gaussalgo/Canard_Wiki-augmented huggingface dataset:
Vijay Tendulkar

Context: Tendulkar began his career writing for newspapers. He had already written a play, Amcyavar Kon Prem Karnar (aamcyaavrr konn prem krnnaar Who will Love us?), and he wrote the play, Grhastha (The Householder), in his early 20s. The latter did not receive much recognition from the audience, and he vowed never to write again.  Breaking the vow, in 1956 he wrote Srimant, which established him as a good writer. Srimant jolted the conservative audience of the times with its radical storyline, wherein an unmarried young woman decides to keep her unborn child while her rich father tries to "buy" her a husband in an attempt to save his social prestige.  Tendulkar's early struggle for survival and living for some time in tenements ("cal/chawls") in Mumbai provided him first-hand experience about the life of urban lower middle class. He thus brought new authenticity to their depiction in Marathi theatre. Tendulkar's writings rapidly changed the storyline of modern Marathi theatre in the 1950s and the 60s, with experimental presentations by theatre groups like Rangayan. Actors in these theatre groups like Shriram Lagoo, Mohan Agashe, and Sulabha Deshpande brought new authenticity and power to Tendulkar's stories while introducing new sensibilities in Marathi theatre.  Tendulkar wrote the play Gidhade (The Vultures) in 1961, but it was not produced until 1970. The play was set in a morally collapsed family structure and explored the theme of violence. In his following creations, Tendulkar explored violence in its various forms: domestic, sexual, communal, and political. Thus, Gidhade proved to be a turning point in Tendulkar's writings with regard to establishment of his own unique writing style.  Based on a 1956 short story, Die Panne ("Traps") by Friedrich Durrenmatt, Tendulkar wrote the play, Santata! Court Calu Ahe ("Silence! The Court Is in Session"). It was presented on the stage for the first time in 1967 and proved as one of his finest works. Satyadev Dubey presented it in movie form in 1971 with Tendulkar's collaboration as the screenplay writer. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Besides writing what other jobs did ijay Tendulkar do?
Answer: Satyadev Dubey presented it in movie form in 1971 with Tendulkar's collaboration as the screenplay writer.
Vijay Tendulkar

Context: Tendulkar began his career writing for newspapers. He had already written a play, Amcyavar Kon Prem Karnar (aamcyaavrr konn prem krnnaar Who will Love us?), and he wrote the play, Grhastha (The Householder), in his early 20s. The latter did not receive much recognition from the audience, and he vowed never to write again.  Breaking the vow, in 1956 he wrote Srimant, which established him as a good writer. Srimant jolted the conservative audience of the times with its radical storyline, wherein an unmarried young woman decides to keep her unborn child while her rich father tries to "buy" her a husband in an attempt to save his social prestige.  Tendulkar's early struggle for survival and living for some time in tenements ("cal/chawls") in Mumbai provided him first-hand experience about the life of urban lower middle class. He thus brought new authenticity to their depiction in Marathi theatre. Tendulkar's writings rapidly changed the storyline of modern Marathi theatre in the 1950s and the 60s, with experimental presentations by theatre groups like Rangayan. Actors in these theatre groups like Shriram Lagoo, Mohan Agashe, and Sulabha Deshpande brought new authenticity and power to Tendulkar's stories while introducing new sensibilities in Marathi theatre.  Tendulkar wrote the play Gidhade (The Vultures) in 1961, but it was not produced until 1970. The play was set in a morally collapsed family structure and explored the theme of violence. In his following creations, Tendulkar explored violence in its various forms: domestic, sexual, communal, and political. Thus, Gidhade proved to be a turning point in Tendulkar's writings with regard to establishment of his own unique writing style.  Based on a 1956 short story, Die Panne ("Traps") by Friedrich Durrenmatt, Tendulkar wrote the play, Santata! Court Calu Ahe ("Silence! The Court Is in Session"). It was presented on the stage for the first time in 1967 and proved as one of his finest works. Satyadev Dubey presented it in movie form in 1971 with Tendulkar's collaboration as the screenplay writer. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Was the film Satyadev Dubey successful?
Answer: It was presented on the stage for the first time in 1967 and proved as one of his finest works.
Vijay Tendulkar

