Should Democrats be happy abour Cantor's loss?

[Fritz]

We got rid of Eric Cantor, but now we'll be stuck with this Dave Brat guy in congress.  How should Democrats feel about this?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Yes. It means the GOP isn't concerned with Latino outreach at all.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, of course. The GOP lost a major leadership figure who would vote with his party 101% of the time and got a random nobody who will vote with his party 101% of the time.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I guess it depends on how they feel about Kevin McCarthy or Jeb Hensarling.

[Bojack Horseman]

I'm hoping like hell that they pick one of the far-right idiots that are campaigning for the job. They never learn that moving further to the right will just keep costing them elections.

[windjammer]

Yes.
This will change nothing, just the name.

But this is always great to defeat the man who was behind the shutdown .

[Joe Biden 2020]

Maybe people on here can provide their opinions on this, but I've heard, I believe on CNN yesterday or today, that Cantor's defeat could be good news for Hillary Clinton as far as 2016 goes, but potentially bad news for President Obama.  We have many Democrats who are more knowledgeable than I on this issue, so I would like to hear your response.  If I need to put this onto a thread on it's own, let me know and I will do so.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Maybe people on here can provide their opinions on this, but I've heard, I believe on CNN yesterday or today, that Cantor's defeat could be good news for Hillary Clinton as far as 2016 goes, but potentially bad news for President Obama.  We have many Democrats who are more knowledgeable than I on this issue, so I would like to hear your response.  If I need to put this onto a thread on it's own, let me know and I will do so.

We'd need to have some idea of why CNN thinks this to be able to address it.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Maybe people on here can provide their opinions on this, but I've heard, I believe on CNN yesterday or today, that Cantor's defeat could be good news for Hillary Clinton as far as 2016 goes, but potentially bad news for President Obama.  We have many Democrats who are more knowledgeable than I on this issue, so I would like to hear your response.  If I need to put this onto a thread on it's own, let me know and I will do so.

We'd need to have some idea of why CNN thinks this to be able to address it.

Unfortunately, I just caught it in passing and did not get the jest of what they were saying.  I was just hoping the forum could provide some examples or scenarios in how it could be good for the former First Lady and bad for the President, if there are any scenarios.

[Maxwell]

Of course. Cantor is scum.

[Beet]

I always support the person closer to my position, so no.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

There's potential for Cantor's loss to feed into a narrative that helps Democrats win over independent voters in the short and long term. Unfortunately, there's also potential for Cantor's loss to lead to an even more inflexible Republican Party, unwilling to negotiate on anything, fiddling and fundraising while Washington D.C. burns.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

There's potential for Cantor's loss to feed into a narrative that helps Democrats win over independent voters in the short and long term. Unfortunately, there's also potential for Cantor's loss to lead to an even more inflexible Republican Party, unwilling to negotiate on anything, fiddling and fundraising while Washington D.C. burns.

And? The Republicans won the House. Why should they bend over backwards and pass some God awful immigration reform deal pushed by Fareed Zakaria and the rest of the Time Magazine Moderate Heroes? The GOP obstruction in the Senate is upsetting, but I don't quite see how the GOP is fiddling while DC burns when they are the ones who control one half of Congress.

[justfollowingtheelections]

It doesn't make a difference.

[eric82oslo]

Maybe people on here can provide their opinions on this, but I've heard, I believe on CNN yesterday or today, that Cantor's defeat could be good news for Hillary Clinton as far as 2016 goes, but potentially bad news for President Obama.  We have many Democrats who are more knowledgeable than I on this issue, so I would like to hear your response.  If I need to put this onto a thread on it's own, let me know and I will do so.

It's easy.

It's bad news for Obama, cause it will only create even more gridlock, especially on immigration reform. His leacy is in real danger now, though it already was beforehand.

It's excellent news for Hillary, cause this will make Republicans seem even more right wing in the eyes of the people and it might even drive Republican primary voters to demand an even more ultra conservative candidate than they were already planned for. Plus it might make moderates like Jeb Bush decide to opt out of running altogehter. All this debacle will only make Hillary look even more moderate and mainstream.

[pbrower2a]

Just an intraparty squabble.

[angus]

On the one hand, I think all Americans should be happy about Cantor's loss, so I voted yes.

On the other hand, I don't give a great big shït one way or the other.  Maybe a little one, but it's not like he's my rep.  And let's be honest:  the new guy will probably have about an 85% similar voting record as Cantor if the trends I alluded to in the similar thread hold.  (I'm pretty certain they will.)

Still, it's fun to watch folks argue about it on this forum though.  Especially fun seeing simfan come unglued.  That alone is probably enough reason for all posters (including Democrats) to feel the love.

[H. Ross Peron]

Yes, of course. The GOP lost a major leadership figure who would vote with his party 101% of the time and got a random nobody who will vote with his party 101% of the time.

[Reaganfan]

The false narrative coming from democrats is that the only way a Republican can win anymore is if they act like a Democrat. I don't believe that's true.

[Joe Republic]

The false narrative coming from democrats is that the only way a Republican can win anymore is if they act like a Democrat. I don't believe that's true.

Nobody is saying that and you don't know what you're talking about.

[King]

They need to act like Democrats, in that they need to have actual policy proposals and a real message.

They don't need to change their positions on anything to do this.

[Reaganfan]

They need to act like Democrats, in that they need to have actual policy proposals and a real message.

They don't need to change their positions on anything to do this.

So then let's get rid of ineffective conservatives and give newbie conservatives a try. See Cantor vs. Brat.

[AggregateDemand]

Cantor was a waffling real estate developer with a silly progressive for a wife. Brat is a cultural economist.

Both parties come out ahead in this exchange, even if Brat appears to be a bit of a deficit hawk.

[King]

Cantor was a waffling real estate developer with a silly progressive for a wife. Brat is a cultural economist.

Both parties come out ahead in this exchange, even if Brat appears to be a bit of a deficit hawk.

I think Brat will be a better congressman than Cantor.

Cantor's message even as he exited was still dead wrong. "Our differences between each other are small compared to our differences with President."  That's the idea of the GOP existing only as an entity to oppose a single person not debate issues. That's not the kind of government that works.

If there's a problem in this country in a two party system, there should be a Democratic Party solution and a Republican Party solution .to it Right now, if there's a problem in the country, there's Democratic Party solution and a Republican Party denying the problem exists.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

There's potential for Cantor's loss to feed into a narrative that helps Democrats win over independent voters in the short and long term. Unfortunately, there's also potential for Cantor's loss to lead to an even more inflexible Republican Party, unwilling to negotiate on anything, fiddling and fundraising while Washington D.C. burns.

And? The Republicans won the House. Why should they bend over backwards and pass some God awful immigration reform deal pushed by Fareed Zakaria and the rest of the Time Magazine Moderate Heroes? The GOP obstruction in the Senate is upsetting, but I don't quite see how the GOP is fiddling while DC burns when they are the ones who control one half of Congress.

I'm not saying that House Republicans need to do anything -- like you said, they control things there, which allows them to do whatever they want no matter how badly it hurts the country or their party. I don't expect the GOP to do anything on immigration reform or the stuff they don't actually support, but it'd be nice if we could at least avoid constant threat of shutdown and global economic damage over bills the House already voted to agree to pay.