HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rjbodkin@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Ronald Bodkin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: fact: Libertarian presidential support since 1972
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:10:53 GMT
	<PMETZGER.92Apr1155522@snark.shearson.com>
	<1992Apr2.083354.13748@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<PMETZGER.92Apr2115030@snark.shearson.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT Lab for Computer Science

In article <PMETZGER.92Apr2115030@snark.shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
   We might be tiny, but we usually get more votes than all the other
   third party candidates COMBINED. We expect, quite realistically based
   on our previous trends and the amount of work we are doing this year,
   to get over one million votes for president this year. Yes, that is
   tiny compared to the winners, but consider: COULD YOU GET ONE MILLION
   PEOPLE NATIONWIDE TO VOTE FOR YOU?

   As is usually the case, we will probably multiply our vote totals from
   this election to the next, just as our last set of vote totals were
   twice what we got the time before that, and just as our vote totals
   this time around will be twice what we got last time around.

	This is basically correct, but its interesting to look at the
progress of the libertarian party since 1972 (which I believe was the
first year it had a candidate for president).

Year    percentage of	# of votes	percentage of
	total vote	(in 1000's)	"other" votes

1972    0.0047		    4		 0.27
1976	0.21		  173		11.0
1980	1.06		  921		12.9
1984	0.25		  228		36.8
1988	0.47		  432		48.0

Source: derived from America Votes 18; Elections Research Center;
Scammon & McGillivray

Other means neither Republican nor Democrat.

The interesting thing about this data is that the Libertarian party's
best year was clearly 1980 (the low % of other votes stems from
Anderson's Independent candidacy -- the libertarians took 93% of the
vote other than for the 3 major contenders).  It should be interesting
to see if the Libertarians can exceed a million votes this year.

Ron
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Tuesday, 7 Apr 1992 22:56:08 EDT
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Just some media-bashing

Just got done watching the "Capital Gang" analyzing the vote results from
the Democratic primaries (which at this point are showing Clinton with
a comfy, though not huge, lead over Brown and Tsongas.) Watching those
smug jerks going on about "Oh, Clinton is sunk, everyone hates him because
of the draft and marijuana issues which we blew up for fun"...

AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!

GEE, maybe some of the voters in New York JUST POSSIBLY made their decisions
based on the ISSUES?? Perhaps some of them AGREE WITH CLINTON, and others
AGREE WITH BROWN? Perhaps people aren't quite as negative as they're being
portrayed? (Certainly nobody I've talked to is particularly fed up with
the Democratic candidates. Clinton has some enthusiastic support around
here.) The media has been telling us for months that we're sick and tired
of it. Well, I'm NOT! And (to steal a line) I'm sick and tired of being told
that I am!

Perhaps we Republicans and Democrats can get together (and the Libertarians,
too -- you guys sure don't owe them any love) and bash the news media for their
superficial and self-centered analysis, eh?

Sorry. I'm done now. I just had to get that out of my system.

(Hmm, or maybe it's just because I REALLY REALLY hate Robert Novak... naah.)

[Your blood pressure just went up.]       Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
 DISCLAIMER: Penn State cares about my money, not my opinions.
  "All my father wanted to do was make a toaster you could really set the
    darkness on -- and you perverted his work into those horrible machines!"
From: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Re: What Cand. is Agianst the Drug War??
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 21:54:53 GMT


	I agree.  Vote libertarian, save the country.

-- 
Sameer Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us| 
ap.3684@layout.Berkeley.EDU ___________________________/
___________________________/ STOP The War on Rights
Restore liberty in the United States - Vote Libertarian 1992
From: brady@coeus.cs.uga.edu (Vote Libertarian!)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:47:33 GMT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

>Using this anecdote to imply that a private-sector solution in lieu of
>government can provide a social safety net is wrongheaded, IMHO.  Business-
>men are not in their business to garner love.  They are in it to make $
>for themselves .... and their shareholders, if they're a publicly traded
>corporation.  That is their reason for existence.

Business is out to make money... What an interesting concept.  And look
how much GOOD results from this desire for success.  Take Steven Jobs, for
example.  I don't know what his motivation was for creating his first 
computer in a garage - a desire for money, fame, or just a desire for 
knowledge. But look at how many jobs were created from his "selfishness"!
From the engineering jobs down to the janitorial jobs - he's done quite
a bit for "society" (however you define that word).  Office buildings and
factories had to be built; construction workers had to build them and 
people have to work in factories.  Unintentionally, Steven Jobs helped thousands
of people throughout the world - and at the same time becomming stinking
rich.  Hmmmmm.  In this case, money was the root of all good!