Context: Tendulkar began his career writing for newspapers. He had already written a play, Amcyavar Kon Prem Karnar (aamcyaavrr konn prem krnnaar Who will Love us?), and he wrote the play, Grhastha (The Householder), in his early 20s. The latter did not receive much recognition from the audience, and he vowed never to write again.  Breaking the vow, in 1956 he wrote Srimant, which established him as a good writer. Srimant jolted the conservative audience of the times with its radical storyline, wherein an unmarried young woman decides to keep her unborn child while her rich father tries to "buy" her a husband in an attempt to save his social prestige.  Tendulkar's early struggle for survival and living for some time in tenements ("cal/chawls") in Mumbai provided him first-hand experience about the life of urban lower middle class. He thus brought new authenticity to their depiction in Marathi theatre. Tendulkar's writings rapidly changed the storyline of modern Marathi theatre in the 1950s and the 60s, with experimental presentations by theatre groups like Rangayan. Actors in these theatre groups like Shriram Lagoo, Mohan Agashe, and Sulabha Deshpande brought new authenticity and power to Tendulkar's stories while introducing new sensibilities in Marathi theatre.  Tendulkar wrote the play Gidhade (The Vultures) in 1961, but it was not produced until 1970. The play was set in a morally collapsed family structure and explored the theme of violence. In his following creations, Tendulkar explored violence in its various forms: domestic, sexual, communal, and political. Thus, Gidhade proved to be a turning point in Tendulkar's writings with regard to establishment of his own unique writing style.  Based on a 1956 short story, Die Panne ("Traps") by Friedrich Durrenmatt, Tendulkar wrote the play, Santata! Court Calu Ahe ("Silence! The Court Is in Session"). It was presented on the stage for the first time in 1967 and proved as one of his finest works. Satyadev Dubey presented it in movie form in 1971 with Tendulkar's collaboration as the screenplay writer. CANNOTANSWER

Question: who did Vijay Tendulkar  work with?
Answer: Satyadev Dubey
Vijay Tendulkar

Context: Tendulkar began his career writing for newspapers. He had already written a play, Amcyavar Kon Prem Karnar (aamcyaavrr konn prem krnnaar Who will Love us?), and he wrote the play, Grhastha (The Householder), in his early 20s. The latter did not receive much recognition from the audience, and he vowed never to write again.  Breaking the vow, in 1956 he wrote Srimant, which established him as a good writer. Srimant jolted the conservative audience of the times with its radical storyline, wherein an unmarried young woman decides to keep her unborn child while her rich father tries to "buy" her a husband in an attempt to save his social prestige.  Tendulkar's early struggle for survival and living for some time in tenements ("cal/chawls") in Mumbai provided him first-hand experience about the life of urban lower middle class. He thus brought new authenticity to their depiction in Marathi theatre. Tendulkar's writings rapidly changed the storyline of modern Marathi theatre in the 1950s and the 60s, with experimental presentations by theatre groups like Rangayan. Actors in these theatre groups like Shriram Lagoo, Mohan Agashe, and Sulabha Deshpande brought new authenticity and power to Tendulkar's stories while introducing new sensibilities in Marathi theatre.  Tendulkar wrote the play Gidhade (The Vultures) in 1961, but it was not produced until 1970. The play was set in a morally collapsed family structure and explored the theme of violence. In his following creations, Tendulkar explored violence in its various forms: domestic, sexual, communal, and political. Thus, Gidhade proved to be a turning point in Tendulkar's writings with regard to establishment of his own unique writing style.  Based on a 1956 short story, Die Panne ("Traps") by Friedrich Durrenmatt, Tendulkar wrote the play, Santata! Court Calu Ahe ("Silence! The Court Is in Session"). It was presented on the stage for the first time in 1967 and proved as one of his finest works. Satyadev Dubey presented it in movie form in 1971 with Tendulkar's collaboration as the screenplay writer. CANNOTANSWER

Question: did Vijay Tendulkar win any awards?
Answer: CANNOTANSWER
Mike Judge

Context: Despite his King of the Hill protagonist Hank Hill being identifiable as a conservative and his The Goode Family being essentially a satire of many liberal precepts, Judge avoids discussing his political leanings. The Goode Family has been described as a conservative show.  In reviewing Idiocracy, Salon stated, "Judge's gimlet eye is so ruthless that at times his politics seem to border on South Park libertarianism." A writer for the libertarian magazine Reason seems to agree, comparing King of the Hill to the anti-authoritarian point of view of South Park and The Simpsons, though he calls the show more populist, noting the disdain King of the Hill seems to have for bureaucrats, professionals, and big-box chains.  Still, Judge denies having political messages in his shows, saying in an IGN interview about King of the Hill:  I try to not let the show get too political. To me, it's more social than political I guess you'd say, because that's funnier. I don't really like political reference humor that much. Although I liked the episode "Hank's Bully" where Hank's talking to the mailman and he says, 'Why would anyone want to lick a stamp that has Bill Clinton on it?' To me that's just like more of a character thing about Hank than it is a political joke or anything. I don't want to do a bunch of stuff about the war, particularly.  In June 2016, before the presidential election in November, Rolling Stone published an article stating that Judge would produce Idiocracy themed campaign advertisements opposing Donald Trump's presidential campaign if given permission from Fox to do so. It was later reported by Business Insider that the ads would not go forward. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What did Mike Judge's political views do for him?
Answer: Despite his King of the Hill protagonist Hank Hill being identifiable as a conservative and his The Goode Family
Mike Judge

Context: Despite his King of the Hill protagonist Hank Hill being identifiable as a conservative and his The Goode Family being essentially a satire of many liberal precepts, Judge avoids discussing his political leanings. The Goode Family has been described as a conservative show.  In reviewing Idiocracy, Salon stated, "Judge's gimlet eye is so ruthless that at times his politics seem to border on South Park libertarianism." A writer for the libertarian magazine Reason seems to agree, comparing King of the Hill to the anti-authoritarian point of view of South Park and The Simpsons, though he calls the show more populist, noting the disdain King of the Hill seems to have for bureaucrats, professionals, and big-box chains.  Still, Judge denies having political messages in his shows, saying in an IGN interview about King of the Hill:  I try to not let the show get too political. To me, it's more social than political I guess you'd say, because that's funnier. I don't really like political reference humor that much. Although I liked the episode "Hank's Bully" where Hank's talking to the mailman and he says, 'Why would anyone want to lick a stamp that has Bill Clinton on it?' To me that's just like more of a character thing about Hank than it is a political joke or anything. I don't want to do a bunch of stuff about the war, particularly.  In June 2016, before the presidential election in November, Rolling Stone published an article stating that Judge would produce Idiocracy themed campaign advertisements opposing Donald Trump's presidential campaign if given permission from Fox to do so. It was later reported by Business Insider that the ads would not go forward. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What did Hank Hill being identifiable as a conservative do?
Answer: essentially a satire of many liberal precepts, Judge avoids discussing his political leanings. The Goode Family has been described as a conservative show.
Mike Judge

Context: Despite his King of the Hill protagonist Hank Hill being identifiable as a conservative and his The Goode Family being essentially a satire of many liberal precepts, Judge avoids discussing his political leanings. The Goode Family has been described as a conservative show.  In reviewing Idiocracy, Salon stated, "Judge's gimlet eye is so ruthless that at times his politics seem to border on South Park libertarianism." A writer for the libertarian magazine Reason seems to agree, comparing King of the Hill to the anti-authoritarian point of view of South Park and The Simpsons, though he calls the show more populist, noting the disdain King of the Hill seems to have for bureaucrats, professionals, and big-box chains.  Still, Judge denies having political messages in his shows, saying in an IGN interview about King of the Hill:  I try to not let the show get too political. To me, it's more social than political I guess you'd say, because that's funnier. I don't really like political reference humor that much. Although I liked the episode "Hank's Bully" where Hank's talking to the mailman and he says, 'Why would anyone want to lick a stamp that has Bill Clinton on it?' To me that's just like more of a character thing about Hank than it is a political joke or anything. I don't want to do a bunch of stuff about the war, particularly.  In June 2016, before the presidential election in November, Rolling Stone published an article stating that Judge would produce Idiocracy themed campaign advertisements opposing Donald Trump's presidential campaign if given permission from Fox to do so. It was later reported by Business Insider that the ads would not go forward. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What did The Good Family do to Mike Judge next?
Answer: In reviewing Idiocracy, Salon stated, "Judge's gimlet eye is so ruthless that at times his politics seem to border on South Park libertarianism.
Mike Judge

Context: Despite his King of the Hill protagonist Hank Hill being identifiable as a conservative and his The Goode Family being essentially a satire of many liberal precepts, Judge avoids discussing his political leanings. The Goode Family has been described as a conservative show.  In reviewing Idiocracy, Salon stated, "Judge's gimlet eye is so ruthless that at times his politics seem to border on South Park libertarianism." A writer for the libertarian magazine Reason seems to agree, comparing King of the Hill to the anti-authoritarian point of view of South Park and The Simpsons, though he calls the show more populist, noting the disdain King of the Hill seems to have for bureaucrats, professionals, and big-box chains.  Still, Judge denies having political messages in his shows, saying in an IGN interview about King of the Hill:  I try to not let the show get too political. To me, it's more social than political I guess you'd say, because that's funnier. I don't really like political reference humor that much. Although I liked the episode "Hank's Bully" where Hank's talking to the mailman and he says, 'Why would anyone want to lick a stamp that has Bill Clinton on it?' To me that's just like more of a character thing about Hank than it is a political joke or anything. I don't want to do a bunch of stuff about the war, particularly.  In June 2016, before the presidential election in November, Rolling Stone published an article stating that Judge would produce Idiocracy themed campaign advertisements opposing Donald Trump's presidential campaign if given permission from Fox to do so. It was later reported by Business Insider that the ads would not go forward. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What did Salon's review of Idiocracy do for Mike Judge?
Answer: Judge's gimlet eye is so ruthless that at times his politics seem to border on South Park libertarianism.
Mike Judge

Context: Despite his King of the Hill protagonist Hank Hill being identifiable as a conservative and his The Goode Family being essentially a satire of many liberal precepts, Judge avoids discussing his political leanings. The Goode Family has been described as a conservative show.  In reviewing Idiocracy, Salon stated, "Judge's gimlet eye is so ruthless that at times his politics seem to border on South Park libertarianism." A writer for the libertarian magazine Reason seems to agree, comparing King of the Hill to the anti-authoritarian point of view of South Park and The Simpsons, though he calls the show more populist, noting the disdain King of the Hill seems to have for bureaucrats, professionals, and big-box chains.  Still, Judge denies having political messages in his shows, saying in an IGN interview about King of the Hill:  I try to not let the show get too political. To me, it's more social than political I guess you'd say, because that's funnier. I don't really like political reference humor that much. Although I liked the episode "Hank's Bully" where Hank's talking to the mailman and he says, 'Why would anyone want to lick a stamp that has Bill Clinton on it?' To me that's just like more of a character thing about Hank than it is a political joke or anything. I don't want to do a bunch of stuff about the war, particularly.  In June 2016, before the presidential election in November, Rolling Stone published an article stating that Judge would produce Idiocracy themed campaign advertisements opposing Donald Trump's presidential campaign if given permission from Fox to do so. It was later reported by Business Insider that the ads would not go forward. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What did Mike Judge do?
Answer: A writer for the libertarian magazine Reason seems to agree, comparing King of the Hill to the anti-authoritarian point of view of South Park and The Simpsons,
Mike Judge

Context: Despite his King of the Hill protagonist Hank Hill being identifiable as a conservative and his The Goode Family being essentially a satire of many liberal precepts, Judge avoids discussing his political leanings. The Goode Family has been described as a conservative show.  In reviewing Idiocracy, Salon stated, "Judge's gimlet eye is so ruthless that at times his politics seem to border on South Park libertarianism." A writer for the libertarian magazine Reason seems to agree, comparing King of the Hill to the anti-authoritarian point of view of South Park and The Simpsons, though he calls the show more populist, noting the disdain King of the Hill seems to have for bureaucrats, professionals, and big-box chains.  Still, Judge denies having political messages in his shows, saying in an IGN interview about King of the Hill:  I try to not let the show get too political. To me, it's more social than political I guess you'd say, because that's funnier. I don't really like political reference humor that much. Although I liked the episode "Hank's Bully" where Hank's talking to the mailman and he says, 'Why would anyone want to lick a stamp that has Bill Clinton on it?' To me that's just like more of a character thing about Hank than it is a political joke or anything. I don't want to do a bunch of stuff about the war, particularly.  In June 2016, before the presidential election in November, Rolling Stone published an article stating that Judge would produce Idiocracy themed campaign advertisements opposing Donald Trump's presidential campaign if given permission from Fox to do so. It was later reported by Business Insider that the ads would not go forward. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What did the writer for Reason do for Mike Judge?
Answer: Judge's gimlet eye is so ruthless that at times his politics seem to border on South Park libertarianism.
Mike Judge

Context: Despite his King of the Hill protagonist Hank Hill being identifiable as a conservative and his The Goode Family being essentially a satire of many liberal precepts, Judge avoids discussing his political leanings. The Goode Family has been described as a conservative show.  In reviewing Idiocracy, Salon stated, "Judge's gimlet eye is so ruthless that at times his politics seem to border on South Park libertarianism." A writer for the libertarian magazine Reason seems to agree, comparing King of the Hill to the anti-authoritarian point of view of South Park and The Simpsons, though he calls the show more populist, noting the disdain King of the Hill seems to have for bureaucrats, professionals, and big-box chains.  Still, Judge denies having political messages in his shows, saying in an IGN interview about King of the Hill:  I try to not let the show get too political. To me, it's more social than political I guess you'd say, because that's funnier. I don't really like political reference humor that much. Although I liked the episode "Hank's Bully" where Hank's talking to the mailman and he says, 'Why would anyone want to lick a stamp that has Bill Clinton on it?' To me that's just like more of a character thing about Hank than it is a political joke or anything. I don't want to do a bunch of stuff about the war, particularly.  In June 2016, before the presidential election in November, Rolling Stone published an article stating that Judge would produce Idiocracy themed campaign advertisements opposing Donald Trump's presidential campaign if given permission from Fox to do so. It was later reported by Business Insider that the ads would not go forward. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What did calling the King of the Hill do for Mike Judge?
Answer: Judge's gimlet eye is so ruthless that at times his politics seem to border on South Park libertarianism.
Mike Judge

Context: Despite his King of the Hill protagonist Hank Hill being identifiable as a conservative and his The Goode Family being essentially a satire of many liberal precepts, Judge avoids discussing his political leanings. The Goode Family has been described as a conservative show.  In reviewing Idiocracy, Salon stated, "Judge's gimlet eye is so ruthless that at times his politics seem to border on South Park libertarianism." A writer for the libertarian magazine Reason seems to agree, comparing King of the Hill to the anti-authoritarian point of view of South Park and The Simpsons, though he calls the show more populist, noting the disdain King of the Hill seems to have for bureaucrats, professionals, and big-box chains.  Still, Judge denies having political messages in his shows, saying in an IGN interview about King of the Hill:  I try to not let the show get too political. To me, it's more social than political I guess you'd say, because that's funnier. I don't really like political reference humor that much. Although I liked the episode "Hank's Bully" where Hank's talking to the mailman and he says, 'Why would anyone want to lick a stamp that has Bill Clinton on it?' To me that's just like more of a character thing about Hank than it is a political joke or anything. I don't want to do a bunch of stuff about the war, particularly.  In June 2016, before the presidential election in November, Rolling Stone published an article stating that Judge would produce Idiocracy themed campaign advertisements opposing Donald Trump's presidential campaign if given permission from Fox to do so. It was later reported by Business Insider that the ads would not go forward. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What did denying having political messages lead to for Mike Judge?
Answer: it's more social than political I guess you'd say, because that's funnier. I don't really like political reference humor that much.
Mike Judge

Context: Despite his King of the Hill protagonist Hank Hill being identifiable as a conservative and his The Goode Family being essentially a satire of many liberal precepts, Judge avoids discussing his political leanings. The Goode Family has been described as a conservative show.  In reviewing Idiocracy, Salon stated, "Judge's gimlet eye is so ruthless that at times his politics seem to border on South Park libertarianism." A writer for the libertarian magazine Reason seems to agree, comparing King of the Hill to the anti-authoritarian point of view of South Park and The Simpsons, though he calls the show more populist, noting the disdain King of the Hill seems to have for bureaucrats, professionals, and big-box chains.  Still, Judge denies having political messages in his shows, saying in an IGN interview about King of the Hill:  I try to not let the show get too political. To me, it's more social than political I guess you'd say, because that's funnier. I don't really like political reference humor that much. Although I liked the episode "Hank's Bully" where Hank's talking to the mailman and he says, 'Why would anyone want to lick a stamp that has Bill Clinton on it?' To me that's just like more of a character thing about Hank than it is a political joke or anything. I don't want to do a bunch of stuff about the war, particularly.  In June 2016, before the presidential election in November, Rolling Stone published an article stating that Judge would produce Idiocracy themed campaign advertisements opposing Donald Trump's presidential campaign if given permission from Fox to do so. It was later reported by Business Insider that the ads would not go forward. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Why was not having political reference humor so bad for Mike Judge?
Answer: I don't want to do a bunch of stuff about the war, particularly.
Mike Gravel

Context: In 1980, Gravel was challenged for the Democratic Party's nomination by State Representative Clark Gruening, the grandson of the man Gravel had defeated in a primary 12 years earlier. Several factors made Gravel vulnerable. As an insurgent candidate in 1968, Gravel had never established a firm party base. Not liking to hunt or fish, he was also always culturally suspect in the state. A group of Democrats, including future governor Steve Cowper, led the campaign against Gravel, with Gravel's actions in respect to the 1978 and 1980 Alaskan lands bills a major issue, especially given that the latter's denouement happened but a week before the primary. The sources of Gravel's campaign funds, some of which came from political action committees outside the state, also became an issue in the contest. Another factor may have been Alaska's blanket primary system of the time, which allowed unlimited voting across party lines and from its many independents; Republicans believed Gruening would be an easier candidate to defeat in the general election.  Gruening won the bitterly fought primary, with about 55 percent of the vote to Gravel's 44 percent. Gravel would later concede that by the time of his defeat, he had alienated "almost every constituency in Alaska."  Gruening lost the general election to Republican Frank Murkowski. Gravel was the last Democrat to represent Alaska in Congress for 28 years, until Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich defeated Stevens, by now an aged, iconic figure who had just been convicted of seven felonies for taking unreported gifts, in a very close and protracted election result in mid-November 2008. (The charges against Stevens were subsequently dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct.) CANNOTANSWER

Question: What led up to Mike Gravel losing his seat in the senate?
Answer: Gruening won the bitterly fought primary, with about 55 percent of the vote to Gravel's 44 percent.
Mike Gravel

Context: In 1980, Gravel was challenged for the Democratic Party's nomination by State Representative Clark Gruening, the grandson of the man Gravel had defeated in a primary 12 years earlier. Several factors made Gravel vulnerable. As an insurgent candidate in 1968, Gravel had never established a firm party base. Not liking to hunt or fish, he was also always culturally suspect in the state. A group of Democrats, including future governor Steve Cowper, led the campaign against Gravel, with Gravel's actions in respect to the 1978 and 1980 Alaskan lands bills a major issue, especially given that the latter's denouement happened but a week before the primary. The sources of Gravel's campaign funds, some of which came from political action committees outside the state, also became an issue in the contest. Another factor may have been Alaska's blanket primary system of the time, which allowed unlimited voting across party lines and from its many independents; Republicans believed Gruening would be an easier candidate to defeat in the general election.  Gruening won the bitterly fought primary, with about 55 percent of the vote to Gravel's 44 percent. Gravel would later concede that by the time of his defeat, he had alienated "almost every constituency in Alaska."  Gruening lost the general election to Republican Frank Murkowski. Gravel was the last Democrat to represent Alaska in Congress for 28 years, until Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich defeated Stevens, by now an aged, iconic figure who had just been convicted of seven felonies for taking unreported gifts, in a very close and protracted election result in mid-November 2008. (The charges against Stevens were subsequently dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct.) CANNOTANSWER

Question: Why did Mike Grave lose his seat in the senate?
Answer: As an insurgent candidate in 1968, Gravel had never established a firm party base.
Mike Gravel

