House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia loses to anti-corporatist Dave Brat!

[Aawulf]

I think he honestly thinks Cantor would've won in spite of his approval rating if not for open primaries. Thing is, the far right that typically effect primaries didn't like him either. Not when you have an approval/disapproval of 30/60 from a poll that was only 20% democrats in his district the day of voting.

Where are you getting that Democrats are only 20% of Virginia's 7th Congressional?

According to the Board of Elections, their voting turn out is consistently over 40% of the total. So I guess it wouldn't matter if they are only 20% because they vote enough to represent at least twice as many.
2012
President Romney 57 - 42%^[2][/TD]
Senator Allen 55 - 45%^[3][/TD]
Representative
[TD="align: right"]Cantor 58 - 41%^[4[/TD]

I don't see your explanation for those self-described Democrats who have said they did vote for Brat or the 30% increase in turnout for an unknown. I do "honestly think" I would recognize that someone living in a Congressional District is more of an authority on that district than I am.

[Admiral Piett]

I find that analysis difficult to understand - what do think the democrats have done to limit themselves to only one more win?

Not the party I mean, just the administration that has damaged the image of the party and the appeal to the less progressive. The only long-term mistake the party has done is not publicly call out the administration on its disregard for all others around it, despite their loyalty. They fear if they turn on the administration publicly that it will hurt their numbers in the Senate election. It will be interesting once 2016 comes around to see if they finally let out the rebuke he deserves. Heck, I voted for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 only to find myself largely agreeing with the Tea Party's arguments despite me being largely against the vast majority of their ideas.

With the one exception of Hillary, I don't think the Democrats are united anymore than the GOP is atm. It's just easier to paint the image of stability when in power as Bush did all the way until the 2008 election.

[Aawulf]

I was. The difference between me and you is I use numbers to explain why the initial reaction of the press's first two days of obession about immigration is wrong. As well as why Cantor was beaten by his own party, not appealing to people voting in an open primary, for which Virginia has had for DECADES. You? You're ranting off the cuff.

Your choosing to not see the numbers are your issue, not mine. Your wanting to fight over something so stupid is also your issue, not mine. I am entitled to my opinion and this is a discussion board for all views, not just your own and those who agree with you. The intolerance demonstrated in the posts for observations that do not fit your world view is a bit scary though and may warrant professional attention.

[Gaidin]

Where are you getting that Democrats are only 20% of Virginia's 7th Congressional?

Good lord you don't pay attention to anything I actually write. When a poll is only 20% democra, 50% republican, and 30% independant/noanswer on the day of/before the primary, I get to cite it as a fair bit at republican opinion compared to when it's equivalently republican and democrat for the poll. I said nothing about Virginia 7 being 20% democrat. Do you even read what I actually say or do you just strawman everything into what you want it to be?

[Aawulf]

Good lord you don't pay attention to anything I actually write. When a poll is only 20% democra, 50% republican, and 30% independant/noanswer on the day of/before the primary, I get to cite it as a fair bit at republican opinion compared to when it's equivalently republican and democrat for the poll. I said nothing about Virginia 7 being 20% democrat. Do you even read what I actually say or do you just strawman everything into what you want it to be?

What I saw was:
"...from a poll that was only 20% democrats in his district the day of voting."
And I was supposed to extrapolate that you "said nothing about Virginia 7 being 20% democrat"? Not that it really matters, but you are accusing me of not reading what you are writing and the evidence is showing that you aren't clear on what you have written.

But again, the issue is about why Brat was able to defeat Cantor despite most predictions favoring Cantor by a significant margin even on the morning of the election.

[Aawulf]

Not the party I mean, just the administration that has damaged the image of the party and the appeal to the less progressive. The only long-term mistake the party has done is not publicly call out the administration on its disregard for all others around it, despite their loyalty. They fear if they turn on the administration publicly that it will hurt their numbers in the Senate election. It will be interesting once 2016 comes around to see if they finally let out the rebuke he deserves. Heck, I voted for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 only to find myself largely agreeing with the Tea Party's arguments despite me being largely against the vast majority of their ideas.

