Eric Cantor out spent his primary challenger 26 to 1 and lost. Does this signify money becoming less influential in politics?
Focus on principles & solutions. Speak facts, not promises. "$s don't vote. Ppl do." Energize constituents.
It was a fluke & a convergence of factors. But results *could* be replicated if PPL turned out to campaign/vote. Loved Brat's comment: $ don't vote; ppl do. It really could be that simple.
He spent almost no time in his district campaigning. I hate Brat's politics but I think he is better suited to that district than Cantor.
It signifies why the TEA Party is still strong and gaining. We know how to solve problems without throwing money at them, hand-over-fist.
Brat didn't run as TEA party candidate. He ran on pure old fashioned historical Republican platform. It demonstrates that too many Republicans have no idea what the term means anymore. If they did, there would BE no TEA Party.
I heard one of many mistakes Cantor made was his campaign ads focused on smearing Brat, which put Brat's name before many voters who had not been aware they had a choice.
No, he just got smug. Oh and it was more like 50 to 1
One case does not indicate a trend.
No, just an example that no amount of money is enough to polish a shine on some turds.
only if the opponent appeals to the population and points out crony capitalism.
Cantor lost because he was unpopular in his district and was never around. Brat ran a campaign about how he was the exact opposite of Cantor, even if it was a one issue campaign, combined with the low turnout, around 5 percent, Cantor had no shot
Thankfully there are now many other vehicles available to communicate with the public. Money is still a factor. However, it has become less so, at least until the govt becomes involved in regulating that which has been and is now free.
No. It means if you piss off your constituents enough, you can't buy their votes.
No. More importantly, the only campaigning he did in his district was 1 memorial day parade. No town halls. No local events. No public outreach.
Not at all. It proves that Cantor wasn't crazy enough for his base. Which is a scary thought. At least the guy that beat him is in to economics, let's Hope that has something to do with it.
Not really, he wants to cut social security and Medicare, do away with the IRS, and was not able to answer simple questions such as did he support the minimum wage, etc.
He is just a crazy Tea Party person who played to the crazies in the electorate.
Well that's just great.
Social security are two of the largest expenditures in the budget. Cutting them significantly would do a lot for balancing the budget.
The IRS is a corrupt, political weapon. It needs to be abolished and replaced by a simple, fair, flat tax.
How old are you again pink? I just would like to know for the basis of this conversation.
He was & is NOT a TEA Party politician. He ran on historical REPUBLICAN platform & principles.
Not quite but I hope so.
I think it's an example that all the money in the world means nothing when spent wrong.
Unfortunately no, the problem with Cantor is that he was running his campaign from Washington and was lulled into a false sense of security by awful polling.
No. It indicates how upset folks are at the incumbents.
It is a single example, there have always been exceptions to the rules. This doesn't change the 100's of elections in which money but the election.
I don't believe it's possible for money to buy an election. Only voters can vote. When they pull the curtain it's their own thinking that matters. This anecdotal case proves that money can get a message out, but it isn't alone in the equation.
To say that money buys elections is to posit that voters can't think or exercise their own will.
Wait!! You might be on to something.
The vote doesn't matter when the same donors donate to both campaigns leading to the donor having their claws into both candidates. While Brat only received $200,000 that's still someone's money who will probably influence him in a similar way to
Cantor. So it isn't that voters are stupid that's the issue, the issue is that there's no way to "win" as a voter.
No doubt that money is an influence, but it's just one influence and it's mostly transparent these days. We know how much is spent by who in most cases and where it came from. This exception disproves the rule that you're proposing.
I think the difference here was that voters knew Cantor personally, and were not satisfied with the job he's been doing. In national elections, money buys advertising to convince voters your opponent is something they're not.
It signifies that money doesn't buy elections. It gets a message out, but the voters can still reject it.
You can't call a broad national trend on one election.
Time will tell. Entirely possible that is accurate, but I won't agree until last vote counted in November. :-)
Every caller on local radio today said they voted against him because he is arrogant and unresponsive. He doesn't even return his constituents calls or emails.
Local elections are about people, not money.
It didn't help that he spent Election Day in DC. lol
He was counting his chickens before they hatched.
He was focused on inheriting the speakership from Boner.
He still can. The speaker doesn't have to be a member of the house.
In primaries like this anyone can vote, it would be interesting to see how many democrats turned out. As hateful and dishonest as this party has become it might surprise all of us. I know republicans blah, blah, blah I agree!
It shows that people are tired of treaty illegal entry like its a right
They were encouraged by uncle Reagan's amnesty bill.
Then Bush didn't learn from Reagan's mistake.
I hope you're happy with the House of Representatives because you'll never win the White House if you're not willing to negotiate immigration
Like Republicans will be able to beat Hillary anyways.
I think it has to do with his views more than anything.
I am just surprised voters actually looked at where each candidate stands on issues.
They looked on immigration. Thats the only difference.
Also, the debt ceiling.
I agree with you political.
That's good for a change! :)
@political, I do think people tend to keep voting in the same incumbents without paying attention to their voting record because they think their tenure will benefit their state. I hope thats ending now. yes political we do agree on some things :-)
Eric Cantor is a Wall Street darling, and he has always appeared out of touch not to say any politician can relate to the everyday person too well.
Like our Senator, Thad Cochran. Looks to me he might lose in the next primary coming up in couple of weeks to a tea party candidate. We'll see.
I thought Cochran was from Texas. Silly me
I hope this signals less big money. It was all wasted money. I hope all the incumbents get voted out. Congress needs to be shook up so they don't take their positions for granted like Cantor did.
In 2010 Georgia's Governor Race, Nathan Deal spent the least amount of money, and he won. So, maybe there is hope.
How in the world did Dave Brat pull this off? He only had two staffers and 200,000 dollars. Somehow, he beat Cantor by 10%. I am impressed.
The really into it voters show up to primaries.