HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: CCPHIL@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Phil Leith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 16:17:22 CDT
Organization: University of Missouri
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizzou1.missouri.edu

In article <1992Oct12.015203.13538@eng.umd.edu>
georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) writes:
 
>The person to vote for is whoever you believe has the best chance of
>beating Bush, and that person is still Clinton.
>
Hello?!  You, like many others, are letting the press run this country!
Do you mean you will fail to vote for the candidate that most closely
represents your positions because the press says he can't win?  You are
simply guaranteeing that he won't win.  Ever hear of a self-fulfilling
prophecy?
 
Not that I'm for Perot.  Or for Clinton.   Or for Bush.   :-)
 
Confused?  There's another guy the press has decided shouldn't be in the
race, so they almost refuse to even mention him.  He's on the ballot in
all 50 states.  He was on the ballot in all 50 states before Perot was.
He is one of 4 candidates on the ballot in all 50 states.  And he most
closely represents my positions on most issues. And I am voting for
him.  And her.   Marrou/Lord '92.  Vote your beliefs!  Any other vote
means the system is not working.  It is this fatalist attitude that has
deteriorated our system to a two-party system.  If you don't like the
choices you are presented with, choose somebody else!  If only to send
a clear message to the Republicrats.
 
Believe me, the differences between a Clinton USA and a Bush USA would be
purely cosmetic.  Clinton will rob you with taxes, Bush will rob you with
a devalued dollar.  Perot?  Well, the differences would probably be more than
cosmetic.  But I don't think I'd like the differences.  I'm not votin' for
him, but if you think his plans are for you, do your duty and vote for him!
-------------------- ____________________  ------------------------------------
! Phil Leith         ( (    _-_-_-_- -      University of Missouri, Columbia  !
! Campus Computing    ( (   )- - -          & Atmospheric Science Department  !
! Work Phone           ( ( ) )                     (314)-882-5000             !
!                     (_(___)_)                                               !
! Bitnet                 _<                        CCPHIL@MIZZOU1             !
! Internet              / /\                    CCPHIL@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu   !
!_________________________\ __________________________________________________!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:58:50 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>Democracies do not go to war with one another.  They do not sponser
>international terrorism.  They do not threaten to destry other nations
>with weapons of mass destruction.  

Sorry you didn't like the method, but you can't deny that MAD worked,
keeping an uneasy peace between the USSR and the US. That's the
primary reason why (with the exception of Carter) we have had
Republican presidents for the last 25 years. The US has historically
demonstrated that after a war, it is very likely to bring in the
opposition party. Let's just hope that a president with a strong
foreign policy background is not needed for the next four years,
because it doesn't appear that we are going to get one in Clinton.

Foriegn policy is not thrilling when you win, but it is a whole other
ballgame when you loose. We couldn't afford to take a chance with
McGovern, another Carter term, Mondale, or Dukakis. I painfully note
that these men were the Clinton's political mentors. Given that, and
the Democratic party's historical tendancy to solve economic problems
with the marching of soldier's boots, I will not sleep easy these next
four years. 

				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
	<1992Oct14.150845.10882@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<1992Oct14.163501.4938@ornl.gov>
	<1992Oct14.193820.28066@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:58:51 GMT
X-Posted-From: graphics.cs.nyu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct14.193820.28066@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:

   >>I looked at page 304 in Gore's book.  Quayle was right.
   >
   >CNN also reported this morning that the $100 billion figure on page 304
   >refers to the cost of the World War II Marshal Plan, not Gore's
   >environmental "Marshal" plan.  Gore was right.

   But I thought Gore used "Marshal Plan" in the context that we should
   dedicate the same amount of resources today on an environmental "Marshal(l?)
   Plan" as we did on the WWII Marshal(l?) Plan.

