The Cantor defeat: Inside the storm
The stunning defeat of House Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor in Tuesday's Virginia primary election is being ascribed to not necessarily a single issue but a number of things that came together to create the perfect political storm.
Mr. Cantor had been far ahead of his tea party-backed (but hardly heavily funded) challenger, David Brat. But in the only poll that counted, Mr. Brat, who had serious doubts about his ability to win, trounced Cantor, 56-44 percent.
There's no doubt that Cantor's wishy-washy position on immigration, particularly amnesty, upset his base. But there's also little doubt that his base saw Cantor's growing leadership role — he was the odds-on favorite to be the next speaker of the House — as an abandonment of the Old Dominion's 7th Congressional District. Additionally, a low turnout worked against a Cantor campaign that figured it had the race in the bag.
Veteran Virginia political watcher Tom Davis, a former GOP state representative, called it what it was — “a genuine grass-roots revolt.”
Now comes David Brat, a college economics professor who embraces constitutional and free-market principles. He'll face Randolph-Macon College colleague Jack Trammell, an associate professor of sociology, nominated by a Democrat committee after no candidates entered the race, who says his campaign is based on “community,” student loan reform and greater access to higher education.
The takeaway from Eric Cantor's defeat? All politics really is local and taking your constituents — and your re-election — for granted will lead to your profound political embarrassment.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Solyndra scandal: Government culpability
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Ford City facts: Blaming the messenger
- President Carbon: Hypocrisy’s trip
- Hogtying a terrorist: Heroes step up
- The Pa. pensions debate: Union hypocrisy
- Saturday essay: Cusps of change
- Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Greater Pittsburgh’s ‘brain gain’