HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sean@moosevax.cojones.com (Sean P. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Bo Gritz gets mainstream media coverage - can he be trusted?
Date: 2 Sep 1992 05:34:22 -0500
Organization: Dead Moose Enterprises
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

I have been following politics for a great many years now.  I can never 
recall a third-party or minor-party presidential candidate who has received  
significant amounts of national press coverage from a mainstream media 
outlet (John Anderson, Ross Perot and others of that sort don't count here).
Yet, this is the case this year with Bo Gritz.  Consider this:

1)  After Bill Clinton finished his acceptance speech, PBS brought up
Gritz's name, mentioning about how he, like Clinton, was born in Arkansas.

2)  Some weeks back, Doug Marlette had a cartoon in which Clinton and Gore 
were dressed to the nines and dancing.  The caption, in big, bold letters, 
read "PUTTING ON THE GRITZ."

3)  Gritz has received rather extensive coverage in connection with his role 
in the Randy Weaver incident.  Most stories acknowledge Gritz as being a
presidential candidate.  Today's article, about Weaver's surrender, even
went so far as to ensure that everyone reading knew how to pronounce Gritz's 
name ("Gritz (pronounced GRITES)...").

This is disturbing, indeed.  Would you interpret this as being indicative of 
the notion that, in fact, Gritz is no different than the other media 
candidates?  I would certainly believe so.  In fact, I would go so far as to 
suggest that Gritz is attempting to sell Randy Weaver down the road.  Weaver 
would still be a free man if not for Gritz, and I cannot fathom any notion 
that Weaver will get off any better as a result of surrendering.

After Gritz visited here this summer, I came off with a very negative view 
of the man.  I cannot believe that he will do anything other than sap votes 
from more legitimate candidates.

In my opinion, if you value your standing as a conservative in this country, 
the only candidate for you is Howard Phillips.  George Bush is *NOT* a 
conservative, not by any stretch of the imagination.  Gritz comes close to 
rivalling Andre Marrou in the baggage department.  All the other candidates 
are garbage.

Thank you for your time in reading this.

                                                -Sean-

--
sean@moosevax.cojones.com (Sean P. Ryan)
From: DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: The Cultural Elite?
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:52:19 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

So who are the 'Cultural Elite' Bush & Quayle are so fond of
warning us about anyway?  I *hear* about them all the time,
yet I know so little about them.  I *hear* Vice President
McCarthy...er, uh, I mean Quayle, saying that "I know who they
are, and they know who they are, and the American people know
who they are.", but somehow I never catch the part where he
actually says *who* they are!  Has anyone ever caught this
or am I the only  American who doesn't know "who they are"?

Now, at first I thought they were the people in Hollywood,
or maybe just the people in sitcoms.  But then I saw Major
Dad giving a speach at the GOP Con, and the Terminator rubbing
shoulders with the delegates at same!  So there went my first
theory, now I'm working on a few new ones.  Some are a modification
of the first, others radically new.

     a. The 'Cultural Elite' are people in Hollywood who can outspell
        Vice President McCarthy...er, Quayle?

     b. The 'Cultural Elite' are the people in Hollywood who aren't voting
        the Republican ticket?

     c. The 'Cultural Elite' are people anywhere who use big words that
        Vice President McCarthy...er, Quayle can't understand?

     d. The 'Cultural Elite' are people who don't want big government
        probing in their personal lives?

     e. The 'Cultural Elite' are people who aren't satisfied with our
        stagnant economy and want something better for America?

     f. The 'Cultural Elite' are people who are fed up with record
        unemployment and underemployment in this country and with an
        administration that is oblivious to it all?

     g. All of the above.

Right now I'm leaning toward 'g'.

Seriously now, a man in the position of Vice President of the US should
have a higher regard for that position than to go around using the power
of that office to try to divide and indeed polarize people in this country.
It's very similar to what Hitler did in the 30's to silence and discredit
people who might oppose him.  It's a shame to see McCarthy...er, uh, Quayle,
(I can't imagine why I keep doing that.), following in those footsteps.

Marty Dart.
My opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Slippery Bill, continued
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:22:52 GMT

From today's WSJ, some choice Clinton position statements:
 
In April: "I don't think it's fair to impose a burden on an American fleet
(speaking of CAFE standards) that has bigger cars than foreign competitors
do"
Followed by: "I strongly believe we have to raise the milage standards. But
I never said that I didn't think there was more than one way to do it."
Uh-huh.
 
