Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

House Majority Leader Defeated In Primary

Unknown Lamer posted about 4 months ago | from the first-time-for-everything dept.

United States 932

An anonymous reader writes "For the first time in United States political history, the House Majority Leader has been defeated in his primary election. Long time Republican congressman and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defeated by 10 percentage points in the Virginia primary by Republican Tea Party challenger Dave Brat. This shocking defeat is likely to upset the political balance of power in the United States for years to come."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hahaha! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47213895)

Republican voting base has gone full bat shit, the party won't last much longer now.

Re:hahaha! (0, Flamebait)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | about 4 months ago | (#47214065)

The joke is on us.

Climate change is occurring all over the coast, and we just elected people who essentially put their fingers in their ears and say LALALALALA.

Re:hahaha! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214177)

I've got a son graduating high school next year. According to the climate scientists, there has been no increase in global temperatures during his entire lifetime.

Who's got their fingers in their ears? Maybe the one's saying "The science is settled!!!!". Hint: Science is never settled.

Re:hahaha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214323)

Citation Please

Re:hahaha! (4, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | about 4 months ago | (#47214095)

Virginia has an open primary. It wouldn't be the first time crossover voters affected the outcome.

Re:hahaha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214285)

It's a possibility, but Cantor got something like 20% fewer total votes this time than he did in the 2012 election. So it's not just Democrat crossover voting, his base was ticked at his big government/big labor/big money voting tendencies and voted against him.

Re:hahaha! (5, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about 4 months ago | (#47214295)

Republican voting base has gone full bat shit, the party won't last much longer now.

The current GOP is worthless anyhow. No one on the right likes it: they don't serve a financially conservative agenda at all, the don't serve the socially conservative agenda beyond lip-service, and the anti-illegal-immigration feeling on the right is far stronger than the GOP seems to realize.

A new party is needed, as this one is done. If the so-con portion represents a new generation who not racist and rabidly anti-gay (eject the Boomer so-cons) then it has a future again. We'll see.

Re:hahaha! (5, Insightful)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#47214305)

Not really... They are not going nuts...

What's going on is the Tea Party is apparently dragging the republican party to the right of center (politically). Some folks think that this is a good thing, some don't. But I don't think you can make the case that this is a symbol of the party self destructing or going crazy. What is going on though is the party is being forced to recognize that it's base is not happy with it's leadership and that the Tea Party's conservative message has at least some resonance with the base. From my perspective, it is a good thing when a party's leadership represents it's members.

Now, it remains to be seen if this movement to the right translates into more votes and more success in elections or not. I have my theories on that... But the most telling fact one needs to consider is how the other party and the talking heads reporting are becoming apathetic about this. Remember back in May when they declared the Tea Party dead? Now, when it's obvious they where wrong, they are in a panic for some reason? Right....

Democrats voted (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47213903)

Open primaries allow this sort of thing to happen. If you think about it, it isn't really fair, but we allow it in a lot of states, so this sort of thing should be expected.

Re:Democrats voted (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47213983)

Allowing all citizens to vote no matter what their label is, isn't fair? Interesting.

Re:Democrats voted (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214029)

Alllowing democrats to vote in a republican primary - yeah, that's wrong.

Allowing independents, ie non-declared voters to vote in any primary - absolutely.

Re:Democrats voted (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214147)

"Alllowing democrats to vote in a republican primary - yeah, that's wrong."

Why? What if the Democrat likes the Republican candidate and intends on voting him in?

Again, why should a label prevent you from voting in any election as long as you are a citizen and meet the criteria for voting rights?

Re:Democrats voted (4, Interesting)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 4 months ago | (#47214161)

In California for state legislature we switched to an open primary in the spring and runoff in the fall, where the runoff is the top two candidates regardless of party. so in very conservative areas the top two candidates could be two republicans, and in liberal areas the top two candidates will be democrats. This has the effect of pushing the most polarized districts to more moderate representation, because if two repubs are in the final election, the more moderate one will appeal to a wider base.

this is so important because california's legislature is so horribly disfunctional, and because you need 2/3 vote to pass any bill that levies taxes, it means a minority can basically shut down regular operation.

btdubs this was just one of the reforms passed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who I think will be remembered as one of the best governors in CA history.

