HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush Tampering with Key Economic Figures
Date: 10 Nov 1992 16:54:30 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Nov9.165227.9680@wixer.cactus.org>, reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan) writes:
|> When Clinton takes office in January he will find that many key economic
|> statistics have been tampered with for political reasons.
|> 

[allegations of Bush falsifying data deleted]

|> Pretty serious allegations...  If any of this turns out to be true, Bush
|> should be brought up on charges.

I saw John Liscio (ex-USN&WR) on TV over the weekend, and it was his opinion
and that of a lot of Wall Street economists that if at all, the figures reflect
a much-too conservative estimate, and that when the revisions are made after more
complete data come in, they will probably be UPWARD revisions. He also said
something about the New York Post being about as good at economic reporting
as they are at news reporting, which was bad (his opinion, not mine).


|> -- 
|> oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22658 alt.politics.marrou:2097 talk.politics.misc:58220 alt.politics.clinton:15845
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:31:51 GMT
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) says:
>
>It's a real landslide for Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party!
>
>Right.
>
>What this tells me is that FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT of the voters do not
>believe that Bill Clinton should be President.

Funny, it tells me that a resounding SIXTY-THREE PERCENT of the voters
do not believe that George Bush should be president; and that a whopping
EIGHTY-ONE PERCENT of the voters do not think Ross Perot should be 
president. Congratulations, you can subtract. So can I. Isn't democracy
wonderful? 8^) 8^) 8^)
-- 
         I just know that something good is gonna happen
         I don't know when,
         But just saying it could even make it happen ...      _o_
                                                                |<
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: bh437292@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Basil Hamdan)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 18:16:03 GMT
Reply-To: bh437292@lance.colostate.edu
Organization: Engineering College, Colorado State University

In article <Bx97L1.C0n@wrs.com>, gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) writes:
|> In article <Bx7rGq.43x@world.std.com> adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) writes:
|> > Bill Clinton, Dem 43,688,671 - 43 percent
|> > George Bush, GOP (i) 38,109,410 - 37 percent
|> > Ross Perot, Ind 19,089,432 - 19 percent
|> > Andrew Marrou, Oth 278,528 - 0 percent
|> > Lenora Fulani, Oth 211,742 - 0 percent
|> > Bo Gritz, Oth 97,601 - 0 percent
|> > John Hagelin, Oth 44,521 - 0 percent
|> > Howard Phillips, Oth 39,391 - 0 percent
|> > James Mac Warren, Oth 27,464 - 0 percent
|> > Lyndon LaRouche, Oth 25,688 - 0 percent
|> > Ron Daniels, Oth 25,404 - 0 percent
|> > Other, Other, 22,822 - 0 percent
|> 
|> It's a real landslide for Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party!
|> 
|> Right.
|> 
|> What this tells me is that FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT of the voters do not
|> believe that Bill Clinton should be President.


And, to be consistent, it should also tell you that:
- SIXTY THREE PERCENT of the voters do not believe that
  George Bush should be President.
_ EIGHTY ONE PERCENT of the voters do not believe that
  Ross Perot should be President.
_.....

I guess that is why Bill Clinton WILL be our next President.
You can call it mandate or no mandate, who cares ???
The point remains that Bill Cinton won the election.
Congratulations Bill.

Basil
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: dfl@panix.com (Danny O'Bedlam)
Subject: Re: Voter Turnout By State
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:42:02 GMT
Organization: Panix, (New Yawk City)

In <2785@tymix.Tymnet.COM> filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:
>Someone requested stats on voter turnout state by state.  Here it is,
>from AP 4 Nov 1754 EST:
>State           1992    1988
>Alaska          50.75   55.74
>California      45.42   47.07
>Hawaii          41.42   43.49
>Oregon          55.14   57.33
>Washington      50.70   53.43

	The five westernmost states all went DOWN, whereas every other
went up.  I would connect this to the continuing practice of media
networks of jumping the gun with exit polls and announcing too much
factual or interpretive information prior to the polls closing in
all states.  As good an argument as ANY for a universal poll closing
time.


