ERIC CANTOR *LOSES* PRIMARY!!!

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Speaker Pelosi/Boehner, nothing changes.

pelosi doesn't condone economic hostage-taking

[Simfan34]

The man is stammering about "equal treatment under the law" unconvincingly. Going on about princes in Washington when asked about Wall Street. This is on MSNBC. The guy is complaining about being asked policy questions when be thought he be asked about "the celebratory aspects" of the race. He's an amateur. Where'd he get his PhD from?

Brat got his PhD in Economics from American University in Washington, D.C.

US News and World Report doesn't even rank them, meaning they're below 85th. Of course I don't know where they would have stood when he got his, but I doubt it was much better.

[CatoMinor]

The man is stammering about "equal treatment under the law" unconvincingly. Going on about princes in Washington when asked about Wall Street. This is on MSNBC. The guy is complaining about being asked policy questions when be thought he be asked about "the celebratory aspects" of the race. He's an amateur. Where'd he get his PhD from?

Brat got his PhD in Economics from American University in Washington, D.C.

US News and World Report doesn't even rank them, meaning they're below 85th. Of course I don't know where they would have stood when he got his, but I doubt it was much better.

Of course further evidence he is a neo-nazie pedophile rapist who hates suits and Jon Huntsman.

[Simfan34]

The man is stammering about "equal treatment under the law" unconvincingly. Going on about princes in Washington when asked about Wall Street. This is on MSNBC. The guy is complaining about being asked policy questions when be thought he be asked about "the celebratory aspects" of the race. He's an amateur. Where'd he get his PhD from?

Brat got his PhD in Economics from American University in Washington, D.C.

Of course further evidence he is a neo-nazie pedophile rapist who hates suits and Jon Huntsman.

US News and World Report doesn't even rank them, meaning they're below 85th. Of course I don't know where they would have stood when he got his, but I doubt it was much better.

This is pretty funny, but I'm still confused.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'd argue this had little to do with ideology, particular issues (ex: immigration), etc.  I think most people are simply getting fed up with the way things have been going and are slowly starting to just blindly lash out at anyone that they see as a symbol of "the establishment." People don't agree at all on what the problem is (let alone the solution), but everyone is angry for one reason or another and many in both parties don't feel like they have a way to make their voices heard.  While Reaganfan butchered the concept by trying to twist it into some sort of bipartisan call for a tea-party revolt, he is right that the anger is bipartisan (although I am pretty sure almost no Democrats are angry for the reasons he offers).

This wasn't a national vindication of the tea-party (which remains as nationally unpopular as ever and destroyed its grassroots credentials long ago) so much as an instance in which the right blindly lashed out.  This is the same type of anger that led to the Occupy movement and Elizabeth Warren's victory over the supposedly unbeatable Scott Brown.  On a related note, people like to claim the occupy movement didn't accomplish anything, but it really changed the national dialogue and forced Democrats to start talking about income inequality.  Btw, the only reason the media is trying to act like this was about immigration is that they are desperately trying to find a way to explain this that plays into their red vs. blue America narrative.

TL;DR version: This wasn't about immigration, ideology, or even Eric Cantor.  It was the district's Republican grassroots blindly lashing out at the first high-profile establishment figure on the ballot.

[memphis]

I agree with Malcolm's analysis with the addendum that primaries have dismal turnout, so the voice of the blind lashing out is magnified. Honestly, the voting record of either will be the exact same. Voters were foolish to exchange a powerful leader who can more easily bring home the bacon for a newbie who can't, but I don't expect the general public to have the wisdom to understand that.

[King]

For anyone saying it's a turnout problem...

[angus]

For anyone saying it's a turnout problem...

I was curious about that as well.  Thanks for posting. 

Someone may have posted this, but here's an interesting graphic from WaPo showing where Cantor and Brat had their showings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/va-7th-district/?hpid=z1

[IceSpear]

You have day to day discussions with people. At school, work, in your home, friends, family. The consensus, even among Obama voters (many of whom have buyers remorse for the second term) they all can agree that they want Obamacare gone, or they hate the IRS, or Government spending is out of control, ect ect. However, there is a sense that no matter who wins the White House or Congress...nothing changes.

Yes, I heard a lot about this supposed buyers' remorse from Obama voters that was supposed to manifest in 2012. How did that turn out again?

[Never]

You have day to day discussions with people. At school, work, in your home, friends, family. The consensus, even among Obama voters (many of whom have buyers remorse for the second term) they all can agree that they want Obamacare gone, or they hate the IRS, or Government spending is out of control, ect ect. However, there is a sense that no matter who wins the White House or Congress...nothing changes.

Yes, I heard a lot about this supposed buyers' remorse from Obama voters that was supposed to manifest in 2012. How did that turn out again?

For what it's worth, many people simply voted for Obama over Romney because they personally liked Obama more, which trumped their view that Romney was more aligned with their views on the issues. People wanted the candidate who they felt cared about them.

So, there wasn't necessarily buyers' remorse, but it seems that there were more complex undercurrents to why Obama defeated Romney, and why the President's support has weakened after his re-election.

[bedstuy]

You have day to day discussions with people. At school, work, in your home, friends, family. The consensus, even among Obama voters (many of whom have buyers remorse for the second term) they all can agree that they want Obamacare gone, or they hate the IRS, or Government spending is out of control, ect ect. However, there is a sense that no matter who wins the White House or Congress...nothing changes.

Yes, I heard a lot about this supposed buyers' remorse from Obama voters that was supposed to manifest in 2012. How did that turn out again?

For what it's worth, many people simply voted for Obama over Romney because they personally liked Obama more, which trumped their view that Romney was more aligned with their views on the issues. People wanted the candidate who they felt cared about them.

So, there wasn't necessarily buyers' remorse, but it seems that there were more complex undercurrents to why Obama defeated Romney, and why the President's support has weakened after his re-election.

I think a clear majority of people agree with Democrats on economic policy like taxes, healthcare and education.  I don't think it's even close.  Democrats have always had an advantage there and it's not really changing except in terms of Republicans getting more doctrinaire in their beliefs.

The big divide is on social issues and social-class/race issues.  Republicans basically use those issues to manipulate the lower/middle class into scapegoating people and getting worked up about nothing. 

[Miles]

A lot of Democrats crossed over to vote cantor out.

No they didn't.

Brat's strongest areas were some of the most heavily Republican.

[Deus Naturae]

You have day to day discussions with people. At school, work, in your home, friends, family. The consensus, even among Obama voters (many of whom have buyers remorse for the second term) they all can agree that they want Obamacare gone, or they hate the IRS, or Government spending is out of control, ect ect. However, there is a sense that no matter who wins the White House or Congress...nothing changes.

Yes, I heard a lot about this supposed buyers' remorse from Obama voters that was supposed to manifest in 2012. How did that turn out again?

For what it's worth, many people simply voted for Obama over Romney because they personally liked Obama more, which trumped their view that Romney was more aligned with their views on the issues. People wanted the candidate who they felt cared about them.

So, there wasn't necessarily buyers' remorse, but it seems that there were more complex undercurrents to why Obama defeated Romney, and why the President's support has weakened after his re-election.

I think a clear majority of people agree with Democrats on economic policy like taxes, healthcare and education.  I don't think it's even close. 

What are you basing this belief on?

[Cassius]

Of course, the Democratic party (or more particularly its centre-left supporters) never scapegoated anybody, did they. No, they never set up any group in society as a target, to be blamed for the nation's problems, and used this as a tool of political manipulation. I mean, of course, the Republicans do it; but then, so does any political party, sucessful or not. Let's not be so quick to claim the moral high ground.

[angus]

You have day to day discussions with people. At school, work, in your home, friends, family. The consensus, even among Obama voters (many of whom have buyers remorse for the second term) they all can agree that they want Obamacare gone, or they hate the IRS, or Government spending is out of control, ect ect. However, there is a sense that no matter who wins the White House or Congress...nothing changes.

Yes, I heard a lot about this supposed buyers' remorse from Obama voters that was supposed to manifest in 2012. How did that turn out again?

I think it probably did.  I voted for Obama in 2008 but not in 2012.  A few others did here as well.  Nationally, there were about four times as many people who voted for Obama in 2008 but not in 2012 as there were who voted for a Obama in 2012 but not in 2008.  I wouldn't necessarily call it buyer's remorse, but there were obviously a good many people who supported his candidacy but saw a marked difference between the promise of a Candidate Obama and the reality of President Obama.  The 18-29 age group voted 66% for Obama in 2008, but 59% for Obama in 2012.  With the 30+ group the difference was smaller (50% in 2008 and 47% in 2012).  Overall, he got enough support to win, but certainly the phenomenon to which you alluded was realized to some extent.  To his good fortune, the GOP nominated Mitt Romney.  The "buyer's remorse" did not overwhelm that fact.  

[Miles]

I think a clear majority of people agree with Democrats on economic policy like taxes, healthcare and education.  I don't think it's even close. 

What are you basing this belief on?

From a WaPo poll last month:

Minimum wage
Trust Dems more: 49%
Trust GOP more: 34%

Health care
Dems: 43%
GOP: 35%

Economy
Dems: 41%
GOP: 38%

Helping middle class
Dems: 52%
GOP: 32%

Not that I buy 100% into this poll, its just one of the more recent ones.

[bedstuy]

I think a clear majority of people agree with Democrats on economic policy like taxes, healthcare and education.  I don't think it's even close. 

What are you basing this belief on?

From a WaPo poll last month:

Minimum wage
Trust Dems more: 49%
Trust GOP more: 34%

Health care
Dems: 43%
GOP: 35%

Economy
Dems: 41%
GOP: 38%

Helping middle class
Dems: 52%
GOP: 32%

Not that I buy 100% into this poll, its just one of the more recent ones.

That's not the right polling question for my point because it's based on party and not ideology.  I think if you asked straight up ideological questions, Democratic positions would poll even better.

Here's a poll on taxes:  People support the Democratic position on taxes 2:1. 

Here's a poll that said that 67% of people believe in global warming.

Here's a poll that shows people support Democratic spending priorities by a huge margin.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

You have day to day discussions with people. At school, work, in your home, friends, family. The consensus, even among Obama voters (many of whom have buyers remorse for the second term) they all can agree that they want Obamacare gone, or they hate the IRS, or Government spending is out of control, ect ect. However, there is a sense that no matter who wins the White House or Congress...nothing changes.

Yes, I heard a lot about this supposed buyers' remorse from Obama voters that was supposed to manifest in 2012. How did that turn out again?

For what it's worth, many people simply voted for Obama over Romney because they personally liked Obama more, which trumped their view that Romney was more aligned with their views on the issues. People wanted the candidate who they felt cared about them.

So, there wasn't necessarily buyers' remorse, but it seems that there were more complex undercurrents to why Obama defeated Romney, and why the President's support has weakened after his re-election.

I think a clear majority of people agree with Democrats on economic policy like taxes, healthcare and education.  I don't think it's even close.  Democrats have always had an advantage there and it's not really changing except in terms of Republicans getting more doctrinaire in their beliefs.

The big divide is on social issues and social-class/race issues.  Republicans basically use those issues to manipulate the lower/middle class into scapegoating people and getting worked up about nothing. 

To be fair, in a lot places like rural Appalachia the Rs  control the patronage machine so they can essentially buy votes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You know what's hilarious in hindsight now? The people who promoted Cantor as McCain's running mate.

[Miles]

That's not the right polling question for my point because it's based on party and not ideology. 

[Joe Biden 2020]

I think a clear majority of people agree with Democrats on economic policy like taxes, healthcare and education.  I don't think it's even close.

What are you basing this belief on?

From a WaPo poll last month:

Minimum wage
Trust Dems more: 49%
Trust GOP more: 34%

Health care
Dems: 43%
GOP: 35%

Economy
Dems: 41%
GOP: 38%

Helping middle class
Dems: 52%
GOP: 32%

Not that I buy 100% into this poll, its just one of the more recent ones.

That's not the right polling question for my point because it's based on party and not ideology.  I think if you asked straight up ideological questions, Democratic positions would poll even better.

Here's a poll on taxes:  People support the Democratic position on taxes 2:1. 

Here's a poll that said that 67% of people believe in global warming.

Here's a poll that shows people support Democratic spending priorities by a huge margin.

To be true to the poll, these are the reasons that I identify mostly as a Democrat.  I'm mostly Republican on social issues, but these fiscal issues are what I align myself with.

[H. Ross Peron]

Here's an interesting article on Brat's ideology: http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/julieingersoll/7935/david_brat__catholic__calvinist__and_libertarian__oh_my_/

[Ronnie]

I'm guessing he already went through the revolving door to K-Street.

[Miles]

Posting this here too because its pretty neat:

Cartogram of the race!

[Badger]

His bachelors is from Grove City, a conservative college.  I wonder if that still in any way reflects his views?  In any case, seems like a cool guy.

Really?! I just met a grad from there last Thursday. Nice guy. Never heard of the place before then.

My cousin is actually a Grove City grad. He's a very good man with 10 children. And yes, he's Catholic.

Yes, it's a very conservative campus.