The absurdity of leadership fights in an era of populism

posted at 9:01 am on June 13, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Philip Klein and Byron York write interesting takes on the repercussions of Eric Cantor’s stunning primary loss and subsequent resignation from House GOP leadership, but it’s not clear that one of the clear lessons has been absorbed. In part, that’s because the House GOP still hasn’t quite analyzed what it means for them, and that’s understandable given the singular nature of the event. York reports that the caucus is holding off on setting priorities for the rest of the session while they mull the meaning of Cantor’s fall:

It’s only natural that a who’s-up-and-who’s-down leadership struggle would consume House Republicans after the stunning primary defeat of Majority Leader Eric Cantor. There’s a big hole in the party’s top echelon, and it’s got to be filled.

But after a new majority leader is selected, and the leadership slate finished, GOP lawmakers will have to figure out what Cantor’s loss means for the Republican agenda. Right now, they have no idea.

That’s because they don’t know why Cantor lost. Sure, there have been dozens of stories purporting to explain the vote, but for the moment, it’s all just guesswork.

The fact that Cantor lost by 11 points in a race in which his campaign pollster projected a 34-point lead is pretty clear evidence Cantor did not know what was going on in his district. He didn’t know how many people would go to the polls — turnout was far higher than in Cantor’s primary in 2012 — and he didn’t know what motivated them.

York then goes through four possible explanations for Cantor’s loss, but misses the fact that he’s already identified the primary reason. Cantor didn’t know his own district, and his district didn’t know him. On the same day that Cantor lost a safe seat by double digits, Lindsey Graham won 57% of the vote against six opponents in South Carolina despite being one of the biggest national grassroots villains over the last few years (Cantor was a minor irritant in comparison).

What was the difference? Graham did the retail campaigning and engagement necessary to win handily. He paid attention to voters. Salena Zito went to the epicenter of the upset to talk to voters in Cantor’s district, who were tired of being ignored while Cantor focused on his own leadership ambitions:

Cantor, R-Va., underestimated the anti-Washington sentiment among voters in his 7th Congressional District, said Bruce Haynes, a Washington-based Republican strategist.

“What this race tells me is that people do not care about seniority as an argument for re-election, or how high up you are in leadership,” Haynes said. “They care that who they send to Washington is ‘one of us.’ ” …

White believes the disconnect began with his vote for TARP legislation, the 2008 financial bailout that authorized hundreds of billions of dollars in expenditures. But other issues were more personal for people, she explained: “He didn’t hold town halls; he didn’t keep appointments.”

In other words, Cantor became part of the institutions rather than someone who could represent his district’s interests in contrast to them. Cantor missed the populist swing in his district, and the House GOP seems to be missing it in general.

Philip Klein calls the election of Kevin McCarthy as Cantor’s replacement as Majority Leader “pure absurdity“:

Though we’ll never know precisely why Cantor was knocked off byDave Brat, an obscure economics professor, it’s clear that in recent years, Cantor lost the trust of the conservative base and became a symbol of Washington. Whether it was on immigration or fighting to shrink the size and scope of government, Cantor was increasingly at odds with conservatives and far too cozy with business interests.

His defeat presents House Republicans with an opportunity to signal – ahead of the 2014 midterm elections - that they’re listening to conservatives. But by elevating McCarthy, who is next in line as whip, they’d be sending the opposite message – that they’re determined to crush conservatives.

I’ll go one further than Philip on this. The focus on who gets the Majority Leader position now is itself “pure absurdity.” It’s inside baseball, a divvying of the spoils of the very institutionalism that Cantor’s district rejected. Filling the position is a necessity for organizing the caucus, but it’s only going to be for the next few months. After the midterms, there will be another leadership fight of more consequence involving the entire leadership chain, and not just the number two slot.

Cantor would have done the caucus a favor by sticking it out until then. Right now, it looks like Washington Republicans are a lot more concerned about themselves than they are about the voters, which is exactly what got Cantor into so much trouble in VA-07.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Why call a conservative movement “populism”?

Akzed on June 13, 2014 at 9:11 AM

A bunch of people arguing over who’s going to be captain of a sinking ship.

crankyoldlady on June 13, 2014 at 9:12 AM

John Boehner must go!

