HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Debate meter (running on empty)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:05:28 GMT

In article <Bw8BFq.K1n@phage.cshl.org> pjm@isis (Pat Monardo) writes:
>judging from the light volume of posts on the second
>debates, we're all pretty much exhausted. i know i am.

Here's to a debate-free weekend. Phew!

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: WJT101@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Upper--middle--lower class??
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:19:40 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Hello,
We've been hearing a lot about taxing/no taxing the rich, the middle
class, the poor...but my question is what is the "definition" of upper, middle
and lower class??  What are the income levels?  I've heard middle class is
$30,000 to $62,000 - then I hear it's $84,000!  What are the current ranges???
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Subject: Re: the debates...
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 07:00:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.053520.14740@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>Where were they at Wash U?  It seemed to me that Bush and Perot got more
>cheers during the debate, seems they did a better job of stacking the
>audience.

	Of the 600 seats in the fieldhouse, 150 went to Bush, Clinton and Perot
each... 100 of the 150 others went to students, who were chosen by lottery, so
it was almost impossible for anyone to stack the audience.

Greg


-- 
*******************************************************************************
Greg Lyon		             	         Student Union Attorney General
gl1@cec2.wustl.edu			                       Clinton/Gore '92 
Washington University in St. Louis - Site of the First 1992 Presidential Debate
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:09:54 GMT

In article <1bi4qsINN5ch@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>
>Quayle was equally vehement about Gore flip-flopping on abortion,
>but the evidence was a Gore letter to a constituent that said that
>abortion was "arguably" the taking of a human life.  This implies
>that it is open to discussion.
>

You must've missed that part of the debate.  The issue was Gore waffling
on _federal_funding_ of abortion.


>----
>    --Brad Sherman
>
>When asked about his role in organizing an anti-war demonstration
>in London 23 years ago, Bill Clinton stated that he was "out-of-
>the-loop." The press found that an adequate response, and never
>raised the issue again.


-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: USA Today/CNN tracking poll 10/15
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:59:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.224329.5999@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>USA Today/CNN Tracking Poll:
>
>P = Perot,  B = Bush,  C = Clinton,  x = other or undecided
>
>                          % preference                          % plurality
>      5   10   15   20   25   30   35   40   45   50   55    5   10   15   20
>      |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|    |----|----|----|
> 9/30 |xP                           B                C       |           o  
>10/01 |x P                          B               C        |          o   
>10/02 | xP                           B            C          |       o      
>10/03 |   xP                        B          C             |     o        
>10/04 |   xP                        B          C             |     o        
>10/05 |   xP                         B        C              |   o          
>10/06 |   xP                        B          C             |     o        
>10/07 | x P                        B               C         |          o   
>10/08 | x  P                       B              C          |         o    
>10/09 |x   P                       B               C         |          o   
>10/10 |x   P                      B                 C        |            o 
>10/11 |x    P                     B                C         |           o  
>10/12 | x    P                    B              C           |         o    
>10/13 |  x   P                    B             C            |        o     
>10/14 | x     P                    B           C             |      o       
>10/15 |x        P                B              C            |         o    

I did a little mental curve fitting to these trends,
and it looks like Perot will overtake Bush in about
ten days.

Hee hee.  Lies, damn lies, statistics, geometry, ...

>Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com


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

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 06:49:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.042705.22494@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.212919.26232@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>|> In article <1992Oct7.181855.12558@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Oct6.212129.29279@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>|> 
>|> >|> Democracies do not go to war with one another.
>|> 
>|> >Bullshit.
>|> 
>|> Really?  Name two democracies that went to war with one another.  *Real*
>|> democracies, not places where people could vote for the winner like the 
>|> ex-Soviet Union.
>
>Name two communist countries which went to war with each other.

Easy:  USSR and People's Republic of China.  Constant border disputes,
heavily armed truces along frontiers.

USSR and Hungary.

USSR and Czechoslavakia

USSR and Poland.

Vietnam and Cambodia.

>|> When's the last time the US and Canada fought?  Or Britain and France?
>
>1812, when we went to war with Canada and Britain.  I forget, was
>France involved with that too?