Context: In 1980, Gravel was challenged for the Democratic Party's nomination by State Representative Clark Gruening, the grandson of the man Gravel had defeated in a primary 12 years earlier. Several factors made Gravel vulnerable. As an insurgent candidate in 1968, Gravel had never established a firm party base. Not liking to hunt or fish, he was also always culturally suspect in the state. A group of Democrats, including future governor Steve Cowper, led the campaign against Gravel, with Gravel's actions in respect to the 1978 and 1980 Alaskan lands bills a major issue, especially given that the latter's denouement happened but a week before the primary. The sources of Gravel's campaign funds, some of which came from political action committees outside the state, also became an issue in the contest. Another factor may have been Alaska's blanket primary system of the time, which allowed unlimited voting across party lines and from its many independents; Republicans believed Gruening would be an easier candidate to defeat in the general election.  Gruening won the bitterly fought primary, with about 55 percent of the vote to Gravel's 44 percent. Gravel would later concede that by the time of his defeat, he had alienated "almost every constituency in Alaska."  Gruening lost the general election to Republican Frank Murkowski. Gravel was the last Democrat to represent Alaska in Congress for 28 years, until Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich defeated Stevens, by now an aged, iconic figure who had just been convicted of seven felonies for taking unreported gifts, in a very close and protracted election result in mid-November 2008. (The charges against Stevens were subsequently dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct.) CANNOTANSWER

Question: What did Mike Gravel do instead of establishing a firm party base?
Answer: Gravel was the last Democrat to represent Alaska in Congress for 28 years,
Mike Gravel

Context: In 1980, Gravel was challenged for the Democratic Party's nomination by State Representative Clark Gruening, the grandson of the man Gravel had defeated in a primary 12 years earlier. Several factors made Gravel vulnerable. As an insurgent candidate in 1968, Gravel had never established a firm party base. Not liking to hunt or fish, he was also always culturally suspect in the state. A group of Democrats, including future governor Steve Cowper, led the campaign against Gravel, with Gravel's actions in respect to the 1978 and 1980 Alaskan lands bills a major issue, especially given that the latter's denouement happened but a week before the primary. The sources of Gravel's campaign funds, some of which came from political action committees outside the state, also became an issue in the contest. Another factor may have been Alaska's blanket primary system of the time, which allowed unlimited voting across party lines and from its many independents; Republicans believed Gruening would be an easier candidate to defeat in the general election.  Gruening won the bitterly fought primary, with about 55 percent of the vote to Gravel's 44 percent. Gravel would later concede that by the time of his defeat, he had alienated "almost every constituency in Alaska."  Gruening lost the general election to Republican Frank Murkowski. Gravel was the last Democrat to represent Alaska in Congress for 28 years, until Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich defeated Stevens, by now an aged, iconic figure who had just been convicted of seven felonies for taking unreported gifts, in a very close and protracted election result in mid-November 2008. (The charges against Stevens were subsequently dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct.) CANNOTANSWER

Question: Are there any other interesting aspects about Mike Gravel other than representing Alaska?
Answer: Several factors made Gravel vulnerable.
Mike Gravel

Context: In 1980, Gravel was challenged for the Democratic Party's nomination by State Representative Clark Gruening, the grandson of the man Gravel had defeated in a primary 12 years earlier. Several factors made Gravel vulnerable. As an insurgent candidate in 1968, Gravel had never established a firm party base. Not liking to hunt or fish, he was also always culturally suspect in the state. A group of Democrats, including future governor Steve Cowper, led the campaign against Gravel, with Gravel's actions in respect to the 1978 and 1980 Alaskan lands bills a major issue, especially given that the latter's denouement happened but a week before the primary. The sources of Gravel's campaign funds, some of which came from political action committees outside the state, also became an issue in the contest. Another factor may have been Alaska's blanket primary system of the time, which allowed unlimited voting across party lines and from its many independents; Republicans believed Gruening would be an easier candidate to defeat in the general election.  Gruening won the bitterly fought primary, with about 55 percent of the vote to Gravel's 44 percent. Gravel would later concede that by the time of his defeat, he had alienated "almost every constituency in Alaska."  Gruening lost the general election to Republican Frank Murkowski. Gravel was the last Democrat to represent Alaska in Congress for 28 years, until Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich defeated Stevens, by now an aged, iconic figure who had just been convicted of seven felonies for taking unreported gifts, in a very close and protracted election result in mid-November 2008. (The charges against Stevens were subsequently dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct.) CANNOTANSWER

Question: What factors made Mike Gravel vulnerable?
Answer: The sources of Gravel's campaign funds, some of which came from political action committees outside the state, also became an issue in the contest.
Mike Gravel

