HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:07:53 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <conradp+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Poll shows GOP convention giving Bush a bounce
	<clafpq8@Unify.Com>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 21-Aug-92 Re: Poll shows
GOP conventi.. Caroline E. Bryan@dbrus. (3664)
> Oh, let me give this the proper build-up.  After the Dem convention, Clinton
> quickly pulled ahead of Bush 20 to 30+% in the polls.  The Republicans
> claimed that this was ALL post-convention bounce, and that when they had
> *their* convention, the numbers would reverse, i.e., that Bush would pull
> ahead of Clinton by 20 to 30+%.
Please show me *any* reference of the Republicans claiming that Bush
would have a 20% to 30% lead after the convention.  This absurd claim
makes the rest of your post pointless and not credible.  Yes, I'll grant
you that even the Democrats expected their numbers to decline after the
Republican convention, and that the gain is not as large as the
Republicans would have liked.  But I don't think anyone in their right
mind would have predicted an absurdly enormous swing, as you suggest
they did.  In fact, most Republicans were scared *&@-less at the numbers
after the convention.  Thus the calls for radical new plans, dumping
Quayle from the ticket, and even some talk of dumping Bush from the
ticket.  None of this would have occurred if the Republicans thought
Clinton's lead was all just "post-convention bounce."

> Local news:  the Yolo County (CA) Democratic campaign office has seen Repub-
> licans coming in every day starting this past Tuesday, disgusted with the
> speeches they've heard at their convention, asking what Clinton's plans
> *really* are and re-registering to vote as Democrats.
This is also sounds silly, though it's possible if they really had a
mass "Damascus road" conversion.  They certainly wouldn't have to
re-register to vote as Democrats simply to vote for Clinton!

--Conrad
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: tebarth.bln@sni.de (Dominik Tebarth)
Subject: Which states are a MUST for Clinton ?
Summary: Which states has Clinton got to win ?
Keywords: States Clinton has to win
Organization: SNE , Berlin, Germany
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 10:54:07 GMT

Hi folks,

what i am missing in this news group is a discussion
which single states Bill Clinton must win to win overall.
Could it be roughly the same states Jimmy Carter did win in 1976 ?
If my information is correct, Jimmy Carter WON
(among others) Texas, Florida and NY
but LOST California !
Which states should Bill Clinton get just to secure a
narrow victory ?
Can he win against California, too ? 

/******************************************************/
  |\/\/\/|  	"I WILL NOT BELCH THE NATIONAL ANTHEM"
  |      |     	"I WILL NOT BELCH THE NATIONAL ANTHEM"
  | (o)(o)   	"I WILL NOT BELCH THE NATIONAL ANTHEM"
  C      _)    	"I WILL NOT BELCH THE NATIONAL ANTHEM"
   | ,___|    	"I WILL NOT BELCH THE NATIONAL ANTHEM"
   |   /     	"I WILL NOT BELCH THE NA.......      "
/******************************************************/

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: Dueling Recessions (was: Who owns what?)
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:16:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.182455.29917@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Fre writes...
>In article <1992Aug11.092811.1486@sdf.lonestar.org> thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt) writes
> 
>Maybe they'd have done it anyway, but the fact remains that only
>Carter managed to have an oil embargo during his term.  Reagan,
>the supposed boob, didn't, and he had twice as many years.  The
>Saudis won't pull that on Bush; 

What? Only on Carter huh? You seem to have forgotten the 73' embargo
when Nixon was in office.
From: hougen@uirvlh.csl.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (1)
Date: 20 Aug 1992 01:49:04 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: uirvlh.csl.uiuc.edu

harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:

*>"The main reason we're Number One in percentage of population without
*>health insurance is that we're last in percentage of population
*>covered by public health insurance.

This really misses the point.  The issue is not insurance, but the
cost of medical care.  In general, the cost of medical care is at
least five times its free market value but in some cases it is as much
as 100 times its free market value.  It may be that some people are
going bankrupt under the current system but the answer is not to
bankrupt everyone through "public health insurance."