Mike Brady -- brady@castor.cs.uga.edu
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
Vote Libertarian!  Marrou/Lord '92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 21:58:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

In article <18011@oasys.dt.navy.mil> tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith) writes:
>In alt.politics.elections, pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
>
>>  Mostly, the problem is how can I compare Clinton to Bush?  Clinton
>>was a governor of Arkansas who has (as far as I know) issued one speech
>>on foreign policy.  Maybe someone could tell me where he stands?  I
>>really have little information on such.
>
>    This seems to be the crux of the issue.

  Yes, I would say it is.

>
>
>>  In the future, Clinton's views are likely to become more known.  Perhaps,
>>I will change my mind at that time.
>
>    It sounds like foreign policy is a chicken and egg situation.
>In order to win an election the candidate must have detailed positions, 
>yet detailed positions require election wins.  :)  


   You make some very good points in your article, but you perhaps over-detail
the extent to which I would like Clinton to "face up to foreign relations".

  When Clinton was campaigning in Illinois, he balked when
asked questions about foreign policy instead of the usual "did you sleep
with Genniffer Flowers?" question.  His answers were glib, not thought
out, and catered to all sides of the issues.

  I will freely grant that he may have been so shocked by a serious
question it derailed him for the answer.  :-)

  I would just like to see more speeches like Clinton gave on Aid to
the X-Soviet Thingy.  I'm not asking what he would do in the
trivial cases or even specifically how he would handle the N. Korea
problem.  However, he certainly has enough knowledge to provide 
a more clear picture of where he stands than he has so far.

  I think Clinton realizes this weakness in his stance and will make
more such speeches in the future.  All I'm really after is some
general feeling for where Clinton stands and some indication that he has
given foreign policy some thought.  I don't even really hear him talk
much about "trade issues", which is the most important part of foreign
policy.

  I can certainly guess where Clinton stands, just as you have.  I would,
however, prefer to hear it from him.  I suspect he has stayed away from
it for the same reason that Bush has.  It is probably not politically
wise to bring up foreign policy in the current environment.  However,
this does not make a President's opinions on foreign policy unimportant.


  I am also just trying to install some balance in people's opinions.  It
is _easy_ to critisize Bush.  I just want people to think more
carefully about what they are getting instead.  


Pat
-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Idea for campaign reform
Organization: University of Louisville
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:38:28 GMT

I've been reading a lot of ideas on campaign reform and eliminating PACs.
Most of them involve giving peopl free TV time etc..

I think most of these ideas go too far and are too complicated.
Here's my idea:
	Give each real candidate a set amount of money (determining who a real
candidate is is another issue).  Make it illegal for them to spend any more
than that fixed amount.  Let them spend it however they choose! (but they can't
keep it)  If they want to do expensive TV mud-slinging ads, let them!  If they
 want to take out print ads, let them! (get my drift?)   
	One of the advantages of this aproach is that we would find out which 
candidates can manage they're money (we know that members of congress can't!).

I've posted this idea a few times before but no one comments on it. why?



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Subject: Re: PAC's Lets have a real democracy
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:24:38 GMT



  Does anyone out there know the ins and outs of the current campaign
finance reform Bill?

  I've heard Democrats claim it's great and Republicans claim it favors 
incumbents too much.  (If I were idealistic I would hope the Repulbicans
were saying they want another bill that doesn't favor incumbents.  Our
current system certainly "favors incumbents.")

  Anyone know the "real" (not political) effects?

Pat
-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:857 talk.politics.misc:18027
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Vote for Hitler, Stalin or Marrou
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:44:59 GMT

In article <1953@ra.nrl.navy.mil> ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host) writes:
>Keywords:  Tough Decision
>
>> Article <6483@shodha.enet.dec.com> From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
>
>> So, does that mean that you'll wait until the day before the election and
>> check the polls, then vote for whoever is in the lead so it's "your
>> {wo}man" that's elected?  Does it mean that you'll blindly vote for
>> whatever candidate, no matter what their views, based on party
>> affiliation?  If your choices were Hitler, Stalin, or Andre Marrou would
>> you vote for Hitler or Stalin because they represented the two major
>> parties?
>
>Gee thats a tough one .....
>
>Thats like choosing which of the four plagues are your favorite.
>
>In this case the best vote would be "None of the Above";  I would
>feel very guilty about electing any of them.

