Home » Analize »Global / Europa » Citesti:

Ziua alegerilor în America

Barbu Mateescu noiembrie 6, 2012 Analize, Global / Europa
13 comentarii 1,841 Vizualizari

Pe scurt:
1. Potrivit majorităţii sondajelor, Obama are prima şansă.
2. Este posibil ca votul pentru Obama să fie supraestimat puternic în sondaje din motive de eşantionare, şi Romney să obţină o victorie confortabilă.

Detalii:

1. Estimare clasică: victorie Obama

Certitudinile de start în măsura în care există: Obama 217 electori, Romney 206 electori. Dar e nevoie de 270 pentru victorie. Iată câte ceva despre celelalte state, aflate încă pe muchie (în paranteză numărul de electori).

Florida (29) = Câştigătorul potrivit sondajelor din ultima săptămână: Romney în 3 sondaje (în două dintre ele peste marja de eroare), Obama în 2 sondaje (în ambele diferenţa dintre el şi Romney în marja de eroare), un egal. Doar de două ori în ultima sută de ani s-au câştigat alegerile fără Florida: JFK (1960) şi Clinton (1992, când candidatul independent Ross Perot a divizat voturile republicanilor).
Informaţie specială: Nici democraţii nu sunt optimişti apropo de Florida.
Prima şansă: Romney.
Virginia (13) = Obama are un mic avantaj în majoritatea sondajelor, dar acesta nu depăşeşte marja de eroare.
Prima şansă: Romney.
New Hampshire (4) = Obama conduce, dar avantajul său nu depăşeşte marja de eroare.
Informaţie specială: Impactul celor 4 electori din New Hampshire, statistic vorbind, nu are mari şanse să decidă câştigătorul.
Prima şansă: Obama.
Colorado (9) = În mod oarecum surprinzător pentru compoziţia socio-demografică a statului, Obama conduce în 4 din cele 6 sondaje efectuate în ultimele zile. În cele mai recente două sondaje, avantajul său este mai mare decât marja de eroare.
Prima şansă: Obama.
Pennsylvania (20) = Părea a fi o victorie sigură pentru Obama, dar cele mai recente două sondaje arată că diferenţa dintre candidaţi este în marja de eroare.
Informaţie specială: Romney a insistat să lupte în acest stat, iar tenacitatea îi va fi parţial răsplătită. E posibil ca lupta să fie strânsă.
Prima şansă: Obama.
Michigan (16) = Acum o săptămână sau două, Obama părea să câştige relativ clar iar Michigan nici nu prea era subiect de discuţie, dar un sondaj efectuat vineri pe un eşantion mare îl dă pe Romney câştigător la un procent.
Prima şansă: Obama.
Ohio (18) = Obama conduce în şase din ultimele şapte sondaje (în celălalt este egal). Totul este însă în marjă.
Informaţie specială: Din 1960 încoace, dacă câştigi Ohio câştigi alegerile.
Prima şansă: Obama.
Iowa (6) = Jumătate din sondajele din ultima săptămână îl dau pe Obama câştigător, celelalte pe Romney. Totul este în marjă.
Informaţie specială: Obama a câştigat aici în 2008. Deşi la prima vedere nu este evident, Iowa este cel mai strâns scrutin dintre toate.
Prima şansă: Obama.
Observaţii:
A) Lista de mai sus indică o victorie a lui Obama la 42 de voturi electorale distanţă (290-248).
B) Romney ar avea nevoie să câştige două dintre cele şase state pe care le-am “alocat” lui Obama pentru a câştiga. O altă cale, mai complicată, este să câştige state considerate deja pro-Obama şi care nu se află în lista de mai sus.
C) Diferenţe faţă de alte site-uri care analizează sondaje sau care sunt agregatoare de sondaje:
RealClearPolitics şi FiveThirtyEight = Virginia la Obama. Preşedintele în funcţie câştigă 303 la 235.
270toWin şi “DeSart & Holbrook”= Colorado la Romney. Preşedintele în funcţie câştigă 281 la 257.
2. Eroare de eşantionare? O mare victorie Romney

Conform Gallup şi altor câtorva institute, democraţii-sau-cei-care-înclină să voteze cu democraţii vor reprezenta mai puţin din cei care vor vota decât în 2004 sau 2008. Ponderea republicanilor a crescut semnificativ, fiind la un punct maxim pentru ultimii zece ani.

