The summary is Cantor lost because he became a shitty congressman and was overly focused on becoming speaker. His staff are assholes. His constituents wanted someone to represent them, not spend all day running the majority and making nice with lobbyists. Immigration was just a big issue his opposition picked to convince his constituents Cantor breaks promises and gives no damns what they want because K street is his real constituency.
I nominate origami as board interpreter/break it downer
The summary is Cantor lost because he became a shitty congressman and was overly focused on becoming speaker. His staff are assholes. His constituents wanted someone to represent them, not spend all day running the majority and making nice with lobbyists. Immigration was just a big issue his opposition picked to convince his constituents Cantor breaks promises and gives no damns what they want because K street is his real constituency.
I'm glad you posted this. H and I were discussing this over breakfast this morning (across the street from the restaurant where Boehner was photographed talking on his cell phone last night...if only I'd been there to overhear!), and he brought this up.
So I will maybe walk back a little bit of my gloom-and-doom. I can't say that I blame VA's 7th for wanting a congressman instead of a Speaker.
HOWEVER. I still maintain that this particular candidate, at least from the little we know, is indicative of the increasingly bad direction of politics. The Republicans didn't nominate someone promising to work with the other side in the name of better representation. This candidate CHOSE to focus on a hard stance on immigration. Someone else could have come forward and run. Yes, he managed to win in part because Cantor is a jerk, but he still ran on the idea that Cantor isn't conservative enough. That's where I see the problem. You want change from the toxic environment in Washington? Elect someone who at least pays lip service to the idea of working together to find solutions, not who runs on the platform of building a wall at the border.
Post by secretlyevil on Jun 11, 2014 7:48:24 GMT -5
The sentiment that Cantor isn't conservative enough is completely and utterly terrifying.
I'm not trying to be a pessimist but what does this mean moving forward? The more traction tea partiers get, are we going to have more dig in your heel pissing contests in DC that end up in government shut downs, etc? It's been said numerous times on this board that compromise gives us a pretty good final product.
Well I admit that I would argue that some Rs aren't conservative enough... on the right issues. But I am not optimistic that this new guy and I agree on those points. Who knows, though.
to me, the issue isn't being conservative enough or not. The issue is compromise. The big issue with the past few Congresses haven't just been that they move to the right (or the left), its that there is a willingness to SHUT DOWN the government rather than compromise. Yes government shutdowns have happened before, but it often hurt the political careers of those involved. And here, in 2013, it didnt really happen because of the budget or anything. That was a big factor, sure, but the big issue was Obamacare. Ted Cruz held a gun to the head of Congress and said "if you dont give me what I want, we'll shut it down." and he did. And rather than running him out of town on a rail, people applauded him.
there have always been conservative people in congress, and liberal people. But the system worked because there was a willingness to compromise - not on everything, and congress in the 60s wasnt some American political utopia, so I'm not saying that. But this complete stonewalling on every little issue is becoming a serious problem and its not just "same shit different day."
I'm just not sure there's a big practical difference between what we have now and "worse".
Here is a comprehensive list of the things Congress has accomplished in the past four-ish years:
Kinda sorta mostly keeping the federal govt running That's all
Maybe the voting public needs a bigger disaster to start voting for Congresspeople who can legislate? I'm not advocating for it, but somebody more conservative doesn't leave me shaking in my boots because it's not like Cantor was accomplishing things as a great compromiser.
I'm just not sure there's a big practical difference between what we have now and "worse".
Here is a comprehensive list of the things Congress has accomplished in the past four-ish years:
Kinda sorta mostly keeping the federal govt running That's all
Maybe the voting public needs a bigger disaster to start voting for Congresspeople who can legislate? I'm not advocating for it, but somebody more conservative doesn't leave me shaking in my boots because it's not like Cantor was accomplishing things as a great compromiser.
I'm just not sure there's a big practical difference between what we have now and "worse".