John Boehner is the poster boy for what is wrong with the Republican Party. He’s arrogant, smug, distant, and dismissive of the base of the party. He’s only Speaker due to the hard work of conservatives in 2010 and yet he’s “leading” in opposition to the desires of the base. He sneaks around Capitol Hill trying to undermine and defeat conservatives at every turn. The man is causing conservatives to focus much of our energy in thwarting him and his collusion with the Democrats rather than allowing us to focus exclusively on the Democrats. He’s a distraction and he must go, Boehner delenda est!

Boehner easily survived his primary, as expected, and feels little pressure to change his ways. He has surrounded himself with clones of himself who work relentlessly to thwart the conservative agenda. Boehner has become an obstacle that must be overcome, Boehner delenda est!

Boehner’s district, Ohio’s 8th, is solidly Republican and is 35D/65R according to the Cook Political Report. In 2010 Boehner got 65.6% of the vote against his Democrat opponent and in 2012 he ran unopposed. This is a very safe Republican district.

I don’t think there is anyone who would disagree with the assertion that Boehner must go. But having lost our chance to defeat him in the primary, what are we to do? I think that we should encourage Ohio Republicans to support Boehner’s Democrat opponent to demonstrate to Boehner, and the rest of the backstabbing, Chamber of Commerce whoring SOBs the lengths we’re willing to go to defeat them.

I believe that a freshman Democrat in a 65R/35D district is far less a danger to the GOP than John Boehner. And given heavy Republican nature of the district we can expect to easily recapture the seat in 2016 and get rid of the Democrat placeholder.

Removing Boehner will not pose any risk to the Republican House majority and will send shockwaves through the Establishment giving them pause, more so even than Cantor’s defeat. If we can’t defeat Boehner perhaps even making the attempt will scare the Establishment into getting their act together, for a short time anyway.

Boehner delenda est! Let’s make it happen.

Charlemagne on June 13, 2014 at 9:13 AM

Backfire

cmsinaz on June 13, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Why call a conservative movement “populism”?

Akzed on June 13, 2014 at 9:11 AM

The meaning of populism:

A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.

crankyoldlady on June 13, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Squishy GOP

cmsinaz on June 13, 2014 at 9:16 AM

The GOP expends more energy fighting over the leadership role than they do fighting the demorats over policy.

Bishop on June 13, 2014 at 9:17 AM

The meaning of populism: A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite. crankyoldlady on June 13, 2014 at 9:15 AM

It’s usually used as an accusation of anti-intellectual and demagogic tendencies, and fails to identify the actual political philosophy of those it’s aimed at.

Akzed on June 13, 2014 at 9:18 AM

Cantor is a now a magnet for controversy and a firebrand and did the right thing by stepping down. McCarthy is no more than a temporary custodian that can maintain stability and prepare the caucus for the major leadership changes that will occur after the mid-terms.

rplat on June 13, 2014 at 9:20 AM

A bunch of people arguing over who’s going to be captain of a sinking ship.

crankyoldlady on June 13, 2014 at 9:12 AM

There is still plenty of money to be stolen before the ship goes down.

And after the country sinks, they’ll need to have enough wealth to get themselves and their families to a better country — one that isn’t plagued by the crime and chaos that their idiotic policies and corrupt deals caused here.

AZCoyote on June 13, 2014 at 9:22 AM

The GOP expends more energy fighting over the leadership role than they do fighting the demorats over policy. Bishop on June 13, 2014 at 9:17 AM

But this is like complaining about the weather. It’s a fact of life that must be dealt with, then we move on.

When a high ranking member of the leadership of any organization is made to go away for whatever reason, a power struggle may ensue. It needs to be handled ASAP so the organization’s mission is hindered as little as necessary. I mean, I hate to sound pedantic and all…

Akzed on June 13, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Lindsey won because the conservatives were split 6 ways. He probably paid 5 of the other candidates to run.

stenwin77 on June 13, 2014 at 9:24 AM

In other words, Cantor became part of the institutions rather than someone who could represent his district’s interests in contrast to them. Cantor missed the populist swing in his district, and the House GOP seems to be missing it in general.

It’s not just that Cantor was focusing on his own House leadership ambitions. It was Cantor was focusing on his own House leadership ambitions in the closest Republican district to Washington, D.C., and with parts of it within the Washington, D.C. media market, where voters could watch or read all of that play out on their local news or in the Washington Post.

