HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: It's the Jimmy Carter Show
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:05:34 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: dan-mac.csuchico.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-XXMessage-ID: <A71E953ABC014069@dan-mac.csuchico.edu>
X-XXDate: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:09:14 GMT

It's the Jimmy Carter Show with:
	-Higher inflation
	-Gas lines and
	-Every third-world country stepping all over us

Don't worry if you missed it the first time, it's on again in January!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22613 talk.politics.misc:58169 tx.politics:7000
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: NYT (6-17) -- Clinton on Cuomo & Supreme Court (re: The Decline ...)
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:04:03 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.160813.23749@midway.uchicago.edu>, dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith) writes:
>> Of course, Cuomo has doubtless done the same calculations himself, and thus
>> wouldn't touch a Supreme Court nomination with a ten foot pole. 
> 
>I don't agree.  People who know Cuomo have said that he would like nothing
>more than to be a judge.
> 
>Cuomo would get savaged, but with Democratic control of the Judiciary
>Committee and the Senate, he'd make it through.  Think of it as the
>ordeal to be endured before the prize.

No, I don't think so.  Remember, the Republicans still have 42 seats,
enough to fillibuster.  Cuomo would be fillibustered.  I think you'd have a
lot more luck with Lawrence Tribe, who I fully expect to replace the first
vacancy (which should be Blackmun, right?).

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: johng@lucid.com (John Gregory)
Subject: Why the rep convention was such a loser (was: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Reply-To: johng@lucid.com (John Gregory)
Organization: Lucid, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 00:34:06 GMT

In article <lg5bbfINN8f8@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
|> Doug Andersen) writes:
|> |> > Sounds to me like people were pretty concerned about social issues
|> |> > there, except for people who voted for Perot.
|> |>  
|> |> I think there was a lot of hype in the media about how the tone of the
|> |> Republican conventions turned voters off, but I don't think there is much
|> |> evidence to support that.
|> |>  

I'm one data point for you. They pandered to the far-right of the (my) party and did
nothing to bring the moderate and libertarian wings of the party back into the fold.
I don't understand the logic in this strategy. Sure you shore up your base of support, 
but you alienate the swing vote and hand it right back to the "republican sounding"
(read: "new") democrats.  Did they really think that the far-right of the party was
going to vote for Clinton/Gore?  (Of course, in California, the Orange County 
republicans abandoned Zsaue (sp?) vs Cranston because he *was* moderate)

|> |> I'm not saying it wasn't offensive.  I just don't think social issues were
|> |> very important to people in this election.
|> 
|> I think this is exactly the point.  The Republican convention showed that
|> Republicans were more focused on social issues than economic issues.  Since

The republican convention showed only that those who handled the convention had
a social agenda to put forward.  The rest of us just gasped.

|> those issues were not very important in this election, the convention
|> demonstrated that the Republican Party did not want to be a player in 1992.
|> 
|> George Bush obviously tried to have it both ways.  He tried to show
|> support for the social agenda of those that controlled the platform, and
|> he tried to show an interest and concern for economic issues.  IMHO he
|> never succeeded in convincing people that he felt the economic issues
|> were more important than the social ones.
|> 
|> -- 
|> These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
|> occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.

Well, good luck Clinton. You won, and there is no point in wishing you ill (an
attitude I saw lacking by opposition parties for a few years now).  

In the mean-time; Republicans, take the party back from the crackpots!

Kemp in 96. Responsible conservatism.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22971 talk.politics.misc:58624
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Results for other than Demopublicans or Perot?
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:14:34 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
NNTP-Posting-Host: maine.ce.utk.edu

In article <168968676.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:

>Jyrki Kuoppala <jkp@cs.hut.fi> writes:
> 
>>Why aren't results from the U.S. presidential election for others than
>>the governing party and the court jester told?
>>
>>//Jyrki
> 
>Because nobody really cares.

       Let's here it for the democratic process.

       Rah.   Rah.   Rah.

 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:12:28 GMT

In article <1devn2INN1jl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>  I'm not even talking about the way he speaks.  I'm referring to their
>campaign ad which talks about the last four years and at the end they 
>plaster in big type across the screen:
>
>                          HOW'RE YOU DOING?