Concret:

O situaţie identică se regăseşte în rândul categoriilor socio-demografice: femeile şi oamenii care nu au absolvit o facultate (ambele grupuri: semnificativ pro-Obama în 2008) vor reprezenta mai puţin din electoratul votant.

În SUA votul popular nu este decisiv. Dar dacă cifrele din tabelul de mai sus sunt corecte, estimările din partea 1 (“estimarea clasică”) sunt discutabile, iar Romney va obţine o victorie evidentă, câştigând toate sau aproape toate cele 6 state în care Obama are, teoretic, prima şansă.

Situaţia descrisă de cele două modele nu este foarte diferită de cea de la noi, unde nici acum nu e foarte clar dacă toţi cei care spun că votează USL chiar vor veni la vot. Dacă am şti acest procent, am şti şi rezultatul alegerilor. Estimări diferite ar duce la rezultate diferite. Dar în America diferenţa dintre competitori este infimă, nu de 20-30 de procente precum în România, ceea ce măreşte tensiunea situaţiei.

Cea mai bună concluzie vine la Scott Rasmussen, unul dintre cei mai importanţi pollsteri din Statele Unite şi un susţinător al teoriei din partea a doua: “Campania electorală a avut puţine surprize. În consecinţă, este… surprinzător că, deşi suntem în ultima săptămână, nu putem spune cine are şansa mai mare de a câştiga Casa Albă.”

Articol preluat de pe blogul Sociollogica

Ai informatii despre tema de mai sus? Poti contribui la o mai buna intelegere a subiectului? Scrie articolul tau si trimite-l la editor[at]contributors.ro



Currently there are "13 comments" on this Article:

  1. ampersand spune:

    Presimt o victorie detasata a lui Obama :D
    Partea cu adevarat proasta, in opinia mea, e ca se va mentine blocajul din Congres.

    • Petru Clej spune:

      Senatul va fi probabil 52 – 48 în favoarea Democraților (-1), iar Camera Reprezentanților 230 – 205 în favoarea Republicanilor (-12).

  2. Christian spune:

    Gallup si Rasmussen sunt cu simpatii republicane. Poate ar fi o idee sa faceti referire cu bold si la alte institute de cercetare sociologica.

    • Barbu Mateescu Barbu Mateescu spune:

      Christian, prima jumătate a postării (“Estimare clasică: victorie Obama”) despre asta a fost.

      • Petru Clej spune:

        Eu am pronosticat pe pagina mea de Facebook victoria lui Obama cu 286 – 252. Singura diferenta fata de schema 290 – 248 ar fi ca eu pronostichez victoria lui Romney in New Hampshire, singurul stat toss-up din nord vestul liberal, care a mai votat in favoarea unui candidat Republican si in 2000 (Bush). De asemenea, am pronosticat victoria lui Obama in Ohio la sub 1% (50000 de voturi) si faptul ca Romney va obtine cele mai multe voturi populare.

  3. Lupul Monarhist spune:

    In cazul in care castiga Romney, un spectacol desavarsit va fi atmosfera de inmormantare pe care o vor afisa toti formatorii de opinie si comentatorii politici de la marile retele de televiziune din mainstream media, sustinatori infocati ai Mesiei. Daca maine dimineata va treziti si veti vedea o banderola neagra pe CNN sau MSNBC stiti sigur ca America are un nou presedinte.

    • IDB spune:

      Pai…si in 2008 mesianicul Obama a beneficiat de sustinerea puternica a celor din show-biz, din comunitatea stiintifica si, mai ales, a celor din presa americana! Deh, e o forma de legitimare…Relax, Obama va castiga destul de detasat si de data asta…Dar nu asta e problema nr 1 a SUA…ci PLUTOCRATIA AMERICANA…care se incapataneaza sa mentina acest “status quo” ce-i convine de minune!

      Ei, bogatii SUA, cei care formeaza DOAR 1 % din populatie…insa detin APROAPE 25 % din bogatia tarii….

      vezi aici http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq1zpHF0J04

      ei trag sforile, si pentru democrati si pentru republicani! Ei platesc, ei comanda muzica! Si fraierul de votant da cu stampila pe Obama…crezand intr-un Mesia de culoare calare pe cai verzi galopand pe pereti albastri!