Here is a comprehensive list of the things Congress has accomplished in the past four-ish years:
Kinda sorta mostly keeping the federal govt running That's all
Maybe the voting public needs a bigger disaster to start voting for Congresspeople who can legislate? I'm not advocating for it, but somebody more conservative doesn't leave me shaking in my boots because it's not like Cantor was accomplishing things as a great compromiser.
No, but this is in part because the extreme freshmen were making it impossible.
I don't like Boehner, but I will admit the man has had a hell of a time as Speaker. A lot of why he's been unable to work with Obama is because he's got a caucus filled with tea partiers who will say the sky is green if Obama says it's blue.
I just don't buy this, "It needs to get worse before it gets better."
Americans are continually electing people who refuse to compromise, and this is bad for democracy. Full stop.
But the unwillingness to compromise is not new at this point either, and apparently people are dumb enough to think that's a good quality. When I say same shit, different person or slightly worse, that's what I'm referring to. To some degree, all of those people in Congress were willing to shut down the government for whatever reason. Plenty of long term reps were fine with it (mine were, because they are morons, and I will happily be voting against them most likely, possibly in the primary coming up). A big name losing to a TP candidate who says "they compromise too much, aren't conservative enough, etc.," is not new at all. It's happened the last few elections to at least one big name candidate, hasn't it?
I guess my position is that at this point, for some reason (or a variety of them), we're stuck in this cycle of compromise being a bad thing, and I don't think this particular election result is much different than any other we've seen in the past several years. Maybe it's straight up racism. Maybe it's just a consistent divide between the parties that keeps getting wider as people dig in their heels. I really have no idea, but when I say same shit, different day/different person, I'm referring to this. Because the reason these attitudes of no compromise gain traction is because the constituents support it. Do you think my long term rep had never compromised before? Of course he had. But he was all smiling and giving interviews, looking like Colonel Sanders, about a shutdown that directly and very negatively affected his district (Smoky Mountains shut down, national lab here, etc.).
And it's depressing because no matter what, the options are shit, and the people who vote are mostly stupid. So I find it hard to be too upset about any one election when they all have the same result of us being screwed.
I'm just not sure there's a big practical difference between what we have now and "worse".
Here is a comprehensive list of the things Congress has accomplished in the past four-ish years:
Kinda sorta mostly keeping the federal govt running That's all
Maybe the voting public needs a bigger disaster to start voting for Congresspeople who can legislate? I'm not advocating for it, but somebody more conservative doesn't leave me shaking in my boots because it's not like Cantor was accomplishing things as a great compromiser.
No, but this is in part because the extreme freshmen were making it impossible.
I don't like Boehner, but I will admit the man has had a hell of a time as Speaker. A lot of why he's been unable to work with Obama is because he's got a caucus filled with tea partiers who will say the sky is green if Obama says it's blue.
I just don't buy this, "It needs to get worse before it gets better."
Americans are continually electing people who refuse to compromise, and this is bad for democracy. Full stop.
I'm not saying it can't get worse. I just really hope it doesn't because it really sucks right now.
But the unwillingness to compromise is not new at this point either, and apparently people are dumb enough to think that's a good quality. When I say same shit, different person or slightly worse, that's what I'm referring to. To some degree, all of those people in Congress were willing to shut down the government for whatever reason. Plenty of long term reps were fine with it (mine were, because they are morons, and I will happily be voting against them most likely, possibly in the primary coming up). A big name losing to a TP candidate who says "they compromise too much, aren't conservative enough, etc.," is not new at all. It's happened the last few elections to at least one big name candidate, hasn't it?
I guess my position is that at this point, for some reason (or a variety of them), we're stuck in this cycle of compromise being a bad thing, and I don't think this particular election result is much different than any other we've seen in the past several years. Maybe it's straight up racism. Maybe it's just a consistent divide between the parties that keeps getting wider as people dig in their heels. I really have no idea, but when I say same shit, different day/different person, I'm referring to this. Because the reason these attitudes of no compromise gain traction is because the constituents support it. Do you think my long term rep had never compromised before? Of course he had. But he was all smiling and giving interviews, looking like Colonel Sanders, about a shutdown that directly and very negatively affected his district (Smoky Mountains shut down, national lab here, etc.).
