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

[Fishrrman]

sinkspur wrote above:
[[ The Hispanics are already opposed to the GOP.  We can't win presidential elections with less than 30% of Hispanic support.  ]]

This is absolute nonsense.

The "Hispanic vote" is pretty much where Hispanics are concentrated (duh!). And they are concentrated largely in the blue states, which Republicans can't win anyway.

About the only exception that comes to mind is Texas. But then again, the political future of Texas will be determined by the relentless progress of demographics (which is as dismal a science as economics).

The Hispanic vote in the purple states is not yet significant, and won't be for a long time. This will be true particularly if conservatives continue to oppose immigration and amnesty. Yes, we DO want to "suppress this [erstwhile] vote". The most foolish move Republicans could make would be to transform non-voting Hispanic illegals into voting citizens!

For an example of how the Euro-Americans can successfully resist and counter large minorities, look to the southern states. In these states, whites vote almost exclusively Republican. They -know- that if they do not, their interests will be replaced by the the interests of blacks, who vote nearly 100% democratic. Down south, white Euros have learned about the concept of "identity politics", and how to use that reality to maintain power and to protect their interests.

[Oceander]

Anti amnesty is xenophobia?

the way that most of the amnesty-haters voice it?  yes.

[mystery-ak]

Gossip on the Hill ‏@GossipOnTheHill 38s

Gossip on the Hill right now: Cantor will step down in the coming weeks, McCarthy and McMorris Rodgers will vie for Majority Leader.

[Relic]

the way that most of the amnesty-haters voice it?  yes.

I get your point, and I even think I know which post(s) have your knickers in a twist. But your comment comes off as vaguely arrogant, accusing without specifying.

[Oceander]

I get your point, and I even think I know which post(s) have your knickers in a twist. But your comment comes off as vaguely arrogant, accusing without specifying.

Since I cannot get any sort of rational response from the amnesty-haters on any of the details of what they think should be done instead of amnesty, I see no point other than simply pointing out the obvious:  the amnesty-haters have a surfeit of xenophobia and a dearth of even semi-intelligent solutions.

[Fishrrman]

[[ Anti amnesty is xenophobia?
the way that most of the amnesty-haters voice it?  yes. ]]

Dictionary:
"xenophobia - noun: intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries."

At this time in the nation's history, I proffer that "xenophobia" is not only a rational response to what's happening at the Southern Front (oops, "border"), but absolutely necessary if the nation is to survive as a cultural construct of those who built it before us.

There is nothing inherently wrong with harboring an "intense dislike" of "people from other countries" -- particulary if such people are coming from a country or countries in which the economic, social and moral culture is completely different from our own.

One does not admit into one's own home, people who are strangers and who harbor no good will towards the homeowner, but who would instead rob him blind and physically displace him from his own house.

Nor should we permit into our -country- (our "collective home") those who would do the same.

Even if they're "children".
I argue that it's -worse- to let these kids in -- they cannot work, they're totally uneducated, they can be only a crushing burden upon a system that is already cracking apart at the foundations.

I also argue that this "New Children's Crusade" is being deliberately orchestrated and funded.

We are watching as our nation comes apart at the seams.

How can we call for enforcement of the existing laws at the border, when we have an administration that has in effect declared that there simply is no border, any more ??

[Oceander]

[[ Anti amnesty is xenophobia?
the way that most of the amnesty-haters voice it?  yes. ]]

Dictionary:
"xenophobia - noun: intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries."

At this time in the nation's history, I proffer that "xenophobia" is not only a rational response to what's happening at the Southern Front (oops, "border"), but absolutely necessary if the nation is to survive as a cultural construct of those who built it before us.

There is nothing inherently wrong with harboring an "intense dislike" of "people from other countries" -- particulary if such people are coming from a country or countries in which the economic, social and moral culture is completely different from our own.

One does not admit into one's own home, people who are strangers and who harbor no good will towards the homeowner, but who would instead rob him blind and physically displace him from his own house.

Nor should we permit into our -country- (our "collective home") those who would do the same.