-- 
***********************************************************************
* Danny O'Bedlam  = dfl@panix.com = cmcl2!panix!dfl = Danny Lieberman *
* PO Box 3131 Church St Station, New Yawk, New Yawk, 10008-3131 (usa) *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
	<1devn2INN1jl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <1dfu58INNgkh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
	<1992Nov8.215033.28838@news.columbia.edu>
	<10351@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
Date: 11 Nov 92 07:33:32

Mark Wilson writes:
>In <1992Nov8.215033.28838@news.columbia.edu>
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Eliza\beth G. Levy) writes:
>
>|>Actually, there's a school of linguistic thought that argues what a
>|>native speaker of a given language says is "correct."  Since Clinton
>|>is a native speaker of the English language, "How're" is correct,
even
>|>if it isn't necessarily mainstream or in the dictionary.  The goal
>|>of language is communication, and "how're" is not ambiguous.
>
>
>Does this generosity cover spelling as well?
>
>After all adding an 'e' to potato does not change how it is pronounced.

Time out.

Linguistics is the study of language - as it is.  Therefore, it's not
in the scope of linguistics to go around labeling things "right" and
"wrong".  If a word does not exist in a certain language, it is
usually said to be "not in the lexicon" or something similar.  A
grammatical construction that doesn't make sense to a native speaker,
or that a native speaker would never use, gets a label like "not in
the grammar".  This is not "a school of linguistic thought"; this is
the basis for all work in linguistics.  

Spelling isn't within the scope of linguistics.  

If you really feel these little details are worth arguing, fine, but
could you please leave us linguists out of it?

Thank you.
-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 09:06:17 GMT

In article <1dfu58INNgkh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
>In a previous article, clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) says:
>
>>In article <1devn2INN1jl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, Richard A. Mulac writes:
>>
>>>                           HOW'RE YOU DOING?
>>
>>> Great example to set for kids.  And this man is going to IMPROVE our
>>> educational system???
>>
>>I'll give you a hint: the "how're" is a contraction, standing for
>>"how are".  *You're* familiar with them, I assume, as I *can't* imagine
>>the concept *hasn't* or *isn't* being taught in schools.  If you
>>*weren't* taught about them and they *aren't* familiar, *you'll* be
>>sorry if you *don't* learn about them ASAP.
>
>BZZZZT! Wrong.  *We're*, *you're*, *I'm*, *hasn't*, etc. are all "proper" 
>English contractions.  *How're* is NOT (pronounced "hower").  Of course 
>they were trying to contract "How are".  However, it is not proper and is 
>considered "broken" English.  Check any reputable dictionary.  In fact,
>your news program might have a spell checker built in.  I'll bet you it 
>accepts *we're*, *you're*, *I'm*, *hasn't*, etc., but rejects *how're*.

My dictionary doesn't have the word "gullible" in it.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: trevor@telesoft.com (Trevor Bourget @ignite)
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 03:48:33 GMT

In <1den96INNom2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:

>Wow!  Now we have a real "education" President in Bill Clinton.  Someone
>who uses proper English words like "How're" when communicating to millions
>of Americans in his campaign commercials (How're you doing?).  Maybe he
>wants the Arkansas dialect of English to become the official language of
>the US.

You've got a valid complaint about Mr. Used-to-be-a-Rhodes-Scholar, but
you selected an inappropriate example.  "How're" is a perfectly
acceptable contraction for "How are".  But check out this quote about
what he's doing to prepare for his presidency:

  ``We're putting together the transition team and I'm reading volumes
  of things on stuff I need to decide on,''

Very impressive.

-- Trevor Bourget (trevor@telesoft.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: bruce@pages.com(Bruce Henderson)
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Organization: Banzai Research Institute
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:21:32 GMT

In article <BxJ2M8.5ns@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
writes:
> 	[excerpt from the quoted release]
> >>      The new indictment filed today by Independent Counsel Lawrence
> >> Walsh is the smoking gun showing that George Bush lied to the
> >> American people about his role in the arms-for- hostages affair.
> 
> So, what have you shown us?
> (1) Bush definitely lied.
> (2) Republican Walsh may have a leaky staff (much like congress) and the 
>       Clinton group find out about the indictment a day earlier (big deal).
> (3) Or the Clinton group maybe made a typo  (big deal).
> 
> Point (1) bothers me a lot.  Point (2) and/or point (3) sounds like 
> typical Washington.  Thanks for confirming I voted for the best person.
> 
> If you seriously believe there was a Clinton/Walsh conspiracy against 
> Bush, then you should also readily believe that there was a Reagan/Khomeini 
> conspiracy against Carter.  Anything else would be inconsistent.

Now... If I were the news media, and this was about Ross Perot, I'd be calling  
your favorite dude (be he Clinton or Bush) paranoid.  Why... no reasonable  
person would have posted a news report a day early... What would they have to  
gain?  

It just makes me chuckle.  One man's paranoia (supposed) is another man's Iran  
- Contra.  My what a tangled web!

Bruce
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23035 talk.politics.misc:58731
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Date: 7 Nov 1992 08:18:48 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) says:

>In article <1devn2INN1jl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, Richard A. Mulac writes:
>
>>                           HOW'RE YOU DOING?
>
>> Great example to set for kids.  And this man is going to IMPROVE our
>> educational system???
>
>I'll give you a hint: the "how're" is a contraction, standing for
>"how are".  *You're* familiar with them, I assume, as I *can't* imagine
>the concept *hasn't* or *isn't* being taught in schools.  If you
>*weren't* taught about them and they *aren't* familiar, *you'll* be
>sorry if you *don't* learn about them ASAP.

BZZZZT! Wrong.  *We're*, *you're*, *I'm*, *hasn't*, etc. are all "proper" 
English contractions.  *How're* is NOT (pronounced "hower").  Of course 
they were trying to contract "How are".  However, it is not proper and is 
considered "broken" English.  Check any reputable dictionary.  In fact,
your news program might have a spell checker built in.  I'll bet you it 
accepts *we're*, *you're*, *I'm*, *hasn't*, etc., but rejects *how're*.

>Now please go shoot yourself.

You first.

I guess the kindler, gentler days are over (don't flame me on the grammatical 
correctness of this Bushism  {:^)  ).

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1460 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: niepornt@dial.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:15:32 GMT

In article <Bx97L1.C0n@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
>In <Bx7rGq.43x@world.std.com> adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) writes:
>> Bill Clinton, Dem 43,688,671 - 43 percent
>> George Bush, GOP (i) 38,109,410 - 37 percent
>> Ross Perot, Ind 19,089,432 - 19 percent
>> Andrew Marrou, Oth 278,528 - 0 percent
>> Lenora Fulani, Oth 211,742 - 0 percent
>> Bo Gritz, Oth 97,601 - 0 percent
>> John Hagelin, Oth 44,521 - 0 percent
>> Howard Phillips, Oth 39,391 - 0 percent
>> James Mac Warren, Oth 27,464 - 0 percent
>> Lyndon LaRouche, Oth 25,688 - 0 percent
>> Ron Daniels, Oth 25,404 - 0 percent
>> Other, Other, 22,822 - 0 percent

>It's a real landslide for Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party!

>Right.

>What this tells me is that FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT of the voters do not
>believe that Bill Clinton should be President.

No, what it says is that 57% of the voters did not think Bill Clinton
was the *BEST* choice on the ballot.  Not that they don't think he
should be President.

I mean, I think Andre Marrou would be a good choice for President, but I
didn't vote for him.  How many people did the opposite?  Voted for
someone besides Clinton to send a message, even though they weren't
opposed to Clinton.

It's sort of irrelevant.  We've had several minority presidents, and 
they've done just as well or badly as our majority presidents.  

I believe the candidate with the highest percentage of the popular vote
ever was LBJ, and look how he turned out.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clintonOB
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Subject: Bush Tampering with Key Economic Figures
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 16:52:27 GMT

When Clinton takes office in January he will find that many key economic
statistics have been tampered with for political reasons.

An article by John Crudele in the New York Post contends that the Bush
adminstration tampered with, or otherwise falsified, Labor Dept
statistics on jobless rates from September and perhaps subsequent reports
so that Bush would be able to convince voters the economy was finally
improving.  

* Prior to the release of the September Labor Dept. figures, rumors
  abounded that the numbers would be bad, yet when the figures were
  released in early October, they were surprisingly good.  This report
  spurred a series of suspicious economic statistics.

* Economic experts "almost universally" question the 2.7 increase in GDP
  reported by the Commerce Dept for the third quarter 1992 according to
  Crudele. 

* Also questioned are government statistics on the computer and
  information-processing industry that showed "booming" growth.

* Other "suspicious" claims by the government during this period include
  an assertation that exports rose sharply during the third quarter, that
  inventories climbed and that consumers increased spending at a "highly
  improbable" $27 billion annual rate.

The September jobless reports from teh Labor Dept. reports that 226,000
had become "discouraged" and were no longer looking for work and would
therefore not be counted in the jobless figures.  This reduced the
offical jobless claim to 7.5%.  Crudele speculates that this number was
manufactured by the Bush adminstration to artificially keep the
unemployment rate low.