And it's depressing because no matter what, the options are shit, and the people who vote are mostly stupid. So I find it hard to be too upset about any one election when they all have the same result of us being screwed.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM. That is what I've been saying.
So Cantor is bad. Cantor doesn't represent the district. Fine. Vote him out. But why not nominate a candidate interested in compromise? That's the point - that electing these extremists who have no interest in compromise is bad for democracy.
Post by Velar Fricative on Jun 11, 2014 8:46:39 GMT -5
Do we think Cantor will run as an Independent for the seat? Although that could seal the deal for a D winning even though a D probably doesn't have much of a chance even right now without Cantor in the picture.
The Tea Partiers are anti-government - they are the antithesis of compromise. Unfortunately in a Republican primary in some districts that is all that it takes to win. The GOP is going to have to defeat this extremism in their midst or they will have to become them (which, to some degree they have - see, Govt. shutdown and 50 plus votes to repeal Obamacare)
But the unwillingness to compromise is not new at this point either, and apparently people are dumb enough to think that's a good quality. When I say same shit, different person or slightly worse, that's what I'm referring to. To some degree, all of those people in Congress were willing to shut down the government for whatever reason. Plenty of long term reps were fine with it (mine were, because they are morons, and I will happily be voting against them most likely, possibly in the primary coming up). A big name losing to a TP candidate who says "they compromise too much, aren't conservative enough, etc.," is not new at all. It's happened the last few elections to at least one big name candidate, hasn't it?
I guess my position is that at this point, for some reason (or a variety of them), we're stuck in this cycle of compromise being a bad thing, and I don't think this particular election result is much different than any other we've seen in the past several years. Maybe it's straight up racism. Maybe it's just a consistent divide between the parties that keeps getting wider as people dig in their heels. I really have no idea, but when I say same shit, different day/different person, I'm referring to this. Because the reason these attitudes of no compromise gain traction is because the constituents support it. Do you think my long term rep had never compromised before? Of course he had. But he was all smiling and giving interviews, looking like Colonel Sanders, about a shutdown that directly and very negatively affected his district (Smoky Mountains shut down, national lab here, etc.).
And it's depressing because no matter what, the options are shit, and the people who vote are mostly stupid. So I find it hard to be too upset about any one election when they all have the same result of us being screwed.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM. That is what I've been saying.
So Cantor is bad. Cantor doesn't represent the district. Fine. Vote him out. But why not nominate a candidate interested in compromise? That's the point - that electing these extremists who have no interest in compromise is bad for democracy.
We had a special election a couple of months ago. One ran on the willingness to compromise, reach across the aisle to create solutions. The other did not. The other won and has done a lot of shady stuff since and the locals that voted for him are SHOCKED.
For some reason, the rhetoric that compromise is bad has stuck and continues to be a very bad word with constituents.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM. That is what I've been saying.
So Cantor is bad. Cantor doesn't represent the district. Fine. Vote him out. But why not nominate a candidate interested in compromise? That's the point - that electing these extremists who have no interest in compromise is bad for democracy.
We had a special election a couple of months ago. One ran on the willingness to compromise, reach across the aisle to create solutions. The other did not. The other won and has done a lot of shady stuff since and the locals that voted for him are SHOCKED.
For some reason, the rhetoric that compromise is bad has stuck and continues to be a very bad word with constituents.
Charlie Pierce on this
It wasn't just the fact that Cantor flirted with immigration reform. Brat also hit him for voting to raise the debt ceiling -- Brat has promised to vote against raising the debt ceiling for the first five years he's in Congress -- and for voting for the Ryan-Murray budget plan, and for voting to end the government shutdown. In other words, Dave Brat was elected because he ran against the very few things that Eric Cantor did that remotely helped the government simply to function. Apparently, Brat would have the country default on its debts, go without a budget, and have the government still shut down until the president is willing to torpedo his signature policy success, If you lived in the Seventh Congressional District of the Commonwealth of Virginia, those are the policy choices your fellow citizens would have endorsed last night. Any pundits who ever again criticize the president for not "compromising" with a party that thinks this way -- and is proud that it does -- deserve to have their keys to the Green Room icebox confiscated.
