HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Who are the "minor" candidates?
Organization: VTT
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:04:36 GMT

I just got my New Jersey absentee ballot and noticed that there are 13
candidates for president listed and I don't know every one of them.  It
is also interesting to note the order in which they are listed, but 
please put followups to that on a different thread.

They are in order:
  Bush/Quayle        Republican
  Clinton/Gore       Democrat
  Bo Gritz/Minnet    America First Populist  
                       (Gritz is mercenary who hunted MIAs)
  Phillips/Knight    Taxpayers Party   (Phillips lead CA Prop. 13 battle)
  Larouche/Greenspan "6 Million Jobs"  (No comment on LaRouche)
  Fulani/Munoz       New Alliance Party (leftist, not communist)
  Perot/Stockdale    Independent
  Bradford/(no name) Independent    (Who is this Drew Bradford?)
  Marrou/Lord        Libertarian    (Note ballot location, Lib's were 3rd in 88)
  -----flip side----
  Hagelin/Tomkins    Natural Law Party (Never heard of John Hagelin or party)
  Halyard/Mazelis    Workers League  (Some kind of communist)
  Warren/Debates     Socialist Workers Party  (Trotskyite)
  Daniels/Tupahache  Independent  (I've heard of Ron Daniels, but forgot what)
  <unlabled write-in location>


Anyway, Does anyone know who Drew Bradford, John Hagelin, or Ron Daniels
are or what the Natural Law Party is?

Subject: NJ Ballot Design
For comment under a different heading note that the Democrats and
Republicans come first, Perot is hidden in the independents, the
Libertarians (third vote getter in NJ in '88) are at the bottom of the
first page and the Communist parties are on the flip side.  Also,
nothing states that the Presidential candidates continue onto the other
side of the card (where the Congressional candidates are).  I would
guess that the Socialist Workers came in 4th or 5th in '88 (a
"right-to-life" candidate may have been 4th) and they don't evey appear
on the main ballot side.  Also note that the space for write-ins is
unlabled although the instructions mention that a blank space is provided.

-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: electoral college question
Date: 13 Oct 1992 14:08:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) says:
>
>I say "just about every state" because I have a vague memory -- and
>I'm ashamed that I don't know this one's true-or-false value for
>certain -- that there's one renegade state, one of the smaller ones
>(Maine?), that tries to awards its electors on a basis that's
>proportional to the popular vote within the state.  But in general,
>winner-take-all is the rule, so if, for example, Texas goes 34%
>CandidateX, 33% CandidateY and 33% CandidateZ, CandidateX will get
>_all_ of texas' electoral votes.

Maine is one of them. I believe the two electoral votes represented by the
two Congressional districts are awarded according to vote within that
district; the two others (corresponding to the Senators) are at-large
and have to be awarded according to the statewide vote, so the split must
be either 4-0 or 3-1. I don't believe it has ever been anything but 4-0 
since this was adopted.
I think the other state that does this is a midwestern state.
-- 
"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
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Page 304? (VP Debate, Quayle response)
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:06:36 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:

>In article <1992Oct14.164257.16303@mercury.cair.du.edu>, mwasserm@diana.cair.du.edu (MARC Y. WASSERMAN) writes:
>> During the vice-presidential debates last night,
>> Quayle said that Gore had indeed made a pledge
>> to raise taxes to help one part of the enviromnet
>> in the United States.  Gore insisted that wasn't
>> true and Quayle said it was, that it was on Page
>> 304 in Gore's book "Earth in the Balance".
>> Not having this book, could somebody please tell
>> me what is on page 304?  Is Quayle correct on
>> this?
>> 
>> Overall, I was suprised by Quayle's performance.

> I was also interested in this and surprised not to see more talk of it.
>Also the vote on the Caribbean basin, how did Gore vote. One of them will
>look very foolish when we find out how Gore voted. Let me guess, he didn't
>vote.

They both were right on that one (kindof...).  When the Caribbean basin
legislation was first proposed (as a single bill) Al Gore voted against
it (twice), BUT when it got rolled in with another bill (and I don't
know which one), Gore supported it (and voted for it).  So if you
use the same litmus test as usual (voting for a piece of legislation,
even if it's 'tagged' to your favorite cause =  supporting it) then
Al Gore DID support that bill (albeit probably without ferver).


I think the statement that 'Gore (you) voted for it' made by
Quayle has at least as much (I think more) credibility than the
'Bush raised taxes' rhetoric (the executive branch can't 'raise' taxes,
or for that matter make a law of any kind without the congresses
approval...the congress on the otherhand CAN pass laws without the
Presidents approval...albeit only once in four years).

That's the answer...(I don't have Gore's book...I don't wanna
help finance Tipper and the Censorship Society...or whatever
she calls her outfit).

Chad

>Ken
--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: saslpo@stevens.unx.sas.com (Len Olszewski)
Subject: Re: Anybody got a GA or LA poll? (was Re: NC poll shows Clinton on top)
Originator: saslpo@stevens.unx.sas.com
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:11:02 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1662@cogsci.ucsd.EDU>, king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
|> saslpo@stevens.unx.sas.com (Len Olszewski) writes:
|> >Yesterday, the Raleigh News & Observer had a story about a recent
|> >statewide poll of 609 "likely" NC voters conducted last week.
|>
|> Does "likely" here mean "registered", "registered and say they intend
|> to vote", or "likely to vote based on our demographic model"?  This
|> makes a difference in how much you should believe this.  But if these
|> totals *do* come from a reasonable likely voter model, then it would
|> appear that Bush should elect to punt in NC.  And that's one heck of
|> a scoring opportunity missed.
|>

Unfortunately, the story was fuzzy regarding what they meant by "likely" 
voters. This was a poll commissioned by the newspaper and a local TV 
station, and the characterization of the participants as "likely voters" 
was the only one in the story.

|>
|> Meanwhile, how many of you knew that NC has *14* electoral votes
|> (EVs)?  This state is now just about as important as NJ, and more so
|> than VA and MO.  Further, my expectation is that NC might tell us
|> something about what to expect in GA and LA, which are beginning to
|> look like Bush-must-carry-to-have-a-prayer states.
|>

Yes, NC is a growing state. I think its number 10 in population. Bush 
would not like to lose here. I would be delighted if he did. 

|>
|> >I'll bet my old pal (not) Jesse Helms doesn't like this at all.
|>
|> Don't be so sure.  I'm pretty sure that Jesse Helms is one of those
|> ArchConservatives (tm) who tend to despise Bush most.  Has Helms done
|> any major campaigning for him so far in the state?
|>

Jesse has been laying low this election. He recently had surgery for 
prostate cancer, and also has had some heart problems. Get this, "Mr. 
Tobacco" has given up smoking on his doctor's advice. Bush made a big 
push for Helms two years ago when he stood for re-election, but Jesse 
has not responded in kind. I'm not sure if it's health related, or if 
GHWB told him to sit this one out, or if, as you suggest, Jesse really 
doesn't like GHWB. I can't imagine he'd prefer Clinton, although he does 
like his "straw men" to sloppily and crudely rant against.

Clinton and Gore have been here many times, usually with large and 
enthusiastic crowds in attendance. Stranger things have happened. 

|> jking

Len
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Re:  Raising taxes on the poor.
Reply-To: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:11:39 GMT

In article <1b200eINNf1k@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
|> In article <Bvr74L.2G4@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
|> >I don't recall exactly how many times (2?) and by what amounts,
|> >but wasn't Clinton responsible for raising the taxes on GROCERIES
|> >in Arkansas?
|> 
|> I believe the correct number is ZERO; Arkansas does not tax groceries.
|> Clinton also repealed the sales tax on prescription medicine.
|> 
|> andy

In the New York post article that listed Clinton's 128 tax hikes, I found two
instances of the sales tax on groceries being raised.  (Anyone care to re-post
this article please?)

Can someone from Arkansas please comment on the current sales tax rate on
groceries?  (BTW, I was just in Tennessee, where the rate was about 5% !)

Also listed in these tax/fee hikes was an expansion of the state-sponsored
greyhound racing.  Any animal rights activists care to explain how inhumane
the dog-racing industry is?

-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu        
Rice University                    
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr          
XUV Holographic Microscope Project 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: The Domino Poll
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:23:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.090007.1@azcc.arizona.edu> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
>In article <Bvu3CH.95L@phage.cshl.org>, pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>> On CNN, a group of retired Republicans expressed that Bush was
>> losing touch with reality. I think they should know well and
>> Bush supporters should beware that this country can't
>> survive continued leadership from the geriatric ward.
>> Russia retired her senile leadership, it's time the
>> USA did likewise.
>> 
>> -- 
>> -- Pat Monardo
>> -- pjm@cshl.org
>
>I agree, lets get rid of Metzenbaum, Bentsen, Pell, Glenn, Inouye, 
>Kennedy, anyone else?? Yes the 76 year old guy with the bad heart
>valve from I think North Carolina, can't think of his name, starts with
>an S.
>
>Ken

fine by me. is Bentsen still in politics? i saw him on the tube
last night, he looked really bad. i dont think he is well enough
even for the Domino crowd.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17276 alt.politics.bush:9471 alt.politics.clinton:10952 talk.politics.misc:52406
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Lost some respect for CNN (was Re: Vice Shrub won)
Date: 16 Oct 1992 09:47:49 -0500
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <1992Oct16.082757.12778@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In <1992Oct15.175653.1600@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>Un, you forgot to mention Clinton/Gore who also think continued membership
>>in NATO is vital.
>
>But they don't think we need 150k troops in Europe to prevent a Soviet
>invasion of the West.

But they DO think we need 100K troops in Europe to prevent a Soviet invasion
of the West.  So they disagree on the details of whats needed - not on
whether or not we should be there.

-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: The Debate
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:31:04 GMT

gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:

>neil covey writes:
>>
>>In future debates, look for questioners to push Perot for specifics, for
>>Bush to continue to flail about, and for Clinton to continue to be
>>steady but unspectacular.
>
>   The future debates (with the exception of 1/2 of the final debate) will be
>without questioners.

No.  Thursday's debate will consist primarily of questions asked by members
of an audience of several hundred undecided voters.  I wonder if thy'll get
Phil Donahue or Oprah to run through the audience with a microphone since
they're used to that.

>Greg Lyon		          	       Student Union Attorney General
>gl1@cec2.wustl.edu			                    Clinton/Gore '92 


-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -
From: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Date: 12 Oct 1992 15:17:54 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


In a previous article, bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) says:

>1) Perot won hands down.  He will be rewarded in the polls.

I think he came across well, but his substance was very, very weak.  He
has to do better than to say "There are plans all over Washington, just
pick one and implement it" if he wants to be taken seriously.

>3) If Clinton uses the word "change" or Bush says "tax and spend"
>one more time they should lose half their remaining time.

Hear, hear!

-- 
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
Subject: Re: Expectations??
From: jpucket@eis.calstate.edu (James Gerard Puckett)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:09:24 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
> In article <Bw6on8.65s@eis.calstate.edu> jpucket@eis.calstate.edu (James Gerard Puckett) writes:
> >Just what do you people expect Bill Clinton to do when he gets in office??
> >Just like every other democrat this nation has ever seen... he will add
> >more "gift" programs to the budget.  This will cause him to have to call
> >for a tax increase....
> >
> I just love this! making generalities based on the fact the Clinton
> is a Democrat. Isn't that kinda like assuming that because Nixon had
> the most corrupt administration this century that another Republican
> (George Bush) will also have a corrupt administration...wait a minute,
> maybe there *is* something to this...
> 

Did you watch the debates last night?? What did Clinton say??... basically
he said "Tax and Spend".... 

-- 
+--+--+--+--+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+--+--+--+--+
|__|__|__|__|  Life: Rod Puckett                              |__|__|__|__|
|  |  |  |  |        Tifton, Ga (912) 386-8734                |  |  |  |  |
|--|--|--|--|                                                 |--|--|--|--|   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Commander in Chief Clinton ?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 01:14:41 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <3833@eastman.UUCP>, pawlicki@kodak.com writes:
|> war and not return? Do you want the man who, when it was his turn to
|> go, weaseled out by running off to England?  Or do you want the man
...
|> If Gov. Clinton is elected, every soldier who is asked to fight and
|> die will have the right to say : "HE DIDN'T GO WHEN HE WAS CALLED, WHY
|> SHOULD I?" Any notion of self-sacrifice in the name of duty will have

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this is incorrect.

Clinton was never called for military service.  He didn't "run away" to England.
Perhaps you can explain why you made this up.

By the way, perhaps you will sign your next posting.

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17166 talk.politics.misc:52199
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Early voting (was Re: Clinton has already won the election!)
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:17:58 GMT
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <crb2.719182012@Ra.MsState.Edu>, crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
   ...
|>                  it hasn't even started yet (save a couple of absentees
|> in Tx). 
   ...
   To change the subject, I have heard that Iowa is allowing people to
vote early -- and I don't mean absentee ballots -- and some people have
already voted.  Is this true?  Does someone have some details on this?

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rdetweil@boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler)
Subject: Re: Lemmings and Sheep
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:56:24 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise Printer Division

In article <bill.719179536@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>
>John Kennedy was an inept traitor and war-monger who deserved
>to die.
>George Bush should be tried on drug-smuggling charges, and
>given the maximum sentence if found guilty.
>Bill Clinton had the chance to be the advocate millions of
>dope-smokers, draft dodgers and marital unfaithfuls were
>looking for, but he was too spineless to say it straight up.
>The American people are sheep you don't want reality to
>curtail their excesses.
>
>Yes, unwanted truths, but they should be there anyway.
>Out in the open, debated on TV.
>"Mr. Governor, did you fuck around on your wife for 17
>years?"
>"No, Mr. President, it was only 13 years, but at least I
>wasn't importing cocaine into the U.S. to pay for a secret
>war."
>"Not true, Mr. Governor, my CIA records show there's a base
>in Arkansas where MOST of my drugs came through."
>"Probably a CIA report falsified by Robert Gates, no doubt..."
>
>Ah yes, now that would be an interesting debate.
>
>Leap out of the crowd.  Vote for an extremist.  America was
>founded on radicalism. Tar your congressman.
>

And... 

In Message-ID: <bill.719181526@castor> bill eldridge writes:

>Forgot to mention that Truman was a traitor who
>cost countless lives by sucking up to Stalin, and
>then later be playing into Mao's hands, condemning
>East Europe to fifty years of bacwardness and suffering
>and North Korea to its present condition.
>
>Just in case anyone thought that Truman (or JFK)
>deserved respect, as the load of references this
>campaign season seem to imply).
>
>-- 
>{{{{ bill eldridge                                       x                }}}}
>{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3960               xxx              }}}}
>{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
>{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}




Excuse me, what planet did you say you were from?
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Who is Howard Phillips?
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:25:59
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: bkonarsk@mcs.kent.edu's message of Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:33:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.233340.5012@mcs.kent.edu> bkonarsk@mcs.kent.edu (Beirne Konarski) writes:

> Well, I am scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find a
> presidential candidate I can vote for in good conscience.  I have
> ruled out everyone except Howard Phillips, who I know little about.
> Can anyone tell me anything about him?

Why don't you try Dr. John Hagelin?  He's by far the funniest of the
Presidential candidates.  (And besides, he's a particle theorist, who
got his degree with Howard Georgi.)
--
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!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:11:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.092456.1@azcc.arizona.edu> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
>Just remember that the Republicans don't have a monopoly on sleaze, remember
>Clarence Thomas and Ted Kennedy.

I understand your point, but this is probably a bad example:
who exactly do you regard as the sleaziest? :)

>Democracts even use sleaze on others of 
>there own party, ie. Holtzman's attacks on Ferraro and Gore's attacks on
>Dukakis in the New York primary where he used Willie Horton against
>Dukakis. Yes this is where Willy Horton first came to the public ear. Have
>you noticed that Willy has not been mentioned by the Democratic leaders this
>year after about 3.5 years of non-stop Willy talk.

The chronicles of the 1988 election show that sleaze (innuendo,
character assassination) was an integral part of the Republican
campaign to a far greater degree than it was for the Democrats.
This year seems to be the same, but it looks like sleaze is
not working as well.

Whereas I think that the tactics of the Republicans have
been more despicable than the Dems (at the Prez. level),
this is not an attempt to make the Dems seem more "moral"
in any way.  I grew up in Chicago during the reign of Daley I,
and I know what total scumbags Democrats can be if
given half a chance.

>Ken


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

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cmhaar@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Chris Haar)
Subject: Re: Rhodes Scholarship - Frills and Frivolities
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Northwestern University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:25:27 GMT

In article <jejensen.719193449@cunews>, jejensen@alfred.carleton.ca (John
Jensen) wrote:
>
> Not many people stop to think where the money for Rhodes scholarships
> comes from.  They are from the proceeds of the estate of Cecil Rhodes,
> famous British colonialist (remember "Rhodesia"?) and violent conquering
> racist.
> 
> It is somewhat ironic to read about liberal former Rhodes scholars.
> Did they ever ask where the money came from? 
> 
> John Jensen
> jejensen@ccs.carleton.ca

The same question was asked of a black Iowa State undergrad after the news
broke on campus that she had won a Rhodes Scholarship.  And just as the
American people have decided that the character "issue" is irrelevant in
this election, people at Iowa State realized that regardless of how Rhodes
made his money, the scholarship was a net positive thing.  Not that the end
justifies the means, mind you.  The issue is that even though Rhodes was a
"violent (sic) conquering racist" (never mind the USA's genocidal policy
re: Native Americans.  Why don't we all give up our Pell Grants and GSL's?)
the lasting good created by the establishment of the Scholarship is real
and cannot be denied.  Sure it would have been nice if Cecil had made his
money by more honorable means, but just because he didn't doesn't reflect
poorly on the scholarship itself.

By the way, I would hardly call Senator Lugar (Luger?) (R)-IN a liberal!

cmh
Vote, dammit!