p.a Posted January 18, 2010 Report Posted January 18, 2010 depuis 1972 chez les démocrates, le siège pourrait passer aux républicains. celà marquerait la fin de supermajorité démocrate (60 voix sur 100) et par la même occasion de la réforme de la santé. The Party's Over In Massachusetts By Michael Barone - FOXNews.com Democratic leadership took the partisan path in 2009 and the Obama White House supinely went along. Now they may be very sorry that they got what they wished for. Year one of the Obama administration ends Wednesday. Another era may come to an end the day before, when Massachusetts voters choose a senator to fill the three years remaining in the term of Edward Kennedy, who held the seat for 47 years. If Republican Scott Brown wins that election -- and he seems to have an excellent chance to do so -- that election will mean the end, after just seven months, of the Democrats' 60-seat Senate supermajority. That era began in July, when Al Franken was seated after protracted litigation over the result in an election in which both he and incumbent Republican Norm Coleman got an underwhelming 42 percent of the votes. And Franken was the 60th Democrat only because in the preceding April Arlen Specter, in his 29th year in the Senate and facing defeat in the Republican primary, switched parties for the second time in his political career. Going back a little further, Democrats owed their 60 seats to the victories in 2006 of Jon Tester by 3,562 votes in Montana and Jim Webb by 9,329 votes in Virginia. In the 435 House races each year, close races tend to be split evenly between the parties. But in the 30-some Senate races in each cycle, a small number of votes can make a huge difference in the balance of power in that chamber. So the Democrats' supermajority was the result of a series of happy (or unhappy, depending on your point of view) accidents. The same was true of the 55-45 majority the GOP held three years ago. The very real possibility that the Democrats may lose their 60th seat -- and in Massachusetts, the only state George McGovern carried in 1972 -- suggests that it was perhaps not such a happy accident for them in the end. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/18/…ma-health-care/
h16 Posted January 18, 2010 Report Posted January 18, 2010 En tout cas, ce serait trèèèèèèèès rigolo.
p.a Posted January 19, 2010 Author Report Posted January 19, 2010 Wall Street bets on a GOP win in Massachusetts January 19, 2010 | 12:59 pm Wall Street thinks it knows the outcome of today’s Massachusetts special election for the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. Stocks are broadly higher, led by health-care issues, as some investors bet that Kennedy’s seat will go to Republican challenger Scott Brown. That could deprive Democrats of the 60-vote majority they need in the Senate to stop a potential filibuster of the health-care reform bill. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2…enate-seat.html
Hobbart Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 Victoire de Brown. BOSTON—A little-known Republican shook up the balance of power in Washington by winning a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, a result that imperils President Barack Obama's top legislative priorities and augurs trouble for his party in this year's elections.With 75% of the vote counted, Republican Scott Brown was leading his opponent, Massachusetts' Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley 52.7% to 46.3%, according to the Associated Press, which declared Mr. Brown the winner. The Brown victory forces the White House and congressional leaders to decide how—or whether—to salvage their long-sought health-care overhaul. Rushing the bill after losing Massachusetts carries political risks. So does letting it collapse. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405…_share_facebook Les résultats : http://www.boston.com/news/special/politic…te/results.html
p.a Posted January 20, 2010 Author Report Posted January 20, 2010 il y avait un libertarien du nom de Kennedy qui a fait 1%.
Nick de Cusa Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 En tout cas, ce serait trèèèèèèèès rigolo. Mais il ne faut jamais voter.
Nick de Cusa Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 Wow, les 12 représentants du Massachussets au Congrès fédéral sont démocrates : Brown presented himself as an independent conservative counterweight to Massachusetts' current all-Democratic, 12-member Congressional delegation.[12][1] Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne has called Brown "an insurgent who was somewhat disconnected from the national Republican Party".[37] Sinon, euh, comment dire … Brown supported the 2006 Massachusetts health care reform, which requires all residents to purchase health insurance. He opposes the bills approved in late 2009 by the Democratic-lead House and Senate as fiscally unsound. He has remarked, "Our taxes are going to go up dramatically… It’s not good for Massachusetts individuals and businesses."[12] In an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Brown argued that the two reforms are very different since the Massachusetts program is a "free market enterprise" designed to help individuals purchase their own health insurance plans.[44] In an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, Brown stated that the Congressional reforms would "cut half a trillion for Medicare and then cut tri-care for military people and then have higher taxation about $1 trillion plus".[45] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Brown Si ça peut vraiment faire capoter la révolution sociale démocrate obamesque, on ne va pas bouder notre plaisir. A voir.
José Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 Wow, les 12 représentants du MassaTaxachussets au Congrès fédéral sont démocrates… Corrigé. Si ça peut vraiment faire capoter la révolution sociale démocrate obamesque, on ne va pas bouder notre plaisir. A voir. Certains craignent que le Messie tente de passer en force tant qu'il a sa super-majorité et fasse passer tout son bazar avant que Brown ne prenne possession de son siège.
Tremendo Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 Victoire de Brown. Enfin ne nous réjouissons pas trop vite quand même, c'est bien c'est le début de la fin pour Obama, mais il reste du boulot avant de faire capoter ses réformes sociales définitivement. En plus, chez les républicains il n'y a pas que des libertariens loin de là. Mais bon encore une fois on a le droit à un sursaut chez les américains, c'est ça qui est bien chez eux, pas comme chez nous.
José Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 …c'est bien c'est le début de la fin pour Obama… Plutôt la fin du début. Il reste encore 3 ans. Mais Obama va continuer avec le taux d'approbation le plus bas jamais enregistré à l'entame de la 2e année d'un mandat.
h16 Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 Mais il ne faut jamais voter. Ce qui n'est pas antinomique.
Tremendo Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 Plutôt la fin du début. Il reste encore 3 ans. Mais Obama va continuer avec le taux d'approbation le plus bas jamais enregistré à l'entame de la 2e année d'un mandat. Peut-être une démission avant la fin du mandat, ou une petite procédure d'impeachment pour infractions répétées à la constitution
Kevinz Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 ou une petite procédure d'impeachment pour infractions répétées à la constitution Seulement s'il trompe sa femme.
Nick de Cusa Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 Peut-être une démission avant la fin du mandat, ou une petite procédure d'impeachment pour infractions répétées à la constitution
Kevinz Posted January 21, 2010 Report Posted January 21, 2010 Victoire de Brown. Scott Brown 24-Hours Later! Health Care For Everyone!'We're past campaign mode. I think it's important for everyone to get some form of health care. So, to offer a basic plan for everybody, I think is important." http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/01/20/H…8644/Republic... ah ah ah..
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.