11 Jun 2014

Crossover-Voting Democrats, Not the Tea Party, Beat Eric Cantor

, , , ,


How did Cantor actually lose?

Andrew Sullivan’s gloating readers are this morning offering some clues.

Reader 1:

I live in the 7th District in Virginia, and I am a Democrat who voted for David Brat in the open primary. There has been a whisper campaign going on among the Democrats in the district for the last few weeks and it resulted in many Democrats coming out to vote for Brat. We felt especially encouraged after the 7th District committee nominated Jack Trammell to be the Democratic candidate for the seat last Sunday. We now feel we at least have a fair chance at winning it. (By the way, Jack Trammell is a professor at the same small college as Brat, Randolph-Macon.)

Reader 2:

Here’s a theory to support your reader who, though a Democrat, voted for Brat: in 2012, roughly 47,000 people voted in the 7th District Republican primary. This time, roughly 65,000. Now let’s assume that of those 18,000 new voters, 16,000 were Democrats voting to axe Cantor, then rework the numbers if they hadn’t voted: Cantor would then have had around 29,000+ votes, and Brat would have had around 20,000+. Which would have worked out to approximately 59% for Cantor, which is where he was at in 2012 and much closer to his internal polling showing him with a lead of 34% among likely REPUBLICAN voters.

I’m thinking time will show that Democrats in his district were fed up with him, and decided to do something about it.


Cantor should just run, and win, as an independent in November, rather than giving up. What would a left-wing democrat (sandbagged in a primary by the opposition party) do?

And Virginia should get rid on non-party-registration and open primaries.


CORRECTION: Damn! Cantor actually cannot run as an independent. Commenter JKB points out that Virginia not only has open primaries, it has a “sore-loser” law preventing candidates defeated in a primary from entering the race as independents.


According to the Code of Virginia’s section on candidates and elections (24.2-520), candidates filing for a primary must sign a statement agreeing that if they lose, their names cannot be printed on ballots for the general election. Meaning, if a candidate in the Republican primary for the 5th District loses on June 8, he or she cannot run as a third-party candidate in November.

The deadline for filing as an independent, however, is June 8 at 7 p.m. – the same time the primary polls close.

7 Feedbacks on "Crossover-Voting Democrats, Not the Tea Party, Beat Eric Cantor"


This could be the principal reason for Cantor’s defeat-or not.Generally,there are good reasons, then there is the real reason.


That would be a very poor move for Cantor. #1, it’s probably the only way the Democrats could get a plurality. #2, how would you feel if Cantor had won the primary and Brat decided to run in the fall anyway? #3 Cantor is the majority leader. Not exactly the behavior you want to model.


Maybe Democrat voters ousted Cantor, it wouldn’t be the first time this kind of thing has happened. But I still like it. Cantor needed to go because of his pro-amnesty efforts. Hopefully our congressmen on both sides will get the message. Our country is being over run by illegals and it has turned into a total invasion thanks to Obama’s policies with the support of congress bot Dem and Republican. Vote out anyone who puts citizens wishes second to the illegals wishes.

T. Shaw

Thanks Democrats.

Cantor was a dud, anyhow. GWTW above is completely correct.

Too bad they couldn’t do it to Boehner and Graham, too.


I’ve read that Cantor can’t run as an independent. Something called the sore loser law. I assume a write-in campaign is possible.


Crossover voting is the very reason that there should be either: no general primaries (each party should take care of it in-house) OR every voter should be allowed to vote “yes” or “no” on EVERY candidate listed on the ballot. If the taxpayer is going to have to pay for the primary elections, which are, after all, the parties’ business, then each taxpayer should have a say in those parties’ decisions.

Any candidate that gets more than 50% ‘no’ votes, should be automatically excluded from the general election ballot. The top two ‘yes’ getters should face off in the general election, even if they are from the same party. If no one gets at least 50% ‘yes’ votes, then that office goes vacant for the term of that office. No special elections.


P.S. If my above mentioned suggestion was the process, I doubt that Claire McCaskill would have been on the ballot in Missouri.


Please Leave a Comment!

Please note: Comments may be moderated. It may take a while for them to show on the page.

Entries (RSS)
Comments (RSS)
Feed Shark