Now that's hardly reasonable.  While I'm no fan of Marrou, and
(despite sympathies with some areas of their program) think that the
application of the Libertarian platform in its entirety would be
disastrous, against Hitler or Stalin it's just no contest.  One killed
millions of civilians, the other tens of millions, and between them
they started the most destructive war in history.  While I'm not
convinced that Andre Marrou would be a great president, I'd vote in
Spiro Agnew, Joe McCarthy, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, or Pat
Buchanan in favor of Hitler or Stalin, and I'd vote for Marrou as
well.

But it's a straw man argument.  If Hitler and Stalin had the major
party nominations, either a) the major parties would have been so
skewed they'd no longer be the major parties, or b) the United States
would be in such disastrous shape that the question would not be who
to vote for, but whether you can get past the border and where best to
seek asylum before the secret police or the brown shirts come for you.
That's not the situation, however.  And the real disagreement is
between those of us who see the election as a chance to influence
matters towards the lesser of the possible evils, and those who wish
to use their votes to make a statement and gather political capital
for the future.  Each is an acceptable way of using one's vote, of
course, but of course each of us thinks that the way we do it is
the "right" way to vote.

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
From: HARM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Gators for Perot
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:55:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Dan from Kodak says that we might as well vote for mickey mouse or winnie
the pooh for president as H. Ross Perot.
While I must conceed that if Mickey or Winnie were on the ballot, they
would get more votes than any human, I have to say that H. Ross would have
to be a better president.  After all, he exists as an individual eligible
to serve.  There are many parallels that can be drawn with most candidates
against the characters mentioned.  Their words are written by someone else.
Their actions are the invention of some behind the scenes animator.
Some of them are actually as funny.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Subject: Re: The Capricious Us
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:29:41 GMT
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

In article <ISBELL.92Apr7211833@pop-tarts.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>
>And while I'm at it, isn't Rubbergate the stupidest scandal we've
>every had?


  Considering the huge amount of other scandals that go absolutely 
unconvered only because both parties are involved, I would have to say
that rubbergate is the stupidest scandal we've had.

  Well, except for one thing.  The common man can understand check-bouncing.
The common man has a much harder time figuring out that much of our congress
is bought and paid for on many issues.


Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us
From: jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust)
Subject: Re: Twelfth Amendment Question?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 08:47:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.231326.29493@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>Unfortunately, it is done this way in only one or two states.
>In Maine, I believe you vote for an elector from your CD  plus 2 statewide.
>Recently, I heard that Nebraska does this, too.  [Can anyone confirm this?]

 	I am not aware of such setup existing in Nebraska.  If one does exist,
it was likely created after the 1988 election (because I'm from just outside
Omaha, watch Omaha-area newscasts when I'm home, and they made no mention
of this in '88).  It's not likely to make much difference in a state like 
Nebraska, which has voted Republican in all the recent Presidental elections,
by large margins.

-- 
Jeff Foust                        Junior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech
jafoust@cco.caltech.edu   	        	    jeff@seismo.gps.caltech.edu
"..any DEA agent or drug dealer can tell you that 1 pound equals 2.2 kilograms."
                       L.A. Times, page E1, 8 April 1992                  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:886 talk.politics.misc:18106
From: strat@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 13 Apr 1992 19:40:45 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: caravan.ksu.ksu.edu

pete@helena.rice.edu (Louis Wu) writes:

>donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) says:
>> 
>> I don't WANT or need a paternalistic government runing my life any
>> more.

I wish more people would make a distinction between government running
their lives and government protecting them from some of the dangers of
capitalism.  Which would you rather have?  Government putting certain
restrictions on business, or business running your life?  I don't want
to turn this into a debate over this particular issue.  I just wish
you wouldn't jump to so many conclusions so quickly.

>Perot might have two different effects. First, he'd be likely to do his
>damdest to get rid of waste, pork, and entitlement programs. He'd be
>dismantling the "paternalistic government" in this sense, not creating it. 

This is the one reason I plan to vote for him.  Too few people seem to
realize all the positive effects we could have from having our first 
non-partisan president.  Just imagine the state that our congress
would be in if they found out they would have to deal with someone who
has no real ties with either political party.  

>Secondly, I had always assumed that Perot would be a right-wing moralist,
>judging from the facist way he runs his company.

I dunno.  I still haven't seen anything "fascist" from what I've read 
about him.  I am more inclined to use the term from above:
Paternalistic.

> However, he's pro-choice.

Another good reason to vote for him.  He might help reverse the trend
of government to take more and more rights away from women.

>Does this bode well for other civil liberties? I don't know, but I don't
>think the jury is in, yet.