Everybody and their brother were fighting at that point. It was during the
Napoleonic Wars.  France was no longer a republic, Nappy was emperor.
Britain was run by the Crown Prince, who had a Parliament, but not one as
strong as today.  Canada was a crown colony. France was not directly
involved in our war with England.  We were also pissed at them, tho, and
had an undeclared conflict going before we started shooting at the Brits.

We subsequently exchanged a few shots with the Canadians in the "Pig War"
over some San Juan Islands...
From: dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Commander in Chief Clinton ?
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:43:21 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: dan-mac.csuchico.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-XXMessage-ID: <A700AE4FFF014069@dan-mac.csuchico.edu>
X-XXDate: Tue, 13 Oct 92 23:48:15 GMT

In article <3833@eastman.UUCP> , pawlicki@kodak.com writes:

>	The President of the United States has to have the moral
>authority to lead the military. He is, first and foremost, the
>Commander in Chief of the most powerful army the world has ever >know.
>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

Being x-military, I wouldnt like taking an order to go fight on foreign
land from a man who I think was a coward and turned his back on his
country.  That's just the way I see it.

I would have no problem taking an order however from a president who had
never been in the military.  Being in the military is not a prerequisite
for being a good leader.  There are certain character qualities that are
mandatory though.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle on speed?
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 04:29:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.010059.18213@Princeton.EDU> glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:
>DQ's idiotic bait -- the whole debate to me seemed like one enormous
>effort to avoid talking about anything substantive.

It was.

>Why does someone turn off his hearing aid in the middle of a debate?
>Was that a joke about not wanting to hear the other participants, or am
>I reading too much?
>

Ha ha ha!!!  Hadn't occurred to me.  Absolutely hilarious!!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.elections
From: belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell)
Subject: Re: Statistical question re tracking poll
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 03:54:33 GMT


>In alt.politics.elections you write:

>>The graph of tracking poll data which was posted earlier today, and
>>which I reproduce below, looks too smooth to me. I would expect to see
>>more scatter about curves fitted to the data if the usual 3-4%
>>standard errors of sampling apply to the individual polls. The error
>>of individual points appears to me to be more like 1-2%.  Does this
>>imply that some sort of averaging of successive polls has been done?

I believe the 3-4% refers to the 95% probability threshold and not the
standard error.  95% corresponds to 2.5 sigma, so the standard error would
be about 1-2%, just as you observe.

Dave
belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:27:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.212919.26232@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct7.181855.12558@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct6.212129.29279@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|> 
|> >|> Democracies do not go to war with one another.
|> 
|> >Bullshit.
|> 
|> Really?  Name two democracies that went to war with one another.  *Real*
|> democracies, not places where people could vote for the winner like the 
|> ex-Soviet Union.

Name two communist countries which went to war with each other.

|> 
|> I'm a little confused.  What do your examples have to do with the
|> statement?  Vietnam,Nicaragua and Panama weren't democracies.  The
|> statement was that "Democracy abroad helps protect interests at home."
|> 
|> When's the last time the US and Canada fought?  Or Britain and France?

1812, when we went to war with Canada and Britain.  I forget, was
France involved with that too?
From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Date: 12 Oct 1992 03:04:17 GMT
Organization: Committee to Impeach H. Ross Perot's Barber
NNTP-Posting-Host: s27w007.pswfs.gov

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

2) The commission was right, this is a lousy format.  Not a single
good question was asked (puffballs all) and as soon as the candidates
began to address the issue, the minute was up and it was on to the
next disjoint question.  This was perfect for Perot.  Serves Bush
right.

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

4) Perot completely defuses Bush's attacks on Clinton.
----
    --Brad Sherman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:39:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.005725.3468@news.acns.nwu.edu> ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung) writes:
>In article <1bai6fINN7li@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello) writes:
># 
># 3.  Clinton was especially effective at countering Bush's attack on his
># patriotism.  He reminded voters of Joe McCarthy, and that Sen. Prescott
># Bush, George's father, fought against McCarthyism.
>
>I think this was a lot less effective for the unconverted than for Clinton
>backers.  First, he didn't challenge the facts at all, however false they

Umm...which *facts* was Clinton supposed to challenge? that he was
against the war in Vietnam? that he studied at Oxford? that he took
a trip to Moscow? 

>may be.  Second, I hardly think Clinton is about to get blacklisted or
>expelled from the country.  Remember that he is running for public office;
>attention to character is quite relvant.
>I thought that this was a great time to just come out and say "I made a
>mistake."  Goerge was practically daring him to.  Instead, he makes
>accusations in return at Bush.  Both of them seem to be making the same
>mistakes they were before the debate.

About the only reason a person would come out and say that they made
a mistake was if they had made a mistake...do you think it was a
mistake
to:
  1) Protest a "conflict" (not war) that the US had no business being
     involve with in the first place?
  2) Accept a Rhodes Scholarship and attend Oxford?
  3) Travel to Russia when your scholarship paid for part of it?
     (i.e. to see how the other half *really* lives?)

Perhaps Bush should admit the mistakes he made during his tenure as
Vice-President and President ? how about Bush challenging the *facts*
about the Iran-arms deal...or how about the *facts* about the BNL
Iraq loans? (interesting note...I've heard claims that Bush has an
account with BNL...wonder where the money comes from...:-)

I think Perot said it best concerning character...which is more
important, activities done by a college student 23 years ago,
or activities done by a senior government official within the
last 8 years...of course, what the college student did 23 years
ago was *much* more important..:-)

John



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: clueless@cis.umassd.edu (Thomas R. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Debate II
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:12:22 GMT

I was really impressed by the format of the debate.  It became clear early on
that simply bashing each other would not be tollerated.  I think the fact that
ordinary people were asking the questions made a difference.  It is easy to
beat up on the media when they ask difficult questions, but the ordiary Joe 
can ask those same questions without looking biased.

As for content, I must admit George Bush did better than I thought.  He is
much more appealing to me when he sticks to the issues.  His recent attacks
on Bill Clinton were not reversed by his performance last night, but he did
go up a little in my book.  Ross Perot didn't have enough details to make
this debate different than the first.  My guess would be that his polls will
remain where they are.

Bill Clinton showed that he had put a great deal of thought into the issues.
His content was no different than his previous debates.  The big difference
was that he made his existing supporters comfortable with the idea of a 
Clinton presidency.  They won't be switching to another canidate.

I would score the debate:

        George Bush    1.0
        Bill Clinton   1.2
        Ross Perot      .6

Tom Johnson
Clueless@cis.umassd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: the debates...
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:35:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.003216.3163@news.acns.nwu.edu> ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung) writes:
>
>Even though all who are in the know already realize that Clinton has won
>the election, I watched the debate.  Anyway, without watching the spin
>doctors:

Speaking of spin doctors, it disgusted me to see the networks interviewing
them.  Look, these people's jobs are to manipulate.  Let them buy the
advertising time, and get someone non-partisan to comment on what happened.

>The other students here (as on the net) formed a virtual Clinton cheering
>squad, so it's hard to say what the truly undecided thought.

Where were they at Wash U?  It seemed to me that Bush and Perot got more
cheers during the debate, seems they did a better job of stacking the
audience.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Iran-contra in the debate
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:22:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: what.. me.. organized?



IMO, the best line of the debate was Perot's when he said that one
has to look at what one did when one was a young man vs. what one
did when one was senior govt official in the white house. It had
Iran-contra and Iraqgate written all over it. I don't have the
exact words he used. can somebody post it?

 
_______________________________________________________
| Prashanth                    |                      |
| U. of California @ San Diego | prash@raman.ucsd.edu |
#######################################################
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: VP Debate -- impressions & facts
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:08:25 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

In article <1992Oct14.203214.4194@Princeton.EDU>,
glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) wrote:
> 
> In article <1bhqg0INNdni@fido.asd.sgi.com> aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:
> >Gore:  Wooden -- but solid.  I was disappointed that he didn't come back
> > with specifics immediately when Quayle attacked the line out of his book,
> 
> Because old crack-smoking DQ, EVERY time he told one of his lies,
> absolutely refused to let Gore respond and went on with his hyperactive,
> childish, *embarassing* political-operative-programmed speech on the way
> to "trust" and "waffling."  Wotta jerk.
> 
> I would love if someone who taped that thing could figure out who used
> more of the clock.  I would guess that DQ used about 3 to 3:15 of every
> discussion period (plus a few seconds of Gore's opening statement --
> wotta jerk!)

Gore addressed Quayle.  That's how it goes.

What a bunch of babies.  I watched the debate TWICE boys, and I noticed
that whenever Sir Albert got talking he decided "Now's a good time for a
speech" and would just gooo.  I also timed it: he spoke more than Quayle.  

Debates are supposed to be like this.  They are NOT supposed to be two or
more people giving tiny speeches.  If I wanted that, I'd just watch
speeches.  Gore didn't come to debate, he came to give speeches.  Had he
some moxy, he would have engaged Quayle more (I was surprised he didn't)
than he did.

As to the lies, hey the NYT detailed that Quayle wasn't THAT far off on the
comment on Gore's book.  Gore also told some tall tales (mostly about
Arkansas' record).

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: monitn@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu (Nicholas Monitto)
Subject: Re: political cartoon
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:21:32 GMT

scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:


>    There was a funny political cartoon reprinted in Sunday's New 
>York Times -- my copy was somewhat damaged, the cartoonist was
>(something) Rall (and I can't tell what the original source was), 
>first panel reading "The Republicans needed a break".  Does someone
>with a good copy want to post it?  Or at least let me know who this
>cartoonist is, and where s/he publishes?

Ok, I'll give this a try...
From the Sunday NYTimes, section 4
Original cartoon by Ted Rall (Chronicle Features, no paper cited)

Panel 1: THE REPUBLICANS NEEDED A BREAK
         2 men reading papers at Republican HQ
         "We need a break" "A break. That's what we need."
         Headlines include 'Unemployment skyrockets' 'Family Values Falls Flat'

Panel 2: ONE DAY, THEY GOT IT
         Newspaper shows: CLINTON MADE HUMAN SACRIFICE TO BAAL IN '67
                          Democrat ate his college roomate in ritual
                          offering to ancient Canaanite deity
         Bush (i believe) at podium, "I believe in freedom of religion as much
         as the next protestant, but I draw the line at Baal."

Panel 3: THE DEMOCRATS WERE CAUGHT BY SURPRISE
         Clinton reacts: "It was the sixties! Everyone was doing it!"
                         "Excuse me, but I thought religious preference was
                          a private matter!"
                         "Sure, I feel badly about my roomie, Eddie, but I
                          owe everything I have today to Baal!"

Panel 4: VOTERS REACTED PREDICTABLY
         'Average voter' on television, "I'm voting for Clinton...since he's
          got a direct line to Baal, maybe he can get me a job!"
         Republican handler reading a new newspaper, "We need a break."
         Headlines feature 'Clinton Lead Increases' 'Negative Ads Backfire'

It's a rough translation, but I hope this helps...
Nick (monitn@rpi.edu)

>-- 
>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
From: mix@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: re: Perot for President
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:37:12 -0400
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

In article <92275.220751DMEJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET>, <DMEJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
> I am amazed that there are people who can still support Perot
> for president. What assurance do we have that in the middle of
> a crisis he wont decide to leave office and let an unknown
> be president? What assurance do we have that he wont use
> the FBI, IRS, and other government agencies as sleuths against
> his "enemies"? What assurance do we have that he wont disregard
> the provisions of the constitution and the Bill of Rights?
> What assurance do we have that he can work with anyone cooperatively?
> Why vote or support anyone who is unwilling to undergo scrutiny?
> Why waste a precious vote!
> Arthur

Not only that, but doesn't anyone think that perhaps he might be 
impeached (yes, it's happened before) once he tries to strongarm 
anyone and everyone into doing what he wants and only what he wants?  
Sure, he wants to lower the deficit, but what the hell else does he 
want?  We really don't know, and how we support someone like that?

--Darrick Mix, Georgetown University