Re:Democrats voted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214171)

makes perfect sense for a democrat to vote in a republican primary. They can ensure that the republican candidate is at least palatable to the general electorate, and not some raving loon backed by the extremists. Same goes for republicans.

It would help prevent alot of issues with primaries.

Re:Democrats voted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214279)

Except that in practice the exact opposite (as we have just seen) is what happens. The democrats vote overwhelmingly for the batshit crazy motherfucker who stands no chance in hell of defeating what ever piss-poor candidate the democratic party decides to run.

The end result is voters end up with far fewer choices in the general election.

Re:Democrats voted (3, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 months ago | (#47214079)

Correct. Allowing outsiders to inject themselves as spoilers into an internal race isn't fair. This is why party registration and closed primaries make sense. That's at least ore fair than doing the entire nomination via convention and forgoing primaries all together.

I went to RMC ('06), so I've met Brat before. I've also done political work (07-08) and had many interactions with Cantor. Frankly, I think that Brat is a better person one-on-one, but that Cantor is probably better to have been the nominee and retained the seat. Frankly, I'm surprised by Brat's immigration stance -- he never seemed the type to me when I was in school, but I never took any of his classes. Pretty sure I remember him from College Republican meetings and don't recall that topic ever being addressed though.

That sociology professor running against him can suck it though. I don't like that guy at all.

Re:Democrats voted (2)

Trepidity (597) | about 4 months ago | (#47214107)

It's entirely possible that Brat doesn't personally have particularly strong anti-immigration opinions, and is just reading the populist winds correctly.

Re:Democrats voted (2)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 months ago | (#47214163)

It's also possible that he had a switch flipped in the last 8 years, too. A lot has happened during that time and people change.

Re:Democrats voted (5, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 4 months ago | (#47214211)

Correct. Allowing outsiders to inject themselves as spoilers into an internal race isn't fair.

The Koch brothers (and others), many out-of-state- Super-PACs and their advertising campaigns would beg to differ with your opinion.

Re:Democrats voted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214277)

Interesting. So you consider American citizens to be "outsiders" now? Very interesting.

Re:Democrats voted (5, Insightful)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 4 months ago | (#47214343)

Allowing outsiders to inject themselves as spoilers into an internal race isn't fair.

What isn't fair is taxpayers footing the bill for internal parties elections. Does the Libertarian party get to use the electorate? or the Tea Party? Why do the Democrats and Republicans get to?

Re:Democrats voted (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 4 months ago | (#47214091)

Right.

They can vote in the actual election. But why should Joe the Democrat have any input at all into which candidate the Republican party chooses to run under their banner?

Should Republicans get to choose who the Green Party candidate should be too?

Re:Democrats voted (1)

tiberus (258517) | about 4 months ago | (#47214209)

Open primaries go both ways, so I really don't see how you can complain. It's also rather odd to think that just two parties can represent the depth and breadth of political views in the U.S. How about we junk the primary system and simply have run off elections in the case where no candidate gets more that 50% of the vote?

Re:Democrats voted (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214117)

It is slack-jawed, drooling nitwits such as you which is causing our country to circle the bowl and soon, to go down.

Re:Democrats voted (5, Insightful)

INT_QRK (1043164) | about 4 months ago | (#47214139)

Really. The bottom line that I'm hearing locally is that Cantor was perceived to be arrogant and detached, uninterested in his voting constituents' viewpoints (hasn't had a Town-Hall meeting, for example, for several years). He was perceived as focused exclusively on his Leadership position, and not so much in his responsibilities as Representative of the people of his district. All this bovine excrement that you're hearing in the press about this or that red-meat issue is largely DC beltway perspective, which was Cantor's focus, and his problem anyway. It is important that Representatives are occasionally reminded who they are, and why they're in Congress, so I have no problem with what took place.

Re:Democrats voted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214021)

Sucks that people, you know get to vote how they want to vote.

Re:Democrats voted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214253)

Damn straight! We need to put an end to it.

Re:Democrats voted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214045)

The Republican Party has open primaries. The Democratic Party does not. It is not the fault of the state, it is the fault of the party and the way they run things.

Re:Democrats voted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214155)

How does this work in states that do not have their citizens declare a party? Keep pulling the facts out of your exit hole.

