Eric Cantor Loses Primary to David Brat; Post-Election Analysis

[mountaineer]

Life after Cantor
By New York Post Editorial Board
June 11, 2014 | 11:15pm

Only one fact is clear from Eric Cantor’s primary defeat: No one saw it coming.

This alone is a reason for skepticism about the Monday-morning quarterbacking we’re now hearing. But if college professor Dave Brat’s upset victory over the House majority leader indeed spells doom for immigration reform, Republicans and Democrats alike have some hard thinking to do about what’s ahead.

For Republican opponents of reform, the two main objections have always been lack of security at the southern border and “amnesty” — i.e., a path to citizenship for the millions here illegally.

Here’s the irony. The border is plainly broken, as we can see from the humanitarian crisis provoked by an influx of thousands of unaccompanied children that is overwhelming our folks on the ground.

But if Cantor’s defeat leads House Republicans to shy away from advancing their own plans for reform — which would begin with a bill to improve border security — what we will have for the foreseeable future is a border that remains broken, as well as a de facto amnesty for those here.

Meanwhile, Democrats who say bipartisan reform is their top priority ought to be pressing President Obama. Because any skepticism GOP primary voters might have had about the president’s commitment to enforcing the law would only have been exacerbated by seeing our border overwhelmed and our president doing nothing.

Put it this way: Is this something a president truly interested in a bipartisan immigration bill would do?
 As for Eric Cantor, on this contentious issue he put forward the worst position of all for a politician: one that angered all by attempting to please all.

[Machiavelli]

I saw the interview live, it was on Todd's morning show.  To me, it looked and sounded like Brat was truly shocked at the detailed policy questions.
Having heard him the evening before, it was like two different guys.  Although, on election eve he was talking "principles" with friendly hosts.  I actually did think that he was probably sleep deprived and it was probably good that he begged off on the questions, he just could have done it a bit more smoothly....

What do you think of this?

MSNBC.com Deceptively Edits Dave Brat to Suggest He Was 'Dodging' Questions
Ken Shepherd
NewsBusters
June 11, 2014

Editors at MSNBC.com trimmed down Republican congressional nominee Dave Brat's June 11 phone interview with MSNBC's Chuck Todd in order to paint him as dodging questions from the Daily Rundown host.

But a review of the full interview [listen to the mp3 audio here] shows that Brat had already and seemingly quite gladly answered a few policy questions on such hot issues as the minimum wage, immigration reform, and his stance on Wall Street's influence on the business wing of the GOP.

"Brat dodges Chuck Todd's questions," blared a teaser headline. "Brat: I just wanted to talk about the victory," reads the headline at the video link. "Virginia primary winner and Tea-Party member Dave Brat joins Chuck Todd to discuss his primary win – and it appears that’s all he wanted to talk about," was how MSNBC.com summarized the clip.

Readers of the MSNBC.com website who hadn't the benefit of watching the interview earlier in the morning would have come away with a wildly different perspective than someone who watched the full interview.

Below is the full segment's transcript. The portion underlined is the portion that MSNBC.com isolated: ...

More

[evadR]

Quote from: evadR² on June 11, 2014, 11:08:18 PM
"And which host would that be? Anyway, he should have done a little more research. Here's just one excerpt"

Rush

I'm not surprised. He used to be the one to listen to for facts, but in recent years he's been more than happy to opine whether he has the facts or not. I gave up after I started spending more time fact checking his statements than listening to his chatter.

So, are you saying that Rush's claim is inaccurate/not factual ?

[katzenjammer]

Well, my point is that Todd would not have immediately launched into policy discussions had he been interviewing Cantor after a primary victory.

It's a tactic the media uses to portray candidates they don't like in the most negative way possible...

LOL. if Cantor won there likely would have been no interview as it wouldn't have been seen as "news."  But I get your overall point, yes.

[katzenjammer]

What do you think of this?

MSNBC.com Deceptively Edits Dave Brat to Suggest He Was 'Dodging' Questions
Ken Shepherd
NewsBusters
June 11, 2014
More

Yes, the full interview is the one I saw in the morning.  I had no idea they aired an edited one later, though I am not surprised!  Thanks for posting that!

[mountaineer]

After loss blamed on Hamptons trips, Cantor goes to the Hamptons
By Emily Smith
New York Post
June 12, 2014 | 10:25pm

Although House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s stunning defeat was blamed on spending too much time in the Hamptons, he’s commiserating out east this weekend.

After the No. 2 House Republican was ousted in a primary loss, he’s still on for a $500-a-plate luncheon fund-raiser in Quogue Saturday for Republican Lee Zeldin.

Cantor is also due to appear Saturday at a “Father’s Day Sabbath” at the Hampton Synagogue in Westhampton Beach, where he’s expected to speak.

