HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: Silly Americans!
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:42:37 GMT

In article <05NOV92.14218920.0112@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> Andrew Chase <T3F2@UNB.CA> writes:
[silliness deleted]

it would be silly of me to respond to this post. 

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: The Filibuster-proof Senate?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 07:40:03 GMT

In article <1d92hhINN6io@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

[Filibuster proof Senate?]

>Nope.The final tally was 58-42, with one net loss for the GOP.D'Amato, Specter,
>Kit Bond and Packwood all held their seats. Idaho and Utah's open ex-GOP seats
>were won by GOP-ites. Colorado's, Ill.'s and Wa.'s open Dem. seats were won by Dems.
>The Dems. lost one in NC (Lauch Faircloth beat Sanford) and the GOP lost one in
>Wisconsin (Feingold beat Kasten). The GOP lost one seat (net) in Ca. with both
>the women winning. So, the Dems. up their total to 58, and the GOP loses one
>net seat to 42. No filibuster-proof majority for the Dems. though given that
>Specter and Packwood used to be me-too Republicans, the Dems. have a virtual
>cloture majority. 

>There is a chance for a GOP pickup in Ga., since Wyche Fowler did not win his
>seat by the required > 50% majority and will probably be forced into a runoff
>with Paul Coverdell, who ran him close. If the Libertarians defect to Coverdell
>(?), he will win. Else Fowler will hold.

>What anti-incumbency?

You're also forgetting Tennessee, which is going to need a new Senator.
How does it work there?  Does the governor get to appoint one until next
November, when they have a special election?

Also, North Dakota is going to have to hold a special election, though
I'm not sure when.  Quentin Burdick died and his wife was appointed to
fill his seat by the governor.  (Or is that South Dakota?  I can never
tell them apart.)

-- 
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.
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Final Results (major parties)
Date: 5 Nov 92 03:05:49 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1


	I thought someone else would do this, but I guess no one
else will. These numbers are from today's San Francisco Examiner.

Misc. stats
------------
Perot finished ahead of Clinton in Utah 29% to 26%. 
Democrats gained 1 seat in the Senate 58-42
Democrats gained gained 2 gubernatorial seats to 30 Dem 18 Repub 2 Ind.

Democrats went from holding 61% of the House to 57%. 
Republicans went from 38% to 40%.
Independents went from 1% to 3%.

Presidential race by States
----------------------------
All states from the South went to Bush except:
LA., ARK., and Tenn. (Geo. still undecided)

All plain states and mountain states went to Bush except:
COLO., N.M., and Mont.

All other states went to Clinton except:
IND., and Alaska.

A California exit poll shows voters voting:
-----------------------------------------------
By Income:	Clinton		Bush		Perot
<$15,000	63%		16%		21%
$15-30,000	51%		24%		25%
$30-50,000	43%		33%		24%
$50-75,000	46%		32%		22%
$>$75,000	43%		37%		20%

By Age:		
18-29		51%		25%		24%
30-44		47%		29%		24%
45-59		47%		28%		25%
60>		48%		36%		16%

Changes in the Senate:
--------------------------
Terry Sanford (D) from N.C. lost to Lauch Faircloth 52-48
Robert Kasten (R) from Wisc. lost to Russell Feingold 53-47
All other changes were in vacant seats.

Changes in Governors:
-----------------------
No incumbants lost.
Of the 12 races, Democrats won 8.

Women in Congress
-----------------
Representation in House went from 6.6% to 9.8%
In State Legislatures went from 18.4% to 20.6%
Senate went from 2% to 6%.



Hope this answers some questions.
Garrett@Ingres.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: lyman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Kenneth Casey)
Subject: Re: Its starting....
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:01:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.191220.16336@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>
>In an earlier posting I indicated my problem with voting for Bill 
>Clinton was not the man but all the liberal democrats, lobbyists
>et al who would come looking for money, power, etc.
>
>ITS 3 DAYS LATER NOW - READ ON.....
>
>Boston Mayor Flynn has already asked for help
>(Dow Jones 11/4/92)
>
>NYC Mayor Dinkins feels he missed out on some $40Billion and
> has sent a request to Clinton for more aid for NYC - amount
> unknown.
>(WFAN Radio 11/6/92, NY Times 11/6/92)
>
>"Scores of interest groups ... are dusting off their agendas,
>plotting strategy and figuring out how to place loyalists in the
>Clinton adminstration. The pressure from groups ... will be
>enormous. Unions want a law barring hiring of strikebreakers,
>AIDS activists want more research money, Pro-choice groups want
>abortion-rights legislation, Advocates of those with low incomes
>want more social welfare spending. The list goes on and on. They're
>going to feel he owes them."
>(Bergen Record 11-6-92)
>
>And this gem:
>"Longtime Clinton observers in Arkansas say he has a tough time
>saying no to people".
>(Bergen Record 11-6-92)
>
>---
>
>Need I say more?
>
>He is my President and I wish him well - but I didn't vote for him because
>I was fearful of precisely this happening.....Hide your wallets folks!

	>You're not even giving the guy a chance. Before you start with the "I
told you so's" you should at least wait until you've got some evidence that
Clinton is caving to these people. Nightline had a fascinating discussion on
Clinton the other night, interviewing three Arkansas press people who's
watched him in action. They concurred on the fact that Clinton tends to
position himself as everyone's champion, but then sometimes leaves them
feeling let down because he doesn't pursue their agenda as aggressively as
they would like. In other words, he tries to balance the various groups'
interests. That strikes me as a pretty sensible policy. Listen to e his
motivation may be political expediency, but the outcome could be positive.
Let's wait and see.

>
>


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: NYT (6-17) -- Clinton on Cuomo & Supreme Court (re: The Decline ...)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:25:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.220118.11506@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Tribe would be filibustered much longer than Cuomo ever would -- he
>was one of the prime leaders behind the movement to keep Bork off the
>court, he's made statements that taken out of context could very well
>Bork him, he's made a lot of enemies, and he's waffled on a lot of legal
>positions as he's tried very hard to want to be nominated.  

I agree entirely with Ted Frank's assessment here. Tribe had some years 
of being a number-one choice for appointment by a liberal president, but
he hurt his chances permanently both with his opposition to Bork (where he
combined legal and political arguments against Bork) and with his tendency
to trim his sails according to which political wind is blowing.

Cuomo would easily be confirmed.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
From: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Date: 6 Nov 1992 18:47:07 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Reply-To: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
NNTP-Posting-Host: g210b-1.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <1992Nov5.213320.10472@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu  
(Mmmm... Purple) writes:
> 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.

I heard that he has a BA and an MA in mathematics, so he couldn't be all that  
bad.:-)  Refresh my memory: what did he have to do with the Bork hearings?   
Also what were his recent comments wrt Harvard Law politics?

--
Bradley W. Brock, Department of Mathematics
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology  | "Resist not evil.. Love your enemies."
brock@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu       | -Jesus of Nazareth
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:14:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.021055.28875@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>	In my opinion, people voted against George Bush and not for
>>Clinton.  This assertion is supported by the endless negative press in
>>the last few months.  Why did people vote against Bush?  Because he
>>abandoned his conservative platform that got him elected.  People
>>wanted Reagan II and didn't get it.  To add to this, Clinton had to

True.

>I don't think people wanted Reagan II.  Perot made sure that people thought
>about the deficit.  People who worry about deficits don't want Reagan II.

Wrong. I am worried about the deficit and I want Reagan II.

>>around the country were defeated.  The American people want less
>>taxes, less government, and prefer a moderate to conservative
>>ideology.
>
>I think this is something that hurt Perot and helped Clinton.  Perot
>made it clear that, if we are to get the deficit under control, there is
>going to be more taxes and less spending.  People *want* less taxes,
>but they realize that they won't get them.

The people by a 55 to 37 margin, to pollsters, said they preferred
lower taxes and less Government to higher taxes and more Government.

Perot had some stong medicine, spending cuts and deficit-reducing
measures - a lot of people went for it.

Clinton got the bigger-Government vote, about 40%, plus a few others
disaffected voters.

>Given that, who do you vote for?  Perot had no position on too many
>important issues.  If taxes are going to go up and spending is going to
>go down, I want to make sure that I vote for someone who will cut
>the programs I don't like, and leave intact the programs I like.

Cut 'em all.

>Perot's lack of a position on these things ruled him out, leaving
>Bush and Clinton.  People wanted a change, so they voted for Clinton.

I wanted a change; I voted for Bush. Others wanted a *real* change,
and went for Perot.

Pat
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:19:54 GMT

In <1992Nov05.164308.13494@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: I just happen to have that on tape.  I suspect you're playing the old
>: game that the press is so good at and taking something out of context
>: that was a thoughtful answer and using it to 'prove' something.

>Clinton really did say that he and Ross Perot disagreed on how much to raise
>taxes on the middle class.  It was in the closing statement.  I think he
>*meant* that Perot wants to raise them and he doesn't, but that's not what he
>said.

Yes, but you have to go out of context and stretch wildly to get it to
fit what people are claiming here.  Ain't politics wonderful?  After
all, ZERO is a potential amount to tax the middle class, too.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:33:32 GMT

In article 9638@gandalf.rutgers.edu, shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan R. Hagan) writes:
>There for Clinton wins because he had the least number of people who
>didn't want him to be President.
>
>Whats your point?

You just made it for me.

thx
gak

---
I guess there's some things          |      Seems like the more I think I know
I'm not meant to understand          |                 The more I find I don't
Ain't life a riot? Ain't love grand? | Every answer opens up so many questions
Richard Stueven                 gak@wrs.com            ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22900 talk.politics.misc:58520
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: President-elect Clinton lying already
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:31:05 GMT
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


  On Thursday the media quoted President-elect Clinton as saying "It was
just an exchange of pleasantries, nothing else was discussed", when asked
about his first phone conversation with Russian President Boris Yeltsin.
This contradicts Yeltsin's view of the conversation, which he says included
discussion of a summit meeting in the very near future.  Hmmm!  Maybe the
Democrats will launch a $40,000,000 investigation into what really
occurred.  {:^)

  To alleviate fears from concerned citizens, let it be known that the
Clinton / Gore campaign lying is making a smooth transition to lying in
the Clinton / Gore administration.

  And on the question of mandates, let Clinton have it!  I do not want to
give the Democrats a SINGLE excuse when 1996 rolls along.  I can't wait.
They've promised us a paradise and we'd better get it.  Thursday on C-SPAN
some analysts were saying that Clinton is going to have a BIG problem with
the Democratic congress next year.  He's going to only want a small amount
of economic legislation crafted by him passed, but will wind up being
SWAMPED with every left-wing bill which got vetoed during the last 12
years.  Will he veto legislation passed by his own party?  Sounds like
gridlock to me!

  At first I was dejected when Clinton won, but now I think I'm going to
enjoy the next four years even more.  I will get sadistic pleasure watching
Clinton / Gore hoist on their own patard of unrealistic promises which they
made to the public just to get in the White House for four years.

  SO GO TO IT, MIRACLE WORKERS!  YOU ASKED FOR A MANDATE, YOU GOT IT! COME
1996 YOU WILL NOT HAVE A SINGLE EXCUSE IF EVERY ONE OF THE PROMISES YOU
MADE DOES NOT COME TRUE.  WE READ BUSH'S LIPS AND THREW HIM OUT AFTER FOUR
YEARS, WE'LL DO THE SAME THING TO CLINTON IN 1996 IF EVERY PROMISE UTTERED
FROM HIS LIPS DOES NOT COME TRUE.  ENJOY THE NEXT FOUR YEARS.

-- 
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
From: rthomson@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson)
Subject: Re: Results for other than Demopublicans or Perot?
Reply-To: rthomson@dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson)
Organization: Design Systems Division, Evans & Sutherland, SLC, UT
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 10:01:37 GMT

In article <1dnqp8INNfjv@agate.berkeley.edu>
	wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen) writes:
>Or maybe it's just that most people in this country do not favor what the 
>Libetarians stand for.

