11 novembre<\/a>. L’extrait ci-dessous montre bien l’extraordinaire diff\u00e9rence de sentiment sur la guerre en Irak entre les \u00e9lecteurs et les \u00e9lus, particuli\u00e8rement entre les \u00e9lecteurs et les d\u00e9mocrates qui sont cens\u00e9s repr\u00e9senter et exprimer ce sentiment au travers de leur victoire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abExit polling on election day confirmed that the central issue in the minds of voters was the war in Iraq, which is opposed by sizeable majorities in every region of the country. Public opinion is far more hostile to the war than the tepid posture of the Democratic candidates, who overwhelmingly focused on criticizing the conduct of the war by the Bush administration and calling for a new strategy to defeat the Iraqi resistance, rather than denying the war’s legitimacy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe pro-war Washington Post admitted, in its analysis of the vote, The election to a large extent became a national referendum on Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq, according to exit polls. Sixty percent of voters leaving the polls on Tuesday said they opposed the war in Iraq, and 40 percent said their vote was a vote against Mr. Bush… Eight in 10 voters who said they approved of the war in Iraq voted Republican, and 8 in 10 voters who said they disapproved voted Democratic, the exit polls said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe exit polls showed some 40 percent strongly disapproved of the war in Iraq, while 56 percent of the voters support withdrawing some or all US troops. In state after state there was a close correlation between antiwar sentiment and the vote for Democratic candidates, despite the fact that few of the Democrats advocated withdrawal of American troops.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbAs the New York Times noted, describing the duplicity of the Democratic campaign with evident admiration, In more liberal districts, Democrats called for the troops to come home. In more conservative districts, they called for a plan for victory. But in just about every district, they attacked the administration’s missteps in Iraq, and accused the GOP-controlled Congress of failing to provide meaningful oversight.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbIn New Jersey, for instance, nearly half of the voters said the war was extremely important in their decision in the Senate race, and two-thirds of those voted for the Democrat, Robert Menendez, who voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing the war.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbIn Ohio, 56 percent expressed disapproval of the war, and of these, 82 percent voted for Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown, who also voted against the 2002 war resolution. While 34 percent of Ohio voters said they were voting to show opposition to Bush, only 19 percent said they were voting to show support for him.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbRhode Island voters expressed the strongest anti-Bush and antiwar sentiments, with 75 percent disapproving of Bush’s record, 56 percent strongly disapproving, and 73 percent saying they were against the war, including 52 percent who were strongly against. Of those opposed to the war, 65 percent voted for Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, who won handily despite the fact that the incumbent, Lincoln Chafee, was the only Republican candidate to have opposed the war resolution.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe biggest electoral upset came in Virginia, where incumbent Senator George Allen, a vocal supporter of the war, was trounced in the populous Northern Virginia suburbs where the Pentagon and its subcontractors are the largest employers. Democrat James Webb, a former Republican and Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, opposed the war as a strategic blunder which was diverting US military resources from such potential targets as Iran, Syria and North Korea.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tLes \u00e9lections du 7 novembre ont ouvert la campagne \u00e9lectorale de 2008 pour diverses raisons politiques. Principalement, il s’agit de celles-ci :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t L’affaiblissement consid\u00e9rable du pr\u00e9sident et de son administration avec les \u00e9lections du 7 novembre concr\u00e9tise une position d\u00e9j\u00e0 tr\u00e8s faible avant les \u00e9lections. Le choc du 7 novembre en est d’autant plus marquant et r\u00e9duit \u00e0 bien peu de choses l’autorit\u00e9 d\u00e9j\u00e0 chancelante du pr\u00e9sident. Pratiquement, la p\u00e9riode 2006-2008 sera une p\u00e9riode de vacances du pouvoir, le Congr\u00e8s ne pouvant pr\u00e9tendre prendre en charge la direction du pays, pour des raisons techniques et politiques \u00e9videntes. Ce vide attirera n\u00e9cessairement une tr\u00e8s grande activit\u00e9 pr\u00e9-\u00e9lectorale des pr\u00e9sidentielles 2008, la tactique naturelle pour chaque candidat potentiel \u00e9tant de renforcer sa stature en profitant du vide politique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t L’absence de repr\u00e9sentativit\u00e9 des sentiments du public par les \u00e9lus d\u00e9mocrates installe une tr\u00e8s grande incertitude politique. Elle devrait conduire d’autant plus les candidats et les partis \u00e0 tenter de s’affirmer plus rapidement pour 2008 pour tenter de dissiper cette incertitude.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t Mais la poursuite et l’aggravation probables de la situation en Irak restent plus que jamais la toile de fond et l’\u00e9l\u00e9ment insaisissable de cette situation int\u00e9rieure US. Elles rendent tr\u00e8s incertains et tr\u00e8s difficiles les choix politiques pour ceux qui m\u00e8neront la campagne de 2008.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tJamais dans l’histoire politique des USA a-t-on rencontr\u00e9 un contraste aussi fort entre deux situations contradictoires : le besoin d’une campagne pr\u00e9sidentielle tr\u00e8s rapidement lanc\u00e9e profitant du vide du pouvoir et la tr\u00e8s grande difficult\u00e9 de pr\u00e9senter une position claire \u00e0 la fois accord\u00e9e au sentiment du public tr\u00e8s anti-guerre et \u00e0 une politique de l’establishment<\/em> \u00e9cartant tout ce qui pourrait \u00eatre un retrait pr\u00e9cipit\u00e9 pour rendre cette campagne efficace. Il n’emp\u00eache, il n’y a pas de temps \u00e0 perdre pour 2008 ; il n’emp\u00eache, comment prendre une position efficace pour 2008 Et ainsi de suite. Les ann\u00e9es 2006-2008 vont \u00eatre chaotiques et d\u00e9stabilis\u00e9es. Elles m\u00e9nageront sans doute des surprises politiques de taille.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 11 novembre 2006 \u00e0 06H23<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On trouve une tr\u00e8s compl\u00e8te analyse des r\u00e9sultats des \u00e9lections du 7 novembre, avec une approche tr\u00e8s critique de la position de l’establishment, sur le site WSWS.org ce 11 novembre. L’extrait ci-dessous montre bien l’extraordinaire diff\u00e9rence de sentiment sur la guerre en Irak entre les \u00e9lecteurs et les \u00e9lus, particuli\u00e8rement entre les \u00e9lecteurs et les… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[4906,6120,6119,4479,857,6122,6121],"class_list":["post-68189","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-4906","tag-campagne","tag-cintradiction","tag-destabilisation","tag-irak","tag-politque","tag-vide"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68189","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68189"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68189\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}