HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Negatives for Perot
Keywords: politics
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:55:52 GMT

Judging by this article reposted from clarinet, it appears that
Ross Perot has a lot of campaigning to do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <pollsU2O61125ae@clarinet.com>
clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI) writes:
>	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Ross Perot's entry into the presidential race has
>had little effect on Bill Clinton's lead over President Bush in the
>latest polls, which indicate the Texas billionaire's candidacy is not
>being taken seriously by a majority of Americans.
>	A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted Friday through Sunday of
>919 registered voters, of which 799 were ``likely voters,'' showed
>Democrat Clinton holding a 48 percent to 35 percent lead over Bush, with
>Perot getting 9 percent.
>	A New York Times-CBS News poll conducted during the same period of 1,
>252 adults, 994 of them registered voters, gave Clinton 46 percent, Bush
>38 percent and Perot 7 percent. Both surveys have a margin of error of 3
>percentage points.
>	The Times survey showed Bush's approval rating down from a month ago,
>with only 37 percent saying they approve of the way he was handling the
>presidency, compared with 42 percent in September.
>	All of Perot's numbers in the Times survey were negative with only 7
>percent having a favorable impression, while 59 percent had an
>unfavorable one.
>	Only 11 percent believe Perot's insistence that he rejoined the
>campaign because of the call of his volunteers. Seventy-four percent
>said Perot followed his own calling.
>	Now that he is an official candidate, 72 percent said he should have
>stayed out of the race and 56 percent said he is a distraction from the
>campaign. Sixty-nine percent said electing Perot would not bring about
>needed change and 79 percent said Perot cannot be trusted to deal with
>all the problems a president has to deal with.


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton
Date: 6 Oct 1992 02:53:48 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) says:

>  Now everything seems crystal clear!  Bill Clinton is a deep plant by the
>KGB, programmed to wreak economic havoc upon our country, leaving it
>ripe for the picking by the second coming of the Soviet Union.  Hmmm,
>Hillary always did remind me of the Russian woman trainer in Rocky IV.  {:^)
>  Seriously, if ANY of this story of Clinton going to Moscow during the
>height of the war is true, you can bet the Republicans are going to exploit
>it to the max.  

Yeah, we've all been waiting for the other shoe to drop. Is _this_ the
Republicans' secret weapon against Clinton -- the cheapest and most
idiotic and farfetched smear of all?  I think the American people
have made some definite progress in the past few months. I think we're
just not buying that old horseshit anymore. And it's high time.



For someone who was a Rhodes scholar and has stated that in
>his youth he wanted to remain politically viable, it would be the actions
>of a moron to go to the Soviet Union FOR ANY REASON during the height of
>the Vietnam war.  If these rumours are true, I'll laugh my *** off as he 
>slides down the polls faster than Dukakis did in '88.
>
>-- 
>Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
>NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort | These pontifications
>of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!    
>
-- 
"In universities, it is forbidden     |  "Personally, my politics are so far
to teach nonsense. But the _history_  |  to the right, I consider Paul Revere
of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"   |  to be a pinko."
               -- Saul Lieberman      |                 -- Tom Grundner
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14351 alt.politics.bush:6810 alt.politics.clinton:7351 talk.politics.misc:48069 talk.abortion:38703 alt.rush-limbaugh:5932 alt.activism.d:3344
From: bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob)
Subject: Re: Protest Vote '92  (Was: Don't waste your vote on Bush or Clinton)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 11:06:54 GMT

forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
| It's time people realized that it was the Democraps and Republicons who
| got us where we are; both parties blame the other for the whole problem
| when the problem is from both parties; we need outside blood to take
| an honest look at the problem and undo legislation from both the
| Deomcraps and the Republicons.

  Right.  If you *love* the current state of the country and where it
  is headed then vote Clinton/Bush.  Otherwise, help fix it by voting
  them both out.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:00:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.211618.15622@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
# What I am upset about is the way abortion is sometimes used as a method
# of birth control.

This is a pretty pointless statement.  It's like saying you're upset
about the way aspirin is sometimes used as a pain reliever.

Abortion is a procedure explicitly designed to prevent birth.  It is a
birth control procedure.

It sounds like you're upset about birth control in general.

