# Down Goes Eric Cantor **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 11, 2014, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516 "2014-06-11T00:05:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/401 "2014-06-18T07:01:36Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > So your issue isn’t who has 1st amendment rights. You just don’t think political speech is protected if you paid a lot of money for it(such as buying a printing press, something the founders obviously never envisioned.). Oh, they definitely envisioned it. They wanted the press to anoint candidates. They were trying to make sure their rags could advocate for their chosen agents. But that doesn’t make them _right._ If the press is just another part of a corrupt racket, it needs to be judged as such, not “defended” as if it were somehow trustworthy by virtue of the “sacred” First Amendment. > [@adaher](#): > > I like jungle primaries. It means you can’t possibly “waste” your vote. You vote for who you like, and if that person doesn’t win, then you move on to the lesser of two evils in December. > > [snip] > > You also wouldn’t have had a problem in 2000. The Nader voters wouldn’t have had to hold their noses and he could get his 5% or whatever, then in December everyone gets down to choosing between Bush and Gore. Without Nader to muck things up, that race probably goes to Gore in Florida. Yeah, I guess I agree with you here. IRV might’ve helped too. > [@adaher](#): > > We’ve discussed this before. While it won’t be a problem for YOUR brand of progressivism, the progressivism popular with the wealthy white liberal class, otherwise known as “limousine liberals”, where environmentalism, gay rights, etc. are the preeminent issues, is going to be supplanted in the Democratic Party of the future. The Democratic Party in 2050 will be economically populist, very Catholic, and Latino-dominated. I’m not sure the anti-gay rights backlash I used to anticipate is coming. I think economic issues are going to be more important, because they are more important intrinsically. But the really environmental issues are economic issues as well. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/402 "2014-06-18T07:04:51Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Yes, I gathered that from the comments up-thread. > > Depriving someone of the right to be on the ballot because they did not get a party’s nomination strikes me as bizarre. It means that the parties control ballot access. > > That’s what I mean by saying that the parties are strongly entrenched in the electoral process in the US, unlike in Canada. > > When you add up all the different ways they are entrenched (and I appreciate there can be considerable variation from state to state), it helps explain why the two parties have a dupoly in US electoral politics. It’s not just First-past-the-post, which is what started me on this discussion. I see things differently. Third parties and independent candidates are common in the US: successful ones are very rare. Cantor can run in November if he receives sufficient signatures: he just can’t run under the Republican brand. He chose not to run because he is a conservative apparatchik, and his opportunities outside of the House are greater as a loyalist. The most successful recent third party has been the Reform Party, the banner Perot ran under in 1992; Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota with them. But they were more a vehicle for outsized personalities than anything else. Senator Lieberman formed a one man party named [Connecticut for Liberman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_for_Lieberman) after he lost the 2006 Democratic Primary. Amusingly, that party was later taken over by his political opponents. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/403 "2014-06-18T13:05:21Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I see things differently. Third parties and independent candidates are common in the US: successful ones are very rare. That’s what I’m talking about, though: successful third parties. They are common in Canada, to the point of supplanting another party and having a realistic shot at forming government. FPTP doesn’t stop that in our system. [Quote=Measure for Measure] Cantor can run in November if he receives sufficient signatures: he just can’t run under the Republican brand. [/Quote] not if the quotes up-thread about Virginia’s “sore loser” law are accurate. Other posters are saying that Virginia law bars him from being on the ballot, because he tried for a party nomination and failed. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/404 "2014-06-18T13:17:58Z")
Cantor could run as a write-in candidate, any eligible person can, and party affiliation doesn’t enter into it. But he can’t have his name preprinted on the ballot; only the major parties’ nominees can. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/405 "2014-06-18T13:37:22Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > First environmentalism has to gain relevance among anyone but the rich liberal donors. Then it can lose it. The issue has little significance to working class Americans: > > [http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/climate-change-key-data-points-from-pew-research/](http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/climate-change-key-data-points-from-pew-research/) > > [Polling Matters | Gallup Topic](http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2014/03/why-are-americans-not-more-worried.html) > > As the Democratic base grows more and more working class, it’s going to start looking more and more like the Democratic Party of the Roosevelt-LBJ era. It’s base will be provincial, economically populist, and uninterested in issues that the limousine liberals regard as of vital importance. > > On the bright side, it may also end up as dominant as the Democratic Party of the 1930s-1960s. But progressives will find as they did then that the Democrats aren’t much better a home than the Republican Party. Progressives being dominantly Democratic is a pretty recent development, and one that will be short lived. Once the Democratic base stops being interested in them, they’ll do what they did then, be a loud minority within both major parties. > > If Democrats get their wish to go to public financing, this trend will be accelerated because the only reason environmentalism is even on the radar of Democratic politicians is the rich donors. Except that, even in politically benighted places like Georgia,[Democratic progressives are uniting with Tea Partiers](http://www.republicreport.org/2012/in-georgia-tea-party-and-progressives-go-on-bus-tour-to-fight-lobbyists/) to get money out of politics at the state level. If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere … and everywhere. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/406 "2014-06-18T14:33:24Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > I think he is correct here. The environment is, of course, extraordinarily significant, but given the levels of education and scientific literacy among the general population plus what polls reveal, people don’t care about it (belief) even as it affects them strongly (science). And beliefs carry the vote. > > We’ve seen this demonstrated time and time again on a local and regional scale. People will happily toss the environment, and their long-term futures, under the bus for a little short-term job security. Sadly, I don’t see any evidence that this is changing. Eventually there will be things that can’t be ignored. E.g., right now Texas has been in drought for years and there’s no sign of an end, there’s extreme weather all over the place, etc., etc. When it reaches a certain point, public opinion will flip so hard that the torches and pitchforks will come out. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/407 "2014-06-18T14:34:41Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I’m not sure the anti-gay rights backlash I used to anticipate is coming. It ain’t coming. At this point, we can be reasonably confident it will never come. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/408 "2014-06-18T14:37:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Eventually there will be things that can’t be ignored. E.g., right now Texas has been in drought for years and there’s no sign of an end, there’s extreme weather all over the place, etc., etc. When it reaches a certain point, public opinion will flip so hard that the torches and pitchforks will come out. I agree, but “eventually” does very little good if the beliefs currently dominant are actively counterproductive. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/409 "2014-06-18T15:23:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Eventually there will be things that can’t be ignored. E.g., right now Texas has been in drought for years and there’s no sign of an end, there’s extreme weather all over the place, etc., etc. When it reaches a certain point, public opinion will flip so hard that the torches and pitchforks will come out. If the doomsayers are right, and the general public is seeing the problem the same way they are seeing it, then yes, things will change very fast. But as long as it’s just something people read about in the news, it’s not going to resonate. The sense of purpose people get from Newsweek is nothing compared to the sense of purpose people get from the issues their family and friends experience personally. So until coasts have to be evacuated, I just don’t see the average voter prioritizing climate change. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/410 "2014-06-18T15:27:30Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If the doomsayers are right, and the general public is seeing the problem the same way they are seeing it, then yes, things will change very fast. > > But as long as it’s just something people read about in the news, it’s not going to resonate. The sense of purpose people get from Newsweek is nothing compared to the sense of purpose people get from the issues their family and friends experience personally. So until coasts have to be evacuated, I just don’t see the average voter prioritizing climate change. It will happen MUCH sooner than that. You forget who owns all those buildings you see crowding every beach on the East and West Gulf coasts of America. (Hint: it ain’t poor people.) When rising sea levels cause massive beach erosion and wealthy landowners watch their beach properties lose all their value, our politicians are gonna get on board! The message WILL be heard! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/411 "2014-06-18T15:34:10Z")
But when does that happen? Does the IPCC have any predictions on when beachfront property is no longer liveable, and how much the temperature has to rise globally for it to happen? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/412 "2014-06-18T16:06:39Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > But when does that happen? Does the IPCC have any predictions on when beachfront property is no longer liveable, and how much the temperature has to rise globally for it to happen? They do have some estimates of [future sea level rise.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_sea_level) > [@](#): > > The rate of global mean sea-level rise (~3 mm/yr; SLR) has accelerated compared to the mean of the 20th century (~1 to 2 mm/yr), but the rate of rise is locally variable. Factors contributing to SLR include decreased global ice volume and warming of the ocean. On Greenland, the deficiency between annual ice gained and lost tripled between 1996 and 2007. On Antarctica the deficiency increased by 75%. Mountain glaciers are retreating and the cumulative mean thickness change has accelerated from about −1.8 to −4 m in 1965 to 1970 to about −12 to −14 m in the first decade of the 21st century. From 1961 to 2003, ocean temperatures to a depth of 700 m increased and portions of the deeper ocean are warming. > > The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007)[1] projected sea level would reach 0.18 to 0.59 m above present by the end of the 21st century but lacked an estimate of ice flow dynamics calving. Calving was added by Pfeffer et al. (2008)[2] indicating 0.8 to 2 m of SLR by 2100 (favouring the low end of this range). Rahmstorf (2007)[3] estimated SLR will reach 0.5 to 1.4 m by the end of the century. Pielke (2008)[4] points out that observed SLR has exceeded the best case projections thus far. These approximations and others indicate that global mean SLR may reach 1 m by the end of this century. However, sea level is highly variable and planners considering local impacts must take this variability into account. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/413 "2014-06-18T16:46:25Z")
\*\* projected sea level would reach 0.18 to 0.59 m above present by the end of the 21st century\*\* Is that enough to inundate a lot of current beach property? And when between now and 2100 would that start happening? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/414 "2014-06-18T16:52:11Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > \*\* projected sea level would reach 0.18 to 0.59 m above present by the end of the 21st century\*\* > > Is that enough to inundate a lot of current beach property? Fuck yeah. That’s a baseline calm-water level. Storm surges would go higher and much further inland, the biggest problem. > [@](#): > > And when between now and 2100 would that start happening? Over time, of course. What, do you think it will suddenly jump that much on a particular date? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/415 "2014-06-18T16:54:07Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If the doomsayers are right, and the general public is seeing the problem the same way they are seeing it, then yes, things will change very fast. \*Attitudes \*will change, but it will be too late to do anything. It’s almost too late already. > [@](#): > > But as long as it’s just something people read about in the news, it’s not going to resonate. With the denialists, no. With the general public, yes, it already is. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/416 "2014-06-18T16:54:56Z")
I’m trying to find out when it starts to destroy beachfront property. And I’m not talking about storm surges. I’m talking about the seas claiming beachfront property during normal weather. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/417 "2014-06-18T16:56:06Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > With the denialists, no. With the general public, yes, it already is. It is and it isn’t. Ask an average person if climate change is important, they’ll say yes. Ask them to rank climate change with a bunch of other issues and it’s nearly always close to last. Since climate change competes with issues like economic growth and jobs, if those are a higher priority climate change won’t be addressed. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/418 "2014-06-18T17:01:21Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Cantor could run as a write-in candidate, any eligible person can, and party affiliation doesn’t enter into it. But he can’t have his name preprinted on the ballot; only the major parties’ nominees can. So there’s no possibility of an independent candidate on the ballot in Virginia? The only way to get on the ballot is by nomination from a major party? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/419 "2014-06-18T17:09:45Z")
There is nothing in law barring someone otherwise eligible for the office from trying a write-in campaign, no. They sometimes, though rarely, even succeed. There are no \*plausible \*write-in candidacies for that office this year, though, unless Cantor changes his mind. Yes, the only way to get your name \*pre-printed \*on the ballot is via party nomination. That’s what all this legal and electoral foofaraw is about - getting your name pre-printed. That’s it. Party nomination is the only way to get party funding and organizational support too, obviously. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516/420 "2014-06-18T17:11:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’m trying to find out when it starts to destroy beachfront property. It’s already happening. > [@](#): > > And I’m not talking about storm surges. I’m talking about the seas claiming beachfront property during normal weather. News flash: Storms \*are \*normal. And even today, that’s when most damage occurs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-goes-eric-cantor/690516.md?page=22)