The real problem is that institution reminiscent of medieval times,
that health care guild known as the American Medical Association.  Or
rather, it is the fact that the states have given that institution
secular power which it should not have, the power to license the
medical schools that train doctors.  This has allowed them to limit
the number of medical professionals and push their salaries into the
stratosphere.  Other problems include excessive regulation of
hospitals and clinics and the FDA's overregulation of the
pharmaceutical industry.  This is supposed to be a free country, yet
it is impossible to buy most drugs without a prescription.  In that
respect, Communist China is freer than the good old U.S. of A. The
medical guild has an almost total monopoly on health care in this
country and a complete stranglehold on our lives.

Goverment is not the solution to the problem, it is the cause of the
problem.  We need a free market in medicine.  The fact that no other
country in the world has a free market medical system should not deter
us from establishing one in this country.  Do we want to have the same
mediocre level of care that exists in other countries?  I think not.
Why shouldn't we strive to have the best, most advanced, most
inexpensive system in the world?  

The only thing that is stopping us from establishing the best health
care system in the world is our fear of the unknown.  It is pure,
unabashed cowardess.  It is the fear of quacks that has been drilled
into us by the AMA.  You don't believe me?  Go to your local
university library and watch the tapes of commercials and slanted
programs that aired during the 50's and 60's warning of quacks.  Our
forefathers would have been ashamed of us.  They pledged their lives,
their fortunes and their sacred honor to the cause of liberty.  Yet
barely two hundred years later we are on the verge of sinking into
European style socialism.  Don't give in!  Vote Libertarian in '92.
Oh, I forgot, this is the Republican news group. :-)

Darrell
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Which states are a MUST for Clinton ?
Keywords: States Clinton has to win
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:03:23 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <tebarth.714308047@test35> tebarth.bln@sni.de (Dominik Tebarth) writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>what i am missing in this news group is a discussion
>which single states Bill Clinton must win to win overall.
>Could it be roughly the same states Jimmy Carter did win in 1976 ?
>If my information is correct, Jimmy Carter WON
>(among others) Texas, Florida and NY
>but LOST California !
>Which states should Bill Clinton get just to secure a
>narrow victory ?
>Can he win against California, too ? 
>
   _The Economist_ just did a report on this, so I happen to have
a reference handy.  It is too early to tell with any real accuracy, but
this is the way their logic goes.

  Clinton and Gore get Arkansas and Tenn.

  They win the same states as Dukakis in 1988. -Wash, Ore, Minn, Iowa,
Wis, NY, W. Vir, Mass.

  For arguments sake, they win the same states that Dukakis lost by
5% or less.  Calif, N. Mex, Mo, IL, PA, MD.

   With these assumptions, Bush wins 286 to 252.  Clearly it is a little
tougher on paper than in the national polls.

  So, _The Economist_ suggests that in the south Clinton could
win Georgia and N. Carolina with populist themes stressing economic
growth and low taxes.

  In the West, California is a make or break state for Clinton.  Which
is good, since he currently leads by a 2-1 margin and no Republican
since 1880 has won without California.  However, Clinton's 100 billion
proposed defense cuts and his protectionistic attitude towards NAFTA
could lose him votes here in the long run.

  Colorado, they anticipate, will be a pitched battle between Gore's
environmentalism and Quayle's conservatism.

  However, overall, Clinton may well try to write off many city voters
and go for suburban voters.  Suburban voters make up majorities
in 6 of 10 of the most populous states, controlling 156 electoral votes.
Suburban voters tend to be not only large in number, but particularly
fickle (therefore there importance is expounded.)

  Particular states where courting the suburban vote might be
helpful are Penn, Mich, Ill, and Ohio.


Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Some truths about the economy
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:37:53 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

The Wall Street Journal published an article (August 11) which dispells
alot of the "crisis", doom and gloom rhetoric of the Denocratic Party.
Soem excerpts (I encourage all of you to read it):
 a) the poorest 20% of households mean income, adjusted for inflation,
    rose 5% during the 80's
 b) the average income , again adjusted fro inflation, is 40% higher for
    25-35 year olds compared to that age group 30 years ago.
 c) Family incomes adjused for inflation have grown 5% in the last 20 years.

And so it goes.  The only way to get a democrat into office is to scare
the public into thinking our world is crumbling.  It isn't.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11030 misc.education:3169
From: elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green)
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:31:25 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,misc.education
Subject: Re: Elections and school choice (was: RE: Liberal v. Conservative)
Distribution: world
Organization: Eric's Amiga 2000 @ Home

From article <2A8F1D1B.25043@orion.oac.uci.edu>, by cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman):
> Patrick Sugent writes
 [about union opposition to Bush voucher plan]

> But then, I've always considered the opposition to school choice part of the
> soft underbelly of the other side. So the more discussion there is on this
> subject, the better.