Gee, have you talked to all of them?  :-)  Seriously, perhaps the
people you talk to know all about libertarianism and reject it with
their votes.  However, you must be talking to different people than
those that I meet.  The people I meet are a generally intelligent and
informed lot (although they don't spend hours reading poltical
analyses and the endless spewing of Sununu on Crossfire).

However, many of them have never heard of the Libertarian Party, much
less the codified ideas of libertarianism.  They _are_ familiar with
many of the concepts upon which the Libertarian Party is based and,
strangely enough, they agree with those concepts.

>Most people I have encountered do recognize that the libertarians [...] are
>isolationalist

Isolationist?  How are the Libertarians isolationist?  I thought that
the Libertarian approach to foreign policy was more akin to "free
trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none" (or whatever
that quote is).  How is free trade with all nations isolationist?

>Thus the Libertarian's claims that their low percentage is caused by a 
>media conspiracy is a bit overblown.

When lack of information can explain the situation, there is no need
to jump to a conspiracy theory.  It is true that the media give us a
bad rap sometimes, but that is just because they like to stir up the
drug relegalization thing as a way to sell papers or advertising time.

>Voters DO know about the Lib's planks.

Like I said, perhaps the voters you talk to, but not the ones that
I've talked to.  Until every single voter knows the planks and
understands the ideas, then there is no reason to stop telling people
about them.  Once everyone understands the ideas and knows them, then
we can get on to the next level of discussion: policy and decisions on
specific problems.

						-- Rich
-- 
		      Don't blame me; I voted Libertarian
Disclaimer: I speak for myself, except as noted; Copyright 1992 Rich Thomson
UUCP: ...!uunet!dsd.es.com!rthomson			Rich Thomson
Internet: rthomson@dsd.es.com	IRC: _Rich_		PEXt Programmer
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: acker@tfs.com (James Acker)
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:03:05 GMT

>|>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.
>


	Big difference.........The potato incident was in a spelling bee
which as part of the rules agree to use a dictionary as the standard.
	Language and spelling are not static except in spelling bees and
scrabble games.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Subject: The good news
XXXDate: Wed, 4 Nov 92 00:07:27 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
XXXMessageID: <A71DB3CF4E020642@steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com
Distribution: usa
Date: 05 Nov 92 00:14:30 GMT


I have been considering the results of the last 24 hours and have
determined that there is indeed a bright side. I at last will be
able to bash a president without remorse of any kind. Slick Willy
fooled less than half of the people in this country and that says
a lot, probably the people who should be most ashamed of themselves
are the ones who voted for Ross Perot, and delivered us into the
hands of Comrade Clinton.

Did you notice Perot's insult of his mindless followers and the
White House. He said "I have been the one you have used to
irritate the oyster, and out has popped a pearl." Yup, he managed
to get enough people to vote for him to insure that the pearl (Slick
Willy) could be visited on us.

We have truly gotten what we deserve with this one folks.

        Steve Martin
        steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: The US - laughing stock of the world
Organization: NASA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:49:59 GMT

Richard A. Mulac writes
> 
>   I can't believe it.  President-elect Bill Clinton's mistress, Gennifer
> Flowers, posing nude in this month's Penthouse.  [...]
> 
>   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.

  Come on, Richard!  Superficialities like this are what tarnished the face of  
American politics in the first place.  The election's over; are you going to  
sit around and gripe for the next four years, or are you going to devote your  
spare time to something constructive?

  You may not like Clinton, but we're stuck with him for now.  I would suggest  
that you devote more thought and effort into supporting issues (not  
individuals!) that you believe in.  Since Clinton's commitment to the space  
program is questionable, that might be a good place to start.  (I see your  
email address has changed... do you still work for NASA?)  Write letters to the  
President-elect, as well as your new Senators and Congressmen.  It's surprising  
what can be accomplished when you try to work with the loyal opposition.

Regards,

Steve
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns