Why Cantor Lost
There is nothing pundits love more than analyzing why they completely missed something and how it has major implications for life as we know it. Among all the over-analysis produced today, here are the best tidbits I’ve seen. Harry Enten explains that Cantor did not lose because he was too conservative:
Cantor, in contrast to past victims of GOP primary challenges, such as Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska or former Indiana senator Dick Lugar, has little history of bucking his party. As you might expect of a Republican in a leadership position, he’s voted with his party 95 percent of the time. Because Cantor’s party is quite conservative, his votes have been quite conservative.
But Enten notes, his leadership position is what hurt him. This point is echoed by Brian Beutler:
The great irony of this year’s primary season, and indeed of conservative politics going back years now, is that the two Republican leaders most responsible for the party’s insurgent-like opposition to the Obama agenda—Cantor, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell—are the base’s most reviled. McConnell defeated his primary challenger last month, at great expense. Cantor fell short.
But it would be more accurate to say that by doing the right’s bidding and thus drawing its energy and investment into the party, he created expectations that almost nobody serving at a high level of congressional leadership could meet. Without Cantor and McConnell, the Obama opposition strategy would have been much less organized, but by organizing it, they absorbed a disproportionate degree of the right’s frustration when the strategy failed.
Cantor (and McConnell) convinced the far right that they were a majority in the country. When they couldn’t produce results consistent with a Tea Party agenda, as the highest ranking officials who courted the Tea Party, they had to pay the price. When you dance with the devil, you will get burned.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
26 responses to Why Cantor Lost
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
JimmiJames June 11th, 2014 at 12:39
All BS…. Cantor lost simply because he was in the pro-amnesty camp! Americans have had it with these traitors. And we are tired of Illegals! No Amnesty PERIOD! Close that fucking border!
bhil June 11th, 2014 at 12:42
which border?
arc99 June 11th, 2014 at 12:54
look at the numbers I posted below. Cantor lost because most of the sane people stayed home.
but you go ahead and keep thinking that you are the majority.
JimmiJames June 11th, 2014 at 12:39
All BS…. Cantor lost simply because he was in the pro-amnesty camp! Americans have had it with these traitors. And we are tired of Illegals! No Amnesty PERIOD! Close that fucking border!
bhil June 11th, 2014 at 12:42
which border?
arc99 June 11th, 2014 at 12:54
look at the numbers I posted below. Cantor lost because most of the sane people stayed home.
but you go ahead and keep thinking that you are the majority.
arc99 June 11th, 2014 at 12:51
It is one of my pet peeves about contemporary election reporting that the articles invariably omit the key ingredient in discussing any election result, the numbers.
I happen to think that by omitting the numbers, these reports are also overlooking a critical consideration as we discuss the impact on the November general election. The voter turnout was approximately 500% greater in the 2012 general election than in yesterday’s primary
A very narrow segment of 7th District voters who are likely the most ideologically rigid have selected a far right wing candidate in the general election. I remember when Scott Brown shocked everyone by winning Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts. Right wingers proclaimed it was the era of the TeaParty even in a bright blue New England state.
They categorically dismissed explanations pointing to the extraordinarily low turnout when Brown won, and the fact that Brown’s opponent was dreadful, were dismissed as “liberal media spin”.
Based on the numbers below, what I see is a low-turnout election driven by the votes of rigid ideologues who likely are not representative of the majority of voters in this district. Romney did carry this district by about 55% in 2012. But that means that there is a built-in Democratic base of about 40% that will automatically go to the Democrat in November.
That means only 10% of the full turnout electorate needs to be convinced that Mr. Bratt is too extreme to be elected. My political tea leaves are telling me that this safe GOP seat is now highly competitive.
Anyway, here are the numbers. Make of them what you will, especially all of you out there proclaiming this as some grand victory of TeaParty philosophy. As these numbers show, you guys win only when most of the people stay at home.
oh and for pete’s sakes, all you political reporters out there, get off your butts and do your friggin jobs by giving us the numbers please
2014 Primary
David Brat 55.5% 36,110
Eric Cantor 44.5% 28,898
Total Votes 65,008****
2012 General Election
Democratic E. Wayne Powell 41.4% 158,012
Republican Eric Cantor 58.4% 222,983
Write-InN/A 0.2% 914
Total Votes 381,909*********
Source: Virginia State Board of Elections “Official Election Results, 2012 General Election”
Stuart Shapiro June 11th, 2014 at 12:57
I think you make a lot of sense but one question remains, all primaries (especially in midterms) are low turnout. Why did Cantor lose when nearly no one else did? The answer could be simple randomness but I’m guessing that there is something more to it there. But I do agree that whatever it is, it is not as earth shattering as the punditocracy is making it out to be.
arc99 June 11th, 2014 at 13:02
great question Stuart and I certainly don’t have the answers. Based on other reports I am reading, even Cantor’s own privately licensed polls were showing him to be well ahead. This one stumped the experts as well.
Perhaps it is his position in leadership which made him a unique target. It will be interesting to see how the remaining primaries around the country play out and if those low turnout elections will produce equally unlikely victories by the far right.
TiredOfThemAll June 11th, 2014 at 13:11
Voter turnout was 17% of the last general election?
May I quote Yeats?
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity”
Dwendt44 June 11th, 2014 at 13:28
The claim that some Democrats crossed over and voted for the crazy guy hasn’t been substantiated but I’m leaning toward believing it.
Cantor wasn’t a christian, and that may have swung some voters that bought into the bible thumping of Brat.
arc99 June 11th, 2014 at 13:36
it is an interesting theory to chew on between now and November.
although the initial reports I am seeing, indicate that Bratt did best in the most traditionally conservative precints in the district.
popcorn anyone?
mea_mark June 11th, 2014 at 14:59
The far right in the conservative districts may just simply think they don’t need a well established candidate and that an extreme one like Brat can win because GOD is going to help him win. Blind faith may ultimately be what dooms the TBaggers and the republican party in general. When you don’t need facts …
arc99 June 11th, 2014 at 12:51
It is one of my pet peeves about contemporary election reporting that the articles invariably omit the key ingredient in discussing any election result, the numbers.
I happen to think that by omitting the numbers, these reports are also overlooking a critical consideration as we discuss the impact on the November general election. The voter turnout was approximately 500% greater in the 2012 general election than in yesterday’s primary
A very narrow segment of 7th District voters who are likely the most ideologically rigid have selected a far right wing candidate to contest the general election. I remember when Scott Brown shocked everyone by winning Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts. Right wingers proclaimed it was the era of the TeaParty even in a bright blue New England state.
Explanations pointing to the extraordinarily low turnout when Brown won, and the fact that Brown’s opponent was dreadful, were dismissed as “liberal media spin”.
Based on the numbers below, what I see is a low-turnout election driven by the votes of rigid ideologues who likely are not representative of the majority of voters in this district. Romney did carry this district by about 55% in 2012. But that means that there is a built-in Democratic base of about 40% that will automatically go to the Democrat in November.
That means only 10% of the full turnout electorate needs to be convinced that Mr. Bratt is too extreme to be elected. My political tea leaves are telling me that this safe GOP seat is now highly competitive.
Anyway, here are the numbers. Make of them what you will, especially all of you out there proclaiming this as some grand victory of TeaParty philosophy. As these numbers show, you guys win only when most of the people stay at home.
oh and for pete’s sakes, all you political reporters out there, get off your butts and do your friggin jobs by giving us the numbers please
2014 Primary
David Brat 55.5% 36,110
Eric Cantor 44.5% 28,898
Total Votes 65,008****
2012 General Election
Democratic E. Wayne Powell 41.4% 158,012
Republican Eric Cantor 58.4% 222,983
Write-InN/A 0.2% 914
Total Votes 381,909*********
Source: Virginia State Board of Elections “Official Election Results, 2012 General Election”
Stuart Shapiro June 11th, 2014 at 12:57
I think you make a lot of sense but one question remains, all primaries (especially in midterms) are low turnout. Why did Cantor lose when nearly no one else did? The answer could be simple randomness but I’m guessing that there is something more to it there. But I do agree that whatever it is, it is not as earth shattering as the punditocracy is making it out to be.
arc99 June 11th, 2014 at 13:02
great question Stuart and I certainly don’t have the answers. Based on other reports I am reading, even Cantor’s own privately licensed polls were showing him to be well ahead. This one stumped the experts as well.
Perhaps it is his position in leadership which made him a unique target. It will be interesting to see how the remaining primaries around the country play out and if those low turnout elections will produce equally unlikely victories by the far right.
OldLefty June 11th, 2014 at 13:11
Voter turnout was 17% of the last general election?
May I quote Yeats?
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity”
Dwendt44 June 11th, 2014 at 13:28
The claim that some Democrats crossed over and voted for the crazy guy hasn’t been substantiated but I’m leaning toward believing it.
Cantor wasn’t a christian, and that may have swung some voters that bought into the bible thumping of Brat.
arc99 June 11th, 2014 at 13:36
it is an interesting theory to chew on between now and November.
although the initial reports I am seeing, indicate that Bratt did best in the most traditionally conservative precints in the district.
popcorn anyone?
mea_mark June 11th, 2014 at 14:59
The far right in the conservative districts may just simply think they don’t need a well established candidate and that an extreme one like Brat can win because GOD is going to help him win. Blind faith may ultimately be what dooms the TBaggers and the republican party in general. When you don’t need facts …
DoobiusGamer June 11th, 2014 at 21:05
He lost because Democrats in the district saw a way to get rid of him and voted for the teabagger. That’s my hypothesis, anyway.
mea_mark June 12th, 2014 at 11:58
With such a low turnout in voting it is possible that democrats could of done something like that even without any organizing to do so. I don’t think there was an organized effort to do it though. If there was I think it would of come out by now and the right-wing would be screeching like crazy about foul play.
DoobiusGamer June 11th, 2014 at 21:05
He lost because Democrats in the district saw a way to get rid of him and voted for the teabagger. That’s my hypothesis, anyway.
mea_mark June 12th, 2014 at 11:58
With such a low turnout in voting it is possible that democrats could of done something like that even without any organizing to do so. I don’t think there was an organized effort to do it though. If there was I think it would of come out by now and the right-wing would be screeching like crazy about foul play.
Roctuna June 12th, 2014 at 10:53
“The Nuge” has finally weighed-in on the question of why Cantor lost. It’s because the only Jewish congressman was too much like a..wait for it….NAZI
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/12/nras-ted-nugent-eric-cantor-practices-nazi-styl/199690
Roctuna June 12th, 2014 at 10:53
“The Nuge” has finally weighed-in on the question of why Cantor lost. It’s because the only Jewish congressman was too much like a..wait for it….NAZI
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/12/nras-ted-nugent-eric-cantor-practices-nazi-styl/199690