Shocking.  As any native speaker of the language knows, the correct
form is:  HARYA DOON?
-- 
David Canzi
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22844 talk.politics.misc:58448
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Voter Turnout By State
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:05:02 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Sun Microsystems

Someone requested stats on voter turnout state by state.  Here it is,
from AP 4 Nov 1754 EST:

a1054 voterturnout-states
AM-Voter Turnout-States,360
Retransmitting a1037 to Change Key Word line
With AM-Voter Turnout, Bjt
   WASHINGTON (AP) _ Percentage of eligible voters to cast ballots
in each state and comparable figures for 1988 as provided Wednesday
by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate.
   In all, 104 million are projected to have voted this year, up
from the previous record of 92.6 million in 1984. The committee
estimated that about 55 percent of eligible voters nationwide cast
ballots, the largest proportion since 55.2 percent voted in 1972,
the group said. The figures for 1992 are preliminary.
   
   
State           1992    1988
Alabama         54.44   46.00
Alaska          50.75   55.74
Arizona         51.45   46.08
Arkansas        52.57   47.30
California      45.42   47.07
Colorado        61.84   56.25
Connecticut     63.27   58.30
Delaware        54.76   50.18
Dist. Col.      46.96   40.86
Florida         49.42   44.67
Georgia         46.49   39.40
Hawaii          41.42   43.49
Idaho           63.21   58.17
Illinois        57.54   52.79
Indiana         53.83   52.75
Iowa            64.49   57.68
Kansas          62.25   53.74
Kentucky        53.42   48.06
Louisiana       58.68   52.32
Maine           71.40   61.13
Maryland        50.68   49.01
Massachusetts   59.69   57.67
Michigan        61.62   53.92
Minnesota       69.72   65.50
Mississippi     51.53   50.49
Missouri        61.75   54.52
Montana         69.02   62.40
Nebraska        62.14   55.91
Nevada          48.01   43.54
New Hampshire   61.84   55.21
New Jersey      53.54   52.59
New Mexico      50.82   48.95
New York        47.89   47.78
North Carolina  49.46   43.74
North Dakota    66.62   61.42
Ohio            59.74   54.52
Oklahoma        59.52   49.49
Oregon          55.14   57.33
Pennsylvania    53.70   49.46
Rhode Island    53.56   52.89
South Carolina  44.42   38.96
South Dakota    66.70   60.42
Tennessee       52.19   44.71
Texas           48.61   45.54
Utah            61.82   60.64
Vermont         63.60   57.94
Virginia        52.19   47.98
Washington      50.70   53.43
West Virginia   49.81   46.73
Wisconsin       68.27   61.00
Wyoming         61.69   52.08
    AP-DS-11-04-92 1754EST
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22649 talk.politics.misc:58211
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:16:54 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <26OCT199221493438@utkvx2.utk.edu>, drevik@utkvx2.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
>Because there aren't may cars that can do it.  I looked at a Geo, and
>would have bought it, had it not been a GM product.

Brilliant.  You looked at Geo, which is the _import_ division label GM
created for the _Japanese_ cars they sell.  Except for the Prizm, they are
all built in Japan, and even the Prizm is built by Toyota in the US.  Of
course, if you had bought it from GM instead of from the original company
you would have put money into the pockets of GM, which you were obviously
loath to do, and you would have paid less overall, since these captive
imports are exempt from the "voluntary" limits on imports and are under
contract anyway, so their prices are lower than the same cars from the
Japanese companies.  Good thing you did your homework, huh?

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:52:39 GMT
Reply-To: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: DARPA STARS/NATO PCIS


In article <BxAHHH.2u5@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>  Reagan was a fiscal moron, not a fiscal conservative. ...
> He just postponed the effects of his borrow and spend approach
>to come home to roost on somebody else's watch. You can argue about how
>much fault Congress has, but that doesn't absolve Reagan from clearly
>unconservative economic policies. 

I'm glad that Reagan lived long enough to see his policies cost the
Republicans the White House, and I hope that in his heart of hearts 
he realizes where the blame lies.  Unfortunately, his thinking probably
doesn't go any deeper than "it's all the fault of that wimp Bush."  And,
of course, Nancy probably blames it on the moon being in Scorpio.

Why is it they call Jerry Brown Moonbeam?  The Reagan administration
surely had a better claim on that title.

Just think, a mere 18 months ago we had Communists running the Soviet
Union and Republicans running the Executive Branch.  So much improvement
in such a short time!

-- 
Bob Munck
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Republicans -- the new affected group
Date: 13 Nov 1992 16:13:29 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov13.155033.9595@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>
>Oh boy, here we go... Clinton announced yesterday that his Administration
>will "look like America" and will even include some Republicans. 
>
>In other words, Republican quotas! Now, no doubt there are some qualified
>Republicans out there, but they should compete on their own merits and not
>depend on any beneficence from the new President.
>

Sounds like what Clinton is attempting to do, get the *best* people for the
job, regardless of party affiliation...as opposed to Bush who got his republican
friends jobs they weren't qualified for...

>---
>Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23266 talk.politics.misc:59198
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:06:04 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov8.215033.28838@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth 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.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: trif@bike.rad.washington.edu (To Run In Fear)
Subject: Re: First Election Results!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle WA
	<10251@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> <1992Nov4.165652.7118@wuecl.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:59:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.165652.7118@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
   After reading some articles this morning, there is one possible 
   explanation.  If indeed Perot is awarded 1 electoral vote in 
   the state of Maine (which is not winner-take-all), that would
   explain the discrepancy in the total.  However it would contradict
   NPR's also often repeated report that Perot had won no electoral
   votes.  Either way they screwed up somewhere.

Not necessarily.  At the time that they were reporting 238 (instead of 239),
that electoral vote had not yet been projected.  Therefore it is correct to
report 238 *projected* votes for Clinton and no *projected* votes for Perot.
If the vote was subsequently awarded to Clinton, Perot still wins no votes.
I don't see where the error is, except for the Tennessee thing.

Personally, I was confused because I was flipping all over the place during
the coverage, and ABC, NBC, and CBS all had Clinton at 238 and CNN had him
at 239, and since no state has 1 electoral vote, I was mightily confused
until the Maine electoral vote thing had been explained, and CNN retracted
the extra vote since it had not yet been projected.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: The US - laughing stock of the world
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:09:26 GMT

In article <1diocbINNa2b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:

>  I can't believe it.  President-elect Bill Clinton's mistress, Gennifer
>Flowers, posing nude in this month's Penthouse.  We have gone from the

How do you know she was his mistress?

>envy of the world to the butt of it's jokes.  Even if you don't believe 

We have *been* the butt of it's jokes.  "Don't deal with terrorists.
That's *OUR* job."  "World Court?  What World Court?"

We're the butt of it's jokes when we make a big deal over things like
Penthouse.   Or smoking marijuana.  No one else in the world would care
about something like this.

>that she was his mistress, she was a close confidant whom he trusted.

How do *you* know she was a close confidant whom he trusted?  She was a
friend of his at one time.  So?  Billions of people in the world have 
ex-friends who no longer like them for whatever reason.

>If his judgment allowed him to choose for a close trusted friend a person 
>who would spill true or untrue details of an intimate relationship to the
>press and embarrass him by posing nude in a magazine, what kind of people 
>will he pick to help him run the country using that same "judgment"?

You're really stretching now.  Reagan got divorced.  If he can't even
pick someone as his wife who isn't going to leave him, what kind of
judgement does that show?  (Note: I don't really believe this; I'm
showing how absurd this argument is.)

Why should it embarrass him if Gennifer Flowers poses nude?  Why should
posing nude embarrass anyone?

>I guess one thing we'll be short of during the next four years is family
>values at the top.  I just hope he doesn't turn the White House into a

Are you claiming that Penthouse is somehow anti-family?

>brothel like Kennedy did.  What a black eye on the United States of
>America.  Oh, the shame of it all!

Yes, I'm sure the world laughed at us when Kennedy was president.  I
mean, he never even fell asleep during meetings with foreign leaders.
How silly.  He never even canceled a summit when his horoscope told
him to.  When the Bay of Pigs invasion was botched, he never blamed it
on someone else.  Or denied that it happened.  What was he thinking?

>  I know, maybe if we start now we can develop a campaign based on the 
>theme "America wants change".  I'm sure the American people will go for
>it and elect someone else in 1996.

I doubt it.  Not as long as the Religious Right runs the Republican party.

-- 
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
From: larryw@lclark.edu (Larry Westdahl)
Subject: Re: You must remember this
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 02:37:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.130535.12762@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov3.022503.28103@lclark.edu>, 
>larryw@lclark.edu (Larry Westdahl) said:
>
>> > > I will vote for Bush, but if Clinton wins, he will get my full
>> > > support and enthusiasm.  There is no use for sour grapes.
>> > > [Larry Westdahl, in an earlier article]
>> >
>> > I will cast my vote in such a way as I believe maximizes the
>> > chances of my political desires for America coming to fruition,
>> > but if Bush wins I will continue to hate his guts.  My support,
>> > enthusiasm and respect are not things that can be won in an
>> > election.  [wdstarr]
>>
>> Pardon my optimism.  It was people like you that I was trying to
>> adress, and it's too bad that you didn't get it.  Am I to assume
>> that you sat on your hands and pouted for the past twelve years?
>
>I don't believe that Miracles of Transubstantiation occur in politics.
>If a candidate is an asshole the day before the election, all odds are
>that he'll still be an asshole the day after the election, win, lose
>or draw.  I see no reason to give my support, enthusiasm or respect to
>a person whom I consider to be a lousy and/or worthless human being
>just because he or she managed to win an election.  You're going to
>have to be more clear about what this "it" is that I don't get.
>
>> I said I would support Clinton, grudgingly, and I will.  Not because
>> he won my support, but because I care about the country more than I
>> do about partisan politics.  I think this outlook is a lot more
>> positive than some of you whining Democrats, who vowed to sit on
>> their hands and moan and pout for the next four years if Bush were
>> elected.  [Larry Westdahl, in article 1992Nov4.032040.6141@lclark.edu]
>
>You're equating "I won't support the President" with "I'll sit on my
>hands and pout."  There _are_ other choices, you know...
>
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>


Calling George Bush lousy and worthless is ignorant and stupid.  He 
may not have been the greatest President of all time, but that doesn't
make him lousy and worthless.  I don't care what accusations or 
theories you may have heard about the past four years (you can share 
those with your friends, who probably believe everything out of Ron
Brown's mouth).  There were millions of people last night who disagree
with you, and just because your man won doesn't mean that you shouldn't
take the time to grow the hell up.


-- 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
Subject: Re: The US - laughing stock of the world
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:41:29 GMT

Oh, please.  If you just ONCE define this family values crap, then I'll debate
you.  Until then it is just a slogan to me.

Matt I.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Subject: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:33:20 GMT

Anyone want to make some guesses?  Just to throw some names into the
air:

Amalya Kearse, Second Circuit: Clinton will be under pressure to name
	a woman or a black, and this one is a two-fer, as well as a 
	highly-qualified judge.

Mario Cuomo, Gov. New York: Not unprecedented; Eisenhower nominated
	California Governor Earl Warren, a potential political opponent.
	Might be seen as too political in these times.

Lawrence Tribe, Harvard: May be too controversial in the wake of the Bork
	hearings, and some of his more recently charged comments in 
	Harvard Law politics.  Clinton could probably force the nomination
	through in the Democrat-controlled Senate, but I doubt he'd want
	to risk political capital when there are easier nominations to make.

Abner Mikva, DC Circuit: Respected Carter appointee on the second-most
	powerful court in America.  Blackmun's seat was traditionally held
	by Jews for over thirty years, and Mikva could resume that tradition.

Geoffrey Stone, U of Chicago: Also well-respected, constitutional law expert.
	Lots of political friends, one of the few scholars of his caliber to
	avoid really controversial stances.  Still, it's been decades since
	someone's been appointed to the Court without any judicial experience
	(same comment applies to Tribe and Cuomo).  Youth may be an advantage.

This is all a bit Chicago-centric, but it's a start.  Anyone know any Yale
Law pals of Clinton who'd be up as possibilities?
-- 
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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23358 alt.politics.marrou:2198