Even if they're "children".
I argue that it's -worse- to let these kids in -- they cannot work, they're totally uneducated, they can be only a crushing burden upon a system that is already cracking apart at the foundations.

I also argue that this "New Children's Crusade" is being deliberately orchestrated and funded.

We are watching as our nation comes apart at the seams.

How can we call for enforcement of the existing laws at the border, when we have an administration that has in effect declared that there simply is no border, any more ??

I'll give you points for at least having the honor to admit your own irrational hatred of Mexicans (and other hispanics).  That being said, irrational hatred is a rather poor basis for creating federal policy.

[katzenjammer]

[[ Anti amnesty is xenophobia?
the way that most of the amnesty-haters voice it?  yes. ]]

Dictionary:
"xenophobia - noun: intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries."

At this time in the nation's history, I proffer that "xenophobia" is not only a rational response to what's happening at the Southern Front (oops, "border"), but absolutely necessary if the nation is to survive as a cultural construct of those who built it before us.

There is nothing inherently wrong with harboring an "intense dislike" of "people from other countries" -- particulary if such people are coming from a country or countries in which the economic, social and moral culture is completely different from our own.

One does not admit into one's own home, people who are strangers and who harbor no good will towards the homeowner, but who would instead rob him blind and physically displace him from his own house.

Nor should we permit into our -country- (our "collective home") those who would do the same.

Even if they're "children".
I argue that it's -worse- to let these kids in -- they cannot work, they're totally uneducated, they can be only a crushing burden upon a system that is already cracking apart at the foundations.

I also argue that this "New Children's Crusade" is being deliberately orchestrated and funded.

We are watching as our nation comes apart at the seams.

How can we call for enforcement of the existing laws at the border, when we have an administration that has in effect declared that there simply is no border, any more ??

The word "irrational" in the definition makes all the difference in the world.  There is nothing irrational about wanting to preserve our culture and civilization.  It is a very rational approach and perspective.  While the concept of protecting the nation's borders is a fundamental reason for existence of any national government, the concept has been under attack for decades, on many fronts around the globe.  We are just starting to see the results.

[Oceander]

The word "irrational" in the definition makes all the difference in the world.  There is nothing irrational about wanting to preserve our culture and civilization.  It is a very rational approach and perspective.  While the concept of protecting the nation's borders is a fundamental reason for existence of any national government, the concept has been under attack for decades, on many fronts around the globe.  We are just starting to see the results.

Then what is your solution - in detail - for "protecting" the nation's borders?  How would you stop the flow of illegals?  No generalities, details, specific, precise details.

[Fishrrman]

Oceander wrote above:
[[ Then what is your solution - in detail - for "protecting" the nation's borders?  How would you stop the flow of illegals?  No generalities, details, specific, precise details. ]]

OK, I'll step up to the plate.
We need to re-establish a real "border" to begin with.
I like what the Israelis have done in this regard:


How's that for starters?

[Relic]

Then what is your solution - in detail - for "protecting" the nation's borders?  How would you stop the flow of illegals?  No generalities, details, specific, precise details.

I'll take a crack at it.

First, foremost, and without delay, I would tighten penalties on employing illegals. I wouldn't over burden employers, I'd simply use SSN as the qualifier. If your prospective employee produces an SSN that checks out, the employer is safe. For small businesses, this is problematic, so the real impact would be on employers with say, over 50 employees.

I would absolutely not offer government services to illegals. If you are a guest worker, or have a visa sure, you get access. If it's a life threatening event, emergency services apply to anyone, legal or not. Beyond that, if you're an illegal, that means... NOT legal. Get legal, or get out.

Tighten security on the border. Why is it that Mexico can secure it's southern border, but we can't? Does the Mexican government have more money than us? No. They have the political will. They turn people back, or jail them. We do neither.