[ Followups set to appropriate groups. ]

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
From: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: I PREDICT PEROT WILL ENDORSE CLINTON ON OCTOBER 1, 1992
Date: 28 Sep 1992 22:57:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


You heard it here first, folx.  Query:  Will George Bush flee the country?
I understand that Tierra Del Fuego is lovely this time of year.

BTW, who started crossposting to alt.sex?  Whomever it was, a pox upon ya!
Now we have to wade through drieux's MindShitBalls, as if we didn't have
enough trouble with the Rush Lymphnode Numbskull Army epistles!  Really,
be a little more discriminating!
-- 
Brad Corsello (bsc7@po.cwru.edu) 2L Case Western Reserve Law School
"The Fanaticks have always had a way of affecting to run into Per-
secution, and count vast Merit upon every little Hardship they suffer."
^ J. Swift.  "Factum clarum, jus nebulosum."  Rex v. Haddock.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:32:02 GMT

In article <BvEq2I.B3p@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>  Pretty interesting: paid "volunteers", $4 million spent in the
>  month after he "withdrew" from the race, etc.  A former NY State
>  coordinator for Perot refers to him as "H Ross Gepetto", pulling
>  the strings from Texas.   
>
>  This whole non-campaign campaign sounds like a slick, well funded
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  first class con-job.   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah, but not as slick as the ones by the Clinton and Bush camps.

John
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: NYT Poll 10/6 (Perot groundswell? NOT!)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:47:27 GMT


Dates:  10/2-10/4

Who polled: 1252 adults, 994 said they were registered voters.

Numbers relating to voting were based on 934 respondents representing
the "probable electorate."


Overall voter preference:

Clinton        46
Bush           38
Perot           7
Other           9


Favorable/unfavorable ratings:

            favorable    unfavorable
Bush           29            48
Clinton        35            35
Perot           7            59



Perceptions of Ross Perot:

Perot did the right thing by re-entering the campaign:     17
Perot should not have re-entered the campaign:             72

Perot re-entered at the behest of his volunteers:          11
Perot decided himself to get back in the race:             74

Perot helps campaign to focus on real issues:              32
Perot has been a distraction from the real issues:         56

Electing Perot would bring about the change we need:       16
Electing Perot would not bring about the change we need:   69

Perot is tough enough to reduce the deficit:               51
Perot is not tough enough to reduce the deficit:           35

Perot has offered specific ideas to end the recession:     28
Perot has not offered specific ideas to end the recession: 56

Perot can be trusted to deal with presidential issues:     12
Perot cannot be trusted to deal with presidential issues:  75


"Lying" issues:

Agree that Clinton has not told the whole truth about the draft: 33
Agree that Bush has not told the whole truth about Iran/Contra:  63


Voter interest:

Have been paying "a lot" of attention to the 1992 campaign: 54
                                     Compared to Oct. 1988: 34


Economy:

Bad or very bad: 79


Foreign policy:

Approve of Bush's handling of foreign policy: 54


Expectations of debate winner:

Clinton   41
Bush      24
Perot      8


Other recent polls:

                                                           error   date
Washington Post/ ABC News: Clinton 48,  Bush 35,  Perot 9    4     10/5
USA Today/CNN/Gallup:      Clinton 47,  Bush 35,  Perot 10   3     10/5