A synagogue rep said, “As of this moment, Eric Cantor is still going to appear.” An unnamed top Republican had told Politico Cantor lost because he “spent too much time on the road and in the Hamptons.”

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

The GOP-e will do everything in their power to defeat Brat in the general election. Count on it.

Are you already setting up the plausible deniability track for Brat's possible defeat in the general election?

If the GOP was impotent in the primary to the degree that it couldn't help Cantor win against the "will of the people", what newly-found potency will they have to overcome that "will of the people" power at the general election?

Brat will win or lose the general based on the exact same standard that he won the primary.  If his message resonates with enough people, he will win, if not, he will lose.

If he wins, the blogosphere will say that he did because his principles connected with the people, but if he loses, it won't attribute the loss to the opposite of "his principles connected with the people", which would be the logical thing to do. The blogosphere will go into full conspiracy theorist mode if he loses, and suddenly, the same bumbling inept politicos in the GOP who couldn't impact the outcome of a primary, will become Dr. Evil and exert mind-control of Marvel movie villain proportions over the Virginia voters.

It's the conservative version of the progressive's theory of GWB who (in their eyes) was both the dumbest SOB ever to walk the face of the Earth and an evil genius of mythical proportions.

[DCPatriot]

Excellent take on this, Luis!   

[olde north church]

Are you already setting up the plausible deniability track for Brat's possible defeat in the general election?

If the GOP was impotent in the primary to the degree that it couldn't help Cantor win against the "will of the people", what newly-found potency will they have to overcome that "will of the people" power at the general election?

Brat will win or lose the general based on the exact same standard that he won the primary.  If his message resonates with enough people, he will win, if not, he will lose.

...

 

[evadR]

The GOP-e will do everything in their power to defeat Brat in the general election. Count on it.

"Are you already setting up the plausible deniability track for Brat's possible defeat in the general election?"

Not at all. I am pointing out the devious, vindictive nature of the GOP establishment.
One of their prize possessions has been defeated and they are pissed. They will do whatever it takes to defeat Brat, including teaming with democrats. This seat is expendable when compared with the message that has to be sent to anyone who opposes them.

Mitch and others like him have made this painfully obvious. It is the goal of the pubbie establishment to expunge itself of all Tea Party upstarts who would dare run against a pubbie incumbent.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The GOP-e will do everything in their power to defeat Brat in the general election. Count on it.

"Are you already setting up the plausible deniability track for Brat's possible defeat in the general election?"

Not at all. I am pointing out the devious, vindictive nature of the GOP establishment.
One of their prize possessions has been defeated and they are pissed. They will do whatever it takes to defeat Brat, including teaming with democrats. This seat is expendable when compared with the message that has to be sent to anyone who opposes them.

Mitch and others like him have made this painfully obvious. It is the goal of the pubbie establishment to expunge itself of all Tea Party upstarts who would dare run against a pubbie incumbent.

If they are so evil and vindictive, why didn't they just simply not let Brat win?

You're setting up the out if and when Brat loses.

You'll blame it on some secret GOP plot, and not on Brat's lack of money and experience.
 

[mountaineer]

A Defeated Eric Cantor Finds Religion in the Hamptons
NY Post

Rep. Eric Cantor, the House majority leader crushed in a shocking Republican primary Tuesday, has found religion.

“Having been through what I’ve been through this week … as Jews we have studied the Torah, we read every week in some way, shape or form, and are reminded about personal setbacks — but we are also reminded about optimism of the future, about that bigger goal, that bigger vision that we as Jews are about” the Republican told 250 worshippers at a Father’s Day service Saturday at Hampton Synagogue in Westhampton Beach.

“Our country, this democracy, is about action, it is about participating, it is about speaking your voice and let it be heard,” he said.

Cantor, who plans to step down as majority leader on Aug. 1, spoke at a service honoring Jerry W. Levin, his friend and a top fundraiser for state Sen. Lee Zeldin (R-Suffolk).

He ducked a reporter’s questions about the implications of his defeat when four security guards hustled him away into a bathroom.
_________________
Any member of Congress who believes this nation is a democracy probably deserves to lose. Of course, that would be nearly all of them, from both parties.

[mountaineer]

Linda Chavez says in the NY Post it wasn't immigration that caused Cantor's defeat[/url].

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s primary defeat this week is being widely touted as a warning to Republicans contemplating immigration reform.

This narrative has it that because Cantor’s opponent, David Brat, is a hard-line immigration opponent who accused Cantor of being “pro-amnesty,” immigration was the deciding factor in the race.

But the facts don’t bear out this restrictionist fantasy.

First, whatever else one can say about Cantor — that he is one of the brightest members of the House, for example — he is no friend to immigration reform.

