        |                       |              
    |                        |        | DDDDD        DDDDD    D
    |                        |     BBB|D     DDDDDDDD         |              
 40-|-----------------BBBBBBB|--------|-------------------DDDD|-------       
    |    BBBBBBBBBBBBB       |BBBBB   |                       |              
    |                        |        |                       |              
    |                        |        |                       |              
    |                        |        |                       |              
 30-|-----------------------------------------------------------------       
    |   MAY   |  JUNE   |  JULY  |  AUG   |  SEPT  |   OCT  |  NOV   |

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: matt@physics3.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DEBATE: OPINION FROM AN UNDECIDED
Date: 12 Oct 92 13:57:35
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics3.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jfed@athena.mit.edu's message of 12 Oct 92 19:59:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.195947.21290@athena.mit.edu> jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:

> I went into the debates expecting George Bush to be utterly humiliated, but
> he dusted Billy Boy by just by being himself, and telling us what he feels.

Face it: when candidates are speaking to tens of millions of people,
at a major media event which will decide their political future,
nobody---and I mean *nobody*---will just "be himself," and speak
without giving thought to his delivery and to the political
ramifications of what he says.  Least of all George Bush; the
political calculations he uses when he campaigns just aren't any kind
of secret.  You can read the details of his strategies in any
newspaper in the country.

If you thought that Bush looked more natural than Clinton, all that
means is that Bush was a better actor than Clinton.  "Natural" is just
the last thing you'll find at an event like this.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Class Warfare in America (was Re: Upper--middle--lower class??)
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:22:42 GMT

Wake up and smell the coffe!

Class warfare in America is no longer about rich vs. poor, capitalist vs.
laborer, or even educated vs. ignorant.

Class warfare in America is, and perhaps always has been, between tax
payers and tax consumers. The Democrats are clearly the part of tax consumers
but what has so disillusioned the American voter is that their erstwhile
representatives in government, the Republicans, have proven to be tax-and-
spenders of monolithic proportions.

Reagan was the most popular president in modern American history precisely
because he offered Americans the hope of escaping the oppression of ever-rising
taxes to fund ever-failing social programs.
From: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: advice for candidates following first debate
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:09:04 GMT
Reply-To: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

some advice for the candidates:

Clinton - loosen up, you seem to stiff and over rehearsed

Perot   - put out some solid plans on what you'd do when your
          in office instead of saying "i'll get a team together..."

Bush    - lay off the Halcion, things aren't as good as you think
          also lay off the personal jabs(I'm suprised you didn't 
          mention the Draft thing, but your probably expecting
          Quayle to bring it up during the VP debates.

                          
--------------------------------------
Maurice LaBiche   |   labiche@bnr.ca
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Waste of time!
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:30:02 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

afarquha@cs1.uct.ac.za (A J Farquharson) writes:

>To us here in South Africa it seems as though the American elections are a 
>waste of time.  You spend so much money on trying to elect either Bush or 
>Clinton, when in actual fact nobody really 
>cares!                             Simpson, Bart


We don't hold elections for your entertainment so, if you're bored with
us, I'm afraid that's your problem.  We do care about our election, we
don't care what you think about it.  So why bother telling us how you
feel about it when we don't really care?

By the way, define "nobody" so I know exactly who it is that doesn't care.


-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16946 talk.politics.misc:51942
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton has already won the election!
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:03:58 GMT
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu's message of 14 Oct 1992 23:35:46 -0500

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.

I certainly hope this is true, but, as they all say, the only poll
that counts is the one in November.  

There's still a lot that can happen between now and Election Day.
Let's not get complacent.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Commander in Chief Clinton ?
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:19:12 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 92Oct14131325@physics.berkeley.edu, matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
>In article <3833@eastman.UUCP> pawlicki@kodak.com writes:
>
>> 	One thing is nearly certain. During the next four years the
>> president of the United States will have to call on young men and
>> women in the military to fight and die. 
>....
>> It is entirely likely that the cause they are
>> asked defend will be a questionable one. 
>
>Me, I'd prefer a President who will not tell people that they have to
>die for a questionable cause.
>
>My experience is this: if someone believes that war is "nearly
>certain," they will be much more likely to go to war than if they
>believe there is a genuine possibility that we can avoid war.
>
>I hope we can elect a President who will not go to war twice in his
>first two years, someone who is adept enough to deal with situations
>before soldiers start being killed.
>
Agreed.  Would you rather go to war for a president who gets up in
front of the American people and says, "We've done all we can; we've
used up every peaceful avenue we could.  Now we must go to war".

Or, would you prefer to go to war for a president who gets up and says,
"We're gonna kick some ass"?

--f2
-----------------
  "Pot is a herb.
   Bush is a dope."









Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: Debate II
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:19:49 GMT

I call it Clinton, then Bush, and Perot a somewhat distant third.

The format of the second Prez. debate obviously favored Clinton, but not
as much as I thought it would.  Bush didn't do that badly and may have
acutally turned a few "undecideds"--and I think that by now most
undecideds are deep down, but disaffected, Bush supporters who are giving
him every chance to show them something.  What he showed them was mostly
more of the same, but he was a little more reassuring.  Perot offered
even more of the same, which is bad for him.  The voters know what the
problems are Ross, that's why they asked the questions they did last
night.  You're going to have to offer some answers and actually say some
of the tough things your book puts down.  Moreover, you're going to have
to offer something concrete on other issues such as education, drugs,
crime, health care, foreign policy.  Just saying there are plans all
over Washington just waiting to be implemented is a cop out.  Policy
has consequences, specifics matter; reasonable people can disagree about
how to handle a problem that they all agree exists.  Which is why I
think Clinton came out ahead last night.  He answered questions most
directly of the three.  He gave reasons. He even took unpopular
stands- being against term limits, and refusing to promise not to run if
he didn't meet his economic forecasts.  Many people complain that he's
too polished.  I see this complaint as part of the rampant
anti-intellectualism this country has suffered from since before its
inception (the images of absent-minded professors and evil geniuses fit
this mode of thought).  Clinton actually thinks about issues and actually
thinks before he speaks--God forbid that we have a president who does
that.  And he's articulate, omigod call out the National Guard!!!
I'm also confused by those who claimed to see "nothing new" in the
debates.  What do they expect?  Bush has been president for almost 4
years, he's offered programs for the next four years.  Clinton has been
running for president for almost 13 months.  Except for some
fine-tuning, his positions are pretty much the same as those he laid out
in his first few speeches at Georgetown.  What are these guys supposed
to do?--say two weeks before the election that they didn't mean what
they'd said before, that they've come up with an entirely new plan?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: After Debate Press Coverage
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:35:20 GMT

In article <1bfrisINN6pp@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike) writes:
>Does anyone else get sick of the after debate coverage that the press
>gives.  As soon as the debate is over, they tell you who won and who
>lost.  Why don't they let the American people figure it out for
>themselves instead of giving us their view?  

I agree.  So I watch C-SPAN which followed the debates with an hour 
of live viewer call-in, and a very neutral phone answerer ("Who'd you think 
won?  What did you think of the format?  Did you change your opinion 
because of the debate?", etc).



-- 
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*
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dtschett@scott.skidmore.edu (donna tschetter)
Subject: Re: agents of change
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:07:16 GMT

True!
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush slips up on Today show
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:19:58
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: isbell@ai.mit.edu's message of 14 Oct 92 12:25:41 GMT

In article <ISBELL.92Oct14082541@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:

>    President Bush Tuesday admitted knowing that arms were being
> swapped for hostages in the Iran-contra affair, contradicting what
> observers say is a long history of denials. Later, Bush counsel C.
> Boyden Gray said Bush misspoke and didn't mean to say he knew of
> the swaps while vice president. 

Well, how can we trust Bush if he keeps changing his story?  He ought
to come clean with the American people here.  If he has nothing to
hide, why isn't he answering these questions honestly?

The issue isn't arms for hostages, it's character and trust.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Monday's PEROT ad
Summary: Comments on Perot's ad
Keywords: perot ad
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:15:31 GMT
Distribution: usa


Thoughts on Perot's first ad Monday night.

I thought he was good, but I bet the ratings are low. The thought that
kept going through my mind was that people don't want to hear bad
news, or make tough choices, and they will probably switch him off.
Even my wife, who was paying attention, kept saying "Well, what is he
going to do about these problems", completely missing Perot's repeated
statements that solutions will be covered in later broadcasts.

	The other thought that kept going throw my mind was a comment
made by Simon Ramo (the 'R' in TRW), who said he was not worried about
the future of the US. He said in effect, that during his 80 year
lifetime, he has seen the US 'reinvent' itself, when the future seemed
bleakest. I can only hope that Perot can provide sufficient
illumination of the problems facing this nation so that we can get to
work on them. Since I believe that Bush is just more of the same, and
Clinton is more of the same we tried in the 60's (great society type
programs of large government), I have to vote for Perot. Clinton will
win in California anyway, so just maybe, my vote will be one of a
large percentage of Americans who will send a message to Washington
that we need to address the problems of runaway government spending,
and do it soon.


				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Media bias, post-debate coverage
Reply-To: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:34:56 GMT

I watched Tom Brokov & some other pundit immediately after
the first debate.  Brokov said , "Perot as usual, was not specific."
The pundit next to him said, "Perot was technical, not spiritual."

I immediately switched to ABC, where they were interviewing lay-people.
They were impressed with Perot because of he was specific, and because
of his believable enthusiasm.


Would someone please take away Brokov's liscence to spout his
(biased) opinion!  

I heard another pundit somewhere say it wasn't the debate which mattered,
but how the other pundits responded to it.  This infuriates me!  People don't
need pundits to interpret anything anyone was saying!

I guess I would just like to see fact very well separated from opinion.
Cokey (sp?) Roberts, for instance, said "Perot won this debate."  but
qualified it saying it was her opinion.

-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu        
Rice University                    
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr          
XUV Holographic Microscope Project
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush slips up on Today show
Date: 14 Oct 1992 23:12:23 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>The issue isn't arms for hostages, it's character and trust.

No, this issue is arms for hostages *AND* character and trust.  Thanks
to the lies and distortions that the Republican sleaze machine has
perpetuated against everyone with differing political views, I will
probably never vote for a Republican, for *national* office, ever
again.

George Bush revolts me.  At this point I can't imagine how *ANYONE*
can consider sending him back for four more years.

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
There are no monks in my band.  There are no saints in this land. - RHCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Class Warfare in America (was Re: Upper--middle--lower class??)
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:25:33 GMT

Wake up and smell the coffe!

Class warfare in America is no longer about rich vs. poor, capitalist vs.
laborer, or even educated vs. ignorant.

Class warfare in America is, and perhaps always has been, between tax
payers and tax consumers. The Democrats are clearly the part of tax consumers
but what has so disillusioned the American voter is that their erstwhile
representatives in government, the Republicans, have proven to be tax-and-
spenders of monolithic proportions.

Reagan was the most popular president in modern American history precisely
because he offered Americans the hope of escaping the oppression of ever-rising
taxes to fund ever-failing social programs.

Indeed, the federal deficit is an accurate measure of the intensity of this
warfare.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17306 alt.politics.bush:9491 alt.politics.clinton:10985 alt.politics.perot:2285
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Presidential debates #2
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:30:03 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:

>In article <ISBELL.92Oct15230523@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:

>I don't think Bush fucked up at all.  That's the way its been played,  

I agree.  The woman asked a bad question.  However, the minute she asked it,
I said to my husband, "I think she means the deficit".  Bush could have
asked if that's what she really meant.

>but think of the actual questions.  The question didn't make sense:
>"How has the debt (or deficit?) affected you?".  It hasn't affected
>*anyone* yet.  Bush, somewhat astutely, pointed that out by saying that
>it will affect his grandchildren.  (So did Perot.)  Clinton modified the
>question to be "How has the recession affected you?".  Of course, it
>didn't affect him either.  But he managed to concoct some homey story 
>about some couple he met on his travels around the country.

He didn't concoct some homey story about some couple he met on his travels
around the country.  He was discussing the people of Arkansas, and how
many people he knows who have lost their jobs and homes due to factories
closing down.  Since the population of Arkansas is so small, he has
much more contact with the citizens, and he knows who they are and what
happens to them.


>Don't get me wrong, the thing with enumerating your points to make them 
>seem like !Real Solutions! is pretty slick.  However, I don't think
>many people will see it this way

So, you define "Slick" as having a clear idea of what you want to say,
and presenting it in a concise and easy-to-follow manner?
-- 
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: The Music Man
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:54:51 GMT

I am really getting tired of Professor H. Ross Perot's con job.

First, here are some quotes from the last night's debate:

	See, we practice 19th-century capitalism. The rest of the world
	practices 20th-century capitalism... In the rest of the world
	the countries and the businesses would be working together to
	make this transition in an intelligent way.

	... See, we have an adversarial relationship between Government
	and business, international competitors that are cleaning our
	plate. Have an intelligent relationship between Government and
	business and a supported relationship.

	... Small business, you've got to have capital. You've got to
	have credit. Many of them need mentors or coaches. And we can
	create more jobs in a hurry than any other place.

These comments and others by Prof. Perot indicate that he sees a greater
role for the government in managing the economy. He has spoken against NAFTA, 
for example. He talks about the need for government "investment" in
"infrastructure." In his rhetoric, he usually derides the Reagan/Bush 
trickle-down economics, and if anything seemed to have attacked Bush
during the debate. OK.

The strange thing is his chief campaign spokesman, Orson Swindle 3rd.
This guy appears to be an unreconstructed Reaganite. His main criticism
of Bush is that he is going around the country giving away money "like
a Democrat." His rhetoric is peppered with attacks on the "Democrat Party,"
"Democrat Congress," etc. using true Republican Newspeak. Clinton, he
charges, wants to get the government more involved in the economy. His
greatest fear seems to be that Clinton might get elected. At no time
does he espouse Perot's supposed ideas on how government can get the
economy moving again. When asked on Crossfire tonight about the 50-cent
gas tax, he said that if anybody had a better idea, his candidate is
open to it. What utter hogwash.

Is there a real basis for this slippery campaign Perot is running? Is it
some cynical machination on his part, or is he being used by others
for some purpose?

---
Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections