HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Ken Willing)
Subject: Who are the Undecided?
Keywords: undecided, don't know
Organization: Macquarie University, Australia.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:44:00 GMT


  [A query, posted from Australia].
  [We're getting next to no U.S. election coverage here (naturally enough)]: 

Has any of the polling offered analysis of who it is that's being volatile,
who is saying "Undecided"?  Their demographics, nominal political
affiliation, what they say they consider important, etc.  Any facts around,
any generalizations warranted?  

In a previous posting I asked if anybody would care to speculate on what
might be the order of magnitude of the predictable last-minute slide (last
few days, or when actually pulling the lever) to the safer option ... i.e.,
the incumbent (this holds true at least in the most memorable instances: 
Truman in '48, Ford's big comeback and near-win in '76, John Major's recent
"upset" victory in the UK, etc.).  

Joe Knapp pointed out, however, that in the '88 U.S. election there appeared
to be, on the contrary, a several-point last-minute slide to the candidate
who had been depicted as the more controversial, the more disquieting
option, i.e. Dukakis.  In that instance, though, there were probably factors
like "sympathy" and "underdog" and "what the heck, what difference does it
make anyway", operating in the final stages to lift the Dukakis vote
somewhat; maybe it's true also what Knapp says, that some Reagan Democrats,
once in the solemnity of the voting booth, realized that they were Democrats
after all; also, in '88 Bush didn't have the power of incumbency (as
president).  I wouldn't think these factors would be similarly operative
now. 

I'm left with my surmise that in the edema of the concluding days of this
campaign, when the plusses and minuses of both candidates have been have
brought out and pressed beyond saturation point in the media, when all
images have been tried on and blurred...
the polls taken around Hallowe'en will be saying "too close to call", and
it'll come down to what the remaining Undecideds (and last-second switchers)
do when they get in the booth.  

Both camps must be thinking:  How do you influence the loyalties of people
who have *that* degree of conflicting loyalties?  Obviously, you up the
emotional ante in your attempt to get them to fear and feel uneasy about the
other side; and you try to increase their affect for and identification with
your side. The received wisdom is, isn't it, that for that kind of job it's
inherently easier work if you've got incumbency on your side: fear (of the
unknown) is already present as a given.  That should work even if the status
quo is in itself not all that pleasant:  "better the devil you know...",
etc.  

So given that, my question is:  Does anybody have any idea at all who is
switching back and forth, and saying "Undecided"?

Ken Willing   <kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>





Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5324 talk.politics.misc:45341 alt.rush-limbaugh:4771 alt.politics.bush:5047
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:42:53 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep14.141525.16077@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

>I grew up with these people Eric, did you? They are so blinded by their in-bred
>biases and bigotry that they are blind to their own lot. I challenge you to go
>to any small southern town and look at the conditions of their local economy,
>or the conditions the people are living in. Afterwards, go and start a political
>discussion with the locals and find out what they think the real issues in the
>election are. I think you might find it surprising.

>Dr. Norman J. LaFave

I didn't grow up with them, but then again some of my best friends are
rednecks. ;^)

I am sorry you feel this way.  Sounds like you need to get some professional
help to get rid of these feelings of hostility.

BTW, what does the condition of the local economy have to do with the
inhabitants political views.  Does this include whether the local economies
are improving or not.

It is possible that the locals might like the way they live.  Small town
life does have some advantages.  Anyone who doesn't like it is free to
leave.  You did.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Jobs and growth (again)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:52:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.142146.16304@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>As has been posted before (thanks to Peter Nelson):
>
> year    '50 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87  
>    %     5.0 5.5 4.5 4.9 8.5 7.1 7.6 9.7 9.6 7.5 7.2 7.0 6.2
>  (source: BLS)  
>
>It PEAKED at 6.2% in 1987 !?! harrumph. It peaked in '82, at 9.7%.
>
>Note also that these numbers hide the huge increase in total jobs,
>something like 16 million from '82 to '87 alone, as the labor force
>was expanding.

	Well, thats ok, but it was 13 million in '76-'80, better then either
of Reagans terms (taken independantly) and we don't need to remind you that
the number of jobs has *decreased* under Bush.

	I would really like to see numbers relating the calculation methods
for unemployment before and after 1984, when the long term unemployed (ie:
over 6 monthes) stopped being figured in - I suspect that the current rates
would look be a lot closer to 10%. Anybody know how to do this?




-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
 nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God"
                                     - George Herbert Walker Bush, Feb 1989 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu (Benjamin John McCall)
Subject: **STUDENT MAILING LIST**
Keywords: mailing list, student
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:14:29 GMT

                   *****ATTENTION STUDENTS!!!!!*****


The Clinton/Gore Email Volunteer Team has started a new mailing list
exclusively for STUDENT groups supporting the Clinton/Gore ticket.

All students are invited to join, whether they belong to a student
group supporting Clinton/Gore are are thinking of starting one.

The list will start out as a vehicle for sharing ideas about student
groups, but should eventually link with national campaign headquarters
so that student groups can receive official campaign materials via
email.

**********************************************************************
To subscribe, send mail to clinton-students@cco.caltech.edu with
the Subject: subscribe

To be mailed more information and a list of commands, send mail to
the same address with the Subject: help
**********************************************************************

If you know of any other student organizations supporting Clinton/Gore,
or have friends who are politically active, PLEASE forward this message
to them.  This is a grass-roots campaign, and you CAN make a difference!

--

Ben McCall (bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu)
Clinton/Gore Email Volunteer

For more info about the Volunteer Email effort, send mail to 
Clinton-Wins@mail.Clinton-Gore.org with Subject: help

-- 
Ben McCall, Caltech - bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu
Clinton/Gore in '92.
Clinton FTP site: ftp.cco.caltech.edu, /pub/bjmccall/Clinton
From: elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:41:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <1992Sep9.105307.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> In article <27669@life.ai.mit.edu>, elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:

[lots o' stuff deleted]

> > The question I was addressing was your question of Clinton's factual
> > errors vs Quayl's factual errors. You are objecting to Clinton's
> > interpretation of those facts. When Quayl gets called to task by the
> > press, it is because he gets his facts wrong. I re-posted the quote
> > of Clinton to show that (1) Clinton got the facts right, and (2) he
> > didn't omit any key facts. Contrast this with a classic Quayl quote
> > like "there are canals on Mars." Clearly Quayl's level of ignorance
> > puts him in a league of his own.
> > 					- Lee Campbell
> 
>      If this was your intent, then why didn't you just post this 
> paragraph?  There was no reason to re-post the speech.  If you would
> have read my analysis, you would have seen that I agreed on (1)
> and (2) that you present.  But, it was the organization of the 
> speech that was confusing (it confused the Wall Street Journal,
> USA Today, etc.).  This is what I wrote about.
>      Maybe Clinton is now in Quayle's league with his comments
> on the Patriot missiles going through chimneys. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
> (And this could be our future commander-in-chief?)
> 
>      Cary Perttunen

I guess I misunderstood the post I saw. I probably didn't read it
as carefully as I should have, and I didn't look back to see your
earlier post. What can I say; I screwed up.

As for Clinton's blunder about the patriot missile, he really did
get that wrong! And then when Quayle corrected Clinton in public,
Quayle said it was *cruise missiles* not *patriots* that flew down
chimneys! Quayle looks even more foolish getting his *correction*
wrong!! We all know it was laser guided smart bombs, not patriots
or curise missiles!

Actually, I am kind of charitable to Quayle about most of his
mistakes. When he says "we can count on the President to lead us
out of the recovery" I think it's funny but I know he only misspoke;
it's not that he had the concept wrong. Similarly, when Quayle
told the Latin-Americans that he wished he had studied latin, I
assumed he reached for the wrong word, not that he actually thought
they all spoke latin. So I'm willing to give Clinton credit here
for having the concept right and the name wrong. The kind of Quayle
quotes that really bother me are the ones where he tells samoans
they are a bunch of "happy campers" or his comments before the
American Negro College fund. These show a level of ignorance and
insensitivity that are truly disturbing. Clinton may be wrong or
right about economics, education, the environment, foreign policy,
etc. but at least he's got a clue. He's no Dan Quayle!

							- Lee Campbell
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5286 talk.politics.misc:45285 alt.politics.bush:5014
From: dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (The Conservative)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:01:42 GMT
Followup-To: s
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

>In article <1992Sep14.142835.16612@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> Actually, you have no idea what I have accomplished because you never asked me
> and you don't know me. Furthermore, most of my postings have alot of facts in
> them. The reason I haven't bothered to be as thorough on this thread is that
> I make it a rule NEVER to debate with rude and obnoxious individuals. If
> somebody with more class would like to debate this issue at a polite level,
> I will be more than happy to continue.

  I think I'll try Dr. I have a quam with Clintons economic plan on two 
major points.

 1. He propose raising taxes on the upper class. Forbes showed that
    this will bring in around $200 million extra.
 2. He says that he will cut taxes on the middle class to balance the 
    upper class tax hike.

 Now if he balances the tax hike, then how is he going to pay for the
extra $200 billion social security programs that he is proposing?? I think
he really believes that his tax cut will last, but I forsee him raising
taxes on everybody his 2nd or 3rd term because of the excess spending 
he is proposing. This country needs across the board spending cuts while
maintaining the current tax level, this is the only way to cut the deficit.
Congress sees tax increases as spending increases and they view tax cuts
as spending increases also. We must cut everything back, ie streamline.
Take a little out of defense, which has been done twice over the past
two years even though defense is 5% of the budget, and take a lot out of
the 66% chunk of the budget known as social securities. But don't take a lot
out of one SS program. Cut every program marginally, this has yet happened
as SS increased by 4% in the same two years as defense has been cut, this
amounts to a $300 billion deficit. 

Rebuttal??
BTW what is your doctorate in??

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Dyrda                    | ".. but when you look underneath 
Idaho National Engr. Laboratory  |  the polished exterior, you will   
c/o School of Nuclear Engineering|  see that its the same old engine 
    Purdue University            |  with a frame bent to the left!" 
(208) 526-4050                   |               Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: forbush@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: Re: Helping business, health care costs
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 10:03:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.164955.831@sma2.rain.com>, fred@sma2.rain.com (Fred Brooks) writes:
> In article <1992Sep14.113746.1@vxdesy.desy.de> forbush@vxdesy.desy.de writes:
>>
>>As far as the German health care system goes, I think that it
>>offers more at a cheaper rate than the US. My wife had
>>a baby in Germany for $1000.00. I can't believe that anyone in the
>>US could do that. 
> 
> My health cost is $25 per month with my company Kaiser Health Plan. The
> total cost for the birth of my last child was $7.50.
> Most of the cost was for the television in her room. Price per visit is $1.00
> to her doctor during the 9 month period. She had at least 3 ultrasonic exams

This is the cost to you! How much was paid by the insurance?
Of course our cost was FREE, because Blue Cross paid for it.
I didn't pay for the Health plan either, because the University
of California paid for it. :-)

This is exactly the point I am trying to make.  People are
not concerned with the REAL cost of health care because
they have insurance to cover their cost. What about people
that do not have health insurance? What about the outragious
prices that are charged for NMR diagnosis?

To get off the track a bit...
I was at a meeting of doctors about 7 years ago when NMR
was being introduced. We were show all the wonderful things
that you could see using NMR. We showed cross sections
in color, and the question came up: Can you do this in black
and white so that it looks more like X-rays? Then came
my favorite question of all time: So this does everything
that X-rays can do, right, and it costs less to operate
so this means that we can charge more for less cost
and make a bigger profit right?


The REAL prices for health care are much higher in the
US than in Germany. That is my point. And the problem
is greed. I think the solution is government controll,
because self controll doesn't work.


> 
> Let's have a poll here. Others post the cost of their health care.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Defend your 2nd amendment rights. 
> NRA ACLU VFW
> Fred Brooks   			        Portland Oregon
-- 
Mike Forbush
forbush@panofsky.desy.de

And now for the funny part.....

 If you listen to the news, read the news, you'd think we were still
 in a recession. Well, we're not in a recession. We've had growth;
 people need to know that. They need to be more upbeat, more positive...
       -- Vice President Dan Quayle in October 91
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush & Truman
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:58:09 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <ballard.27@panther.adelphi.edu>, ballard@panther.adelphi.edu (Terry Ballard) writes:
> 
>    So now our President has looked back into the past (something
> that Republicans have always been very good at) and found a role
> model - Harry Truman.  He says this long enough and loud enough to
> drown out any spinning sounds that might be coming from the general
> direction of Truman's grave.  However, in my humble opinion, there
> are places where the comparison fails:
>    1.  Truman was a genuine and likeable human being.  He did not

	People hated Truman.

> need handlers to give him careful instructions about how to talk
> down to America.  He just got out there and gave people a double
> shot of the man he really was.

	Yep, gotta fire people to prove who is in charge.

>    2.  Truman did not need to compare himself to past Republican
> presidents in a cheap effort to get party crossover votes.  Nor
> would he have wanted to.

	Of course not, he was too busy trying to woo the State Dependents newly
created by the Roosevelt Dictator...errr...presidency.

>    3.  Truman knew when Pearl Harbor was bombed.

	And when China should have been bombed.

>    Yes, Bush is repeating that period of history, but not in the
> way that he would have us believe.  If he wants to go back to that
> era and find a role model for himself and the Republicans of 1992,
> then I would suggest Senator Joseph McCarthy. 

	Bush isn't like anyone.  He's a whole new breed of political chameleon.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:36:04 GMT

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


>It is true that a market is the most economically efficient way to do
>things.  However, a market doesn't do everything, and this is where
>government should be involved.  Would aspiring capitalists build
>the US highway network?  Provide for our defense?  Fire departments,
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wouldn't use that as an example.  The government's (at all levels)
handling of our highway system is the *worst*.  It is the epitome of
why the government should not run things that should be efficient.  A
private corporation would immediately start using all the best
materials in order to make the road last as long as possible without
constant repairs, for instance.  Something the government can't seem
to do because of all its beauracracy. 
 
That's not meant to take away from your point--the private sector
*can't* do everything.  And a capitalist economy must have at least
some government controls.  Anti-trust laws, just to name the most
obvious.
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4947 alt.politics.bush:4746 soc.rights.human:3411 alt.society.civil-liberties:672
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs  (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:21:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep5.222455.11312@athena.mit.edu>, jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:
> Seeing as how drugs seem to be self-destructive in that they can totally
> alter the way one thinks about free enterprise;

Geez, we can't have THAT.

> Now look at this.  Say drugs were legal. Less violence, lower prices.  Say 
> then that there a shortage, or somebody couldn't buy it when they wanted--
> just for the sake of argument, soemone somewhere is deprived of their new
> "right".  Well hell, Johnny can just go down the street and "borrow" some 
> from Susie, right? But then susie pulls out a knife and says, "get the hell 
> off my land," Johnny whips out his 9mm and makes her rethink things with a 
> pop in the head; now he's got his drugs.   

Or his Nikes, or his Major Sports Team Jacket, or his car.  Oh wait, which of
these things are illegal?  Hm... maybe it's the murder.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: Helping business, health care costs
Keywords: health care costs
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: not very organized.
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:26:39 GMT

fred@sma2.rain.com (Fred Brooks) writes:

>In article <1992Sep14.113746.1@vxdesy.desy.de> forbush@vxdesy.desy.de writes:
>>
>>As far as the German health care system goes, I think that it
>>offers more at a cheaper rate than the US. My wife had
>>a baby in Germany for $1000.00. I can't believe that anyone in the
>>US could do that. 

>My health cost is $25 per month with my company Kaiser Health Plan. The
>total cost for the birth of my last child was $7.50.
>Most of the cost was for the television in her room. Price per visit is $1.00
>to her doctor during the 9 month period. She had at least 3 ultrasonic exams

>Let's have a poll here. Others post the cost of their health care.

Unfortunately, the people who really should be involved in this
poll probably do not have access to USENET newsgroups.
From: smueller@sbctri.sbc.com (Steve Mueller)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: When we lose the media...
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:32:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Southwestern Bell Tech Resources

In article <1992Sep9.032740.10075@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> 
...
>
> As a non-American, it is somewhat amusing to watch commentators
> argue about a liberal or conservative bias in the American media, 
> when the greatest bias is how "provincial" and "parochial"
> American news is compared to news in other countries...even
> in the so-called media with the liberal or leftist slant.
> 
I'm always hearing this accusation of provinciality in American news but
I've never seen any evidence cited either to verify or refute it.  Any takers?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4263 tx.politics:4890
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 7 Sep 92 14:44:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <-wiDr*vX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
[tons of stuff deleted]
>> 
>> Jim, you have GOT to be on some really heavy drugs.  It's the only
>> explanation for this kind of reasoning (or lack of it).
>
>I don't do drugs.  I have never even considered doing drugs.  It is a sign of the
>lack of intellectual basis for your statements that you would accuse me of such a
>thing.
>
>
>                                                Jim Pritchett
Hey folks, it's obvious that Jim really does believe all of this stuff
he puts out, so your attempts at humor and winking just piss him off.
I suspect that if Clinton gets elected, Jim may be onto drugs pretty
quickly, since the combination of a democrat in the white house and
the Second Coming is going to ruin the real estate market..:-)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4757 alt.politics.bush:4616 soc.rights.human:3391 alt.society.civil-liberties:670 alt.individualism:5380 talk.politics.drugs:6224