      Obama….este inca un mit de cursa scurta, care s-a fåsåit mult mai repede decat si-au imaginat cei de la “packaging”-ul de imagine, cei care i-au ambalat legenda in sclipici, pe o tona de confetti. Nu cred in oameni providentiali, acum cand purterea este distribuita altcumva si este rezultanta efortului unei echipe, care are eventual o interfata deosebita, privilegiata. Epoca marilor jucatori, care stabileau de unii singuri regulile jocului, a trecut. Carter, pentru Obama este ca statuia lui Shiva pentru adoratorul indian.

  4. costin spune:

    1. ‘Baraka’ means blessing, that’s why Obama should win: Sudan Islamist
    http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/11/05/247718.html

    2. Chavez, Castro, Putin, endorse Obama
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/chavez-castro-putin-endorse-obama/

    3. Obama îl roagă pe Putin să îl menajeze și promite că după alegeri va „rezolva” problema scutului anti-rachetă
    http://inliniedreapta.net/lavedere/obama-il-roaga-pe-putin-sa-il-mai-lase-sa-respire-si-promite-ca-dupa-alegeri-va-%E2%80%9Erezolva%E2%80%9D-problema-scutului-anti-racheta/

    parerea mea e ca, avind in vedere implicarea in referendumul din vara si agresivitatea tot mai evidenta a Rusiei + cistigul USL aproape sigur peste o luna, pentru romani si Romania este vital ca Romney sa cistige. Orice roman care ar vrea ca Obama sa cistige, e cel putin inconstient.

  5. motive spune:

    Ce am gasit pe un site (dar ma pierdut link-ul):

    1. His key appointments indicated a tilt toward Wall Street. Tim Geithner, his Secretary of the Treasury, was the brains behind TARP�in other words “too big to fail”. As head of the United States National Economic Council, Larry Summers pushed for tax cuts rather than New Deal type spending on roads, bridges, etc. Before becoming Attorney General, Eric Holder was at a Washington law firm that represented a Who�s Who of big banks and other companies at the center of alleged foreclosure fraud. That, no doubt, is why a Justice Department panel investigating mortgage security fraud is being starved for funds.

    2. Working-class homeowners have suffered under the Obama administration. On taking office, Obama promised that up to 9 million of them would be protected from foreclosure but only 2.3 million have gotten assistance. Moreover, the White House never addressed the problem of plunging house prices that left owners being both unable to stay and to leave.

    3. Despite their slavish support for Obama, trade unions have been treated poorly. Obama promised that he would fight for EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act), an act that would expedite union certification. Once in office, it was relegated to the back burner. When Wisconsin governor Scott Walker went on a union-busting rampage, Obama did nothing to back the protests and limited his support for a Democrat in a recall election to a tweet. When Chicago teachers went on strike against Mayor Rahm Emanuel�s Scott Walker-like attack, Obama stood aloof. This was to be expected, of course, since his Secretary of Education is a proponent of charter schools.

    4. Despite foolish expectations that Obama would be a new FDR, Obama has functioned more like Hoover on the jobs creation front. There has been nothing like the WPA or the CCC, despite an aging infrastructure. And despite all the hoopla over the auto bailout, the net result has been a downsizing of the big three auto companies, as well as a sharp cut in benefits.

    5. Both Obama and Romney love free trade. As liberal wonk Matt Iglesias put it, “And what�s more, all indications are that Barack Obama also doesn�t think Bain was doing anything wrong. As president he�s made no moves to make it illegal for companies to shift production work abroad and has publicly associated himself with a wide range of American firms�from GE to Apple and beyond�who�ve done just that to varying extents. And we all remember what happened to Obama�s promise to renegotiate NAFTA after taking office, right?”

    6. Obama done nothing to solve the problem of greenhouse-gas related climate change, a point made by Al Gore in a Rolling Stone article. Despite the EPA�s requirement that new (but not existing) coal-fueled plants cut their emissions by half, there are signs that this will have little to do with reducing greenhouse gases since coal is being replaced across the board by the far cheaper natural gas.