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 03:07:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.024344.16651@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Hello, beloved world, this is an example of media bias;
>In the Saturday Chicago Tribune the story in Section 'A' with 'Perot'
>in the headline includes a segment about Bush's stop in Chicago.
>I was at this stop, and I can personally vouch that there were
>not '250 chanting students,' primarily since the school year does
>not start until next week, and thus most students are not around.
>There were bunches of old people, people driven in from California
>the East Coast and every in between, old people, some graduate students,
>and a few undergards like me who got jobs in Hyde Park over the summer.
>I wasn't protesting Bush so much as the protesters.  You should see
>me with the sign saying [Protest the "Protesters"("Political Pawns"
>more apropriate)] standing in the midst of a group of about fifty people.
>[250, yah right!]  Hopefully the sign will be seen in any press pictures,
>but then the press and the crowd did some funny things;
>	1)Tried to censor me; "Don't talk to him..."
>	2)Made fun of and tried to intimidate me...
>	3)Some live-action camera crews zoomed in to the dancing chicken,
>for a close up, purposefully getting my sign out of the picture despite
>the fact that I was right behind the 'chicken.'  For those who wonder,
>they got reeeaall close physically.
>
>	There were some people willing to conduct intelligent discussions
>and these included a graduate student in history, and some girl from 
>California. There was some old couple who were really annoyed with and kept  
>bugging me.  The whole 'protest' was more like a party... Let me explain...
>	As the conventioneers were leaving the building, the whole crowd starte
>d following a few cheerleaders who would yell '4 more months,' or
>'Bush is a liar,' or some such blather.  At the 'months,' I would
>yell 'years,' real loud since obviously no-one was talking to me and there
>was nothing better to do...They changed the yell to 'no more years.' How
>silly.  Someone in the crowd asked 'isn't there anything positive we
>can shout for Clinton?' Nobody answered but me, after a pause' nope.'
>	It was great. The yelled 'we want Bill!' 'We want Bill!' I
>added a 'the' before 'bill'-'We want [the] Bill!' The whole crowd broke
>up. It was great. Finally admitting that Democrats like to pay taxes!
>Anyway, I didn't get to urinate on anyone because of all the police.
>But I'm sure at least someone out there, if only secret service agents,
>got a laugh at all the idiots who were claiming to be 'protesting.'
>
>			J. Wagner
>

 
    From what you just described, you seem to be the real idiot. 
 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14371 alt.flame:13068
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Lets not blame Reagan for everything....
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:10:55 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Sep26.111732.20251@news.cs.brandeis.edu> bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:
>In article <exuptr.533.716420718@exu.ericsson.se> Patrick Taylor writes:
>>Yeah, stable.  What would have happened had we not spotted the missiles?

>They would have stayed there.  So what?  Oh, let me guess, you think
>they would have given the Soviet Union a big advantage in that nuclear
>war we had with them, right?

Big advantage?  I don't suppose you think Kennedy got so worried about them
because he was afraid of his property value going down?

It's called head games.  Between leaders.  

In short, big advantage.

>This guy is a riot.

BIS = Big Intertial Sphere (your head)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14373 alt.flame:13070
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
Subject: Re: The Legend of Ronnie
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:44:08 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Sep26.132336.21325@news.cs.brandeis.edu> bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:
>In article <exuptr.536.716422013@exu.ericsson.se> PATRICK the
>ostrich-man writes:
>>Ohmigod, the clue-monger is loose again!

>Which is lucky for you, since you're in dire need of *plenty* of clues.

Oh, wonderous clue-monger, clue us a pile of clues.  ;-)


PILE # 1:
--------

>Go ahead, <snicker> all you want, it won't change the fact that that's
>the way you think.  Instead of sticking to what I said, you ascribe a
>package of opinions to me that's associated with I said, and then you
>actually think you're refuting what I said by attacking other opinions
>in the package.  I'm blaming Reagan for destroying the economy, so I
>MUST BE absolving Congress of all responsibility.  Never mind that I
>didn't actually *say* it, it's in the same opinion-package, so it MUST
>BE what I believe.

>*Of course* you're <snicker>ing, because you know that what I said
>about that Edelmann fool applies to you just as much.  

No, I'm sinckering because you are funny.  Not your wit, or your charm, 
just your fiery enthusiasm for being a bonehead.

>Just don't kid
>yourself that I didn't notice that your <snicker> was more of an
>embarassed, self-conscious giggle than a snicker.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

>>>>and Jimmy Carter was a brilliant president.
>>
>>>Did I say Jimmy Carter was a brilliant president?  Did I even *imply*
>>>that was just a *good* president?  No.  So why did you assume I think
>>>so?  Because you're a simple-minded idiot.

No comment necessary.  

>Next to your 486 "joke" (for lack of a better word) and "falling piece
>of rock" followup, most primary school chants are brilliant comebacks.

Hey, this bonehead's got a memory.  Maybe it's a PC!

>>                                    Such perception.  Such topicality!

>>Nothing left but a sizzling pair of shoelaces.  ;-)

>What a comeback.  Such brilliance.