He was talking about a global effort, not a U.S. effort.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: USA Today/CNN daily tracking poll, 10/14
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 12:00:56 GMT



USA Today/CNN Tracking Poll:

P = Perot,  B = Bush,  C = Clinton,  x = other or undecided

                          preference %                          % plurality
      5   10   15   20   25   30   35   40   45   50   55    5   10   15   20
      |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|    |----|----|----|
 9/30 |xP                           B                C       |           o  
10/01 |x P                          B               C        |          o   
10/02 | xP                           B            C          |       o      
10/03 |   xP                        B          C             |     o        
10/04 |   xP                        B          C             |     o        
10/05 |   xP                         B        C              |   o          
10/06 |   xP                        B          C             |     o        
10/07 | x P                        B               C         |          o   
10/08 | x  P                       B              C          |         o    
10/09 |x   P                       B               C         |          o   
10/10 |x   P                      B                 C        |            o 
10/11 |x    P                     B                C         |           o  
10/12 | x    P                    B              C           |         o    
10/13 |  x   P                    B             C            |        o     
10/14 | x     P                    B           C             |      o       

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: ag423@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Frank Fijalkovich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Review on Debate
Date: 12 Oct 1992 18:51:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


I liked the part when thy asked Perot what would he do when he
gets deadlocked by congress on some of his Ideas .
He said he'd go to the people with an electronic town hall and
more or less get the people to pressure their representatives
to vote the way they wanted, not the lobbyists and special
interests.
I also liked when Bush was talking about drugs and cocaine and he 
grabbed his nose !
-- 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni)
Subject: Re: Perot for Pres???
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 16:15:51 GMT

>I am amazed that there are people who can still support Perot
>for president. What assurance do we have that in the middle of
>a crisis he wont decide to leave office and let an unknown
>be president? 

What assurance do we have that Clinton won't?  Bush?

>What assurance do we have that he wont use
>the FBI, IRS, and other government agencies as sleuths against
>his "enemies"? 

Like Bush probably uses the CIA?

>What assurance do we have that he wont disregard
>the provisions of the constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Do we still have one?  I thought the Demopublicans tossed that sometime ago
(something called the "War On Drugs").

>What assurance do we have that he can work with anyone cooperatively?

Like Bush?  Granted Clinton probably matches well with a Tax and Spend 
Congress, but I'm not sure that's the kind of agreement I long for!

>Why vote or support anyone who is unwilling to undergo scrutiny?

is that what you call what the media does these days?  I call it witch 
hunting!

>Why waste a precious vote!

Should we, regardless of personal views, pick the individual most likely to 
win?  Then we can bask in the glory of having voted in the mainstream while 
our country goes down the drain.  No vote is wasted!

>Arthur

Bill
my opinions are my own!







Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN)
Subject: Re: Bush's desperation
Summary: OOPS!  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:11:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.003742.14498@osf.org>, rogers@rosencrantz.osf.org (Andrew Rogers)                writes...
>In article <1992Oct8.230718.12625@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM writes:
>>3) Today's accusation from Bush's campaign manager about Clinton's 
>>   involvement in the Kennedy assasination (especially when Bush
>>   was the one who sent a memo to Kennedy before the assasination).
> 
>Are you referring to the obvious hoax in alt.conspiracy, or did the Bush
>campaign really make such an allegation?  If the latter, please fill us
>in on the details.
> 
I apologize for this one. I guess I fell for a hoax. I assumed that when
people start quoting names and sources that they are telling the truth.
Lately it seems that reality is much weirder than fantasy.

>AWR

-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Stockdale NAILED it!
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:47:25 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye) writes:

>   If Stockdale can find the resources to survive and lead for seven 
> years in a POW camp in North Vietnam, he can surely find the 
> resources to be vice president, or even president for that matter.

What makes you think he wants to be vice president, or even president?

John
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won (NOT!)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:03:06 GMT

In article <16880B1C1.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:

>  Legend has it that Perot was completely unrehearsed
>for the first debate.  If so, he got away with it by "just being Ross".
>If Stockdale was completely unrehearsed (and he certainly looked it),
>he did not carry it off nearly so well.

Perot also only re-entered the race recently.  As an ad consultant
dryly noted, those ads he had took longer than a couple of weeks to
make. 


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: After Debate Press Coverage
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 04:26:46 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?  Are we not smart enough to
>decide for ourselves what was said and who came out ahead because of it?  
>I'm not against press coverage, but I'd like to see them give the
>American people a couple hours to work it out for themselves and to be
>able to discuss the debate with family and friends before we get their
>viewpoint of it.
>
>Just a thought,

Just a thought, but TURN OFF THE F*CKING TELEVISION!!

Works great for me...

(Hey networks, are you listening?)