                             ----

Pretty serious allegations...  If any of this turns out to be true, Bush
should be brought up on charges.
-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: MITI as a model for US industrial policy?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:21:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.181248.20804@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
> From who? There are plenty of 'trade hawks' around, but from what I've seen
> the idea of an American MITI has pretty much been abandoned, even by those
> who at one time were associated with the idea of 'industrial policy'.
 
I believe there is either a bill or at least a proposal in Congress right
now to allocate a few hundred million dollars to start up a US MITI
focused on high-tech markets.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: Its starting....
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:22:00 GMT

In article <1dora4INNia5@travis.csd.harris.com> taco@baby.csd.harris.com (Pablo Fumero) writes:
>
>As for 'Slick Willy', wait untill he starts taking away more of
>your hard earned money to pay for all his special interest promises.
>Prediction: the debt will increase no matter who is in the White House.
>The problem is not with the president, it is with CONGRESS.
>-- 
>Pablo Fumero 			Internet: taco@flipper.csd.harris.com

I absolutly agree.  Who the president is is 1/4 of the problem.  The other
3/4ths is Congress.  I suggest the American people focus on cleaning that
pile of rubbish up.
-- 
William R. Nau
Supercomputer Systems Engineering and Services Company (SSESCO)
511 11th Avenue South, Suite 216
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1536
(612) 342-0003

nau@SSESCO.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23553 talk.politics.misc:59727
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:58:46 GMT
Organization: Church of Ill-Repute

giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:

> Although some Republicans believe that this announcement stopped the
> president's momentum that was building during the week before the
> election, I personally believe it had a small effect on the 
> election at least by reminding the populace of Iran-Contra.  (as opposed 
> to "no effect" as claimed above).

The damage to Bush's "surge" may also have been done by the "bozo"
comment, as it made Bush appear to be of dubious presidential caliber.

John
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23503 alt.politics.clinton:16876 alt.president.clinton:333
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: LIKELY VICTORY FROM UNLIKELY VOTERS!!!
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:33:53 GMT

In article <1dbj93INNpqg@news.aero.org>, homeier@aero.org (Peter Homeier) writes:
|> I am sorry for posting the previous article about unlikely voters showing
|> up to pick Perot for President.  As the election showed, the support for
|> Perot was nowhere near the high levels that the article suggested were
|> possible.  I feel really bad about this, because I never want to say
|> anything that is not true.  I substantially misled the readers here, and
|> may have increased expectations of Perot supporters without substance.
|> I apoligize to anyone who was hurt by having those expectations raised and
|> then dashed; I feel with you.  It was not my intention to deceive; but in
|> my heart, I wanted to believe very badly that Perot had a chance, and I
|> allowed this to cloud my judgement about the credibility of the unlikely
|> voter reports.  Please forgive me.
|> 
|> Peter Homeier

It's OK.  I have been looking aat this and I think oyu misinterpreted
the poll.  It may have been a poll of who people would have liked to be
president among unlikely voters, not who they were going to vote for.
Whatever it was it was WRONG of the press to sin on that since it would
have shown that the Perot supporters had very significant numbers.


-- 
Doug                   

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can 
do for your country.  - JFK
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23030 alt.politics.perot:5286 soc.culture.african.american:10729
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Perot's Vote Percentage State-by-State
Date: 7 Nov 92 06:30:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Nov6.182122.7359@ncsu.edu>, prhaikal@eos.ncsu.edu writes:

> Think again.  Who controls Congress? Democrats (unfortunately).  Who
> uses the biggest staffs? Congress.  Where do all the staff members live?
> D.C.  So who are they gonna vote for?  Bozo.  That's also the reason
> why Maryland went so strongly for Clinton- Much of Maryland's suburbs 
> are D.C.

So, are you claiming that the majority of people in Maryland or DC
are congressional staff members?  Is it possible to be that stupid?
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:02:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.142145.690@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@clio.uucp (Eugen W. Schmidt) writes:
>In article <#h==RV-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Nov5.182646.9493@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>,
>gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>
>>None of what you have said disputes the comment that Clinton did
>>*NOT* receive a mandate.
>
>If a "mandate" requires a majority of the popular vote, Nixon didn't
>have one in 1968.  The relevence of that turned out to be
>approximately nil.

If getting a certain percentage of the vote is the equivalent of a
mandate,  then Mike Dukakis got a larger mandate in '88 (48% vs. 45%)
than Clinton got in '92.

- Ted D.