Thank you, BONEHEAD.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: philip@reed.edu (Philip Moore)
Subject: Re: Perot's Re-Entry: What's the Possible Electoral Effect?
Keywords: Texas
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:37:23 GMT
Summary: Texas braggin' rights
Distribution: usa

In article <yvonne.718045889@well.sf.ca.us> yvonne@well.sf.ca.us (Yvonne Lee) writes:
>In <1992Oct2.124348.12393@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner) writes:
>

>>So I'm a little confused.  If Texas is a "must-win" for Bush (with
>>its ~34 electoral votes), why isn't it a "must-win" for Clinton?
>>Ditto for Florida.  And what about those midwestern states?
>
>
>To do that, candidates focus on putting toether a coalition based around the
>large and medium-sized states.  Because Clinton is believed to have the two
>most populous states, California and New York, in his camp, Bush is believed
>to need Texas, the third most populous state for an electoral victory.
>Because Perot is from Texas, some observers believe that he may be able to
>get anti-Clinton voters who would have otherwise voted for Bush.  On the
>other hand, because he represents change, observers believe that he may get
>votes in more conservative states from voters who might have voted for
>Clinton because he isn't Bush (i.e. voting for change, but not necessarily a
>particular candidate).

I'm a little amused that none of the pundits have figured out why Perot
is going to deliver the election to Clinton.  Yvonne's electoral analysis
above is very good.  Clinton is very strong in CA and NY, so Bush has to 
win TX and FL to have a chance.  True Texans hold one thing above party
loyalty and that is state loyalty.  Remember the Republic of Texas is
the only state that was a sovereign nation before becoming a state.  We
let those portions of NM, OK, CO, and KS that were a part of Texas share
in that glory.  We voted for Bush in '88 because he was a hell of a lot
closer to a Texan than that Yankee Dukakis. (no flames, I worked on the
Dukakis campaign here and delivered Oregon)  Bush is really a Yankee
too and we all know it but at least he wanted to be a Texan.  Now Ross
is true blue Texan and we don't have to settle for Kennebunkbush anymore!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Veto Override
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:35:11 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Greg Lyon writes:
>  If you haven't heard already, the Cable TV Re-regulation bill became the 
>first bill to be have a veto by President Bush overridden.  The votes were
>something like 75-24 (Senate) and 308-114 (House).
>
>  Any comments on possible effects on the upcoming election ?
>
Scant effect but it is symbolic. One of the Republican senators who
switched over to help override the veto was Kentucky's Mitch McConell.
[sic? I'm a terrible speller.] He is one of Bush's biggest 
supporters in the Senate. My guess is that Bush chose this veto to
let Republicans who wanted to dissociate themselves from his
campaign vote to override. Bush is the consumate party politician. The 
veto decision isn't a white flag, but it is a curious choice by Bush. 
He usually counts noses before hand.  And his nose counters are very 
conservative in nostril enumeration. The cable bill as written could
have been easily ignored since it is so trivial: Bush sacrificed
his perfect record to let anyone who wanted to have a painless
pro-forma way of jumping ship.

-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Season: 1-5 Lifetime: 1-7
Ask me about my 1 game win streak!
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Pro-choice
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 02:38:43 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

>
>
>                      Bush   Clinton  Marrou
>Pro choice on:
>
>  abortion            no     yes      ?
>  education           yes    no       yes
>  trade               no     no       yes
>  drug use            no     no       yes
>  Social Security     no     no       yes

Bush's position is that a woman should be forcibly prevented from
paying someone to perform an abortion, even if she considers it morally
permissible to do so.  Clinton's position is that a woman should be
forcibly compelled to pay someone to perform an abortion, even if she
considers it morally reprehensible to do so.  Neither one of them is
pro-choice.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: United We Stand And Deliver
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:25:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.213357.587@kpc.com>,
emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>In article <Bv5FKM.ELt@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>        b.t.w: voting libertarian won't stop Perot. You'd better vote
>for someone who has a chance to win if you think he's trouble.

Perot does not need to be stopped.  He is at most polling about 25%
of the vote any where I've seen.  That at best makes him just
another protest candidate like Marrou.  If you prefer Marrou to
Perot but vote for Perot this will be interpreted by the pundits as
a preference for Perot's positions, not preference for viability.
Stop trying to play the election as though you were betting on a
horse race.  Vote for what you want and send a message that can't be
ignored.

/June