Last year he said that as for "spending any kind of tax dollars on abortion"
that "I don't think that's appropriate". But now he would "not veto any
bill requiring Medicaid funding" of abortions. He also favors giving notice
of abortions only to "caregivers".
 
Got that?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: greg@cs.washington.edu (Greg Barnes)
Subject: Winning with a small % of the popular vote (was Re: New poll results)
Organization: Adolph Eichmann's Evil Cake Factory
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 21:54:54 GMT

In article <2392@unet.UUCP> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>This is a very good question. I noticed the other day during a reading fit
>that in one of Reagan's elections that he took something like 53 or 54% of the
>popular vote but captured 49 states! Can anybody come up with data that will
>show the absolute smallest percentage of the popular vote a canidate can get
>and still get elected? 

Technically, you could get 0 popular votes and still become president, if
the election is thrown into the House and the Reps choose you.

Another technicality that could get you elected with 0 popular votes is if
your opponents' electors in the electoral college decide to give their 
votes to you instead.  There's nothing that binds the electors to vote for
who they're supposed to vote for.

Okay, so let's assume you win by getting the needed 270 electoral votes,
and all the electors vote the way they're supposed to.  You could still 
win with nearly 0 popular votes.  Suppose only 1 person votes in California,
and they vote for you.  Bingo!  54 electoral votes, 1 popular vote.  Repeat
as needed with other populous states until you have enough electoral votes.  
Now, in the other states, every person eligible to vote turns out, and 
votes against you.  Total popular vote count would be something like:  
you 11, others: 125,000,000.  But you'd still get the majority of electoral
votes.

				Greg Barnes
				greg@cs.washington.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty)
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:37:40 GMT

jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
: 
: >> Bush makes invalid claim about Clinton raising taxes 128 times...
: >> Clinton responds that by same criteria, Bush did it 327 times...
: >> Third party says real score is Clinton 59, Bush 78...
: > Excuse me, but don't you think 327 vs. 78 is significant?  I
: > just love the way the Clinton weenies bend over backwards to
: > pretend that their idol always tells the truth.
: 
: =o= Read it again.  The 327 figure is *by* *Bush's* *criteria*.
: To present a calculation *by* *Bush's* *criteria* as being *by*
: *Bush's* *criteria* is not telling a lie, it's pointing out the
: inadequacy of Bush's criteria.
: 
: =o= One needn't idolize Clinton (I certainly don't) to parse
: this correctly; one needs only to use one's brain.

Something of which Republicans are in very short supply ...


Kathy
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Question about speeches.....
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:30:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <Bto5wK.I9t@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, stacysm@sage.cc.purdue.edu
(Steve Stacy + Audra) wrote:
> 
> 
>    This may sound like a stupid question, and may have nothing to do
> with what this news group usually talks about, but I could think of
> nowhere else to ask it.
>    What are the small rectangular tinted pieces of glass that are 
> on metal bars on either side of the president whenever he makes a speech
> used for?  I have always wondered.  It's the kind of thing that keeps
> you up a night, know what I mean?  
>    Anyways, an answer would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks for your time.
> 
> 	Steve

They are the teleprompter.  See, what happens is that they have this tv
monitor below and they partially reflect the monitor on those tinted
plexiglass things you see. That way the speaker can look at them, but still
see the people in the audience.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly)
Subject: Re: Perot threatens to return!!
Organization: Odesta Corporation
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 19:34:01 GMT

atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:

>>In New Zealand our media are reporting stories from the US that Perot 
>>unhappy with the economic policies of both Bush and Clinton and is saying 
>>that if there is not some changes he will rejoin the race for the 
>>Presidency. He appearantly still has offices in all 50 states and says the 
>>infrastructure is still in place for him to remount the campaign.
>>
>>Any comments from America?
>>
>>Glenn.

Hart tried this, too, and flopped miserably.  People take their vote for
President seriously, and won't lightly throw it away on long-shot candidates.
That's one reason that third-party candidates do so poorly in the U.S.;
everyone understands that a vote for them is merely symbolic, and most voters
feel their Presidential vote is too valuable to waste on symbolism.

If Perot returns, he'll get his 5 or 6 percent and probably help Clinton win
Texas.

