From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:01:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxGq5z.LLo
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <adams.721064205@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>>The only time I have seen LANDSLIDE mentioned is with regards to the 
>>electoral votes, 

This is still true, and I heard the word landslide used w.r.t electoral 
votes during the first 24 hours after polls started closing.  I stopped 
following the details at that point.

>>where Clinton got more than three times the number that
>>Bush did.  Perot got none.

Oops.

>The final totals gave Bush aprox 180 electoral votes.  3x that would be
>more votes than are available total.  Clinton did not even double Bush's
>electoral total, winning with aprox 90 more than needed.  A nice,
>comfortable margin electorally, but hardly a landslide.

Thanks for the update.  It seemed like 300+ versus 100 when I went to 
bed late after the election.

Early evening on election day it was something like 240 versus 30 
(a factor of 8!!) with the first east coast states reporting.  I suspect 
several newspapers had to go to press early and the early results looked 
like a landslide, so that is where the quotes came from.  (It's not 
MY term, I was just saying where and how I heard it.)

>>With regards to a mandate, everything I've read and seen (mostly the 
>>non-media C-SPAN) suggests the single most important issue of this 
>>campaign was -- trickle-down-economics: keep it or lose it?
>No.  It was "George Bush does/does not deserve reelection."  George Bush

I don't think this was a character election even though Bush thought it 
was.  Almost everyone I know and everyone I heard on C-SPAN thought the 
economy was the crucial issue in this election.  

>was NOT Reagan.  He made deals with the Demos.  

Mostly he made vetoes.

>He didn't take action when
>people thought he should.  Many Republicans hated him.  I voted against him
>because he didn't deserve reelection.  Nor did I vote for Clinton.

So you voted against trickle-down economics, since Bush was the ONLY one 
still supporting this tired idea. 

>As it turns out, 60%+ felt that Bush should NOT be reelected, but only 43%
>felt that Clinton should be.

So you are saying the only candidate supporting trickle-down economics 
has a clear mandate to get out of office.  Sounds like a clear vote 
against trickle-down to me.

I never said the mandate was in FAVOR of Clinton's economic plans.  I said 
the mandate was to GET RID of trickle-down economics.  I still think so.

>The Democrats lost about 10 seats in the House, and at best, can pick up
>one seat in the Senate.  If the runoff in Georgia goes Republican, they
>will hold their totals.  And depending on what happens in the special
>election in ND (Burdick seat, vacated by his death) the Republicans could 
>actually pick up a seat.

>There was not even a mandate for 'change'...a plurality for change at the
>top, but for the status quo in Congress.

Every year "they" say "throw the bums out!", but never do.
People kept congress the way it was this time (Democratic).
People changed the administration this time (to Democratic).

I think the 80's Republican rhetoric simply fails without the charisma 
of Reagan to back it up.  Examples:

Let's cut taxes, raise defense spending and in the process, balance the budget.
(yeah, right.)
If we ignore minorities, the environment, and the homeless, then these 
problems will go away.
(yeah, right.)
Let's unregulate businesses like airplanes and S&L's, that will be good 
for everybody.
(yeah, right.)
Let's give tax breaks to the rich and hope they will then invest it in 
business growth IN AMERICA (more jobs).  
(yeah, right.)
Let's talk about school prayer and pretend we're doing something about it.
(yeah, right.)
Let's say we're pro-life, but confess we're pro-choice where our daughters 
are concerned.
(yeah, right.)
Let's offer $1000 school vouchers, which the rich can use as a discount 
off their prep school tuitions and the poor will just give back to the 
public schools, not being able to afford the remainder of private tuition 
(another [hidden] tax break for the rich).
(yeah, right.)
Let's wrap ourselves in the flag (America! No. 1!) and support petty 
dictators to stabilize Panama and Iraq.
(yeah, right.)
Let's buy off terrorists with arms and then lie to our constituents 
about it. (I don't remember, I was out of the loop)
(yeah, right.)

Nope.  People aren't buying it anymore.  Only Reagan was capable of pulling 
the wool over everyone's eyes with some of these whoppers.



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: soc.women