The people who are here, if they have been here for some arbitrary period, say 5 years, they are ours, like it or not. Put them on a path to citizenship. Amnesty. But do that AFTER the border has been secured. Those here less than 5 years, illegally, face deportation. Not in the sense of a man hunt, but as they become known, (traffic violations, applying for aid, etc), they face deportation. Why should Mexicans get preference to Indians, or Irish, or Laotians or whatever? I know people who have been fighting the immigration system, legally. It's not easy. But, for some reason, we accept that walking across the border is a good thing to do for Mexicans.

[rb224315]

Oceander wrote above:
[[ Then what is your solution - in detail - for "protecting" the nation's borders?  How would you stop the flow of illegals?  No generalities, details, specific, precise details. ]]

OK, I'll step up to the plate.
We need to re-establish a real "border" to begin with.
I like what the Israelis have done in this regard:


How's that for starters?

Tell 0bama we've found his "shovel ready" project and maybe he'll actually do something.  Think of how many jobs would be created by building an effective fence.

Nah, never mind.  I just put down the bong and realized what I was saying.

[katzenjammer]

Then what is your solution - in detail - for "protecting" the nation's borders?  How would you stop the flow of illegals?  No generalities, details, specific, precise details.

Neither you nor I are in a position to provide and debate specific, precise details.  (Unless of course, you are a public administrator, civil engineer, physical security expert, etc.  I am not.)  The discussion is a discussion of principles.  So if you are looking for "specific, precise details" you need to ask elsewhere.

The answer that is appropriate for this type of discussion is pretty basic.  What do we do to protect any plot of land of value that is subject to attack?

We enclose it with a fence/barrier of sufficient dimensions and durability to sustain the attempts at illegal penetration.  Additionally, human/electronic guardians are also established, as required.

Does the cost to develop and maintain a perimeter security barrier increase with the scale?  Certainly.  However, harkening back to the principle being discussed, if a nation state can not find the means to pay for the requisite security barrier, then the nation state will cease to exist.  For the United States, if the answer is that we can not afford to develop and maintain this core function of national government from within our $3+ Trillion federal budget, then we deserve exactly what we are seeing happen.  (Obviously the real world answer to that is that we certainly can afford it, the reason that we don't have it is because those that control the functional and spending priorities of the federal government don't want it!!)

[rb224315]

The people who are here, if they have been here for some arbitrary period, say 5 years, they are ours, like it or not. Put them on a path to citizenship. Amnesty.

I disagree.  I would consider an exception for children who were brought here illegally including those who are being "dumped" into Arizona right now.  If a person came here illegally as an adult they get no citizenship and no voting, ever.  The only possible exception for this should be granted if the illegal immigrant goes back to their home country and follows the legal immigration process, and this only after a long penalty period in their home country.

[katzenjammer]

Oceander wrote above:
[[ Then what is your solution - in detail - for "protecting" the nation's borders?  How would you stop the flow of illegals?  No generalities, details, specific, precise details. ]]

OK, I'll step up to the plate.
We need to re-establish a real "border" to begin with.
I like what the Israelis have done in this regard:


How's that for starters?

Thank you, your picture better spells out what I attempted to convey in words!

[Relic]

I disagree.  I would consider an exception for children who were brought here illegally including those who are being "dumped" into Arizona right now.  If a person came here illegally as an adult they get no citizenship and no voting, ever.  The only possible exception for this should be granted if the illegal immigrant goes back to their home country and follows the legal immigration process, and this only after a long penalty period in their home country.

I hate rewarding an illegal act, but the fact is, many of these people were lured here. Elements of our government, and business community have actively recruited Mexicans to come here, illegally. This is not an easy one, and there is no resolution that won't leave everyone feeling cheated in some way.

[Oceander]

Oceander wrote above:
[[ Then what is your solution - in detail - for "protecting" the nation's borders?  How would you stop the flow of illegals?  No generalities, details, specific, precise details. ]]

OK, I'll step up to the plate.
We need to re-establish a real "border" to begin with.
I like what the Israelis have done in this regard:


How's that for starters?

a great, big giant waste of money.  smugglers from Egypt into the Gaza Strip have continually made a mockery of the border walls put up by Egypt - which have included massive steel barriers rammed 20 meters under the surface.  And the cost will be prohibitive.  Building a basic wall - i.e., one without deep steel barriers or massive fortifications like in your picture - easily costs $1 million per kilometer; the US-Mexico border is 3,145 kilometers long, so it would cost at least $3 billion dollars to build a basic wall, without deep underground steel barriers, which would slow smuggling across the border for about a year or so while the smugglers dig new tunnels under that wall; thereafter, the illegal immigration will continue unabated.


next.

[Oceander]

I disagree.  I would consider an exception for children who were brought here illegally including those who are being "dumped" into Arizona right now.  If a person came here illegally as an adult they get no citizenship and no voting, ever.  The only possible exception for this should be granted if the illegal immigrant goes back to their home country and follows the legal immigration process, and this only after a long penalty period in their home country.

with that I can agree

[GourmetDan]

I hate rewarding an illegal act, but the fact is, many of these people were lured here. Elements of our government, and business community have actively recruited Mexicans to come here, illegally. This is not an easy one, and there is no resolution that won't leave everyone feeling cheated in some way.

Well, a 'North American Union' would 'fix' things...   

[Relic]

a great, big giant waste of money.  smugglers from Egypt into the Gaza Strip have continually made a mockery of the border walls put up by Egypt - which have included massive steel barriers rammed 20 meters under the surface.  And the cost will be prohibitive.  Building a basic wall - i.e., one without deep steel barriers or massive fortifications like in your picture - easily costs $1 million per kilometer; the US-Mexico border is 3,145 kilometers long, so it would cost at least $3 billion dollars to build a basic wall, without deep underground steel barriers, which would slow smuggling across the border for about a year or so while the smugglers dig new tunnels under that wall; thereafter, the illegal immigration will continue unabated.


next.

Now you're being obtuse. Taking a symbol and applying it literally. It is nearly impossible to seal a border. But, if we:
Quit enticing illegals to come here.
Actually stop illegal crossings when we see them.
Make it slightly more difficult to cross.

We will lessen the problem greatly.

Why is it Mexico can secure their souther border, but we can't secure ours?

[Relic]

Well, a 'North American Union' would 'fix' things...   

Yep, it worked wonders in Europe.

I'm just looking at it pragmatically.

[mystery-ak]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/11/did-democratic-votes-doom-eric-cantor/?wprss=rss_the-fix&clsrd


Did Democratic votes doom Eric Cantor?

    By Scott Clement
    June 11 at 8:15 am

Rep. Eric Cantor's unexpected Republican primary loss Tuesday kicked off rapid speculation on how the House majority leader lost to a poorly-funded opponent in a Virginia district whose primary Cantor won with 79 percent support in 2012. One possibility is that district Democrats crossed over and voted for Cantor's opponent, David Brat.

Virginia's lack of party registration makes it difficult to pin down whether Democrats crossed over in large numbers, but local level turnout provides some indirect clues on whether this phenomenon was widespread. On two counts, the data cast doubt on whether Democratic cross-over voting caused Cantor's loss.

While Republican primary turnout spiked by 28 percent over 2012, according to the State Board of Elections, Cantor received nearly 8,500 fewer votes this year than he did in the 2012 Republican primary, a drop that was larger than Brat's 7,200-vote margin of victory. Regardless of how many Democrats turned out to oppose Cantor, he still would have prevailed had he maintained the same level of support as in his 2012 landslide.

If Democrats showed up in large numbers to vote against Cantor, turnout should have spiked highest from 2012 in Democratic-leaning areas, with Cantor seeing an especially large drop-off in support. In fact, turnout rose slightly more in counties that voted more heavily for Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election.

continued

[GourmetDan]

Yep, it worked wonders in Europe.

I'm just looking at it pragmatically.

When did pragmatism ever have anything to do with politics?  LOL!

Seriously though, the EU was just the first attempt at dividing the world into 10 World Regions.  They'll get it worked out eventually and the others will follow.

The North American Union is a natural, with abundant Canadian natural resources, U.S. economic power and cheap Mexican labor.

The immigration 'crisis' is a move in that direction, IMO...

[mystery-ak]

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/208983-cantor-loss-sparks-gop-frenzy

 By Russell Berman - 06/11/14 11:23 AM EDT

The jockeying among Republicans to replace Eric Cantor (Va.) as House majority leader began Wednesday within hours of his stunning primary loss.

The No. 3 Republican, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), is expected to seek Cantor’s post as majority leader, the second-ranking post behind Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

But he faced an immediate challenge from a Texas conservative, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.).

Sessions, the chairman of the House Rules Committee and a former GOP campaign chief, began making calls to colleagues after Cantor’s loss seeking support in his bid for majority leader, according to a person close to the congressman.

The wrangling follows Cantor’s shocking upset at the hands of Tea Party challenger David Brat, who defeated the heir apparent to Boehner.

When exactly Cantor’s post will be vacant remains a key question, and he and other top GOP leaders were meeting behind closed doors at the Capitol on Wednesday morning.

Cantor could serve out his term as majority leader or step down from the leadership immediately.

The race to fill McCarthy’s position as whip heated up as well, as Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) moved rapidly to challenge Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), the chief deputy whip who has been eyeing the spot for months.

“He’s in for the whip’s race,” a source close to Roskam said on Wednesday.

Scalise is chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, and a GOP aide said on Wednesday said that as soon as Cantor’s loss became official, he began receiving calls from colleagues urging him to run for majority whip.

“Obviously, no one saw Leader Cantor losing yesterday,” the aide said. “It was a tectonic shift that caught everyone off-guard.”

Scalise had been laying the groundwork for the race in the event Boehner decided to retire at year’s end, but he is now prepared to run whenever the opening occurs.

“Regardless of Leader Cantor’s position, he’s ready to go,” the aide said.

The fourth-ranking Republican, Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), also wants to be in the mix for either whip or majority leader, but she did not immediately announce her plans on Wednesday.

One prominent Republican who will not be making a leadership bid is Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the House budget chairman and 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee.

“With respect to elected leadership, Congressman Ryan hasn’t changed his thinking,” a source close to Ryan said in an email. “When asked earlier this year about pursuing the position of Speaker of the House, Congressman Ryan was emphatic that he had no intention of doing so. His focus is on chairing the House Budget Committee and representing the 1st district of Wisconsin.”

Despite rampant speculation that he will soon retire, Boehner has said publicly and privately he is running for another term as Speaker. And his aides made clear that Cantor’s loss did not change his plans, and the development could make it more likely that he will stay because of a lack of an obvious successor.

Another potential contender, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), issued a statement Wednesday praising Cantor while acknowledging he had been approached about mounting a leadership bid. Hensarling is chairman of the Financial Services Committee and served until 2013 as chairman of the Republican conference.

"Eric Cantor is a friend and ally on many fronts," he said. "He was, is, and will continue to be a good leader and servant for his district and our nation, and I am grateful for his service. While one chapter will ultimately close for him, I know that Eric will continue to work to advance the cause of freedom."

Hensarling has played coy in recent weeks when asked whether he might challenge or seek to succeed Boehner.

“I am humbled by the many people who have approached me about serving our Republican conference in a different capacity in the future," he said. "There are many ways to advance the causes of freedom and free enterprise, and I am prayerfully considering the best way I can serve in those efforts.”

[mountaineer]

Boehner Treats Cantor Ouster As Though Cantor Is Dying

On Tuesday evening, in the wake of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) stunning primary loss to economic professor David Brat, Speaker of the House John Boehner released the following statement:

"Eric Cantor and I have been through a lot together. He’s a good friend and a great leader, and someone I’ve come to rely upon on a daily basis as we make the tough choices that come with governing. My thoughts are with him and Diana and their kids tonight."

It should be noted that Cantor did not receive a cancer diagnosis. He was defeated in a primary by a Tea Party-backed candidate who slammed him on his support for immigration reform.

Truth Revolt