-- 
--
Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
...!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: 1992 Electoral College math
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 17:58:28 GMT

The table I recently posted here had a slight problem with the sorting
(fractional part of percentage was ignored). Here is the correct table, also
with the Wall Street Journal projections of 8/21/92 added (from Patrick 
Sugent's post):

                    1992     cumulative
       Bush 1988  electoral  electoral     WSJ
state  plurality   votes       votes      proj.
=====  =========  =========  ==========   =====
DC       -70.5%        3           3        C
RI       -11.8         4           7        C
IA       -10.3         7          14        C
HI        -9.6         4          18        C
MA        -8.0        12          30        C
MN        -7.1        10          40        C
WV        -4.8         5          45        C
OR        -4.8         7          52        C
NY        -4.1        33          85        C
WI        -3.6        11          96        C
WA        -1.6        11         107        C
IL         2.1        22         129        -
PA         2.3        23         152        C
MD         2.9        10         162        C
VT         3.6         3         165        -
CA         3.6        54         219        C
MO         4.0        11         230        -
NM         5.0         5         235        -
CT         5.2         8         243        -
MT         6.0         3         246        -
SD         6.4         3         249        -
CO         7.9         8         257        -
MI         8.0        18         275        -
LA        10.4         9         284        -
OH        10.9        21         305        -
ME        11.5         4         309        B
KY        11.7         8         317        -
DE        12.5         3         320        B
TX        12.7        32         352        B
ND        13.2         3         355        B
KS        13.5         6         361        B
NJ        13.8        15         376        B
AR        14.4         6         382        C
NC        16.3        14         396        B
TN        16.4        11         407        C
OK        16.8         8         415        B
AL        19.5         9         424        B
IN        20.3        12         436        B
GA        20.4        13         449        B
VA        20.7        13         462        B
MS        21.0         7         469        B
NE        21.1         5         474        B
AZ        21.5         8         482        B
NV        21.6         4         486        B
FL        22.5        25         511        B
WY        22.8         3         514        B
SC        24.1         8         522        B
AK        24.3         3         525        B
NH        26.5         4         529        B
ID        26.6         4         533        B
UT        34.8         5         538        B

---
Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman)
Subject: Poll Bias
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:48:06 GMT


	I've been hearing a lot of GOP and Libertarian types complaining
that the polls are biased.  They're right, but not for the reasons they
give.

	As everybody knows, an enormous amount rests on how the question
is asked.  The WSJ did two polls a few weeks ago, one where they asked
people who they would vote for Clinton or Bush and Clinton came out on
top by 17%.  They asked another group who they would prefer, a
Clinton/Gore combo or a Bush/Quayle combo, and the Dems won by 29%.

	This sort of thing can easily explain the difference between
the results in various polls taken at the same time, like this week
for example when CNN shows a 6% spread, Newsweek a 10% and Time a 19%
spread.  All those polls have error margins of 3-4%, but that margin
only applies to another poll taken the same way.

	The real problem is much greater.  The election itself is a 
poll.  But in this poll, you won't get called on the phone and asked
who you want for president.  Instead you have to take time off from 
work, or some time after dinner, drive or walk across town, stand in
line and actually pull a lever or punch a card.

	The pollster's biggest problem is not how to ask the question,
but how to determine who is really going to vote.  Obviously you only
ask registered voters, but then you risk missing the newly registered.
You can ask only people who voted in the last election, which eliminates
some of those who never vote but are registered, and also those who
are voting for the first time.

	I've been trying to imagine who has the edge in the actual election
at getting people to vote who say they are going to in the polls:

	1) Bush has the advantage of people at the last minute chickening
out and voting safe.
	2) Bush has the advantage of a group of older supporters who are
more likely to vote.
	3) Bush has the advantage of being a big underdog who can lull
Clinton voters into thinking Clinton will win easily and not vote.
	4) Clinton has the advantage of Bush's very low enthusiasm level.
The conservatives and others say they will vote for him, but will the
actually drag themselves to the booth?
	5) Clinton has the advantage of a lead in a few Eastern states
where early returns will be available, perhaps discouraging Western
republicans from voting.
	6) Clinton looks like a winner, and people are eager to join a
winning bandwagon.
	7) Clinton also leads among young and disenchanted voters who
the polls probably dismiss as unlikely to vote.  This is a double-edged
sword, because the pollsters may be right.  But if they're wrong and
MTV is right, Clinton has an edge among first time voters.

	And don't forget the weather.

	-JG

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: Re: Liberal v. Conservative
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 23:34:10 GMT


>> Is that so? I guess I could be better informed on this, but I
>> was under the impression that the Republican policy was
> >to increase funding to  *private* schools, the idea being
>> that this will increase competitiveness and result in
>> better education overall. I see a darkly ironic parallel
>> between this and Reagan's trickle-down economics, if
>> this is indeed a  good representation of Republican
>> policy. I also think that Head Start  hasn't received
>> enough funding.

>No, the Republican policy is to increase funding for schools which education
>consumers choose and decrease funding for schools education consumers don't
>choose. Schools can be public, private or parochial. The Democratic position is
>- as usual - anti-Choice.

Won't this lead to further deterioration in public schools? if they
cannot compete now aren't taxpayers bound to further reduce their
support for tax levies, further reducing the ability of public
schools to compete. Who will not be affected by this? People who
can afford *all* private school tuition. Who will be hurt by this
People too poor to afford anything.
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Blaming congress for all his woes... (was: FAQ: The Record Thing)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 00:56:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.210324.23358@pony.Ingres.COM> 
reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux) writes:

> I've been wondering -- Since  the  President  has to sign  legislation
> before it becomes law  and the congress has   not *once* been able  to
> override one of Bush's vetos how can Bush complain  that everything is
> Congress' fault?  I mean if they pass a bill that he does not like why
> doesn't  he just  refuse to sign  it. 

That's true, but a lot of budget compromises are made between the
President and Congress before any appropriations bill is approved
by Congress.  Bush could take a hard line, and refuse to sign any
appropriations bill which does not meet his approval, but then he
runs the risk of a Congressional override, and Congress could
ignore all his budget proposals.  His best bet is to compromise
up front.  


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12275 talk.politics.misc:43391
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Religious Right Wing Censorship On Rise
Date: 3 Sep 1992 00:10:11 GMT
Organization: United States of America
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu


As some correspondents thought that my condemnation of the Republican
party for embracing the rabid religious right was overstated I offer
the following:

    WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Censorship or challenges of textbooks, classic
  novels, and other materials frequently used in public school classrooms
  was at its highest level in 10 years of surveys of the practices, a
  public education watchdog group reported Tuesday.
    ...
    ``The censors' success rate was disturbingly high, higher in fact
  than at any point in the last four years,'' the group said. ``Forty-one
  percent of the materials challenged were removed or restricted in some
  fashion.''
    ...
    The group said the most frequently challenged books during 1991-92
  school year included Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck; More Scary
  Stories to Tell in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz; The Catcher in the Rye by
  J.D. Salinger; and The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier.
    ...
    ``The most frequent rationale for challenges was that materials were
  perceived to be at odds with the challengers' religious views. Such
  materials, including classic novels, were frequently labeled 'Satanic,
  New Age, or anti-Christian.'
    ...
----
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

Many are sure, but few are right.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:21:08 GMT

The question voters should ask is not whether we're economically better
off than four years ago- we're obviously not- but are we better off than
we were 12 years ago. Bush is running against a Democrat, not Ronald Reagan,
though some of us have suspected there may be some truth in that notion ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: guido@blink.att.com (Guido Bertocci)
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- "The Verdict is Treason": THE VERDICT
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:57:02 GMT

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

>I was going to reprint extracts from this silly article, but frankly,
>why would Reagan have to steal the election when Carter *handed* victory
>to him? No one cared that much about Iran. What people vote on is
>the economy. Carter more than doubled inflation and unemployment. He
>ran on a campaign that cited the "misery index" and then doubled that
>index.

Using your past statement that it takes about a year for a 
presidents policies to take effect we have for Carter:
         (% increase)  (% of workforce)
year     CPI    Unemployment		Misery index
78       7.6    6.0			13.6	
81      10.3    7.5  			17.8  Increase of about 31%

Where do you get "more than doubled inflation and unemployment"?
I guess you where trying to make a rhetorical point?

> 
>The "October Surprise" argument is pure bullshit, an attempt to criminalize
>any and all acts by a non-Democratic executive branch. When Kennedy and
>his cabinet lied about the secret prototcols, did we have a call for
>criminal indictment?

No, we shot them. :-)  More seriously, what non-Democratic executive
branch?  The October surprise is talking about events before
Reagan got elected.  Last time I checked Carter was a Democrat and
so the executive branch was Democratic.  Maybe you meant to say
"any and all acts by a non-Democratic non-executive branch."

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections