Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

House Majority Leader Defeated In Primary

Posted by Unknown on from the first-time-for-everything dept.

An anonymous reader writes "For the first time in United States political history, the House Majority Leader has been defeated in his primary election. Long time Republican congressman and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defeated by 10 percentage points in the Virginia primary by Republican Tea Party challenger Dave Brat. This shocking defeat is likely to upset the political balance of power in the United States for years to come."

17 of 932 comments (clear)

  1. Democrats voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Open primaries allow this sort of thing to happen. If you think about it, it isn't really fair, but we allow it in a lot of states, so this sort of thing should be expected.

    1. Re:Democrats voted by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In California for state legislature we switched to an open primary in the spring and runoff in the fall, where the runoff is the top two candidates regardless of party. so in very conservative areas the top two candidates could be two republicans, and in liberal areas the top two candidates will be democrats. This has the effect of pushing the most polarized districts to more moderate representation, because if two repubs are in the final election, the more moderate one will appeal to a wider base.

      this is so important because california's legislature is so horribly disfunctional, and because you need 2/3 vote to pass any bill that levies taxes, it means a minority can basically shut down regular operation.

      btdubs this was just one of the reforms passed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who I think will be remembered as one of the best governors in CA history.

    2. Re:Democrats voted by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nope. Here's a direct quote from one of my conservative mailing lists.

      "I'm with you; these moderate-to-left RINO old farts have to go."

      Apparently he wasn't far enough right.
      "Cantor opposes public funding of embryonic stem cell research and opposes elective abortion. He is rated 100% by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and 0% by NARAL Pro-Choice America, indicating a pro-life voting record. He is also opposed to same-sex marriage, voting to Constitutionally define marriage as between a male and a female in 2006. In November 2007 he voted against prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. He also supports making flag burning illegal. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) rated him 19% in 2006, indicating an anti-affirmative action voting record. He is opposed to gun control, voting to ban product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers in 2005, and he voted not to require gun registration and trigger-lock laws in the District of Columbia. He has a rating of "A" from the National Rifle Association (NRA).[32] On Nov. 2, 2010, Cantor told Wolf Blitzer of CNN that he would try to trim the federal deficit by reducing welfare."

      And I hear this puts the former republican stronghold district in play for the democrats now. Plus a tremendous loss of seniority and political power for the republicans will be gone so spending in Virginia is likely to drop significantly.

      I'm an independent with increasingly strong liberal tendencies since 2004. But I'm not sure if I'm really growing more liberal or if the republicans are simply moving rightward away from the middle.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    3. Re:Democrats voted by danbob999 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's wrong is to have state-sponsored open primaries. That's fundamentally anti-democratic. Why should the state organize primaries for only 2 parties? There are dozens of small parties out there which would like to receive the same treatment. Parties should organize primaries themselves.

    4. Re:Democrats voted by T.E.D. · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thank you for the perspective.

      Here's what I'm seeing from the outside:

      • His district is 75% white, and less than 4% Hispanic. So his constituents know Hispanics mostly in the abstract
      • The only concrete issue I'm seeing him hit on in #tcot #va07 tags is "amnesty".
      • Two weeks ago he's polled as up by 34 points in his primary
      • A week later (June 6th), on local TV he announces he's willing to work with Obama on "the border security bill".
      • A couple of days later, his opponent is campaigning on this statement like it is "support for amnesty". This appears to be his only issue.
      • Last night he lost by 10 points - a 40 point swing. Even for an internal poll, that's a suspiciously large swing.

      I'm no detective, but the footprints look pretty darn clear to me.

    5. Re:Democrats voted by datavirtue · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think I heard Brat spent $150k and Cantor spent $100 million. Tea Party is the best thing to happen in politics since any of us have been alive.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  2. He picked the wrong moment to support amnesty by Karmashock · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What with the insane situation we have at the border right now...

    Say what you will about our immigration policy... say what you will about the politics... it looks very bad for people supporting amnesty right now simply because there looks to be a free for all at the border.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:He picked the wrong moment to support amnesty by ExecutorElassus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Just that simple"? You like the idea of closing borders, evidently, but do you like the idea of produce prices, meat prices, service-economy costs, and just about every other menial-labor field seeing its labor costs double overnight? Because that's the consequence of requiring that citizens do those jobs. Stoop work is awful, backbreaking work that pays bullshit. It only survives because the immigrants who do it are so desperate for the work that they'll take it.

      The moment you kick the immigrants out, you see cases like these ones, where billions of dollars of produce were left to rot in the fields because all the immigrants who would have picked them were driven out by tough anti-immigrant laws.
      The US agricultural economy -- and a lot of the service economy -- is built on a steady influx of sub-minimum-wage labor, and only survives because of undocumented immigrants. Take it away, and large swaths of the economy collapse.

    2. Re:He picked the wrong moment to support amnesty by sandytaru · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Whatever happened to "Give me your tired, your poor, your labored masses yearning to be free?" Heard a story about the approximately 40,000 children who came to the US without their parents who are current being held in custody because we have little legal framework for dealing with cross border teenaged runaways. Deport them? They're minors, and some of them are claiming outright refugee status because they feared for their lives at home due to gang violence. Send them to orphanages? They have none of the paperwork for that. It's a total clusterfuck right now. We can either pretend these kids are here to steal our freedoms, or or we can tackle the reality we're given and stay true to the promise of America.

      My ancestors came over to the US as 16 and 19-year-old brothers with nothing but the clothes on their backs and a wish to own their own farm. A century later and we're a family of doctors, lawyers, educators, and software developers. They spoke no English - now I speak no Russian or German. They formed their own ethnic enclave with others like them out in the midwest, but my generation has become mobile and we've fully scattered and integrated across the country. Why did my teenage ancestors deserve that chance, but these kids don't?

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  3. Can't he still win by twistedcubic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't know the rules in Virginia, but can't he run as a third-party candidate in the general election, just like Lieberman did?

  4. Redistricting by Dorianny · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Republicans are falling victim to their own success redistricting. The result is safe districts where the nominee has no need for independent voters to win in the general election. The party nomination effectively becomes the election and in these, candidates are much more vulnerable to small groups of highly motivated, very vocal and very involved fringe groups, then they would be in general elections. Democrats engage in this behavior as well but for better of for worst, they are not as good at gerrymandering when they get the chance.

    1. Re:Redistricting by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Actually, the real problem is not the skill in gerrymandering, but their political decisions..

      Republicans have ceased to be a 'conservative' party and instead become a RURAL party. In large part because government works much better in cities (easier to provide government services there), but also because of minority concentration.

      This leaves the cities full (80%+) of liberals.

      When it comes to gerrymandering, your best bet is to concentrate all your enemey in one district - anything over 60% is worthless to the party that has the majority - those 61+ % voters could have been moved to a district where you are in doubt.

      It is a lot harder to justify gerrymandering a combination district that contains some of those inner city votes and also the outer rural votes - in part because the city voters can easily change districts without having to change jobs as well as home.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  5. Re:hahaha! by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Republican voting base has gone full bat shit, the party won't last much longer now.

    The Tea Party may be trying to spin this into a "win" (since they've been soundly defeated elsewhere this primary season) but at the end of the day this really comes down to Politics 101. Mr. Cantor was more interested in running the House than he was in providing consistent services. Drill past the national media's obsession with the Tea Party and/or immigration for a moment and look at the local media in his district. Read some of the complaints about him that have nothing whatsoever to do with ideology. Then ask yourself how frequently incumbent Legislators manage to lose primary elections, particularly ones in a leadership role that give them all manner of opportunity to funnel pork (err, I mean "investment") to the folks back home.

    All politics are local. The Tea Party didn't win this. Mr. Cantor lost it. The funny/sad (depends on your perspective I guess) thing is he probably didn't see it coming until the first returns started coming in. This is what happens when you've held elective office long enough to treat elections like mere formalities.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  6. Re:hahaha! by LifesABeach · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Congressman Cantor was voted out of office for a candidate that proudly demonstated that his head was rammed further up his ass than Cantor's was; amazing.

  7. Republicans can do it. Can Democrats? by Kohath · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Republicans were able to stand up and beat a Washington insider in a primary in a safe seat. Will Democrats ever be able to do that? Or are Democrat incumbents in safe seats guaranteed lifetime reelection?

  8. Re:hahaha! by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Romney hinted at this in one of the Presidential debates, with a line about too big to fail that was predictably ignored by the mainstream media. George Will picked up on it in one of his op-eds. Will has written extensively on the subject of crony capitalism, with a focus on the unholy alliance of business and regulators. Will speaks for the intellectual wing of the GOP, such as it is, so it's not as though they aren't aware of this problem.

    Romney was probably the wrong person to try and make this argument, though it would have been refreshing to see him try. I can't recall him saying anything on the matter other than the throw away line about too big to fail, which is a pity, because it's an issue he could have made headway on.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  9. Re:hahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "BTW, I consider anybody who uses the "teabagger" name a dishonest broker and liberal robot. If you start by trying to offend your opponent (and make no mistake, this term is intended to offend) you really must have nothing better to say"

    I'm gonna let you chew on that statement for a while...