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: New Illinois Poll
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:47:11 GMT

shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse) writes:
>
>> gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
>
>>Any time a large portion of the sample is undecided it suggests that
>>a large portion of those who claim to have made up their mind are not 
>>really sure either.
>
>Is this a statistics rule?  This sounds pretty far fetched to me. 
>You're saying that if a large percentage (large being a relative term)
>of a polled population is undecided, chances are that many of the rest
>of the polled population aren't as sure as they think they are?
>
>Would you mind elaborating on this theory please.
>
>

  I think what Mr. Shouse means (and I could be wrong) is that a lot
of people that claim to have made up their minds are actually very
borderline and essentially undecided in cases where the polls
have large numbers of undecided voters.  

  I don't think this is any sort of "statistical rule".  It is more
empirical experience with polls (and whether it sounds far
fetched or not, it appears to be true).   Another interesting point
is that it makes a significant difference in what order you mention the
candidates.  In a telephone poll (and in particular a telephone poll
with large numbers of undecided voters) the name you mention last will
usually poll higher than if you ask the other way around.  While
this is not a "statistical rule", it is a form of non-sampling error that
occurs and that any poll-watcher should be aware of.

  It is important to note that when polls mention the +/- 3-4% they are
only talking about sampling error assuming a random sample.  The "real
error" due to factors such as those I mentioned is much higher and is what 
makes poll-taking as much of an art form as a science.


Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu 		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Funny things in VP debate Re: Vice Shrub won
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:47:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.162627.17888@bnr.ca> labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice
LaBiche) writes:
>A few final comments:
>Gore seems like he went to the Robert Tilton school of how to look
>schmaltzy on TV.

I've been trying to come up with a description of how Gore projects himself
for weeks.  You've hit it right on the nose.  His manner of speaking also
reminds me of Reverend Lovejoy on the Simpsons.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        "There's a simple explanation for all           | These pontifications
              of this." - Bill Clinton                  |      are my own!    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15559 alt.politics.clinton:8999 alt.politics.bush:8115
From: dtiberio@libws4.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: New California Poll 52-32-9
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:50:51 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook

In article <1avru4INN1oa@overload.lbl.gov> bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>
>The _San Francisco Examiner_, 7 Nov. 1992, writes:
>
>[Poll of 811 likely California voters conducted 3 Oct. through 5 Oct.
> Margin of Error +/- 3.5%, Conducted by Political/Media Research.]
>
> If the election were held today among President Bush, Gov. Bill
> Clinton and Ross Perot, for whom would you vote?
>
>     Bush     Clinton     Perot
>      32        52         9
>
>Hey NY, TX, FL!  Poll results?

	Polls don't mean anything. Well, there is one poll that does
actually mean something, but that won't be taken until November 3rd.

	You see, if you go to an opera and poll how many people like
headbanging music, chaces are very few would. But if you go to a
night club, the polls would show opposite results. 

	I always laugh when I read polls and then find that they polled
only 500 - 1000 people...what a joke. I could poll myself and four others
and get 60% Perot vs 20% Bush vs 20% Clinton, and that would not be a fair
poll.


	In NYC, chances are many people would put Mario Cuomo as a write
in ballot (who the hell knows WHY), and in other areas, you would get the
same. Anyone who believes any one of these polls is just plain gullible
to the media.

	Of course when Perot has over 40% in these polls, then you no 
longer will be considered gullible in my book. :)



-- 
      Amiga Graphics Association BBS (516) 473-6351  24 HRS, 14.4k baud
   RayTraces - 3D Objects - Music Modules - Sound Samples - Scalable Fonts
   David Tiberio - Total Productions         Coming Soon: USENET and EMAIL
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17126 alt.politics.bush:9386 alt.politics.clinton:10778 alt.politics.perot:2241 talk.politics.misc:52173
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WHAT GORE REALLY SAYS in his book
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:01:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1bi965INNmk4@fido.asd.sgi.com> aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:
>
>QUAYLE: "Senator Gore has suggested to have the taxpayers of
>	 America spend $100 billion a year on environmental 
>	 projects in foreign countries  [...] it's in your book.  
>	 On page 304."
>
>Here is the above in context:
>
>	As a result, the responsibility for taking the initiative, 
>	for innovating, catalyzing, and leading such an effort, 
>	falls disproportionately on the United States.  Yet in the 
>	early 1990s our instinct for world leadership often seems 
>	not nearly so bold as it was in the late 1940s.  The bitter 
>	experience of the Vietnam War is partly responsible, and 
>	the sheer weariness of carrying the burden of world leadership 
>	has taken a toll.  Furthermore, we are not nearly as dominant 
>	in the world economy as we were then, and that necessarily 
>	has implications for our willingness to shoulder large burdens.  
>	And our budget deficits are now so largeas to stifle our 
>	willingness to consider even the most urgent of tasks.  Charles
>	Maier points out that the annual U.S. expenditures for the 
>	Marshall Plan between 1948 and 1951 were close to 2 percent of
>	our GNP.  A similar percentage today would be almost $100 billion
>	a year (compared to our total nomilitary foreign aid budget of
>	about $15 billion a year)