I might point out that Al Shanker and the AFT *DOES* advocate school
choice. It's part of the AFT's proposal to decentralize school systems and
empower teachers to actually run schools, rather than having school
systems being managed by bureaucrats.

It is Bush's specific proposal, rather than the concept of school choice as
a whole, that gets Shanker's ire. And I agree with him. Bush's proposal is
a tax break for yuppies. It won't help anybody who REALLY needs help.

Just thought I'd clear up that misunderstanding.

 -- Eric Lee Green (AFT member, and proud of it).

--
 Eric Lee Green  elg@elgamy.sccsi.com         Dodson Elementary
 (713) 437-6908  uunet!nuchat!elgamy!elg      Houston, TX
                "Kids are kids, no matter what"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: Bush's interview goof
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 AUG 92 02:39:01 GMT

I don't believe the idea that Bush had the law in mind when he said
his granddaughter would decide about abortion. I think Bush's advisors
told him to come across as honest and compassionate (to contrast their
ensuing and laughable attack on Clinton's character) in the interview,
and so it wouldn't have played well for Bush to imply that he'd impose
a decision upon his family. Unfortunately this contradicts has stated
political position! But he did say he'd do anything to win...

Bart
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: Re: A positive agenda from conservatives (was Re: Clinton's plan )
Organization: The Lab Rats
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:32:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.144328.6560@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

}Except most treatment is largely ineffective.  The only real
}"treatment" is to have people not use drugs in the first place.

that's because most people in "treatment" programs don't belong there.
care to compare the percentage of people who are voluntarily in
treatment programs with that of people in "treatment" programs because
of court orders, or otherwise forced into it against their will?
most of the people who are being "cured" of their "drug problems" never
had one in the first place. they just got busted with a small amount of
pot or coke and got sent to a "drug treatment" by the judge (or their
parents, school officials, etc). of course it's ineffective.

}I disagree that drug abuse is victimless.
}I can only point to James Q. Wilson's "Against the legalization of Drugs"
}in Commentary a few years back (Jan 1990?). It was the best exposition
}of the validity of drug laws I know of.

please post this article, or at least a few highlights from it. i would
like to see if it's the same tired old bullshit before i take the time
to go look for it, since you don't even have an exact cite for it.

-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10556 alt.politics.clinton:1915 alt.politics.bush:1543 talk.politics.misc:39637
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:32:57 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>The problem with using the "marginal utility" argument to support higher
>(non-linear) taxes on the 'rich' is that it presumes some universal
>constant when it comes to 'utility'.  It is true that for a given
>individual, each additional dollar has lower utility.  It is *not* true,
>however, that person A's marginal utility scale will be the same
>as person B's.  Peoples tastes are different.  Person A may be able 
>to live quite comfortably on a particular salary, Person B may not.  Who
>are you to decide which lifestyle is 'correct'?

Silly me, I thought that was the role of government.  How else do explain
all those regulations dictating the kinds of car we can buy and the kind
of cereal we can eat.

We poor individual humans are just to stupid to be trusted with something
as important as running our lives.  So government in its infinite
wisdom will take over that awesome responsibility for us.

The problem is that noone ever notices that government is also made
of those same supposedly incompetent individuals that government is
supposed to be protecting us from.


>James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Wanted: True Conservative Positions
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:35:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.205628.29187@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>,
c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:

|>Wanted: What are the true conservative positions on:

Let us see what the True Conservative Maggie Thatcher and cronies did?

|>1) Foreign Aid?
|>     a) Economic	
You mean of couse back door subsidies to industry, only if absolutely
necessary or if the company is donnating to Tory party funds.

|>     b) Military
You mean of couse back door subsidies to industry, only if the country
does not happen to be bad guy of the month or if the company is
donnating to Tory party funds.

|>     c) Aiding insurgents/rebels
Good idea, that way the market for selling weapons to the govt is bigger.

|>2) Immigration
|>     -- laws restricting, etc.
"I feel the imigration offiecers would know what was expected of them
with respect to coloured imigrants" - Winston Churchil.

|>     -- citizenship, etc.
If they have lots of money yes, otherwise no.

|>3) Minimum Wage
Abolished the wages councils (set up by Churchil), the only country in
Europe to lack a minimum wage now.

|>4) Solution to "racism"
Mouthing platitudes and putting aq token Black candidate in a marginal seat.

|>5) the "Buy American" idea
Yep, they want to buy Trident.


|>Feel free to respond but I kindly ask to keep it more objective than cynical.
OK, I've saved the cynical stuff for last,

The Conservative ideal is grab as much for yourself and bugger everyone
else. Much as that idea may be shared by the majority of the population
it is dangerous to have a government of such people since they are most
likely to practice what they preach and stick their hands in the till.
Witness the Regan Sleaze years...


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: GOP Convention:  How is it playing?
Organization: NASA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:39:00 GMT

Kathleen Creighton writes
> 
> I have my own opinion about the impact of the GOP convention on the
> populace, but I live in the Bay Area so what do *I* know about "America"?
> 
> I'd like to know what *you* think--but more importantly I'd like to know
> what you've been hearing "around".  How is this going over?

  I'm not one who is easily swayed by propaganda events such as political  
conventions, but I usually watch and tape them anyway.  Most immediately, the  
only effect of the GOP convention that I'm aware of is a nasty feeling in my  
stomach.  :-)

  Seriously, though... very few of my coworkers ever comment on (or watch)  
convention proceedings.  That seems odd for employees of a government agency,  
but it seems to be the case.

  As for the convention, I've seen little that I would consider new.  I really  
think that the average American is going to see it and say, "We've heard all of  
this before."  Maybe I'm giving the general public too much credit; I hope not.   
If anything, I think that the speeches made so far will do more to shun voters  
away from the GOP than to attract them.

Regards,

Steve
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
From: bcm1@cec2.wustl.edu (Brandon Charles Morrisey)
Subject: Candidate list and info
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:32:55 GMT

I thought it would be interesting to make a list of candidates, their
party, and a telephone number or eMail address where one can get more
information.  Unfortunatley, My information is rather incomplete.  If
you have info to fill in or another candidate that I did not know
about, please fill them in.


Bill Clinton      Democrat     75300.3115@compuserve.com
Andre Marrou      Libertarian  75300.3114@compuserve.com
George Bush       Rupublican   ???
Lenora Fulani     New Alliance ???
Bo Gritz          Populist     ???
???               Natural Law  ???
???               Socialist    ???

Already made some corrections to the list above.  Keep sending in the
info.  It would be nice to flesh this chart out.
______________________________________________________________________
Brandon C. Morrisey    -    bcm1@cec1.wustl.edu    -    (314)862-2627
      Who are you to take away others' angels, just because
      you think it's in their best interest? - Jean-Paul Sartre
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:37:17 GMT

In article <wilder.714014528@mik.uky.edu> wilder@mik.uky.edu (jeff wilder) writes:
>In <388m8yl@lynx.unm.edu> jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:
>
>|In article <1992Aug16.221031.5752@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>|>In article <BD.92Aug15103702@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>|>>
>|>>Who the hell is Senator William Clinton?
>|>
>|>The junior senator from the state "between Texas and Oklahoma."  What, you
>|>haven't been keeping up with the news?
>|>
>
>|Now I see the humor in this thread.  There are idiots on the net that
>|don't know the difference between a SENATOR and a GOVENOR.  I think the
>|confusion is due to Clinton's and Quayle's looking slightly alike and due
>|to their both being from fairly unimportant states (i.e. Arkansas and Indi-
>|ana).
>
>|Or could both these posters be Quayle in disguise? (ASIDE:  I never knew
>|that he could hook his GameBoy into the Usenet system.  Must be the powers
>|of the Veep.)
>
>I'm not *positive*, but I think Elizabeth (the second of your "both
>posters,") was *joking*.  Granted, smileys make things easier for the
>humor impaired, but they're so damn...inelegant.

Well, the lack of smileys do bring out of hiding the ones that don't
read the news all that often.

Should we take a vote?  All in favor of me putting smileys EVERYWHERE
for the benefit of those less astute, say, "Yea."  (of course,
self-selecting polls are worthless, or Perot would be president now)



--
But this is.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1878 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2559 alt.politics.clinton:2097 alt.politics.elections:10714