    7. Natural gas extraction is being facilitated through the use of hydrofracking, an environmentally devastating practice that the Obama administration has accepted without qualms. In his latest State of the Union speech, Obama�s pro-natural gas stance earned the praise of the pro-hydrofracking Independent Oil & Gas Association. His EPA chief Lisa Jackson told a Senate Committee that she knew of no instances where fracking affected water, a stance that endeared her to the ultra-reactionary NY Post. Finally, he gave TransCanada the OK to build the southern portion of its Keystone XL tar sands pipeline in June of this year. By contrast, Jill Stein was arrested when she was resupplying activists blockading the pipeline.

    8. In the same month that he gave TransCanada the green light, Obama permitted oil drilling in the Arctic. This follows a decision in January to re-open 38 Million Acres in Gulf of Mexico to offshore drilling. The fact that BP has given the largest chunk of its $3.5 million campaign contributions to Obama might well have something to do with this.

    9. Obama has supported the building of nuclear power plants, even after Fukushima.

    10. In 2009 Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack gave his personal approval for a 381-acre clear-cut in Tongass National Forest, America�s largest stand of temperate rain forest.

    11. Last and far from least, Obama lifted the ban on hunting gray wolves in eight northern states in 2011. Maybe he and Sarah Palin can go shoot the beasts from a helicopter some time next year in the spirit of collaboration between the two parties. They can bring Chris Christie along, after making sure that the helicopter can carry all that weight.

    12. Obama promised to close down Guantanamo but the prison remained open even after he said in the ill-conceived Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech: ” I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war�That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed.”

    13. When men imprisoned in Guantanamo demanded that they be tried in a U.S. court, the case went all the way up to the Supreme Court. On Obama�s urging, the court denied a hearing, thus leading some to assert that a president with a background in constitutional law was gutting habeas corpus.

    14. Obama maintains a secret kill list that included American citizens. This suspension of habeas corpus not only led to the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki�an American�but his 16 year old son who was never charged with a crime. Robert Gibbs, Obama�s former press secretary, defending the killing this way: “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children.

    15. Obama�s raid on Osama bin-Laden�s house was essentially illegal. Amnesty International described it as an extrajudicial execution.

    16. His use of drones has led to the deaths of many noncombatants, including a number that have been covered up. The criterion used by the White House is that any military aged male within the target range is fair game. If this is not the policy of a war criminal, then I do not know what is.

    17. Many of Obama�s policies are shrouded in secrecy. When the White House leaked word about its kill list�intended to burnish its reputation as tough on terror�nothing happened. But when people like Bradley Manning reveal the machinations that lead to war, he is put in solitary confinement and faced with a lengthy prison term.

    18. Despite the hostility of Netanyahu, Israel continues to get carte blanche from the administration. When Americans consider the possibility of joining a flotilla to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza, they have to worry about the threats of fines and imprisonment brandished by Hillary Clinton. Despite toothless remonstrations to Israel about West Bank settlements, the U.S. voted against a U.N. resolution that described them as illegal. Finally, despite American nervousness about an armed attack on Iran, the U.S. continues to back crippling sanctions all in the name of reducing the threat to Israel, a country that flouts international treaties against its own stockpile of nuclear weapons.

    19. Against all evidence that its occupation of Afghanistan has been a disaster to the Afghan people and to the soldiers serving there, Obama pledges to “finish the job” in Nixonian terms. Sticking to a 2014 deadline for withdrawal, he will likely step up the use of drones as he begins to wind down troop deployments. 42 states and the District of Columbia are facing serious budget shortfalls this year. Spending for the Afghanistan war would more than make up for the shortfalls. As is always the case, it is guns trump butter.

    20. Despite all the hype about the breakthrough of having the first African-American president, there are signs that Obama has largely ignored the suffering of Black America. In a very important article that appeared in the October 28th New York Times, Columbia University�s director of Black studies wrote: “Whether it ends in 2013 or 2017, the Obama presidency has already marked the decline, rather than the pinnacle, of a political vision centered on challenging racial inequality.” Among the findings in this article: 28 percent of African-Americans, and 37 percent of black children, are poor (compared with 10 percent of whites and 13 percent of white children); 13 percent of blacks are unemployed (compared with 7 percent of whites); more than 900,000 black men are in prison; blacks experienced a sharper drop in income since 2007 than any other racial group; black household wealth, which had been disproportionately concentrated in housing, has hit its lowest level in decades; blacks accounted, in 2009, for 44 percent of new H.I.V. infections.

    21. Obama has deported twice the number of undocumented workers per annum than Bush. 59 percent of Latinos disapprove of his policies but face the quandary of voting for Romney, who complains that Obama is not deporting enough.

    22. Obamacare has effectively preempted the only health care option that made sense, namely a single-payer plan that would effectively extended Medicare (but a much improved on) to all. As Obama has said on countless occasions, this is the same plan that Romney pushed through when he was governor of Massachusetts. It is also the same plan that American Enterprise Institute scholar J.D. Kleinke defended in a September 29, 2012 NYT op-ed piece titled “The Conservative Case for Obamacare”: The rationalization and extension of the current market is financed by the other linchpin of the law: the mandate that we all carry health insurance, an idea forged not by liberal social engineers at the Brookings Institution but by conservative economists at the Heritage Foundation. The individual mandate recognizes that millions of Americans who could buy health insurance choose not to, because it requires trading away today�s wants for tomorrow�s needs. The mandate is about personal responsibility � a hallmark of conservative thought.”

    23. Obama set up something called National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that was co-chaired by a couple of fiscal hawks, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles. There are fears that the policies favored by these two reactionaries will be implemented as cuts in Social Security in Obama�s second term. In his debate with Romney, Obama said, “I suspect that on Social Security, we�ve got a somewhat similar position. Social Security is structurally sound. It�s going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker � Democratic Speaker Tip O�Neill. But it is � the basic structure is sound.” With the likely continuation of Bush tax cuts, there will be pressure to cut the deficit. Between Social Security and tax breaks for billionaires, guess which will be sacrificed.

    24. The White House has been a pillar of support for charter schools. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is one of the country�s leading advocates for what amounts to the privatization of public schools and the liquidation of the teacher�s union, one of the few in the country that still has some backbone. The irrepressible Diane Ravitch described Duncan this way: “Duncan cheered when the superintendent of the Central Falls, Rhode Island, school district threatened to fire every teacher in the town�s only high school; the Education Secretary memorably said that Hurricane Katrina�which wiped out public schools and broke the teachers� union in New Orleans�was the best thing that ever happened to the school system in that city. Teachers are demoralized by such statements.”

    25. Finally, in the one bright spot in recent American history of people challenging the status quo�namely the Occupy movement�there is strong evidence that the White House conspired with local authorities to crush it. David Lindorff reported for Counterpunch: “A new trove of heavily redacted documents provided by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) on behalf of filmmaker Michael Moore and the National Lawyers Guild makes it increasingly evident that there was and is a nationally coordinated campaign to disrupt and crush the Occupy Movement.”

    None of this should be interpreted, of course, as a preference for Romney, which would be like recommending cyanide instead of arsenic.

  6. alegeri spune:

    As Hurricane Sandy swept through the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, there was and is much concern in the mainstream press about how it will affect the upcoming presidential elections. The implication being that a natural disaster may undermine the electoral process and distort what for many is the most significant expression of democracy in American politics. Unfortunately, the problems facing the upcoming election speak less to the effects of a natural disaster than to a serious political crisis. The equation of the electoral process with the highest measure of democracy rests on two mistaken assumptions.

    The first assumption is that these elections actually provide a real set of choices for the American public. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, the choice is between Mitt Romney who is the titular head of a Republican party that is now largely controlled by a range of extremists. This cast of rouges includes ultra-conservative advocates of market fundamentalism and extreme religious zealots along with a mix of right-wing billionaires – all of whom are intent on destroying any vestige of the welfare state while quashing gay rights, attacking women’s rights, and suppressing voter registration turnout. On the other hand, Barack Obama is a conservative centrist who has repeatedly compromised his liberal policies on domestic issues while legitimating a range of foreign and domestic policies that have shredded civil liberties, expanded the permanent warfare state and increased the domestic reach of the punitive surveillance state.

    The second assumption that undermines the electoral process and the coming election as the highest expression of American democracy is that the process is now entirely controlled and corrupted by the power of big money. As Eliot Weinberger recently wrote in the London Review of Books, “Obama and Romney are each spending about a billion dollars to get elected—four times what Bush and Gore spent in 2000. When one adds the unregulated PACs and Congressional and gubernatorial races, the cost of this year’s election is around $6 billion.”[1]

    Read more articles by Henry A. Giroux and other leading academics and thinkers at The Public Intellectual Project on Truthout.

    Under such circumstances, politics dissolves into pathology as those who are able to dominate politics and policy-making do so largely because of their disproportionate control of the nation’s income and wealth and the benefits they gain from the systemic reproduction of an iniquitous social order. In other words, electoral politics is rigged and any notion of politics that is willing to invest in such ritualistic pageantry adds to the current dysfunctional nature of American society while reinforcing a profound failure of political imagination.

    Elections in the United States are now characterized by the politics of a moral coma and corrupted by the pathological lies used to justify the rule of big money. John Le Carre’s charge against the Bush administration that “America has entered one of its periods of historical madness,”[2] echoing the last days of the Weimar Republic, is more relevant today than it was in when he made the statement in 2003. Matters of justice, truth, responsibility and freedom have been hijacked by a savage mode of capitalism that is as ruthless as it is criminal. Manufactured idiocy reins in the dominant media and has ceded its credibility to the eithos of celebrity culture and the entertainment state.

    Fox News is the American version of Pravda and the liberal media appears delusional given its flight from any vestige of critical analysis. The issue is no longer how to work within the current electoral system, but how to dismantle it and construct a new political landscape and vision of democracy in which people can recognize themselves, a vision that connects with and speaks to the American public’s desires, dreams and hopes. The American public needs a new conversation about democracy, equality and the redistribution of wealth and power. And we need to explore how such a discourse can offer the conditions for critical visions, modes of governance and policy making.

    In this instance, the debate on electoral politics is only one part of a much-needed conversation of what a democracy looks like and what it takes to make it more than a commodity for sale to the highest bidder. Some would argue that criticizing the electoral process as symptomatic of a new version of authoritarianism is a flight from political participation. Actually, engaging the electoral process as if it were the gold standard of democracy is a flight from any substantive understanding of the reality and promise of a real democracy.

    NOTES:

    [1] Eliot Weinberger, “The Republic of Entertainment,” London Review of Books (October 29, 2012).

    [2] John le Carre, “The United States of America Has Gone Mad,” Common Dreams (January 15, 2003).

    http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/12434-beyond-the-dead-end-of-american-electoral-politics-rethinking-the-crisis-of-politics

  7. Bradut Bolos Bradut Bolos spune:

    As vrea sa vad mereu si peste tot articole si analize de genul celor prezentate de dvs. Felicitari! Sec, argumentat, la obiect, superb!



Comenteaza:







Do NOT fill this !

Autor

Barbu Mateescu


Barbu Mateescu

Sociolog, Barbu Mateescu a absolvit in 2005 University of Pennsylvania Citeste mai departe


MIHAI MACI – Cel de-al doilea volum din Colectia Contributors.ro

"Atunci când abdică de la menirea ei, școala nu e o simplă instituție inerțială, ci una deformatoare. Și nu deformează doar spatele copiilor, ci, în primul rând, sufletele lor. Elevul care învață că poate obține note mari cu referate de pe internet e adultul de mâine care va plagia fără remușcări, cel care-și copiază temele în pauză va alege întotdeauna scurtătura, iar cel care promovează cu intervenții va ști că la baza reușitei stă nu cunoașterea, ci cunoștințele. Luate indi­vidual, lucrurile acestea pot părea mărunte, însă cumulate, ele dau măsura deformării lumii în care trăim și aruncă o umbră grea asupra viitorului pe care ni-l dorim altfel." - Mihai Maci

E randul tau

cu ani in urma un prieten cambodgian mi-a povestit cum a fost omorat pe taica-sau pe vremea khmerilo...

de: r2

la "Ce-ar fi să vorbim cu-adevărat corect politic despre Fidel Castro?"

Cauta articole

decembrie 2016
Lu Ma Mi Jo Vi Du
« Noi    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Valentin Naumescu – Marile schimbari. Crize si perspective in politica internationala. Editie bibliofila

contributors.ro

Contributors.ro este intr-o permanenta cautare de autori care pot da valoare adaugata dezbaterii publice. Semnaturile noi sunt binevenite cata vreme respecta regulile de baza ale site-ului. Incurajam dezbaterea relaxata, bazata pe forta argumentelor.
Contact: editor[at]contributors.ro

(An essay by Vladimir Tismaneanu and Marius Stan)