With the one exception of Hillary, I don't think the Democrats are united anymore than the GOP is atm. It's just easier to paint the image of stability when in power as Bush did all the way until the 2008 election.

The party loyalists don't have the integrity to see that the administration has done anything wrong. Your argument will make no sense to someone who doesn't believe that the administration has lied on so many fronts and been caught time and time again in those lies and in trying to cover up failures and misdeeds. To them, it's all Bush's fault. A picture of Obama in the planning for 911 meeting with Bin Laden could be discovered, authenticated and still Obama would enjoy a 26% approval rating.

[SorelusImperion]

A picture of Obama in the planning for 911 meeting with Bin Laden could be discovered, authenticated and still Obama would enjoy a 26% approval rating.

Maybe but if we exchange Obama for a Republican candidate of your chosing lets call him "Reagan" he would get a majority and be nominated for "best president ever".

[Aawulf]

Maybe but if we exchange Obama for a Republican candidate of your chosing lets call him "Reagan" he would get a majority and be nominated for "best president ever".

As I recall, a completely independent prosecutor investigated Iran-Contra to it's six year conclusion and with cooperation by the administration and the Bush administration that followed . In fact. it was the administration that discovered North's memorandum revealing the entirety of the program. Nothing illegal nor any wrongdoing was ever found with respect to Reagan AFTER 6 YEARS of INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION that the administration fully cooperated with. Even Clinton supporters and lifelong opponents to Reagan called Walsh's investigation, overturned convictions and charges one week before a presidential election that were ultimately dismissed an outrageous abuse of power. You obviously must be referring to something else, so what is it?

Wouldn't it be great if Obama was secure enough in his innocence to have Holder ask the courts for an independent prosecutor for Fast & Furious, IRS targeting administration's political enemies, the coverups relating to failures resulting in the Benghazi disaster, Holder misleading the courts to get a warrant for a member of the press, the administration's willful disobedience of the laws of the land as they choose, etc.? But we know now that Obama will first make sure all paper trails are destroyed and witnesses ordered to silence rather than allow an independent investigation to take place. There is no comparing Obama to Reagan. Reagan loved America and valued our Constitution. Obama loves what he wants "to fundamentally transform America" into and sees the Constitution as an obstacle to what he thinks is justice.

Article from June 1991

[Wholly_Rufus]

They're reactionaries, which works on the short term, but demographic changes will overwhelm them in the long term.

Not necessarily, it will just make them even more radical, possibly even downright militant.

[Condottiere 40K]

Which will alienate the independents.

[Aawulf]

It is interesting considering the ridiculousness of corporate backing in US elections, I do wonder, however, does this Bratt guy, and other tea party people really wish for the virtual deconstruction of the federal government? Or is it only some things but they are fine with the military budget for example?

Don't know how I missed this. Where have you seen or heard that either Brat or those who partook in the tea parties wish for a virtual deconstruction of the federal government? From what I have heard, they both sound very much like our founding fathers. The better question is when did the views of our Founders and the Constitution become "extreme far right"? I think I am okay being in the company of those such as Madison, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Payne, Washington and the like. On the other side of the fence are folks like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Marx, Lenin and other leftists who have proven with distinction that ultimately their social agendas are enforced by brutal authoritarianism. We just want our government to be limited as it was supposed to be, like the Constitution says it should be.

[Aawulf]

Which will alienate the independents.

The Democrats have already alienated the Independents, so they continue to grow as a voting consideration without anyone to vote for? "More radical" and "downright militant" are descriptions of the Democrats now. It is funny how each side sees the other as obtuse buffoons, yet dangerous. Truthfully, it is only a matter of time before enough people feel they no longer have more to risk than gain by rising up against this lawless administration. Massive long term unemployment, incompetence, lies and scandals do not mix well.

[Condottiere 40K]

Going by human nature, incompetence and corruption are divided equally, as politics are seen as as a route to money and power, especially if you aren't averse to wear any particular coat at any particular time.

However, Republicans tend to be seen as aloof and uncaring, unless they take the populist mantle like Schwarzenegger and Christie.

[Gaidin]

The Democrats have already alienated the Independents, so they continue to grow as a voting consideration without anyone to vote for? "More radical" and "downright militant" are descriptions of the Democrats now. It is funny how each side sees the other as obtuse buffoons, yet dangerous. Truthfully, it is only a matter of time before enough people feel they no longer have more to risk than gain by rising up against this lawless administration. Massive long term unemployment, incompetence, lies and scandals do not mix well.

Wait, having a more central policy is radical and militant? Hokay. Wow. Not sure what planet you live on. In the real world while that may make certain districts slightly harder for any single representative, you're gonna have a hard time selling hat has making the party more 'radical' and 'militant' to 'independants'. Whatever the those words even mean to you. I now question that on its own. Are you holding the rest of the country to Virginia 7 standards? Are you forgetting the Democrats are a national party?

[conon394]

Massive long term unemployment, incompetence, lies and scandals do not mix well.

Worked for Uncle Ron...

Don't know how I missed this. Where have you seen or heard that either Brat or those who partook in the tea parties wish for a virtual deconstruction of the federal government? From what I have heard, they both sound very much like our founding fathers. The better question is when did the views of our Founders and the Constitution become "extreme far right"? I think I am okay being in the company of those such as Madison, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Payne, Washington and the like. On the other side of the fence are folks like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Marx, Lenin and other leftists who have proven with distinction that ultimately their social agendas are enforced by brutal authoritarianism. We just want our government to be limited as it was supposed to be, like the Constitution says it should be.

Interesting mix of founding fathers care to elaborate a coherent view of policy for a modern state that they share with Brant? Just asking because so far your grasp of history looks rather poor.

The better question is when did the views of our Founders and the Constitution become "extreme far right"?

Perhapse when the far right picks and choose said views and makes a Disney fantasy world about the founding fathers...

[Gaidin]

Interesting mix of founding fathers care to elaborate a coherent view of policy for a modern state that they share with Brant? Just asking because so far your grasp of history looks rather poor.

In his defense, he can fail history all day long if he could get a coherent grasp on policy. He just can't get a coherent grasp on modern policy and its necessities either. It just doesn't help him that modern policy has diverged so much from the founding fathers that all he can do is throw around different names instead of talking actual policy.

[Condottiere 40K]

Speaking of Reagan, that teflon quality may have been due to Ollie North vapourizing a great deal of correspondence; I recall his secretary saying she had to smuggle stuff out hidden in her underwear.

[justicar5]

As I recall, a completely independent prosecutor investigated Iran-Contra to it's six year conclusion and with cooperation by the administration and the Bush administration that followed . In fact. it was the administration that discovered North's memorandum revealing the entirety of the program. Nothing illegal nor any wrongdoing was ever found with respect to Reagan AFTER 6 YEARS of INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION that the administration fully cooperated with. Even Clinton supporters and lifelong opponents to Reagan called Walsh's investigation, overturned convictions and charges one week before a presidential election that were ultimately dismissed an outrageous abuse of power. You obviously must be referring to something else, so what is it?

Wouldn't it be great if Obama was secure enough in his innocence to have Holder ask the courts for an independent prosecutor for Fast & Furious, IRS targeting administration's political enemies, the coverups relating to failures resulting in the Benghazi disaster, Holder misleading the courts to get a warrant for a member of the press, the administration's willful disobedience of the laws of the land as they choose, etc.? But we know now that Obama will first make sure all paper trails are destroyed and witnesses ordered to silence rather than allow an independent investigation to take place. There is no comparing Obama to Reagan. Reagan loved America and valued our Constitution. Obama loves what he wants "to fundamentally transform America" into and sees the Constitution as an obstacle to what he thinks is justice.