Absolutely.  It is too early to tell how he will approach civil
liberties in his campaign.  As far as I know, he has not had the
opportunity to demonstrate his attitude one way or another.

Stratocaster

-- 
  Steve Davis  |    Contact me at ...            | The Boarding House BBS!
               | Internet:  strat@cis.ksu.edu    | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
               | FidoNet:    Steve @ 1:295/3     | America: 913-827-0744
All men attribute to themselves freedom of will. -- Immanuel Kant
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Citizens for Tax Justice (was Re: Jerry Brown's Tax)
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:31:12 GMT
Organization: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Oulu

In article <1992Apr7.210247.9758@wpi.WPI.EDU> regnery@wpi.WPI.EDU (George Matthew Regnery) writes:
>Let's suppose that Jerry Brown gets elected  (a frightening thought, I know).
>How is this tax of his going to be implemented without the support of any
>current members of congress.  (Correct me if I am wrong, but I have heard of
>no congressman that supports Brown's plan).  Brown needs to have 200+ reps
>and half the senators to support him on this.  They don't.  He's got no way
>of implementing the flat tax.  I like the flat tax, but I think Jerry Brown's
>other views are too weird for me, or for the American people.

I agree with the suggestion that Jerry Brown has no way of getting a
flat tax through any prospective Congress next year.  I support most of
Brown's positions, but find the flat tax a terrible idea.  This allows
me to support Brown for President (among those the media will cover (B C & T)
because he won't be able to impliment the main thing in his platform
that i oppose.

>GEORGE M. REGNERY Worcester Polytechnic Institute '92 Operations Research

doug foxvog
dfo@tko.vtt.fi
-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi
From: mas@csa.bu.edu (Mark A. Semich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot on social issues
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:36:46 GMT
	<1992Apr1.132640.25043@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Apr2.175640.2169@linus.mitre.org>
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Internet
In-reply-to: gary@clarinet.mitre.org's message of 2 Apr 92 17:56:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr2.175640.2169@linus.mitre.org> gary@clarinet.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga) writes:
   In article <1992Apr1.132640.25043@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
   |> In article <1992Apr1.041620.16360@seq.uncwil.edu> harrist@seq.uncwil.edu (Trey Harris) writes:
   |> >I am sure that Perot Systems is on USENET.  Would any Perot Systems
   |> >employees care to comment on the above?
   |> From what I've heard about EDS, I'm under the impression that any
   |> Perot Systems employees would be very afraid to comment on the above.
   True.  I worked for EDS for three years and I wouldn't want to comment.  Of
   course, that's what forging messages is for - if anybody from Perot or EDS
   wants help on message forging, e-mail me.

But you no longer work for EDS - why wouldn't you want to comment?
Are you afraid of being blacklisted or something?

--
===========================================================================
        Life is a beautiful dream between one awakening and another.
--   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   --
mark a. semich                                                mas@cs.bu.edu
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Homeless Voters
Date: 13 Apr 92 00:03:50 GMT
Reply-To: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Fairbanks, Alaska...no wait, that's not right...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-a3

In article <12116@tamsun.tamu.edu>, normanm@cs.tamu.edu (Norman Ma) writes...
>Just curious.  Can homeless people vote? (e.g. don't have a mailing
>address).  It seems that one needs a mailing address to register to
>vote; the voter registration card is sent to the address.  If the
>homeless cannot vote, then they are truly the powerless and forgotten
>lot of the society.  

What's wrong with General Delivery?  Yes, they can vote.  The only thing
I can imagine that would prevent them would be an inability to prove
that they have been where they are for the legal minimum of time.

BTW, as part of my community service obligation for a recent misdemeanor
conviction, I did some counseling to homeless people.  One thing I found
that was utterly amazing was that as soon as Buchanan announced and made
his views on the homeless known, there were homeless people lining up to
support him.  Of course, these are the folks who are there temporarily
due to their circumstances and want to make something of their lives, as
opposed to the perpetually homeless (i.e. the mentally ill, retarded,
alcoholics and drug addicts who cannot receive treatment).

************************************************************************
Sean Patrick Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan*****Internet: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu
WWIVnet: 220@9704*CFN: au414*IRC: RadioKAOS, Aoxomoxoa*Ph: (907)488-8365
BITnet: FSSPR@ALASKA****Snail: P.O. Box 83381, Fairbanks, AK  99708-3381
*Call me Pastor - Pastor - Pastor of Muppets I'm pulling your string...*
I'll do a disclaimer when they pry my cold dead hands from the keyboard.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections