Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Eric Cantor loses to Tea-Partier

Posted: 06/10/2014 7:11 PM

Eric Cantor loses to Tea-Partier 


Guess Boehner is safe for another 2 years

But will Republicans get their act together for 2016?

Last edited 06/10/2014 7:14 PM by palcal

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/10/2014 7:26 PM

Re: Eric Cantor loses to Tea-Partier 


The interesting thing here to me is Brat's simple statement, "dollars don't vote".  Cantor out spent Brat something like $5 mil to $50 thousand.

If I were an incumbent in either party I'd be nervous about how the IRS, the VA, the debt & Obamacare will motivate the masses to throw the bums out.  After listening to Brat, I'd be a bit nervous if I was engaged in a large scale business working Washington to gain competitive advantage as well.  Guys like this are a danger...  biggrin

If this disease is contagious, it might benefit our football legacy in his father's long shot campaign to retire Franken.  Damn I hope it spreads like the plague.
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever plus a minute more;
May fortune sing you her sweet song; to live and love way past long
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/10/2014 8:01 PM

illegal immigration 'amnesty' the big issue 


Cantor for

Brat against

I woulda voted for Cantor, but do recognize that Brat is actually a pretty smart guy who had previously supported Cantor...

Economics and Ethics Prof at  Randolf-Macon,  a women's college in Ashland, VA (between Richmond and DC on I-95)

Free Market and Heritage Foundation kinda  guy, not some kind of nut... he took a flyer... found the cutting issue... and won in a traditionally low-turnout primary

my bet is he wins in November...

Last edited 06/10/2014 8:04 PM by FrankO

Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/10/2014 8:13 PM

Re: illegal immigration 'amnesty' the big issue 


I haven't followed the race but this is pretty shocking to me.  Cantor is pretty conservative.  On the other hand, if he lost primarily based on the immigration issue then it serves him right,
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/10/2014 8:31 PM

Re: illegal immigration 'amnesty' the big issue 


Apparently Brat's Dem opponent, Trammell, is also a prof at the same school.  eek

Wow, what are the odds of that happening!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/10/2014 9:11 PM

Re: Eric Cantor loses to Tea-Partier 


With a Libertarian on the ballot in November, this could flip a safe Red seat to blue.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/10/2014 9:15 PM

only 93 full-time professors 


NT
Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/10/2014 9:30 PM

Re: illegal immigration 'amnesty' the big issue 


Randolph-Macon College (Ashland, VA)  is not a women's college.   Randolph-Macon College has been in existence since 1830 and admitted women in 1971. 

When the President in 1891 could not convince the Board to be Co-ed, he formed under the same charter, Randolph-Macon Womens College  (Lynchburg, VA).  In 2007, the Women's College went co-ed and is now known as Randolph College.  The women's college was, at one time known as "RandyMac", a strong member of Mrs. degree granting institutions.

I am pretty sure Brat has been at Randolph-Macon not Randolph College.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/10/2014 10:19 PM

Re: Hard to believe but NYT says.. 


Cantor had 5.7 million for election costs vs Brat's 200K.  Wow!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/10/2014 10:25 PM

I don't think this is good for Republicans.... 



...  at least, not good for any that have to go against a Tea Party candidate in a primary.

Results like this will only force Republican candidates to go harder to the right to deal with the Tea Party challenge....

Which -- even if they win -- makes it harder to move off those positions when they then have to go against a Democratic challenger.

Strange times we live in.....  very strange.

FOOTNOTE:   The same basic principle applies to Democrats and the Far Left as well.

Anything that moves the Right further right, and the Left further left, I think is bad for America.

I think there is a Silent Majority that is completely unorganized but that is larger than the Far Right and Far Left combined.    For me the Truth is in the Middle,  and I think that's where most American's are....

Last edited 06/10/2014 10:47 PM by RMOTKING

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/10/2014 11:49 PM

Re: Eric Cantor loses to Tea-Partier 


Hopefully the two candidates, in the finest academic traditions, those often in evidence on the CEB, will keep the professional political hacks out of the race.  The voters will get a serious discussion of the issues instead of the usual meaningless political generalities, obfuscations, half truths and attacks.  Perhaps the most interesting race in the cycle?  biggrin

PS:   Well.... it doesn't take long.  The democrats are sending our fund raising solicitations warning of the tea party take over of the republican party.  The CEO of Goldman is on TV expressing concern about the 'inability' to get things done in Washington and the the threat this election result might be for the well being of the country.... although he hopes not.  biggrin
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever plus a minute more;
May fortune sing you her sweet song; to live and love way past long

Last edited 06/11/2014 5:32 AM by rjnwmill

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/10/2014 11:57 PM

I think this is good for Republicans 


from his website he is against Obamacare, for fiscal responsibility and against amnesty for illegal aliens.  