Article from June 1991

http://seattletimes.com/html/politic...calgroups.html
IRS targeting political enemies was shown to be rubbish, or if not rubbish liberal groups where being hit just as often
http://news.yahoo.com/liberal-buzzwo...214632429.html

'Benghazi Disaster...yea a consulate (NOT AN EMBASSY) got attacked, it was a tragedy, Sean Smith died (along with others, but I had interacted with him, so he gets the name check) but look up the legal status of consulates, they are not US territory, the US does not have the right to station military security in them, you cannot actually do much to defend them.

When Bush agrees to a public inquiry into the large number of missing Iraqi children, and the correlation between his 'holidays' and those disappearances, we may find out just how many children his cohorts needed to rape and kill a day to feel like men. My bet is on 1 or 2 each, Rumsfeld may have been at the '3 before breakfast' stage. That statement holds as much water as a conspiracy about Benghazi.

Don't know how I missed this. Where have you seen or heard that either Brat or those who partook in the tea parties wish for a virtual deconstruction of the federal government? From what I have heard, they both sound very much like our founding fathers. The better question is when did the views of our Founders and the Constitution become "extreme far right"? I think I am okay being in the company of those such as Madison, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Payne, Washington and the like. On the other side of the fence are folks like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Marx, Lenin and other leftists who have proven with distinction that ultimately their social agendas are enforced by brutal authoritarianism. We just want our government to be limited as it was supposed to be, like the Constitution says it should be.

Certainly not Payne, read Agrarian Justice, he wanted the seizure of land for redistribution, and the heavy taxation of land and property to pension the poor and disabled.

Thomas Paine : Agrarian Justice (1795 - 1796)

Full text

• Men did not make the earth... It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds.
• I care not how affluent some may be, provided that none be miserable in consequence of it. But it is impossible to enjoy affluence with the felicity it is capable of being enjoyed, while so much misery is mingled in the scene.
• There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed.
• Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.
• Despotic government supports itself by abject civilization, in which debasement of the human mind, and wretchedness in the mass of the people, are the chief criterions. Such governments consider man merely as an animal; that the exercise of intellectual faculty is not his privilege; that he has nothing to do with the laws but to obey them; and they politically depend more upon breaking the spirit of the people by poverty, than they fear enraging it by desperation.

and ofc, Hitler was a right wing conservative, nice try to get out of him being your ideological cousin tho.

[conon394]

In his defense, he can fail history all day long if he could get a coherent grasp on policy.

Indeed - but I was fishing for an historical argument something I can to from memory w/o even digging through my HDD/Boxes/and old folders - or more than a basic Google search to get the correct links

[Aawulf]

Going by human nature, incompetence and corruption are divided equally, as politics are seen as as a route to money and power, especially if you aren't averse to wear any particular coat at any particular time.

However, Republicans tend to be seen as aloof and uncaring, unless they take the populist mantle like Schwarzenegger and Christie.

See how that works? Democrats are caring with other people's money and ignorant toward the pursuit of only advancing their party's power and own personal infliuence, unless they have retired or died like JFK and Zel Miller.

Wait, having a more central policy is radical and militant? Hokay. Wow. Not sure what planet you live on. In the real world while that may make certain districts slightly harder for any single representative, you're gonna have a hard time selling hat has making the party more 'radical' and 'militant' to 'independants'. Whatever the those words even mean to you. I now question that on its own. Are you holding the rest of the country to Virginia 7 standards? Are you forgetting the Democrats are a national party?

Again, see how this works? Democrats have a "more central party" according to whom? I don't remember a meeting about that and everyone agreeing the democrats are even central, let alone "more central". To most of us, Democrats have gone so far left that they really believe the national socialists are right wing in terms of American politics.

Worked for Uncle Ron...

Means nothing to me. Have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Interesting mix of founding fathers care to elaborate a coherent view of policy for a modern state that they share with Brant? Just asking because so far your grasp of history looks rather poor.

Why don't you spell out where my grasp of history is "rather poor"? I imagine that 30 university credits in American history for someone with near perfect recall is adequate. But please impress us with pointing out the evidence that my "grasp of history looks rather poor".

Perhapse when the far right picks and choose said views and makes a Disney fantasy world about the founding fathers...

That is your best answer to "when did the views of our Founders and the Constitution become 'extreme far right'?" This post says absolutely nothing and demonstrates no knowledge of the substance, yet it attempts to presume greater knowledge. Your old enough to remember, "where's the beef"?

In his defense, he can fail history all day long if he could get a coherent grasp on policy. He just can't get a coherent grasp on modern policy and its necessities either. It just doesn't help him that modern policy has diverged so much from the founding fathers that all he can do is throw around different names instead of talking actual policy.

You mean like you have done here? I thought this thread was about the reasons Cantor lost. Where was the discussion about any particular policy? I thoroughly enjoy a vigorous discussion on specific policies, but THERE HAVEN"T BEEN ANY ON THIS THREAD. Read your own posts and see that you haven't been talking about specific policies either and if you had, you would've been hijacking the thread from it's purpose. I know you are all disappointed this isn't an orgy of bashing the Republicans, but living in a bubble of those who agree with you is really only beneficial when your side has the authoritarian control over the rest of us.

Besides, I didn't fail anything at history and I will happily show my appreciation if you can teach me something I haven't learned and correct me where you say I erred.

http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2021260459_apusirspoliticalgroups.html
IRS targeting political enemies was shown to be rubbish, or if not rubbish liberal groups where being hit just as often
http://news.yahoo.com/liberal-buzzwo...214632429.html

There is so much out there that if you really haven't kept up with the facts, then it isn't up to me to school you. If you think have seen it all and read it all, then I can't deprogram you because you are choosing to filter what you don't want to be true. We call that selective reception.

'Benghazi Disaster...yea a consulate (NOT AN EMBASSY) got attacked, it was a tragedy, Sean Smith died (along with others, but I had interacted with him, so he gets the name check) but look up the legal status of consulates, they are not US territory, the US does not have the right to station military security in them, you cannot actually do much to defend them.

My God, the length some will go to rationalize. None of those who were killed defending the interim consulate and annex were military security. The State Department employees and contracts it's own security and they are not considered military. Ambassador Stevens repeatedly requested additional security and actually saw his security detail reduced.

With resprect to our legal right to have military personnel defending the consulates, the consulates share the same sovereign status as do our embassies. Unless someone can demonstrate that we have agreed to or recently signed on to some kind of international law, I don't believe that there is any reason we cannot have a Marine garrison providing security for a consulate. Obviously, getting ad hoc reinforcements to our consulates will experience the same diplomatic challenges that we would have getting those ad hoc reinforcements to an embassy in the capital.

When Bush agrees to a public inquiry ...[made up story that is obviously as unsupportable as it is distasteful so noone should have to quote it]... That statement holds as much water as a conspiracy about Benghazi.

So we know how you see the Benghazi scandal despite that it is now irrefutable that it had nothing to do with a video and even Hillary admits now that all of our on the ground intel reported that it was an organized terror attack and by whom. Just curious as to what you are saying about Benghazi anyway. What parts of the scandal questions are you suggesting are as ludicrous as the nonsense you posted about Bush?

Certainly not Payne, read Agrarian Justice, he wanted the seizure of land for redistribution, and the heavy taxation of land and property to pension the poor and disabled.

I am sure you will agree that Payne's contribution and recognition as a founding father was in his "Common Sense" and "Rights of Man" volumes. What Payne wrote or believed two decades later in no way minimizes the importance of his words in 1776. After Payne joined the French Revolution, his views seem to have been greatly radicalized as evidenced by the divergence of his views from those with whom he had once rubbed elbows. You pointed out "Agrarian Justice" which was an advocacy of collectivism and a minimum income, but his "Age of Reason" seems to be what would be more favored on this decisively left leaning and disproportionately atheistic forum.

and ofc, Hitler was a right wing conservative, nice try to get out of him being your ideological cousin tho.

Really? National Socialists are "right wing" in American politics now?