Re:Democrats voted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214197)

It is up to the state parties. Maybe the Republican primary is open in Virginia, but not necessarily in other states. For the 2000 election cycle, the Maryland Republican party opened their primaries to independents. The primary went to John McCain that year, which upset the Bush momentum at the time. Interestingly, they closed the primaries after that election. I don't know if it was because the primary ended up going to the "underdog" and they didn't like that, or if it was for some other reason, but it has been closed since (and before, for that matter).

Re:Democrats voted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214047)

It’s not really any more unfair than closed primary states. Closed primary states just make you file paperwork in advance to vote in the other party’s primary.

Re:Democrats voted (4, Interesting)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 4 months ago | (#47214191)

Nope. Here's a direct quote from one of my conservative mailing lists.

"I'm with you; these moderate-to-left RINO old farts have to go."

Apparently he wasn't far enough right.
"Cantor opposes public funding of embryonic stem cell research and opposes elective abortion. He is rated 100% by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and 0% by NARAL Pro-Choice America, indicating a pro-life voting record. He is also opposed to same-sex marriage, voting to Constitutionally define marriage as between a male and a female in 2006. In November 2007 he voted against prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. He also supports making flag burning illegal. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) rated him 19% in 2006, indicating an anti-affirmative action voting record. He is opposed to gun control, voting to ban product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers in 2005, and he voted not to require gun registration and trigger-lock laws in the District of Columbia. He has a rating of "A" from the National Rifle Association (NRA).[32] On Nov. 2, 2010, Cantor told Wolf Blitzer of CNN that he would try to trim the federal deficit by reducing welfare."

And I hear this puts the former republican stronghold district in play for the democrats now. Plus a tremendous loss of seniority and political power for the republicans will be gone so spending in Virginia is likely to drop significantly.

I'm an independent with increasingly strong liberal tendencies since 2004. But I'm not sure if I'm really growing more liberal or if the republicans are simply moving rightward away from the middle.

Re:Democrats voted (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214205)

Open primaries allow this sort of thing to happen. If you think about it, it isn't really fair, but we allow it in a lot of states, so this sort of thing should be expected.

No. Democrats had no impact on the vote.

1) There's no evidence at all of a Democrat effort to vote in the Republican primary. Hard to imagine 10,000+ Democrats voting and keeping it quiet.
2) There's no Democrat candidate running at all. If the Democrats were organized enough to run a campaign to unseat Cantor that resulted in 10,000+ votes, they'd be organized enough to run a candidate.
3) The margin of victory is way too big.
4) Brat's biggest margins came in the most Republican precincts

Re:Democrats voted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214241)

Except that isn't what made Cantor lose. Nice try, though.

rumor is dems voted for him (1)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#47213905)

signed up as republicans and voted for Brat so that in the real election they can defeat him by painting him as a loon

Re:rumor is dems voted for him (4, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 months ago | (#47213953)

It's a safe republican district.

This is not unlike the reds that are elected from downtown SF. The real election is the primary.

Re:rumor is dems voted for him (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214073)

Don't count on it. Only 14% bothered to vote, which shows a dislike for the party in general.

Re:rumor is dems voted for him (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 4 months ago | (#47214157)

Or apathy. I.e. "we know the GOP candidate will win so who cares?"

Re:rumor is dems voted for him (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about 4 months ago | (#47214175)

It's a Republican district, but nowhere near as strongly as SF is a Democratic district. Cantor's district (VA 7th) is R+10, while downtown SF (CA 12th) is D+34. An example of a D+10 district is northwest Indiana (IN 1st).

Re:rumor is dems voted for him (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47213973)

VA has an open primary. No signing up necessary.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bi... [state.va.us]

Re:rumor is dems voted for him (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47213985)

The same Democrats that weren't even organized enough to get their own candidate on the ballot for the general election? lol

Re:rumor is dems voted for him (1, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 months ago | (#47214099)

They have a candidate on the ballot in the general election. No one was willing to sign up to run because the assumed Cantor would be the nominee and they would stand no chance. However, they picked a candidate via convention rather than primary. If you're going to try to be dismissive, at least be dismissing the right things.

Re:rumor is dems voted for him (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 4 months ago | (#47213987)

I believe in Virginia they have Open Primaries so people don't have to be registered one way or the other to vote for a candidate. So no switching even needed.

