Cantor Defeat = Immigration Reform Even More Dead?

[Likely Voter]

So the shock news of the night is that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has lost his GOP primary to a Tea Party challenger who mostly hit Cantor as a supporter of "amnesty" for illegals.  If the GOP wasn't scared enough of their base over this issue, will this be the final nail in the coffin? Or (as many expected) they will still try to pass something before 2016.

[Meursault]

I'm eternally grateful to his opponent to spare me the need of looking at Cantor ever again.

[King]

It makes it more alive, since it opens up the lame duck factor to pass it.

It's still dead overall.

[Simfan34]

Hopefully it'll be passed to spite the racists, not just a spit in the face but more like smashing it with a sledgehammer.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It makes it more alive, since it opens up the lame duck factor to pass it.

It's still dead overall.

It's harder for a lame duck to bring his party with him on the issue.

[moderatevoter]

I never thought it'd actually happen until after midterms. I always thought the GOP was banking on taking back the Senate, or at least improving numbers, so that they'd have more leverage when drafting policy.

[Badger]

It was highly unlikely to go through before midterms. After this i'd say it's DOA for the next session too.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hopefully it'll be passed to spite the racists, not just a spit in the face but more like smashing it with a sledgehammer.

We have been passing politically motivated bad policies for three decades that have gotten us into this mess, so passing a bad policy to achieve political objective once more couldn't possibly fail. One more reason why I call it a perpetuation of the status quo and thus a faux reform.

To answer the question immigration reform has always been dead because you have those who insist on proposing a bad policy for political gain and those who oppose everything likewise for political gain. If the former has been stopped, then maybe that is a sign that progress may at some point be possible but I doubt it.

[LeBron]

Actually, immigration reform isn't what did Cantor in. Voters in his district overwhelmingly support revamping the immigration system with secure borders and a set code of requirements with an eventual path to amnesty. It was more of an anti-Cantor, anti-spending/bailouts/government etc., anti-establishment than it was opposing immigration at all. Plus there was the Democratic crossovers for Brat, to.

If anything, immigration might be going uphill again. Both candidates for Majority Leader support (or in Labrador's case, once more vigorously supported) amnesty with McCarthy the clear favorite. McCarthy does support the Military DREAM Act and it would benefit him politically given his district demographics to put it on the agenda for a vote. He also personally believes undocumented immigrants should be able to obtain a job, pay taxes, learn English and gain legal status. As opposed to Boehner's lame excuses, it does have the votes to pass the House, but if McCarthy does allow a vote on immigration, I doubt it will be the Senate's version. Nonetheless, the #proamnesty side is much better off with McCarthy than Cantor as leader when it comes to the issue.

[memphis]

This narrative is exceedingly odd. The GOP would never hand Obama such a victory, with or without Cantor. For context, not a single Republican in the House was willing to vote for economic stimulus in the midst of the worst economic collapse in 80 years. They're exclusively in the business of massive resistance for the sake massive resistance and they have been since Obama's first day in office. To say nothing of the enormous goodwill (and additional formerly disenfranchised voters) Obama's Democratic would gain should such a bill pass. At this point, to claim that Cantor's defeat makes passing immigration reform less likely is like pointing out that a 90 year old who just broke a hip is now even less likely to win a Olympic medal in ski jump.

[Badger]

This narrative is exceedingly odd. The GOP would never hand Obama such a victory, with or without Cantor. For context, not a single Republican in the House was willing to vote for economic stimulus in the midst of the worst economic collapse in 80 years. They're exclusively in the business of massive resistance for the sake massive resistance and they have been since Obama's first day in office. To say nothing of the enormous goodwill (and additional formerly disenfranchised voters) Obama's Democratic would gain should such a bill pass. At this point, to claim that Cantor's defeat makes passing immigration reform less likely is like pointing out that a 90 year old who just broke a hip is now even less likely to win a Olympic medal in ski jump.

The chances of reaching an immigration reform deal this term were indeed close to nil, admitedly indeed in part from the GOP not wanting to hand Obama a legislative victory entering the midterms. There were decent chances of working towards a deal next term when Republicans would be more concerned about hampering their nominee's standing among Hispanic and Asian voters. They'd be much more concerned about Hilary than Obama then. Cantor's loss makes that scenario much less likely, as the Republican caucuses will worry much more about their own risk of a primary challenge for supporting 'amenesty' than their presidential nominee's race.

[memphis]

This narrative is exceedingly odd. The GOP would never hand Obama such a victory, with or without Cantor. For context, not a single Republican in the House was willing to vote for economic stimulus in the midst of the worst economic collapse in 80 years. They're exclusively in the business of massive resistance for the sake massive resistance and they have been since Obama's first day in office. To say nothing of the enormous goodwill (and additional formerly disenfranchised voters) Obama's Democratic would gain should such a bill pass. At this point, to claim that Cantor's defeat makes passing immigration reform less likely is like pointing out that a 90 year old who just broke a hip is now even less likely to win a Olympic medal in ski jump.

The chances of reaching an immigration reform deal this term were indeed close to nil, admitedly indeed in part from the GOP not wanting to hand Obama a legislative victory entering the midterms. There were decent chances of working towards a deal next term when Republicans would be more concerned about hampering their nominee's standing among Hispanic and Asian voters. They'd be much more concerned about Hilary than Obama then. Cantor's loss makes that scenario much less likely, as the Republican caucuses will worry much more about their own risk of a primary challenge for supporting 'amenesty' than their presidential nominee's race.

You're completely delusional if you think the Republicans would entertain any immigration proposal, before or after the midterms, with or without Cantor, facing the prospect of any Democrat at the top of the ticket in 2016. The Republicans are not intetested in passing landmark legislation. A majority of House Republicans refuses to even vote to pay the bills in order to keep the government from defaulting.Their leadership packed up their ball and went home the day Obama was inaugurated. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is to deny reality.

[Badger]

This narrative is exceedingly odd. The GOP would never hand Obama such a victory, with or without Cantor. For context, not a single Republican in the House was willing to vote for economic stimulus in the midst of the worst economic collapse in 80 years. They're exclusively in the business of massive resistance for the sake massive resistance and they have been since Obama's first day in office. To say nothing of the enormous goodwill (and additional formerly disenfranchised voters) Obama's Democratic would gain should such a bill pass. At this point, to claim that Cantor's defeat makes passing immigration reform less likely is like pointing out that a 90 year old who just broke a hip is now even less likely to win a Olympic medal in ski jump.

The chances of reaching an immigration reform deal this term were indeed close to nil, admitedly indeed in part from the GOP not wanting to hand Obama a legislative victory entering the midterms. There were decent chances of working towards a deal next term when Republicans would be more concerned about hampering their nominee's standing among Hispanic and Asian voters. They'd be much more concerned about Hilary than Obama then. Cantor's loss makes that scenario much less likely, as the Republican caucuses will worry much more about their own risk of a primary challenge for supporting 'amenesty' than their presidential nominee's race.

You're completely delusional if you think the Republicans would entertain any immigration proposal, before or after the midterms, with or without Cantor, facing the prospect of any Democrat at the top of the ticket in 2016. The Republicans are not intetested in passing landmark legislation. A majority of House Republicans refuses to even vote to pay the bills in order to keep the government from defaulting.Their leadership packed up their ball and went home the day Obama was inaugurated. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is to deny reality.

I'm not denying that there is a significant number among the GOP caucus that are utterly obstructionist (whether due to ideology, politics, or a combination), and there is a significant spirit of obstructioism that has pervaded the entire caucus. BUT at the same time there is a realization among most Republicans that the White House is very difficult to win back currently--and will grow increasingly less possible in future--unless we reverse our recent and disproportionately poor showings among Hispanic and Asian voters, and the best immmediate way to address this is to swallow some form of immigration reform. This is why that issue is essentially the only one Republicans made at least some overtures towards compromise on. Real compromise; not the usual "enact our platform or else" demand. The fact that Cantor--the poster boy for obstructing Obama's legislative agenda--made public statements in support of 'amnesty' (as seen by Brat and his supporters)--is indicative of how much most Republicans realized they NEEDED a deal before 16, like it or not.

I'm not saying it was a change of heart based on the issue rather than political calculus, nor that the GOP was ready to reach compromise with Obama and Reid on any other issue. But at least on immigration reform there was realistic belief a deal could be struck in time for the presidential race. Now, though, fugetabout it. And if Hillary wins the same obstructionist dynamic you speak of will likely reemerge (relatively few GOP House or Senate members have much to fear from Hispanic or Asian voters the way lines are currently drawn), and keep any chance of a deal until the 2020 race approaches (if even then).

[angus]

will this be the final nail in the coffin?

No.  Turn off the TV.  Go to sleep.