Context: In 1980, Gravel was challenged for the Democratic Party's nomination by State Representative Clark Gruening, the grandson of the man Gravel had defeated in a primary 12 years earlier. Several factors made Gravel vulnerable. As an insurgent candidate in 1968, Gravel had never established a firm party base. Not liking to hunt or fish, he was also always culturally suspect in the state. A group of Democrats, including future governor Steve Cowper, led the campaign against Gravel, with Gravel's actions in respect to the 1978 and 1980 Alaskan lands bills a major issue, especially given that the latter's denouement happened but a week before the primary. The sources of Gravel's campaign funds, some of which came from political action committees outside the state, also became an issue in the contest. Another factor may have been Alaska's blanket primary system of the time, which allowed unlimited voting across party lines and from its many independents; Republicans believed Gruening would be an easier candidate to defeat in the general election.  Gruening won the bitterly fought primary, with about 55 percent of the vote to Gravel's 44 percent. Gravel would later concede that by the time of his defeat, he had alienated "almost every constituency in Alaska."  Gruening lost the general election to Republican Frank Murkowski. Gravel was the last Democrat to represent Alaska in Congress for 28 years, until Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich defeated Stevens, by now an aged, iconic figure who had just been convicted of seven felonies for taking unreported gifts, in a very close and protracted election result in mid-November 2008. (The charges against Stevens were subsequently dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct.) CANNOTANSWER

Question: Why was sourcing for Mike Gravel's campaign an issue?
Answer: CANNOTANSWER
Mike Gravel

Context: In 1980, Gravel was challenged for the Democratic Party's nomination by State Representative Clark Gruening, the grandson of the man Gravel had defeated in a primary 12 years earlier. Several factors made Gravel vulnerable. As an insurgent candidate in 1968, Gravel had never established a firm party base. Not liking to hunt or fish, he was also always culturally suspect in the state. A group of Democrats, including future governor Steve Cowper, led the campaign against Gravel, with Gravel's actions in respect to the 1978 and 1980 Alaskan lands bills a major issue, especially given that the latter's denouement happened but a week before the primary. The sources of Gravel's campaign funds, some of which came from political action committees outside the state, also became an issue in the contest. Another factor may have been Alaska's blanket primary system of the time, which allowed unlimited voting across party lines and from its many independents; Republicans believed Gruening would be an easier candidate to defeat in the general election.  Gruening won the bitterly fought primary, with about 55 percent of the vote to Gravel's 44 percent. Gravel would later concede that by the time of his defeat, he had alienated "almost every constituency in Alaska."  Gruening lost the general election to Republican Frank Murkowski. Gravel was the last Democrat to represent Alaska in Congress for 28 years, until Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich defeated Stevens, by now an aged, iconic figure who had just been convicted of seven felonies for taking unreported gifts, in a very close and protracted election result in mid-November 2008. (The charges against Stevens were subsequently dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct.) CANNOTANSWER

Question: What else can be said about the loss of the senate seat other than Mike Gravel being vulnerable?
Answer: Another factor may have been Alaska's blanket primary system of the time, which allowed unlimited voting across party lines
Jennifer Capriati

Context: She won the Junior Orange Bowl in both the 12- and the 14-year categories, and is one of only nine tennis players to win the Junior Orange Bowl championship twice in its 70-year history, which list includes Andy Murray, Jimmy Connors, Monica Seles, and Yishai Oliel.  Capriati made her professional debut as a 13-year-old, reaching the finals of two of her first three pro events, losing to Gabriela Sabatini and Martina Navratilova in the Boca Raton and Hilton Head tournaments respectively, earning her first two wins over top-10 players (No. 10 Helena Sukova and number-five Arantxa Sanchez Vicario). She entered the rankings in April, at No. 23. Capriati made her Grand Slam debut at the French Open. She went all the way to the semifinals, losing to eventual champion Monica Seles. She then reached the fourth round at Wimbledon, losing to Steffi Graf. Later in the year Capriati won her first career title in Puerto Rico, defeating Zina Garrison. After this victory Capriati entered the world's top 10. She qualified for the WTA Championships, narrowly losing to Graf in the first round in three sets. She finished her first season as a professional at World Number Eight.  Throughout the season Capriati set multiple "youngest ever" records. She was the youngest player to reach a tour final, the youngest player to reach the semifinals at the French Open, the youngest seed ever at Wimbledon, and the youngest player to qualify for the season-ending championships. She was also the fourth-youngest player to win a WTA title.  In her second season as a touring pro, Capriati established herself as a consistent top-10 player. She won two singles titles during the summer hard court circuit, defeating World No. 1 Monica Seles in a third set tie-breaker in finals of San Diego, and Katerina Maleeva in straight sets in the final of Toronto. She also reached two Grand Slam semifinals, at Wimbledon and the US Open. At Wimbledon, the 15-year-old Capriati stunned nine-time champion Martina Navratilova, defeating her in the quarterfinals in straight sets. Capriati became the youngest person to ever reach the semifinal round of the tournament, losing to Sabatini. At the US Open, Capriati defeated Sabatini in the quarters but lost in the semis to eventual champion Seles after serving for the match twice. Capriati qualified for the year-end championships for the second time, reaching the quarterfinals. She ended the year at No. 6, which would be a career high until 2001.  Capriati also won the only doubles title of her career at the Italian Open, partnering with Seles. CANNOTANSWER

Question: what happened to Jennifer Capriati in 1990?
Answer: CANNOTANSWER
Jennifer Capriati

Context: She won the Junior Orange Bowl in both the 12- and the 14-year categories, and is one of only nine tennis players to win the Junior Orange Bowl championship twice in its 70-year history, which list includes Andy Murray, Jimmy Connors, Monica Seles, and Yishai Oliel.  Capriati made her professional debut as a 13-year-old, reaching the finals of two of her first three pro events, losing to Gabriela Sabatini and Martina Navratilova in the Boca Raton and Hilton Head tournaments respectively, earning her first two wins over top-10 players (No. 10 Helena Sukova and number-five Arantxa Sanchez Vicario). She entered the rankings in April, at No. 23. Capriati made her Grand Slam debut at the French Open. She went all the way to the semifinals, losing to eventual champion Monica Seles. She then reached the fourth round at Wimbledon, losing to Steffi Graf. Later in the year Capriati won her first career title in Puerto Rico, defeating Zina Garrison. After this victory Capriati entered the world's top 10. She qualified for the WTA Championships, narrowly losing to Graf in the first round in three sets. She finished her first season as a professional at World Number Eight.  Throughout the season Capriati set multiple "youngest ever" records. She was the youngest player to reach a tour final, the youngest player to reach the semifinals at the French Open, the youngest seed ever at Wimbledon, and the youngest player to qualify for the season-ending championships. She was also the fourth-youngest player to win a WTA title.  In her second season as a touring pro, Capriati established herself as a consistent top-10 player. She won two singles titles during the summer hard court circuit, defeating World No. 1 Monica Seles in a third set tie-breaker in finals of San Diego, and Katerina Maleeva in straight sets in the final of Toronto. She also reached two Grand Slam semifinals, at Wimbledon and the US Open. At Wimbledon, the 15-year-old Capriati stunned nine-time champion Martina Navratilova, defeating her in the quarterfinals in straight sets. Capriati became the youngest person to ever reach the semifinal round of the tournament, losing to Sabatini. At the US Open, Capriati defeated Sabatini in the quarters but lost in the semis to eventual champion Seles after serving for the match twice. Capriati qualified for the year-end championships for the second time, reaching the quarterfinals. She ended the year at No. 6, which would be a career high until 2001.  Capriati also won the only doubles title of her career at the Italian Open, partnering with Seles. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What is the Records in regards to Jennifer Capriati?
Answer: Throughout the season Capriati set multiple "youngest ever" records.
Jennifer Capriati

Context: She won the Junior Orange Bowl in both the 12- and the 14-year categories, and is one of only nine tennis players to win the Junior Orange Bowl championship twice in its 70-year history, which list includes Andy Murray, Jimmy Connors, Monica Seles, and Yishai Oliel.  Capriati made her professional debut as a 13-year-old, reaching the finals of two of her first three pro events, losing to Gabriela Sabatini and Martina Navratilova in the Boca Raton and Hilton Head tournaments respectively, earning her first two wins over top-10 players (No. 10 Helena Sukova and number-five Arantxa Sanchez Vicario). She entered the rankings in April, at No. 23. Capriati made her Grand Slam debut at the French Open. She went all the way to the semifinals, losing to eventual champion Monica Seles. She then reached the fourth round at Wimbledon, losing to Steffi Graf. Later in the year Capriati won her first career title in Puerto Rico, defeating Zina Garrison. After this victory Capriati entered the world's top 10. She qualified for the WTA Championships, narrowly losing to Graf in the first round in three sets. She finished her first season as a professional at World Number Eight.  Throughout the season Capriati set multiple "youngest ever" records. She was the youngest player to reach a tour final, the youngest player to reach the semifinals at the French Open, the youngest seed ever at Wimbledon, and the youngest player to qualify for the season-ending championships. She was also the fourth-youngest player to win a WTA title.  In her second season as a touring pro, Capriati established herself as a consistent top-10 player. She won two singles titles during the summer hard court circuit, defeating World No. 1 Monica Seles in a third set tie-breaker in finals of San Diego, and Katerina Maleeva in straight sets in the final of Toronto. She also reached two Grand Slam semifinals, at Wimbledon and the US Open. At Wimbledon, the 15-year-old Capriati stunned nine-time champion Martina Navratilova, defeating her in the quarterfinals in straight sets. Capriati became the youngest person to ever reach the semifinal round of the tournament, losing to Sabatini. At the US Open, Capriati defeated Sabatini in the quarters but lost in the semis to eventual champion Seles after serving for the match twice. Capriati qualified for the year-end championships for the second time, reaching the quarterfinals. She ended the year at No. 6, which would be a career high until 2001.  Capriati also won the only doubles title of her career at the Italian Open, partnering with Seles. CANNOTANSWER

Question: how old was Jennifer Capriati?
Answer: Capriati made her professional debut as a 13-year-old, reaching the finals of two of her first three pro events,