Re:rumor is dems voted for him (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 months ago | (#47214123)

True, however you can only vote in one, iirc -- I left VA a few years ago for MD, where we have party registration and closed primaries, so I don't remember whether they took names down and compared who voted in which on what day, or ran the primaries on the same day and gave you the party ballot you asked for. I only voted in one primary while I lived in VA (where I lived for most of my life, but primaries were never a huge deal where I lived)

Re:rumor is dems voted for him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214009)

Why would they need to sign up as Republican? Democrats can vote in open primaries. You guys are loons.

Re:rumor is dems voted for him (3, Insightful)

OhPlz (168413) | about 4 months ago | (#47214055)

I'm pretty sure that's how McCain won the primaries. He was regularly booed at from the audience in his own rallies, especially when it came to amnesty or "path to citizenship" or whatever you want to call it. It makes me wonder if these types of primaries are a good idea or not. My state was thinking of doing away with letting undeclared voters pick a ballot on primary day and at the time I was against it, but I can certainly see now how it could be misused. Of course then it's a matter of changing your declared party well enough in advance and then switching it back. So I'm not sure changing it really solves anything.

Re:rumor is dems voted for him (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 months ago | (#47214097)

This has been going on for decades.

If the party doesn't have it together to keep David Duke or Dennis Kucinich off the ballot then they are fucked from day one.

Re:rumor is dems voted for him (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 4 months ago | (#47214237)

no it's not the case for mccain because the dems had a competitive primary as well -- Obama vs. Hillary -- so most dems would still have voted dem. you only vote in the other primary if your primary is safe/boring.

Re:rumor is dems voted for him (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 4 months ago | (#47214269)

Back in 2007, the NY Times endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain in the primaries. So I'm sure they endorsed McCain for the general election, right?

Re:rumor is dems voted for him (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 4 months ago | (#47214141)

I'm not sure you understand how gerrymandered house districts are. Republicans will not lose the seat unless there's a massive upheaval in the political landscape or, more likely, the Dems eke out a majority at some point in the future and redraw the lines in their favor.

He picked the wrong moment to support amnesty (1, Interesting)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 4 months ago | (#47213911)

What with the insane situation we have at the border right now...

Say what you will about our immigration policy... say what you will about the politics... it looks very bad for people supporting amnesty right now simply because there looks to be a free for all at the border.

Re:He picked the wrong moment to support amnesty (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 4 months ago | (#47214037)

The thing is amnesty has nothing to do with border security. The two are very different issues.

Re:He picked the wrong moment to support amnesty (2)

BoRegardless (721219) | about 4 months ago | (#47214187)

2 Things: 90--100 million non-working adults & lowest labor force % in 45 years.

Re:He picked the wrong moment to support amnesty (5, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 4 months ago | (#47214227)

The surge of people we're getting at the border right now are only showing up because they think they'll get amnesty. Its a related concept.

Really the sick thing is the whole immigration problem is driven by a shadow economy of cheap labor.

People say "oh I want these people to get US citizenship" but if they have it will they work for below minimum wage under currently illegal health standards with no insurance or legal rights?

Probably not. And the corporate interests that are pushing for amnesty are very strange in this regard as well because again if they actually get amnesty they're not going to show up for work. They're going to go get EBT cards and welfare because it pays better then those terrible jobs. Which is why most americans don't do those jobs. We're paid more to do nothing then we are to do that stuff.

By all means argue against the welfare state if that's what gets you going but the point is that the whole immigration issue is irrational.

Our society cannot survive open borders. We can't afford it. And if we did that all the cheap labor the companies think they're going to get would suddenly be gone because they'd just sit in subsidized apartments laughing about when they got up at 3 in the morning to go to work.

And that doesn't address how the whole thing depresses the wages of actual citizens or causes all sorts of other distortions of our economy.

The whole thing is sick.

The first thing that needs to happen is that hiring illegal immigrants needs to be something that is ACTUALLY illegal. As in few do it because you go to jail or suffer huge crippling fines.

Do that and most of the illegal immigration stops immediately without having to do anything at the border.

A really effective mean to police the thing would be to offer people a bounty for catching it. Say 10 to 50 percent of collected fines. So if you're fining companies 10 thousand dollars per illegal employee... and some of these operations employ thousands... you'll be looking at 10 thousand times thousands. Who wouldn't turn that in?

It would police itself. Sure, you'd get witch hunts and false positives etc. But I'm not saying you show up with SWAT teams either. Just a federal official with a camera, notebook, and badge. He goes in, sees what is going on, makes some notes, takes some pictures, and then goes back to the office to process the paper work. Nothing aggressive needed. You don't even go after the illegals directly. You go after their employers.

If they can't find work here they won't come. Just that simple.

Re:He picked the wrong moment to support amnesty (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 4 months ago | (#47214275)

The two are very *related* issues. You're simply be pedantic.

Re:He picked the wrong moment to support amnesty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214297)

That might be true, but that's not how it is portrayed on AM talk shows.

Re:He picked the wrong moment to support amnesty (1)

blue trane (110704) | about 4 months ago | (#47214259)

I was at the Arizona border recently. What I saw going on was hundreds of Border Patrol trucks driving like maniacs everywhere, and Border Checkpoints stopping all cars every few miles. I was camping and a Border Patrol truck harassed me. I asked the guys if I was in any danger from illegals, he said no, they won't bother you, the only people that will bother you is Border Patrol.

In conclusion, the border is a made-up problem. The fence in Nogales, AZ is an example. The city used to be one, spreading across the border. Now there's a big ugly fence splitting it down the middle, and a lot of bureaucracy to get across and back. Why are we dividing people? Why are we scaring people about their neighbors, making things much worse than they need be?

Slow tech news day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47213919)

For this piece of flamebait to get frontpaged...

Re:Slow tech news day... (2)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | about 4 months ago | (#47214081)

With the Snowden leaks, the NSA issues still roaming around, with the Supreme Court looking at Aereo, do you think that anything that affects national politics does NOT hit technology?

This should please Slashdotters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47213931)

This will most likely lead to a Democrat victory in the general election.

Re:This should please Slashdotters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214223)

That seat in the house is safely Republican. Or do you think the Cantor supporters are suddenly not going to show up in the GE or even show up to vote Democrat?

Hopefully this is a first of many (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47213949)

This government is ineffective, and seems to be more about getting things for themselves than their constituents. They use the taxes we give them to spy on us and arm our police forces with tanks rather than give us nationalized healthcare. They take bribes from special interest groups. We need new blood in politics.

Re:Hopefully this is a first of many (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214093)

We need new blood in politics.

Perhaps you guys should water the tree of liberty first? I hear the French build a machine for that back in the 18th century....

Re:Hopefully this is a first of many (1)

Jeremi (14640) | about 4 months ago | (#47214151)

[Politicians] use the taxes we give them to spy on us and arm our police forces with tanks rather than give us nationalized healthcare.

If you're hoping that electing Tea Partiers to Congress will result in nationalized healthcare. . . well, good luck with that. I wouldn't hold my breath.

They have to live with the monster they unleashed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47213955)

Republicans gave the Tea Party a voice in hopes they could polarize the uneducated and ignorant section of society to back up their causes, by invoking the bible, the flag, and the Constitution.

Now the Tea Party folks are thinking on their own and resisting pro-business, pro-spying, pro-immigration, anti-poor viewpoints that mainstream Republicans want.

As usual, thanks for nothing, Republicans.

Re:They have to live with the monster they unleash (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about 4 months ago | (#47214063)

im all for getting rid of establishment republicans and replacing them with libertarians and te party members. Just as im all for getting rid of establishment democrats and replacing them with greenies

Re:They have to live with the monster they unleash (2)

Triklyn (2455072) | about 4 months ago | (#47214281)

you're literally advocating dragging our entire system of government to a grinding halt.... forever... well played anarchist, well played.

Re:They have to live with the monster they unleash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214183)

I know, things like...lower taxes and then leaving everyone else alone.. WHAT LOONS! Or did you not have any idea what the Taxed Enough Already party was complaining about?

Down with the establishment (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47213977)

many more upsets to come

Anti-incumbent sentiment is running extremely high (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47213991)

The Tea Party may be taking all the credit for this, but the reality is is far more grim than any political insider is willing to admit: this has been the most unpopular Congress since the Do-Nothing Congress of 1947-49. [wikipedia.org]

And if anyone paid attention to history, what happened then is what will happen this time, too. The incumbents are in the crosshairs.

Re:Anti-incumbent sentiment is running extremely h (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#47214159)

Anti-incumbent sentiment is running extremely high

I will believe that when I see greater than 50% turnover in congress. The media polls are full of it. If the approval ratings were so low, we wouldn't see a 95% reelection rate. It's that simple.

By the way, switching back and forth between democrat and republican (which includes Tea Party, as they are simply republicans on meth. Their entire gag is to scare people away from alternative parties and to make all the resistance look crazy like the Las Vegas shooter) does not count as voting the incumbents out. You have to vote both factions of the party out of office for it to mean something.

Re:Anti-incumbent sentiment is running extremely h (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214221)

I will believe it when I see it. Money talks, and a good PR campaign can turn a psychopath into someone holier than $DEITY.

In the past, congresscritters had to survive on merit. Now, no matter what they can do, a couple million dollars can right -any- wrong.

-ANY- wrong, period.

Re:Anti-incumbent sentiment is running extremely h (5, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 4 months ago | (#47214287)

This Congress actually did less than the do-nothing Congress. Least productive in US history.

Re:Anti-incumbent sentiment is running extremely h (1)

blue trane (110704) | about 4 months ago | (#47214333)

Dewey defeats Truman?

Too bad we can't defeat beta.slashdot.org (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214003)

Because tech.slashdot.org seems to always redirect to beta now.

Fucking it down out fucking throats.

Assholes.

Tea (3, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 4 months ago | (#47214015)

Reports of the Tea Party's death are greatly exaggerated.

My only qualm is it's been hijacked well beyond its initial namesake cause of shrinking the bloated spending into almost every old Republican grievance.

Re:Tea (1, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 months ago | (#47214061)

The 'church republicans' have made a serious effort to take it over. They will be the death of the GOP.

Re:Tea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214179)

the GOP has so closely aligned itself with the church as to be completely inseparable from that now.

Their stance on abortion, same sex marriage, and most everything else is based on a fundemantalist Christian faith. It has nothing to do with science, evidence, facts, or anything else. Just god.

And they've tied up their bullshit views on economics.

Now it's being co-opted by crazy libertarians who will happily destroy the country in order to try to pursue their impossible goals.

The idiots would rather see the country burn than prosper.

Congratulations, America! You have have an entire political party which has decided to make policy through ignoring evidence, and going purely with ideology.

Welcome to the idiocracy. Apparently, it's what you wanted all along.

Re:Tea (1, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 months ago | (#47214249)

The Church Rs are exactly like the Leftest Ds.

They ignore history, evidence, science and base everything on their philosophy.

We have two political parties that have 'decided to make policy through ignoring evidence, and going purely with ideology.'

We're fucked.

Re:Tea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214213)

its pretty much the virtual party of White Libertarian Jesus.

Re:Tea (0)

blue trane (110704) | about 4 months ago | (#47214115)

Spending isn't bloated. The idea that "there's no money left" or "government can only spend what it takes in" gives up all power of money creation to the private sector. But the Constitution gives government the power to coin money and to borrow. Why should needless suffering be imposed upon millions because of an ideology that has no basis in economics or law?

Re:Tea (0)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | about 4 months ago | (#47214203)

My issue with the Tea Party is that it was created entirely by Fox to screw with the democrats. I don't see how anyone can give it any credibility.

Re:Tea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214207)

Reports of the Tea Party's death are greatly exaggerated.

My only qualm is it's been hijacked well beyond its initial namesake

And you are still listening to those same reporters?

Re:Tea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214229)

> (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Yes, it is. Don't tell me what to do with my points, you insufferable twat.

Can't he still win (5, Interesting)

twistedcubic (577194) | about 4 months ago | (#47214053)

I don't know the rules in Virginia, but can't he run as a third-party candidate in the general election, just like Lieberman did?

Re:Can't he still win (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214121)

No, state law precludes this.

Re: Can't he still win (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214131)

Not on the ballot. It would have to be write-in.

Re:Can't he still win (3, Informative)

bareman (60518) | about 4 months ago | (#47214143)

No, he can't appear on the ballot after losing the primary. He'd have to be a write-in.

Re:Can't he still win (4, Informative)

bareman (60518) | about 4 months ago | (#47214255)

Oops, should have hit paste before posting:

"Mr. Cantor can't run as a third-party candidate. Virginia law forbids candidates who lose primary elections from appearing on the general election ballot. It is not immediately clear if he will mount a write-in campaign , as did Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) after losing a 2010 GOP Senate primary." — The Wall Street Journal

Re:Can't he still win (2)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 4 months ago | (#47214319)

Even that isn't entirely remote, if he plays his cards right. We had something similar happen in Alaska back in 2010 when the incumbent Lisa Murkowski lost the primary to the Tea Party favorite Joe Miller. She went on to win as a write-in candidate with something like a 40% margin, because it didn't take long for the more crazy extreme side of Joe Miller to show up and public opinion of him quickly flipped.

Re:Can't he still win (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214185)

No, we have a "sore loser" rule to prevent that. He can, however, run a write-in campaign should he so choose.

Re:Can't he still win (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214301)

I'm guessing it would be difficult for him to remain his majority leader position if he's not in the majority party.

Re:Can't he still win (1)

Tailhook (98486) | about 4 months ago | (#47214329)

No. Virginia has a "sore loser" law. He's out as a (R). He could run as a write-in. Good luck with that.

He took his election for granted and got ambushed. Lets have a few hundred more of those, on all sides. Maybe they'll spend a little less time pandering to COC throw-open-the-borders lobbyists and start listening to voters.

Gun control and immigration... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47214119)

The first thing he failed at was immigration. He was wanting H-1Bs on one end, amnesty on the other. People in the US who are barely scraping by are tired of having to compete in both skilled and entry level jobs by unfair competition.

Then there is gun control. The Dems are making a lot of bills, from demanding ankle bracelets of concealed carry holders, to vague mental health standards... Which mean nobody would qualify. Eric stepped on his base by jumping on the knee jerk bandwagon, and people showed their opinion about his actions.

It is sad to see the nation lurch rightward, but the will of the people is there. Stop illegal immigration, stop trying to antagonize legal gun owners. Turn around and piss on the people that elected you, expect not to have a job.

normally i'm against the tea party winning things (1)

Triklyn (2455072) | about 4 months ago | (#47214199)

but... i can honestly say. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. :)

Redistricting (4, Interesting)

Dorianny (1847922) | about 4 months ago | (#47214251)

Republicans are falling victim to their own success redistricting. The result is safe districts where the nominee has no need for independent voters to win in the general election. The party nomination effectively becomes the election and in these, candidates are much more vulnerable to small groups of highly motivated, very vocal and very involved fringe groups, then they would be in general elections. Democrats engage in this behavior as well but for better of for worst, they are not as good at gerrymandering when they get the chance.

We Hope (0)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 4 months ago | (#47214261)

This may mean it is easier for a democrat to win the general election. Although Virginia has many conservative voters I doubt that the majority of voters are looned out enough to elect a tea party candidate to congress. And frankly that is exactly what the tea party is. The are a bunch of naive and under educated fools with absurd beliefs. They can not even define what really bothers them. It is rather simple in fact. Over the decades our law makers have passed so many laws that react and interact with other laws that the power of the vote or the ability to pass new, better, laws is impeded. This leaves them with the feeling that their vote is meaningless. One one feels that one's vote has no meaning then the next leap of logic is to call the government some sort of corrupt dictatorship filled with power hungry monsters just itching to take your civil liberties away. Look at the number of nuts who have used the word treason to apply to President Obama. At least half of that caused by the president not being snow white in color.

115 Years (1, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#47214267)

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/06/eric-cantor-dave-brat-what-happened [motherjones.com]

I love it how the free-market economist won a primary and now the Republicans are freaking out. Showing their true colors - not the hype they spout to fool ordinary small-government Americans.

How is this "News for Nerds"? (0, Flamebait)

flargleblarg (685368) | about 4 months ago | (#47214291)

This is interesting news, but what is of interest to nerds about it that wouldn't be of interest to anyone?

Am I missing something here or is Slashdot being stupid about story selection again?

Hey Slashdot (0, Flamebait)

dgreer (1206) | about 4 months ago | (#47214331)

Please remove the "News for Nerds" tag line from your name. You're no better than Yahoo! or CNN at this point.

The one saving grace of this site has been that it stayed focused on tech and science and things that actually DID matter to nerds. Either the standard for "nerd" has dropped significantly in the almost 20 years I've been reading this site, or the new owners are hungry for stories and don't really give a crap about screwing with the formula that Rob used to make this place a success.

Sad.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?