Not exactly whack job priorities.  

As a wag pointed out last week, "crony capitalism" is all crony without any capitalism.  Holding onto power without any core principles makes one a political hack, not a "real" democrat or republican.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/11/2014 5:12 AM

may be 



FogCity wrote: from his website he is against Obamacare, for fiscal responsibility and against amnesty for illegal aliens.  

Not exactly whack job priorities.  

As a wag pointed out last week, "crony capitalism" is all crony without any capitalism.  Holding onto power without any core principles makes one a political hack, not a "real" democrat or republican.
not too different from Cantor on the issues.  in addition to the immigration issue, word was Cantor hadn't spent enough time back down I-95 and had lost touch with the district (ala Lugar but with property in the 7th). 

Mark Warner rec'd 60% of the vote in the 7th in his '08 Senate run -- outpolling McCain (53%) but falling short of Cantor (63%).  Warner is on the ballot again against Eddie Gillespie so the 7th might (emphasize on might) be in play this fall.

Last edited 06/11/2014 5:12 AM by slide

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/11/2014 5:41 AM

Re: may be 



slide wrote:
Mark Warner rec'd 60% of the vote in the 7th in his '08 Senate run -- outpolling McCain (53%) but falling short of Cantor (63%).  Warner is on the ballot again against Eddie Gillespie so the 7th might (emphasize on might) be in play this fall.
I want to make sure I'm not stuck on stupid.  Aren't the state wide elections driven by the popular vote exclusively?  Wouldn't that mean every district is in play; a vote in any district is as valuable as any vote state wide?  

It will be fascinating to see if the parties can drive turn out by obfuscating on the issues and peddling fear.  Ahhh, politics.
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever plus a minute more;
May fortune sing you her sweet song; to live and love way past long
Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/11/2014 6:39 AM

Re: may be 


yes, in theory, all districts subject to popular vote are in play.  however, in reality, many US congressional districts are not competitive.  Cantor received 58, 59, 63, 64, 76, 69 and 76% of the vote in his recent elections.  less than 5% margin puts the congressional seat "in play."  when the margin nears 20% it is considered safe, near lock.  the 7th's voter registration nearly mirrors Cantor's vote totals the last 2 elections, so it will be tough for any Dem to win, but Mark Warner's ability to garner 60% of the vote and an open seat should give some hope.

in the fwiw column, John Randolph (of Randolph-Macon College and Randolph College) represented this district back in his day
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/11/2014 7:53 AM

This Is What This Does 


immigration reform of any kind is toast for another 5 years.  big ag and construction must have amnesty.  But amnesty clearly will kill your chances of getting re-elected if you are Republican.  So--no one is going to touch it for a long while, not even in the Senate.  Hell, will any Republicans touch anything interesting until after 2016?  I doubt it.  I think this will scare the begeebers out of moderate Republicans.

And we can dither about all we want about the right and wrong of amnesty, but this nothing happening on immigration reform is not going to help with the Latino votes--and it will invigorate the Democratic Party come 2016.  The Latino vote isn't an issue in the 7th of Virginia, but I am interested to see how this shakes the wiggly stick from Texas to San Diego.  

This may be good for the Republicans, but I don't see how.

our state of grace is gone.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/11/2014 7:54 AM

Third parties and the Silent Majority 


I agree, I think the truth is in the middle, and I think that is where most Americans lie.  I held my nose in each of the past two Presidential elections, I didn't think either was particularly strong.  

But I don't think an unorganized Silent Majority will ever take hold, for a couple of reasons:

1)  First and foremost, the majority of the Silent Majority, so to speak, belong to one of the two major parties.  And the two major parties aren't all that far apart when it comes down to brass tacks.  There are some lightning rod issues, but in the absence of a candidate who captures the absolute center in a common-sense way, voters will stick with the devil they know.

2)  Along those lines, voters don't want to waste their votes, so they back one of the two major party candidates -- whichever one comes closest to their preferences.

3)  Third party candidates tend to represent single issues.  All props to the Greens and others, but if you hammer the stump on a single issue (and the single issue isn't  the economy), then voters will stay away in droves.

4)  Voters want to be governed.  Let me put it this way...I might be fine with a liberterian candidate who achieved a truly small government, but I want protection for or from eight of the twelve families on my block.  I think liberterians assume an awful lot of good behavior will just happen, and I think most voters feel the same.  It's a complex society, and most people need help from time to time.  It makes me think of the first guy I worked very, extremely wealthy and just an absolute rat bastid.  He used to grouse loudly about his tax burden, and I recall thinking that he would absolutely be at risk in a society with minimal protections.

5)  There's a lot of machinery in the two major parties at every level.  That is a head start that would require a ridiculous investment to get off the ground.

6)  The two majority parties aren't stupid, they pay very close attention to their constituencies and to their non-constituents.  They are acutely aware of threats.

In order for a third party candidate to win, they would need a massive war chest, absolute capture of the middle-of-the-road issues, who isn't a whack job (how're things, Ross?), and broad failings on the part of the majority candidates, and frankly, things would have to be going to hell.

So I don't see it happening.  Since WWII, Perot is probably as close as a true third party came.  One morning, not too long after Perot announced, I was listening to a liberal radio host in SF, Alex Bennett, and he was wildly in favor of Perot.  I went to my parents house that night, and my father, a former John Birch Society member was wildly in favor of Perot.  I'd never heard of two individuals so far apart politically being in favor of the same guy.  And I thought "this might actually happen."

And of course, we all knew what happened.  Perot was either slightly nuts or completely nuts, but received 19% of the vote (Wallace received 13.5% in 1968 and John Andersen got about 6% in 1980).  Recall, both years America was in turmoil. 

I do wonder what would have happened if Perot hadn't gone off the rails, though.
"Après moi le déluge" Louis XV
Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/11/2014 9:58 AM

in a land far far away 


Cantor is out and immigration's only chance was lame duck anyway.  can Cantor lead the effort to get 218 (i.e. a few GOP votes plus a block Dem yeses) in the House?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/11/2014 12:01 PM

Re: This Is What This Does 


Taking the longer view, I can see moderate success for Republicans in 2014, but big success for Democrats in 2016.  Democrats likely won't come out in big numbers in 2014 so Republicans will pick up some Senate seats and hold the house; therefore, no immigration reform.  Come 2016, Democrats and those who lean that way and don't vote in midterms will come out to vote in big numbers and some will be very animated by immigration reform.  It will be easy for the Democrats to put the lack of reform on Republicans.  The republican presidential and senate candidates might have to take some hard right stances on immigration reform just to get through the primaries.  

In 2016, 23 Republican Senate seats are up for re-election and only 10 Democratic seats.  Republicans need to defend Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Hampshire - all Obama 2012 wins.

An interesting one is Arizona where McCain might run again, but he's the guy calling for immigration reform.  He might get beat in a primary if immigration is the force it seems to be from the Cantor vote.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/11/2014 12:40 PM

Re: This Is What This Does 



JR100 wrote: Taking the longer view, I can see moderate success for Republicans in 2014, but big success for Democrats in 2016.  Democrats likely won't come out in big numbers in 2014 so Republicans will pick up some Senate seats and hold the house; therefore, no immigration reform.  Come 2016, Democrats and those who lean that way and don't vote in midterms will come out to vote in big numbers and some will be very animated by immigration reform.  It will be easy for the Democrats to put the lack of reform on Republicans.  The republican presidential and senate candidates might have to take some hard right stances on immigration reform just to get through the primaries.  

In 2016, 23 Republican Senate seats are up for re-election and only 10 Democratic seats.  Republicans need to defend Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Hampshire - all Obama 2012 wins.

An interesting one is Arizona where McCain might run again, but he's the guy calling for immigration reform.  He might get beat in a primary if immigration is the force it seems to be from the Cantor vote.
 
it is way too early to discuss 2016, but to add to complications of defending 24 seats in 2016, iirc KY and FL laws prohibit the same candidate from running for 2 elected offices on the same ballot.  so if Paul and Rubio both run for President, it would mean 2 more open Senate seats to win, not defend, for the GOP.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >