Antu Showing Therte Boobns

a year later at the Massachusetts

Scott Brown's victory on Martha Coakley who filled the seat left vacant by the death last night Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts can be interpreted in countless ways. To avoid getting lost, because the subject is vast, the note that follows will explore some undeniable facts after the Democratic defeat last night. I will not discuss the various possibilities for reform of the senate. Most news sites explain many different avenues of the project.

To begin, here are some observations of the election in Massachusetts.

According to many observers and some Democrats strategists, Coakley candidate who had the onerous task of succeeding Ted Kennedy's Senate campaign has not done as it should. Overconfidence? Probably. In addition, she erred in holding that substantial Curt Schilling, a former pitcher for the Boston Red Sox, the team of professional baseball in Boston was a supporter of .... New York Yankees, the enemy team of Bostonians.

First, Curt Schilling not only supported the Republican candidate and opponent Scott Brown, but he accompanied her during her public appearances. Moreover, this incident demonstrates a flagrant disregard of the sport and team, the Red Sox, who shook the city during the summer as during the offseason. In Boston, the Red Sox, is a religion. Question to drive the nail in the coffin The late Ted Kennedy, had founded a team in the league softball Senate when he was younger. This team was called the TED Sox. That tells you the importance of the error.

Moreover, the election of Brown is also what some call the return of the pendulum. Rather I would call this election back to a balance. Massachusetts is known for being one of the most Democratic states in the United States. However, the election of a Republican Senate is a way for citizens of that State to offset domination Democrat could overwhelm the public debate.

Finally, the third and probably most important finding of this election is a victory for independents. United States, bipartisan tradition ensured that a certain percentage of people will always vote for either party. The challenge is to conquer those who say they are independent or undecided. The issues raised by the independents are often those of the day and not ideological debates that take place in both major parties. In 2008, Obama won with the independents who had trusted him, among other things, his willingness to challenge the U.S. on track economically. Yesterday evening, the Independent Republicans have allowed to prevail. The polls were saying, among other things, a recent poll from NBC / Wall Street Journal that showed that two thirds of independent national preferred that the Republicans control the Congress.

A trend was confirmed last night that the Republicans have either just ahead in the polls, but on the ground. Last November, the Republican victories in New Jersey and Virginia would have sounded the alarm of Democrats. The back side is important for the party of Obama. It

are 37 seats up for election to the Senate in November 2010. This in addition to dozens of seats of representatives, governors or the various elective offices in state legislation. I will not do an exhaustive analysis of different races. Just mentioned that the 5 Democratic senators (Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, North Dakota) who have left or will be at the end of the year, no seat is purchased and could switch into the Republican camp. Massachusetts has already rocked last night. Imagine if the Democrats lost Delaware, State Vice-President Joe Biden, Connecticut State represented by a known and respected Democrat Chris Dodd also suffer defeat in the Illinois State's current president, it would be a disaster.

But certainly think this morning, several Republican strategists: "If Democrats lose in Mssachusetts CAN, THEY CAN lose anywhere." What worried the president's party ...

PS Here is a well written text which contains certain aspects that I discussed in this post.

Messenger Robots On All The Time

The 'Believe or die "and Krugman.

The Note The following is a reflection on two aspects of the American political system that may seem paradoxical, but rather complementary.

The vote on the proposed reform of health insurance in the United States should be won by Democrats and before Christmas. While I believe that the Quebec health system must be reformed to give greater emphasis to the private sector, I think the current system in the United States is quite absurd. I am therefore pleased that the bill be passed by the Senate.

The first thought that arouses all the debates that took place for 1 year is about what I call here the party line. According to Senate rules, Democrats needed 60 votes out of 100 senators in order that the project can proceed to the final stage on December 24. However, given the polarized positions, Republicans opposing the project, the Democrats needed the votes of 58 Democratic senators and two independents. The first is an independent senator from Vermont who describes himself as a socialist, Bernie Sanders, whose vote was not a major problem.

The second is Senator Joseph Lieberman, running mate of Al Gore in 2000, elected in Connecticut. I must admit, I like Joe Lieberman. While I am not in agreement with all these positions, but I like the politician who does not follow a party line or ideology which must be dictated. Senator Lieberman is a controversial who supported John McCain in 2008 and is often the laughingstock of the Democratic Left who see him as a traitor in the party. These leftists, often guided by the rule of "Believe everything the party says or die, waiting the moment he leaves the Democrats and Republicans will join his friends. Some call him an opportunist since the vote as his constituents asked him in Connecticut, a state where there is a strong presence of conservative Democrats.

However, the presence of a Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson, Democratic senator from Nebraska conservative who has also conditioned its vote under certain changes, represents a strength of American democracy. Admittedly, I hear the purists proclaim the opportunism of these two senators who use their vote to increase their power in a situation as important for Democrats and Obama. I think it is rather important to have senators who perform certain applications that allow a project to be nuanced, see improved.

While the Quebec and Canadian political system makes it almost impossible for this kind of situation due to the party line especially strong. However, this does not prevent dissension within the various ideological factions of political parties that would often benefit from being raised publicly by members, if only for the sake of representativeness and democracy.

Several elements of the Quebec and Canadian politics make the average voter cynicism. The "Believe or Die> is certainly top the list.

Krugman

I told you that the two thoughts might seem paradoxical. Now here is the second. Paul Krugman, NY Times columnist, raises a major problem in the American political system in this whole saga of the vote on the healthcare system in this text . It is absurd that after a resounding victory for the Democrats last year during the presidential suite and a majority (18) of these same Democrats in the Senate, the project has been so difficult to pass in the final stage. The rule of "60 Senators" was used historically to prevent a government from passing laws absurd, a kind of weight-cons a group of parliamentarians who have suddenly a "Power Trip".

As shown Krugman, since 2006, when the Democrats regained control of Congress, 70% of bills in the Senate were blocked with the use of this rule.

Previously, I was talking about the cynicism with respect to "Believe or Die" political parties. The "childish" for some members, whether in the National Assembly of Quebec or the U.S. Congress is likely in 2nd place in the list of cynics. Use critical thinking should be rule number 1 of the individual who makes a noble choice but to enter politics. The second rule should be to listen to these people. Not need a course of 45 hours to understand that the voters of Nebraska and Vermont often reflect very different politically. Should perhaps remind the "liberal" Democrat Party.

NB No need for me to come give me a course on political parties and unity. The purpose of the note was to denounce certain absurdities and congratulate some initiatives.