My understanding is that the Dems had no one to vote for. Their nominee was already selected by committee because the could not find anyone to run. Virginia is an open primary state. Cantor lost by what, 11 points? You’re a Dem, you have an opportunity to vote directly against Cantor…
I am also surprised that Lindsay Graham survived so handily in South Carolina. If any Republican looked and sounded too moderate and too establishment for his home base, it was him. Maybe Graham has some political savvy that we underestimate outside of his state.
Yes. Unless they’ve changed since I moved across the river 16 years ago, when you register to vote in Virginia, you don’t indicate a party affiliation. So there’s not even a way to exclude Democrats from GOP primaries, or vice versa. As far as the Commonwealth is concerned, no matter what your past primary voting history is, you don’t have a party affiliation until the moment you choose which party’s primary ballot to vote with.
Well, the current Majority Whip is Kevin McCarthy of California. I wouldn’t be surprised if he runs for Speaker next Congress. And I don’t know if Cantor was heir apparent. Boehner would have done his best to keep Cantor from becoming Speaker. He might not have succeeded, but…
I’d bet on Paul Ryan to be Speaker, assuming he doesn’t plan to run for President. But really, it could be anybody. Maybe Darrell Issa.
This is like Appalachian State beating Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, and USC in consecutive weeks. This is like driving a car in the right lane right next to the guard rail and still getting passed on the right. You wonder, how in the hell was there any room to the right? Looks like Brat found some.
Immigration reform went from being toxic to being a plutonium-strychnine cocktail. Now Hispanics can choose between the party that extends a hand and the party that extends the middle digit. Hillary can send her tiara out for buffing, looks like her coronation is right on schedule.
Just when we thought the intra-party war in the GOP was over, the dust is less settled than we thought. When a sitting House leadership member can’t win his own primary, it’s clear the battle for the heart and soul of the GOP is far from over. This may be the only scalp that the Teanuts claim all year long, but what a scalp it is. I’m thinking that rather than hand the gavel over to Cantor, Boehner might be handing it right back to Nancy Pelosi.
Naw. It’ll be a woman. From California. The Bay area, to be exact.
Nah. Pretty much everybody thought Cantor had it in the bag, there was no Dem to vote for, as noted above. A lot of hassle, no likely gain. I’m guessing voter fraud. ACORN, most likely.
IMO it was no single big thing, but rather a whole bunch of different things adding together.
Still, Cantor looked too busy running for Speaker on a national ticket to notice what was going on in the district. May have neglected the base.
30% leads in internal polls and twentyfold advantages in funding have a way of making you complacent and neither replaces boots-on-the-ground election work. I’ve been in the room to see sure-win campaigns fail, and “Holy %$#@ I won?? No way! You sure???” upsets after such polling and spending.
The Cantor campaign spent more on steakthan Brat spent on his whole campaign:
I don’t think Ryan wants it, and Issa isn’t especially popular in his own party. Issa, in particular, is like a puppy with a chew toy with his conspiracy theories, and he can’t be taken seriously enough to get anything done.
If I had to place a bet, I’d go with Cathy McMorris Rodgers as the front-runner and Kevin McCarthy as the second-runner. Rodgers has enough conservative credibility without being a total wingnut, and she’s a woman in a party that desperately needs to reach out to women. McCarthy is a current member of the House leadership and a known quantity.
But Ryan or Issa? That’s a joke in search of a funny punchline.
Interesting. The R-MC website says:
OK, a Ph.D. in “Philosophy in Economics”, yet he thinks raising the debt ceiling is a bad idea. Do you suppose he could get a refund? Interesting educational path- From a B.A. to Divinity, from there to Economics.
Not surprised that he went to Hope, although it’s more of the West Michigan Gerry Ford type of conservative than the flaming batshit crazy conservative type of place.
It really would be disappointing to learn that Cantor lost because of ratfucking, not platform and accomplishment and persuasion. The voting system of a state really should not permit easy crossovers - why should Party A’s candidate be chosen by adherents of Party B?
That said, it could hardly have happened to a more deserving guy.
Remember that economics professors are not political science professors. His basic critique, that raising the debt ceiling increases spending, is true. What he perhaps doesn’t realize is that politically, refusing to raise the debt ceiling won’t result in reduced spending. It will result in default, because the politicians find that more acceptable than reducing spending.
I think the bondholders know very well that governments renege on their debts all the time and that the US is no exception. They just believe it won’t happen during the time they are holding the bonds. Which is true, if we’re going to default it will be sometime down the road. Unless the courts determine that default is unconstitutional, in which case we’ll have to reduce spending instead. Which would be the correct outcome. Full faith should be enforced by the courts if necessary.
Since it’s an election paid for by taxpayers, the public has the right to decide who the election will be conducted. If a party wants to choose their candidate with only partisan voters, then they can hold caucuses. Not that caucuses keep out members of other parties, but generally only the party faithful are motivated enough to go through the long process and overwhelm any interlopers.
Uh, no. Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending. It is a mathematical necessity whenever the budget runs a deficit. Absent a balanced budget, the ceiling MUST be raised at some point. I sincerely doubt that politicians would find a default more palatable than balancing the budget. Since we are unwilling to raise taxes to balance the budget, ceiling raises are inevitable.
Cite for that the US reneges on debts, please.
It is entirely possible for the US to stay under the debt ceiling and still pay bondholders. Democrats rejected a bill to require Treasury to prioritize bondholders.
I think it’s pretty clear that Democrats plan to default before cutting spending to the extent necessary to avoid default.
As for past examples of reneging on our debt, FDR’s devaluation of the currency. Which I guess Democrats could always resort to again.
It’s only been recently that a separation has been recognized. The study of what once was called “political economics”, before it became an exercise in abstract calculus, recognized that it was about how society works.
No. Increasing spending increases spending. Increasing the debt ceiling permits paying the debts you ran up by increasing spending. Refusing to do so is like refusing to pay your credit card bill, and calling that fiscally responsible. Pretty basic stuff.
The crazier of the GOP politicians, like the ones that shut down the government over it, find that acceptable, but only if they can blame the Democrats for it somehow. The adults do not.
Another factual invention. The US has come close to default a couple of times, due solely to the irresponsibility of House Republicans, but has never gone through with it. The prospect alone has been enough to drop our credit rating and increase our credit expenses, though. Whose fault is that?
Where do you get this shit? :rolleyes: Going past the debt ceiling means default that very day.
Immigration reform, f’rinstance?