This is quite clear to me that he was pointing out that its cost
will be terribly high and the willingness would be lacking for
making such a effort. It is more like saying we would not be able to
do it like the way the Marshall plan was done.

>Here's what Brooks Jackson of CNN said:
>
>	"Nowhere in the book does Gore propose $100 billion of foreign
>	aid for environmental projects." "Gore writes that the money the
>	United States spent on the Marshall Plan to rescue post-World War II
>	Europe would equal $100 billion a year today, but he does not urge
>	spending that much now."
>
>Amazingly enough, I've actually seen people asserting in this newsgroup
>that Quayle was correct.  
>
>Allan

They probably has the same objective as DQ -- to mislead. Or they are
just as bad as DQ in mis-reading the book (however, I don't blame
someone who can't spell potato :-).

- lin
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Those debates
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:17:41 GMT


In article <Bw4uAH.6Hw@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, 
pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson) said:

> > Ann Richards got the best after-debate line: "You can stick a fork
> > into Bush... 'cause he's done."  [Charles L Isbell]
>
> I still remember her line from the 1988 Democratic convention: "Poor
> George Bush: He was born with a silver FOOT in his mouth!"

My favorite line from Demcon '88, the exact source of which not I'm
sure of but I think it was also Ann Richards, was "He [Bush] was born
on third base, and he thinks he hit a triple."

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: agents of change
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:44:49 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Oct5.123945.7314@iscsvax.uni.edu>, fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> A vote that is not for Clinton is a vote for Bush.
> 
> That may not be how you intend it, but that's how it will be.
> 
> If you say that you know that your candidate won't win, but that you're voting
> for him or her because "it's the right thing", does that right thing include
> giving Bush four more years?
> 
> Of course, if you want Bush, that's your right.  This is directed at those
> voting for Marrou, Perot, Fallani, etc....
> 
> A vote that is not for Clinton is a vote for Bush.
> 
> 
> Bucky
> 
> 
> 
> P.S.  Not voting at all is another vote for Bush.


I am sorry but I just don't understand this logic. This is the same logic
that Carter was talking in 1980. A vote for Anderson is a vote for Reagan.

Please explain this Bucky???  If 51 % of the people voted for Perot, how
could Bush win??? I thaught in that case Perot would win!!!!!

Ken
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15469 alt.politics.clinton:8877 talk.politics.misc:50034
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:35:01
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu's message of 6 Oct 92 21:21:29 GMT

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

> The Clinton Doctrine
> 	by A.M. Rosenthal
> [copied w/o permission from the NYT, 10/6/92, p.A23]
> 
> The campaign of 1992, so long a desert of tedium and cynicism, has
> finally produced what the country has needed for too many dry years --
> a lucid, warm adult statement of principle about what the United
> States can give to the world and gain from it.

I read that column when it came out in the Times, and I was a bit
surprised by it.  Abe Rosenthal is, of course, normally a faithful
conservative Republican, and it was interesting to see that he had
essentially endorsed the Democratic Presidential candidate.

However, I think there is less here than meets the eye.  Towards the
end of the column, Rosenthal gave what I think was his real reason for
endorsing Clinton: the implication of the Clinton Doctrine is that the
United States will stand up for Israel.

I imagine Rosenthal is sincere in his admiration for Clinton's foreign
policy, but I doubt that it is what matters most for him.  Mainly, I
think he is just hoping for a President who will not be so
relentlessly anti-Israeli as Bush has been.
--
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!