Do we think Cantor will run as an Independent for the seat? Although that could seal the deal for a D winning even though a D probably doesn't have much of a chance even right now without Cantor in the picture.
according to FB he can't run as an I. VA has a sore loser law to prevent this
We had a special election a couple of months ago. One ran on the willingness to compromise, reach across the aisle to create solutions. The other did not. The other won and has done a lot of shady stuff since and the locals that voted for him are SHOCKED.
For some reason, the rhetoric that compromise is bad has stuck and continues to be a very bad word with constituents.
Charlie Pierce on this
It wasn't just the fact that Cantor flirted with immigration reform. Brat also hit him for voting to raise the debt ceiling -- Brat has promised to vote against raising the debt ceiling for the first five years he's in Congress -- and for voting for the Ryan-Murray budget plan, and for voting to end the government shutdown. In other words, Dave Brat was elected because he ran against the very few things that Eric Cantor did that remotely helped the government simply to function. Apparently, Brat would have the country default on its debts, go without a budget, and have the government still shut down until the president is willing to torpedo his signature policy success, If you lived in the Seventh Congressional District of the Commonwealth of Virginia, those are the policy choices your fellow citizens would have endorsed last night. Any pundits who ever again criticize the president for not "compromising" with a party that thinks this way -- and is proud that it does -- deserve to have their keys to the Green Room icebox confiscated.
I think that's obviously the Dems hope. And I certainly would prefer that to a tea partier.
But I still think it's a bad sign that willingness to work with anyone gets you tossed for not being tough enough. The motherfucking government shut down. That should be tough enough!
Also, one thing that sucks for Virginia's 7th is that no matter what happens, they're going from being represented by someone with lots of seniority and connections to a nobody freshman. See how much gets done for you now.
I don't think the average American voter knows the importance of this.
Do we think Cantor will run as an Independent for the seat? Although that could seal the deal for a D winning even though a D probably doesn't have much of a chance even right now without Cantor in the picture.
according to FB he can't run as an I. VA has a sore loser law to prevent this
He can run a write-in campaign, but I doubt that would be successful.
We had a special election a couple of months ago. One ran on the willingness to compromise, reach across the aisle to create solutions. The other did not. The other won and has done a lot of shady stuff since and the locals that voted for him are SHOCKED.
For some reason, the rhetoric that compromise is bad has stuck and continues to be a very bad word with constituents.
Charlie Pierce on this
It wasn't just the fact that Cantor flirted with immigration reform. Brat also hit him for voting to raise the debt ceiling -- Brat has promised to vote against raising the debt ceiling for the first five years he's in Congress -- and for voting for the Ryan-Murray budget plan, and for voting to end the government shutdown. In other words, Dave Brat was elected because he ran against the very few things that Eric Cantor did that remotely helped the government simply to function. Apparently, Brat would have the country default on its debts, go without a budget, and have the government still shut down until the president is willing to torpedo his signature policy success, If you lived in the Seventh Congressional District of the Commonwealth of Virginia, those are the policy choices your fellow citizens would have endorsed last night. Any pundits who ever again criticize the president for not "compromising" with a party that thinks this way -- and is proud that it does -- deserve to have their keys to the Green Room icebox confiscated.
Basically, Cantor is representative of the "establishment," and the Tea Party likes new and untested people. When you represent all of the leadership in congress, you end up being villified for everyone's grievances against the party, period. So while Cantor has a very conservative voting record, anything that "the Republicans" as a whole have done gets set on his shoulders. So if you have had a problem with Reps over the past 2 years? Just vote for someone you know very little about because hey, it's the devil you DON'T know! Wheee!
It wasn't just the fact that Cantor flirted with immigration reform. Brat also hit him for voting to raise the debt ceiling -- Brat has promised to vote against raising the debt ceiling for the first five years he's in Congress -- and for voting for the Ryan-Murray budget plan, and for voting to end the government shutdown. In other words, Dave Brat was elected because he ran against the very few things that Eric Cantor did that remotely helped the government simply to function. Apparently, Brat would have the country default on its debts, go without a budget, and have the government still shut down until the president is willing to torpedo his signature policy success, If you lived in the Seventh Congressional District of the Commonwealth of Virginia, those are the policy choices your fellow citizens would have endorsed last night. Any pundits who ever again criticize the president for not "compromising" with a party that thinks this way -- and is proud that it does -- deserve to have their keys to the Green Room icebox confiscated.
First five years in office?
that's the first thing i thought when i read this. either he thinks he's running for the senate or he's wildly optimistic.
Post by cookiemdough on Jun 11, 2014 9:11:14 GMT -5
I think origami's description is pretty spot on. In general I think it echoes a sentiment that spans the constituents in both political parties and that is a feeling that those in congress are putting their needs and professional ambitions before the responsibilities of job they were sent to do...representing the voice of the people.
Post by secretlyevil on Jun 11, 2014 9:11:30 GMT -5
In theory...an economics professor wouldn't be a bad background for congress. It would be advantageous for buget, etc. In theory of course. This one's all wrapped up in tea party nonsense so not so good.
It wasn't just the fact that Cantor flirted with immigration reform. Brat also hit him for voting to raise the debt ceiling -- Brat has promised to vote against raising the debt ceiling for the first five years he's in Congress -- and for voting for the Ryan-Murray budget plan, and for voting to end the government shutdown. In other words, Dave Brat was elected because he ran against the very few things that Eric Cantor did that remotely helped the government simply to function. Apparently, Brat would have the country default on its debts, go without a budget, and have the government still shut down until the president is willing to torpedo his signature policy success, If you lived in the Seventh Congressional District of the Commonwealth of Virginia, those are the policy choices your fellow citizens would have endorsed last night. Any pundits who ever again criticize the president for not "compromising" with a party that thinks this way -- and is proud that it does -- deserve to have their keys to the Green Room icebox confiscated.
First five years in office?
I'm concerned he might be confused about his term length and what office he ran for...lol.
And AH, I think we agree but I am less angry and more defeated. I feel like we've been shown this attitude in previous elections and it's frustrating and ignorant but it doesn't seem like people's minds are changing. I don't really see Cantor as some major difference or moment.
I also don't think all the fault lies with people. Certainly plenty are idiots but it's easy to think it doesn't matter too when no one aligns with your beliefs and all of them care most about reelection.
I personally think the solution is publicly funded elections where everyone who qualifies to run and meets the requirements gets $x amount of money and that is it. I think that's the only way we will see real change and quality candidates. And the only way we will get actual focus on issues vs talking points and marketing of a candidate.
I'm concerned he might be confused about his term length and what office he ran for...lol.
And AH, I think we agree but I am less angry and more defeated. I feel like we've been shown this attitude in previous elections and it's frustrating and ignorant but it doesn't seem like people's minds are changing. I don't really see Cantor as some major difference or moment.
I also don't think all the fault lies with people. Certainly plenty are idiots but it's easy to think it doesn't matter too when no one aligns with your beliefs and all of them care most about reelection.
I personally think the solution is publicly funded elections where everyone who qualifies to run and meets the requirements gets $x amount of money and that is it. I think that's the only way we will see real change and quality candidates. And the only way we will get actual focus on issues vs talking points and marketing of a candidate.
Sure it does. People voted for a guy who said he would rather shut down the government than raise the debt ceiling. You know what? Those people are fucking our democracy.
ETA: publicly funded elections wouldn't make a difference in this case, as Cantor outspent Brat by crazy margins and still lost. Because people have lost their goddamned minds in this country, and at this point, I'm starting to think they deserve a government that doesn't work.