NumbersUSA, an opponent of both legal and illegal immigration, gave Cantor an overall B rating in its “report card” on his voting record from 2011-2014, including an A-plus on reducing “amnesty entitlements” and an A-minus on “reducing illegal jobs and presence.”

Cantor would’ve scored higher overall, but he voted for visas for high-tech and other needed workers, and the restrictionists want no immigration, period.

What seems to have given Brat an opening to attack him was Cantor’s willingness to consider allowing unauthorized immigrants who had been brought to the United States as children to serve in the military and earn the legal right to stay here and eventually become citizens.

But when push came to shove and Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) tried to get a vote on a bill to do just that, Cantor shut him down.

Cantor’s defeat was a surprise, but doesn’t indicate that immigration reform is toxic for Republicans.

In fact, Sen. Lindsey Graham’s overwhelming victory in his South Carolina primary on the same night suggests that being outspokenly pro-reform — Graham co-sponsored the Senate immigration bill last year — doesn’t doom a GOP candidate.

Graham’s advantage was that he has been consistent and not afraid to explain his support for reform, while Cantor spoke out of both sides of his mouth, sounding amenable to very limited changes in the law to benefit kids brought here illegally by their parents, but then quashing actual legislation that would accomplish that aim.

Polls consistently show that Republicans don’t like the status quo. They want legal immigration reform, and a majority is in favor of legalizing the status of unauthorized immigrants already here.

A new poll out by FWD.us, conducted by 10 Republican polling firms, shows that more than two-thirds of GOP-registered voters — including Tea Party voters, self-identified strong conservatives and Republican Evangelicals — favor legalization or a path to citizenship.

But the poll is even more interesting for what it says about Hispanics and the future of the Republican Party.

The GOP has lost important ground to Democrats in recent years because the party is viewed overwhelmingly by Hispanics as unfriendly to them.

As I’ve written many times, Hispanic voters aren’t monolithic in their support of Democrats. Going back more than 40 years, a significant proportion of Hispanics has voted for Republican candidates.

Indeed, in the FWD.us poll, 51 percent of respondents say they have voted for a GOP candidate in the past.

The overwhelming majority of Hispanics who are registered to vote consider themselves moderate (28 percent), conservative (23 percent) or very conservative (13 percent).

While Hispanics are not as suspicious of government as many GOP voters are — 51 percent see government as a help in their daily lives — they prefer smaller government and lower taxes over higher taxes and more services by more than two to one.

They also see government’s role as promoting opportunity, not fairness, by almost as high of a margin.

But the most important finding in the poll is the way in which a candidate’s position on immigration reform might influence a voter’s choice.

Three-quarters of Hispanic voters said they would be more likely to listen to a Republican candidate’s views on other issues if the candidate supported immigration reform with a path to citizenship.

Cantor’s loss shouldn’t be read as a referendum on immigration reform.

The only thing it proves is that being wishy-washy on reform leaves a candidate open to attacks by extremists on the issue who will gladly exploit the candidate’s own fears into becoming reality.

Graham’s principled defense of his stance is the right model — and the only one that gives Republicans a prayer of ever winning the White House again.

[evadR]

If they are so evil and vindictive, why didn't they just simply not let Brat win?

You're setting up the out if and when Brat loses.

You'll blame it on some secret GOP plot, and not on Brat's lack of money and experience.

Well, evil is your word, not mine.

Give it time, you'll see.

To answer your question as to " why didn't they just simply not let Brat win?", quite simply they didn't see it coming.  They've got their heads so far up their asses with their own agenda that they no longer listen to the people. They are lazy and full of money.
After all, if any seat is safe it's the majority leader of the house....right??

[DCPatriot]

After all, if any seat is safe it's the majority leader of the house....right??

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well, evil is your word, not mine.

Give it time, you'll see.

To answer your question as to " why didn't they just simply not let Brat win?", quite simply they didn't see it coming.  They've got their heads so far up their asses with their own agenda that they no longer listen to the people. They are lazy and full of money.
After all, if any seat is safe it's the majority leader of the house....right??

Here's what I see consistently on this forum.

A) When a liked Republican loses a race to any Democrat it is because of ballot stuffing.

B) When a TEA Party candidate loses to a GOP candidate in a primary it's because the districting is unfair to the TEA Party candidate

C) When a TEA Party candidate wins a primary, it's because the GOP was too stupid/lazy to see it coming, and the will of the people expressed itself.

D) If that TEA Party candidate loses the election, it's because the GOP obstructed his of her victory.

That's textbook Barack Obama blame game.

If Brat and his people can't win this, for whatever reason it is that they can't win, they don't deserve to be there.

If the TEA Party can't defeat whatever obstacles the GOP puts in their path to political significance, then they don't belong in DC.

If they want to convince anyone that they are the political party to lead America in this world, then they have to first prove that they can handle anything and everything that the GOP AND the DNC throws at them, and come out on top.

Russia, China, Iran, and the rest of the America-hating world won't play by the rules either

So they need to quit playing the victim role, quit assigning blame for their failures when they fail, and start putting on the mantle of winners, not whiners.

The obstacles they may face in their way to national power are minuscule in comparison to those they will face after they achieve power.

[Lando Lincoln]

Here's what I see consistently on this forum.

A) When a liked Republican loses a race to any Democrat it is because of ballot stuffing.

B) When a TEA Party candidate loses to a GOP candidate in a primary it's because the districting is unfair to the TEA Party candidate

C) When a TEA Party candidate wins a primary, it's because the GOP was too stupid/lazy to see it coming, and the will of the people expressed itself.

D) If that TEA Party candidate loses the election, it's because the GOP obstructed his of her victory.

That's textbook Barack Obama blame game.

If Brat and his people can't win this, for whatever reason it is that they can't win, they don't deserve to be there.

If the TEA Party can't defeat whatever obstacles the GOP puts in their path to political significance, then they don't belong in DC.

If they want to convince anyone that they are the political party to lead America in this world, then they have to first prove that they can handle anything and everything that the GOP AND the DNC throws at them, and come out on top.

Russia, China, Iran, and the rest of the America-hating world won't play by the rules either

So they need to quit playing the victim role, quit assigning blame for their failures when they fail, and start putting on the mantle of winners, not whiners.

The obstacles they may face in their way to national power are minuscule in comparison to those they will face after they achieve power.

Yes, all true.

[truth_seeker]

Conservatives as victims.

How can you sell a product, if its makers and customers continually argue what it is? And if powerful forces demand it be unpopular, unmarketable?

To satisfy "the base" a "conservative must be against abortions in cases of rape, EVEN though polls show that to be an extremely unpopular position among voters.

77% think abortion should be legal for rape victims.

18% oppose legal abortion for rape victims, yet this is the position virtually demanded by "the base."

Brat has a future in politics, for he has spoken out of both sides of his mouth on this subject.

[Machiavelli]

Here's what I see consistently on this forum ...

Luis, I haven't noticed that here because thus far I haven't spent a lot of time here. However, I'll take your word for it because I have noticed it at other boards.

As I said on another thread, I've noticed over the years that conservatives never do anything wrong. Whenever they come up short, it's always because of the Democrats, the MSM, and the "RINOs."

We need to live in the real world.

[massadvj]

I think it is a mistake to assume the Tea Party is a political party, or some political organization that can be controlled.  There are probably hundreds of local organizations that call themselves Tea Party.  There are millions of voters who sympathize with the Tea Party but do not belong to any organization.

So when someone says the Tea Party needs to do this or that, who do they mean, exactly?  Is there some Tea Party policy manual somewhere that can be changed?  If so, I haven't heard about it.

[Machiavelli]

I think it is a mistake to assume the Tea Party is a political party, or some political organization that can be controlled.  There are probably hundreds of local organizations that call themselves Tea Party.  There are millions of voters who sympathize with the Tea Party but do not belong to any organization.

So when someone says the Tea Party needs to do this or that, who do they mean, exactly?  Is there some Tea Party policy manual somewhere that can be changed?  If so, I haven't heard about it.

That's a good point, massadvj.

It also seems at times like Tea Party is being used as a synonym for conservative.

[Lando Lincoln]

I think it is a mistake to assume the Tea Party is a political party, or some political organization that can be controlled.  There are probably hundreds of local organizations that call themselves Tea Party.  There are millions of voters who sympathize with the Tea Party but do not belong to any organization.

So when someone says the Tea Party needs to do this or that, who do they mean, exactly?  Is there some Tea Party policy manual somewhere that can be changed?  If so, I haven't heard about it.

And it is precisely that broad set of definitions that allows the Tea Party to be demonized by the media and the left.  Just the way it is, I suppose.

[massadvj]

That's a good point, massadvj.

It also seems at times like Tea Party is being used as a synonym for conservative.

Yes.  And the advice to conservatives would be just as useless, since conservatives are individuals who are fully capable of thinking for themselves.

[evadR]

I have always thought of the Tea Party as a loosely knit entity comprised of people that want to return our government to constitutional principles.
I've never tried to define it any further than that.
If I were to try and send a donation to "The Tea Party", I wouldn't even know where to start.

[evadR]

"It also seems at times like Tea Party is being used as a synonym for conservative."

Based on what I've seen of many of today's so called conservatives, I would say that is a misnomer.