HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:24:23 GMT

In article <BALDWIN.92Nov8143726@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil> baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.144033.23673@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.uucp (Eugen W. Schmidt) writes (quoting me):

>>>Apples and oranges.  In 1968, it was abundantly clear to *everyone*
>>>that every single vote Wallace got came from Nixon.  One can make no
>>>such determination about whose votes Perot siphoned off.

You can, actually, unless you're won of those people who think Gallup is
part of a giant media conspiracy.  They *did* the survey, and Perot
voters were split.  It would *not* have switched the election.  Well,
not popularly.  I suppose the electoral college could have shifted.

>>Humphrey no doubt lost quite a few traditional Southern Democratic
>>votes which still were not comfortable in the Republican camp, as
>>well as some populist blue-collar votes.

>I knew I'd regret that "every single vote" bit.  You are correct, of
>course.  I still believe that most Wallace votes would otherwise have
>been Nixon votes.  

Well, you have two conflicting forces -- southern conservatives who
detested l-word people, but who would kill themselves before voting
Republican.  I bet party loyalty would have won out, but I wouldn't
swear to it.  I wonder if Gallup did a poll showing the second choice of
Wallace voters.  Probably.  If I have time, I'll go look this up.

>>Got polling data to back up your wierd claim?

>The claim is "wierd" only if taken literally.  Humphrey was a northern
>liberal.  The only "polling data" I have off the top of my head is the
>1972 election, which speaks pretty clearly about the affinity of southern
>voters for northern liberals.

Um, the 1972 election also seemed to speak pretty clearly about the
affinity of *northern* voters for northern liberals, so that isn't
really much of an argument.  No one voted for McGovern.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: You Got it
Date: 5 Nov 1992 14:27:26 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

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 !"
>
[...stuff deleted...]
>
>	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...


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: kevinf@athena.mit.edu (Kevin A Frisch)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:28:36 GMT

  I was just wondering, are those of you who are against term limits
for Congress also in favor of repealing the two term limitation on 
the President?

                          Kevin
--------------------------------------------------------------------

             ... still in search of a sig...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Date: 9 Nov 92 05:16:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA

In article <1992Nov5.160315.5035@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>If Clinton reduces overall government spending, (as a percent of GDP,) 
>Reduces the tax burden, (gov. income as a percent of GDP,) 
>Reduces regulation, (with Gore lurking around?) and 
>Doesn't build a protectionist wall (with Gephart around?)
>
>	then he'll get my vote next time.
>
>But that all seems exceedingly unlikely.
>
>I think he'll cave in to the big spending Democratic Congress and
>devastate the economy and lose to Kemp in '96 in a huge landslide,
>if and only if the Republicans jettison assholes like Pat Buchanan
>and the Fanatic Right.

I think Clinton will do a pretty good job.  My guess is we can expect the 
Democrats to control the White House for 8 to 16 years.  The reason it is
so unlikely the Republicans will win in 1996 is because that election
will be a mirror of 1984.  The Republicans will not have yet figured out
that the rightwing extremists in their party are making them unelectable.  
Like the Democrats in 1984, they will assume that they just didn't try hard 
enough the last time.  

I have heard various Republicans on talk shows after the election and I could 
tell that they just don't get it.  Even Reagan cleverly downplayed his 
Socialist, uh, I mean his social intolerance of individual freedom during 
his first term.  

Lets face it, the Democrats are a lot better than they used to be, and the
Republicans are a lot worse than they used to be.  Historians are not surprised,
and this could change in the future, but probably not the near future.


-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
From: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Dear Republicans
Date: 5 Nov 1992 15:23:28 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Reply-To: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
NNTP-Posting-Host: g210b-1.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <1992Nov4.203511.12221@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A  
Lyman) writes:
> vsg001@acad.drake.edu (Vince)  writes:
> > We will remain heard. The future of the Republican party is still very
> > strong. Our party has been in power for a long time, and now its time to
> > watch WHY the American people have rejected Democratic ideals.
> 
> They rejected Democratic ideals by electing Democrats.  Interesting.
> 
I thought the Democratic platform and Clinton's acceptance speech sounded like  
Reagan Republicanism circa 1980, with a few notable exceptions.  The point  
seems to be that Democrats have abandoned Democratic ideals, and the American  
people have endorsed their move towards the center.

> I hope everyone, regardless
> of political affiliation or philosophy, can wish Bill Clinton and Al Gore
> success as they pick up the reins of office.

I do.  I hope America succeeds, and I voted for the person that I thought would  
have the greatest probability of insuring that success.  Given the results of  
the election, let's hope that a plurality of the electorate was wiser than I.
--
Bradley W. Brock, Department of Mathematics
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology  | "Resist not evil.... Love your enemies."
brock@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu       | -Jesus of Nazareth
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23550 alt.politics.marrou:2235 talk.politics.misc:59720 alt.politics.clinton:16924
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 12 Nov 92 09:10:09 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov10.050223.22344@infonode.ingr.com> drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.142145.690@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@clio.uucp (Eugen W. Schmidt) writes:
>>In article <#h==RV-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov5.182646.9493@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>>>None of what you have said disputes the comment that Clinton did
>>>*NOT* receive a mandate.

>>If a "mandate" requires a majority of the popular vote, Nixon didn't
>>have one in 1968.  The relevence of that turned out to be
>>approximately nil.

>If getting a certain percentage of the vote is the equivalent of a
>mandate,  then Mike Dukakis got a larger mandate in '88 (48% vs. 45%)
>than Clinton got in '92.

And George Bush suffered a more crushing defeat than Barry Goldwater did
in 1964, getting an even smaller percentage of the popular vote (39% vs. 38%)

Mike Dukakis was not in a 3 way race.  Bill Clinton was.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: news@news.clarkson.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: * THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON!?! *
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:42:07 GMT
Organization: Clarkson University

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,soc.culture.african.american
From: orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Subject: Re: Perot's Vote Percentage State-by-State
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:15:28 GMT

In article <BxH97D.F5v@access.digex.com> wbrown@access.digex.com (William Brown) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.200425.27768@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov
>(Allen Halsell) writes: 
>
>>> By the way, If all these African-Americans don't work for the government
>>> (as the deleted part of Mr Frank's post implies), who do they work for?
>>
>>Mostly they don't work.  Or is cleaning toilets considered to be a plum
>>government job?
>
>
>    It never ceases to amaze me how bigoted people can be, regardless of
>their jobs or responsibilities.  Even today, people like Mr. Halsell find
>it necessary to try to belittle others through humor that was never funny
>to begin with.  It's even more odd that anyone (including myself) would
>expect any level of humanity or decency from say, a NASA government
>official.  This country seems to have almost encouraged a type of
>immaturity in some segements of the adult population that encourages a
>lack of respect.  Mr. Halsell, to say that your joke is in poor taste is
>an understatement.  To say that you didn't know that is probably a lie. 
>And to say that you probably didn't care points more to your selfishness
>than to a poor sense of humor.  I sincerely hope you just didn't know how
>poor your so-called joke was - I would hate to think anyone could be that
>randomly bad-mannered.
>
>
>Peace
>
>Bill
>
I agree.  You really should clean up your act.

Wes J. Orr
>
>


-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: rex@iqsc.COM (Rex Black)
Subject: Re: MITI as a model for US industrial policy?
Organization: IQ Software Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:44:20 GMT

In article Curt Finch writes:
>In article Doug Andersen writes:
>>I think that just points out that MITI isn't as smart as some people give
>>them credit for.  ...
>And in HD TV, another few billion down the rat hole...
>Despite their productivity, which is high, the Japanese standard of
>living is relatively low.  They're just shooting themselves in the foot
>with all their protectionism and subsidies.

Before we let ourselves be hoodwinked by Robert Reich and his economic
fellow-travellers, we should take a long hard look at the Japanese and
European economic models and decide whether we want to subject oursevles 
to the whole banana.  These methodologies do not exist in a vacuum:  
Take MITI, and we'll be signing up for a whole lot of other nastiness
that makes the life of the Japanese salaryman a fairly unenviable 
existence.  Read "The Enigma of Japanese Power" by Wolferen.  

Rex
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Ozone Man theme song
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:13:59 GMT

shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan R. Hagan) writes:
>sl930@cc.usu.edu writes:
>
>[very childish and silly song parody deleted]
>
>                               Actually, most children understand the
>importance of preserving our environment.  They are taught about it
>in school.  I'm at a loss.  I can't imagine what kind of mind(s) would
>make up something like this.

Hee, hee... it's fun watching the Reaganites run around squealing like 
stuck pigs.

Today's WSJ has a couple of editorials which attempt to snatch some, any,
kind of victory from the jaws of utter defeat. One gloats over the
failure of several environmental ballot initiatives across the country,
and tries to ridicule "Ozone Man" in some obtuse way. The other employs
one of the major "spins" the outgoing ones have desperately tried to
put on their plight: George Bush is a good president who just happened
to be in office when the economy soured. Implicit in this, I guess, is
that Reagan/Bush have no responsibility for that fact. If that's your
story, WSJ, stick to it... but it doesn't affect anyone actually running
the White House, because you are out of here!

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23125 talk.politics.misc:58918
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: The US - laughing stock of the world
Date: 8 Nov 1992 09:58:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


  I can't believe it.  President-elect Bill Clinton's mistress, Gennifer
Flowers, posing nude in this month's Penthouse.  We have gone from the
envy of the world to the butt of it's jokes.  Even if you don't believe 
that she was his mistress, she was a close confidant whom he trusted.
If his judgment allowed him to choose for a close trusted friend a person 
who would spill true or untrue details of an intimate relationship to the
press and embarrass him by posing nude in a magazine, what kind of people 
will he pick to help him run the country using that same "judgment"?
I guess one thing we'll be short of during the next four years is family
values at the top.  I just hope he doesn't turn the White House into a
brothel like Kennedy did.  What a black eye on the United States of
America.  Oh, the shame of it all!

  I know, maybe if we start now we can develop a campaign based on the 
theme "America wants change".  I'm sure the American people will go for
it and elect someone else in 1996.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1459 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:50:33 GMT

In article <1dfu58INNgkh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>In a previous article, clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) says:
>>
>>I'll give you a hint: the "how're" is a contraction, standing for
>>"how are".  *You're* familiar with them, I assume, as I *can't* imagine
>>the concept *hasn't* or *isn't* being taught in schools.  If you
>>*weren't* taught about them and they *aren't* familiar, *you'll* be
>>sorry if you *don't* learn about them ASAP.
>
>BZZZZT! Wrong.  *We're*, *you're*, *I'm*, *hasn't*, etc. are all "proper" 
>English contractions.  *How're* is NOT (pronounced "hower").  Of course 
>they were trying to contract "How are".  However, it is not proper and is 
>considered "broken" English.  Check any reputable dictionary.  In fact,
>your news program might have a spell checker built in.  I'll bet you it 
>accepts *we're*, *you're*, *I'm*, *hasn't*, etc., but rejects *how're*.

Actually, there's a school of linguistic thought that argues what a
native speaker of a given language says is "correct."  Since Clinton
is a native speaker of the English language, "How're" is correct, even
if it isn't necessarily mainstream or in the dictionary.  The goal
of language is communication, and "how're" is not ambiguous.



And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
From: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Vietnam Memorial (was Vietnam Moratorium)
Date: 11 Nov 1992 19:16:23 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.21

In article <1992Nov11.151744.24496@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>It's ironic that the Veteran's Day commemoration now in progress at the 
>Vietnam Memorial consists of the reading of the names of the fallen
>servicemen. It was an identical type of "demonstration" in Grosvenor
>Square in London, December 1969, that caused Bush to react so viscerally.
>Then, Bill Clinton and others read the names of the victims in a somber
>ceremony on the steps of the American Embassy.
>

Last night, George Bush arrived at the Memorial at around midnight.
Without notifying the press, he and Barbara went and read names.

This was a powerful, eloquent gesture.  If George had governed with
this much grace and humility for the past few years, he would be
President for another four years.

If there is anybody out there who has not been to the Vietnam Memorial,
I recommend it.  I am too young to have known anybody who died in
Vietnam, but the wall brought tears to my eyes anyway.
--
Thomas Andrews
CenterLine Software
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Republicans -- the new affected group
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:50:33 GMT


Oh boy, here we go... Clinton announced yesterday that his Administration
will "look like America" and will even include some Republicans. 

In other words, Republican quotas! Now, no doubt there are some qualified
Republicans out there, but they should compete on their own merits and not
depend on any beneficence from the new President.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Perot's Vote Percentage State-by-State
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:00:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.224954.11713@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>State   % Cast for Perot
>=====   ================
> DC             4  

Interesting, and utterly predictable.

TAKE BACK YOUR COUNTRY!!

Dave

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22947 talk.politics.misc:58580 misc.legal:19624
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:46:32 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Nov5.213320.10472@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu sez:
>Anyone want to make some guesses?  Just to throw some names into the
>air:
>
>Amalya Kearse, Second Circuit: Clinton will be under pressure to name
>	a woman or a black, and this one is a two-fer, as well as a 
>	highly-qualified judge.

>Abner Mikva, DC Circuit: Respected Carter appointee on the second-most
>	powerful court in America.  Blackmun's seat was traditionally held
>	by Jews for over thirty years, and Mikva could resume that tradition.

My long-shot guess is Harry Edwards, also of the D.C. Circuit.  Not
only is Edwards smart and tenacious, he showed a willingness to scrap
with Scalia and Thomas when they were colleagues on the appeals court.
The fact that Edwards is an African-American (and youngish, in his
50s) makes him, like Kearse, a tempting counterpoint to Thomas.

My *real* guess is Richard Arnold, who sits on the 8th Circuit in
(guess where?) Little Rock.  The word I hear is that Arnold and
Clinton are old friends.


-- 
	      Spring . . . too long . . . Gongula . . .

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23748 talk.politics.misc:60059 tx.politics:7283
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 14 Nov 92 02:49:08 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <1992Nov11.041313.17006@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>You must read books with damned short chapters, and in any case, why
>would I want to spend all my time lecturing to ONE person?  If you
>want an education, send me a check.  :-)

No, you regularly post 10 or more articles PER DAY to tx.politics.  I
think it's time you started giving TI some productivity for all the
money you are getting in your pay envelope ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23357 alt.politics.clinton:16712 alt.president.clinton:266