Trying to say one thing in your home district and do another in the District is tough enough in the Internet age for a congressman representing people 1,000 to 2,000 miles away from Washington, let alone people who can hop in their cars and be inside the Beltway within 60-90 minutes. Cantor ignored voters who could check up on him easier than voters in any other GOP-leaning district in the country, but thought they were as enamored with D.C. power as he was, and would never throw out a Congressman holding one of the top leadership spots in the House.

jon1979 on June 13, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Why call a conservative movement “populism”?

Akzed on June 13, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Because conservatives hold big business to account just as big unions or big government. The estbalishment will fight against big unions but holding big business to account is a strict no-no. Hence, since Palin arrived on stage, they have been using the snide code word of “populism” whereas referring to themselves as “Reformers”.

promachus on June 13, 2014 at 9:30 AM

they’re determined to crush conservatives

Good luck with that one!

littleguy on June 13, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Ed, you keep peddling the meme that Cantor won simply because he was out of touch with his district and conveniently leave out… AMNESTY.

I know it’s an uncomfortable subject for you considering the GOP Establishment still wants to pass it. And I believe when they come to terms on what led to Cantor’s loss, they will conveniently leave AMNESTY out as well.

Because, you see, Big Business wants it and, by jove, they will give it to then.

And then all hell will break loose…

And what will you tell your readers that day? No one saw it coming?

TheRightMan on June 13, 2014 at 9:30 AM

The GOP expends more energy fighting over the leadership role than they do fighting the demorats over policy.

Bishop on June 13, 2014 at 9:17 AM

…and therein lies the problem!

Amjean on June 13, 2014 at 9:38 AM

Ed, it was Amnesty that sank Cantor. The polls lie. People HATE amnesty.

dogsoldier on June 13, 2014 at 9:38 AM

The fact that Cantor lost by 11 points in a race in which his campaign pollster projected a 34-point lead is pretty clear evidence Cantor did not know what was going on in his district.

Let me help you with my Clue by Four. He lost because he is:

Out of Touch with the Voters in his District.

A Washington DC Shill only interested in power and keeping ahold of it.

Way too concerned with his own Long Term career to care about his constituents.

Didn’t even try during his own Primary.

Need I go on?

Johnnyreb on June 13, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Lindsey won because the conservatives were split 6 ways. He probably paid 5 of the other candidates to run.

stenwin77 on June 13, 2014 at 9:24 AM

This is the truth and SC is known for its dirty politics. Remember the shenanigans with Nikki Haley?

That none of the 6 candidates refused to drop out early should tell us everything.

But Big Business is clutching at straws and trying hard to re-assure skittish congressmen and women that it is okay to vote for AMNESTY in the wake of Cantor’s defeat.

What I find disappointing is conservative bloggers trying to push their story-lines.

If Ted Cruz was to lose his re-election, for example, would they quickly attribute it to him being out of touch with his district… or they will jump to the conclusion that it was because of his intransigence to Big Govt. policies and urge other Tea Partiers to change.

I bet you it would be the latter and there will be no shortage of “conservative” bloggers to push that line.

TheRightMan on June 13, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Lindsey Graham won 57% of the vote against six opponents in South Carolina despite being one of the biggest national grassroots villains over the last few years

57% support from your base as an incumbent is not good. Tim Scott crushed his primary opponent with more than 90% of the vote because he represented his constituents. He will also outperform Graham in the general election.

Wigglesworth on June 13, 2014 at 9:40 AM

I believe that a freshman Democrat in a 65R/35D district is far less a danger to the GOP than John Boehner. And given heavy Republican nature of the district we can expect to easily recapture the seat in 2016 and get rid of the Democrat placeholder.

Charlemagne on June 13, 2014 at 9:13 AM

You are right. I suspect that the Democrats wouldn’t want to lose Boehner so they aren’t likely to run a candidate against him who would be easy for Republicans to vote for. The little I read about the candidate says he is an iron worker and supposedly wants to help the “middle class”, but that probably doesn’t stop him from supporting the invasion of low wage workers who drive down the value of citizens’ labor.

Buddahpundit on June 13, 2014 at 9:41 AM

What was the difference? Graham did the retail campaigning and engagement necessary to win handily. He paid attention to voters.

Wrong Ed. Graham had six primary opponents. If Graham had a single a single opponent, that opponent would have been free to attack Graham in the primary rather than proving to be the best man or woman to attack Graham in the runoff.

Also, because there were six opponents, conservatives like me were hoping for a runoff at which time we would financially contribute against Graham.

The fact there were six candidates made the primary a circus and was the key factor in Graham winning (along with the fact that he outspent ALL his opponents combined by about 20-1).

Conservatives need to learn that they need to limit the opposition to one or two candidates. And, if there are six, at least four need the smarts to drop out.

bw222 on June 13, 2014 at 9:41 AM

But this is like complaining about the weather. It’s a fact of life that must be dealt with, then we move on.

Akzed on June 13, 2014 at 9:23 AM

The difference is the weather isn’t on my payroll. These clowns are.

CurtZHP on June 13, 2014 at 9:44 AM

The same was true in Indiana and Michigan. In both cases conservatives split 60% of the vote enabling RINOs Dan Coats and Rick Snyder to win nomination with about 40% of the vote.

bw222 on June 13, 2014 at 9:45 AM

The graham argument is misleading. Had graham had a single brat, it is unlikely he would be returning. The mere fact that 6 people ran against him and destroyed each other is a clear signal he is unpopular.

aniptofar on June 13, 2014 at 9:47 AM

57% support from your base as an incumbent is not good. Tim Scott crushed his primary opponent with more than 90% of the vote because he represented his constituents. He will also outperform Graham in the general election.

Wigglesworth on June 13, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Good point. The rinos are using Graham in arguing that pro-amnesty is a solid Republican stance despite the fact that long-time incumbent Graham, with his massive war chest, needs lots of Democrat crossover votes of people who will vote for his opponent in the general, just to manage 57% in the primaries.

Buddahpundit on June 13, 2014 at 9:48 AM

The difference is the weather isn’t on my payroll. These clowns are. CurtZHP on June 13, 2014 at 9:44 AM

So, let’s not fill Cantor’s leadership position?

Akzed on June 13, 2014 at 9:51 AM

As soon as the usual suspects started shrieking that Cantor was not defeated because of amnesty, I could rest assured that it was about amnesty.

Akzed on June 13, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Ed, you keep peddling the meme that Cantor won simply because he was out of touch with his district and conveniently leave out… AMNESTY.

I know it’s an uncomfortable subject for you considering the GOP Establishment still wants to pass it. And I believe when they come to terms on what led to Cantor’s loss, they will conveniently leave AMNESTY out as well.

Because, you see, Big Business wants it and, by jove, they will give it to then.

And then all hell will break loose…

And what will you tell your readers that day? No one saw it coming?

TheRightMan on June 13, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Ed, it was Amnesty that sank Cantor. The polls lie. People HATE amnesty.

dogsoldier on June 13, 2014 at 9:38 AM

Yup.

the_nile on June 13, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Ed, it was Amnesty that sank Cantor. The polls lie. People HATE amnesty.

dogsoldier on June 13, 2014 at 9:38 AM

Ed, care to write a thread on how amnesty is good for the United States? Not how amnesty is good for the illegal aliens, the Democratic Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, the lawn care business, Latino groups or your beloved Catholic Church (I’m Catholic too, but I sure don’t listen to the Bishops on political issues)?

How is adding 11 – 20 million uneducated, unskilled people to the country’s citizen rolls (thereby enabling them to sponsor an even larger number of their equally uneducated, unskilled relatives via family reunification) possibly going benefit the United States?

How is amnesty going to affect our institutions – schools, hospitals and entitlements?

You won’t pen such a thread because there is no logical answer.

bw222 on June 13, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Cronyism reigns supreme in both parties. That will never change.

vnvet on June 13, 2014 at 9:59 AM

“But by elevating McCarthy, who is next in line as whip, they’d be sending the opposite message – that they’re determined to crush conservatives.”

My father laid on you a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.

David Blue on June 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Removing Boehner will not pose any risk to the Republican House majority and will send shockwaves through the Establishment giving them pause, more so even than Cantor’s defeat. If we can’t defeat Boehner perhaps even making the attempt will scare the Establishment into getting their act together, for a short time anyway.Boehner delenda est! Let’s make it happen.
Charlemagne on June 13, 2014 at 9:13 AM

Exactly. It would be the highest form of patriotism to use the election booth to turn out a traitor within our caucus by voting for the lesser of two evils – a rookie democrat – in November as opposed to keeping a leader bound and determined to sell us and our future out to his cronies. We can always come back and replace the donk with a conservative in 2016. Whatever it takes to stop amnesty and derail Oboobie.

AH_C on June 13, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Really? The GOP is not the Titanic. If anything is sinking, it is the standing of the progressive left’s policies and leaders.

I agree that Cantor could have stayed on but given his lame duck status, he may have been less effective. Still, given that possible imperative, the GOP’s job while the news has been on a terrible roll for the left is to not distract the public from the barrage of undeniable failure. Thus if a leadership change is necessary, it should be quick and quiet. The noisy battle will be the reorganization of the new Congress and that is as it should be, a story of its own; not one of tea-reading one primary defeat.

KW64 on June 13, 2014 at 10:16 AM

My father laid on you a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.

David Blue on June 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Excellent analogy!!!

And remember how that worked out well for Solomon’s son, Rehoboam? The kingdom ended up being split in two.

The GOP is headed down that same path.

TheRightMan on June 13, 2014 at 10:20 AM

The narrative is set….Cantor did not lose his seat because of his lies about supporting amnesty.

d1carter on June 13, 2014 at 10:30 AM

The focus on who gets the Majority Leader position now is itself “pure absurdity.” It’s inside baseball, a divvying of the spoils of the very institutionalism that Cantor’s district rejected. Filling the position is a necessity for organizing the caucus, but it’s only going to be for the next few months.

The struggle for Majority Leadership is not absurd to The Powers That Be if you need the majority caucus to pass amnesty this year, after the 2014 elections, or even– what’s just about as bad for the morale of the base– if you want Big Business to think you’re going to try to pass amnesty.

de rigueur on June 13, 2014 at 10:52 AM

I believe amnesty was one of the things that reinforced Cantor’s district to believe he was out of touch. No one likes amnesty in the way it is being discussed in DC. Because no one was willing to discuss it on terms they feel comfortable with, it became just one more straw for a guy who smelled like he was more interested in DC than VA 7. You cold substitute a few more issues like amnesty and they would do the same thing. They weren’t happy about giving away the gains of the sequester either.

Zomcon JEM on June 13, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Eric Cantor lost touch with Republican/Conservatism because Conservatism begins at home:

Diana Cantor is a lifelong, liberal Democrat. Contrary to her husband’s stated positions, she is pro-choice and supports same-sex marriage.

portlandon on June 13, 2014 at 11:47 AM

What was the difference? Graham did the retail campaigning and engagement necessary to win handily. He paid attention to voters.

.
And all of that had minimal impact on a Senate primary … Senate races are to House races as the Kentucky Derby is to dog races.

Cantor had been given all the tools needed to win his race; being disconnected from constituents insured having the tools didn’t matter.

A Senate race is where having a political machine with all of its connections and markers to be called in is the key. South Carolina’s Graham machine is big, powerful and dirty.

This is the truth and SC is known for its dirty politics. Remember the shenanigans with Nikki Haley?

That none of the 6 candidates refused to drop out early should tell us everything.

But Big Business is clutching at straws and trying hard to re-assure skittish congressmen and women that it is okay to vote for AMNESTY in the wake of Cantor’s defeat.

What I find disappointing is conservative bloggers trying to push their story-lines.

*snip*

TheRightMan on June 13, 2014 at 9:39 AM

.
Six candidates INSURES there will be no clear message opposing Graham’s snake oil that can catch on with the public.

Oh … Ed … is NOT a conservative blogger.

Ed is a GOPe-media blogger. There is a BIG difference.

A conservative blogger would focus his analysis on the MONEY; the behind-the-scenes, sausage-making truth of modern politics and the ACTUAL agendas being pursued by politicians in the interest of the people who give them MONEY.

PolAgnostic on June 13, 2014 at 12:03 PM

My father laid on you a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.

Brilliant

crash1211 on June 13, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Cantor didn’t know his own district, and his district didn’t know him.

That was also true two years ago and Cantor won in a landslide.

It’s astounding how many conservative writers don’t bother to listen to talk radio. I get that the liberal MSM don’t do it. But, conservative commentators really should listen to Levin at least to find out what’s going on in the grassroots.

sauldalinsky on June 13, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Wrong Ed. Graham had six primary opponents. If Graham had a single a single opponent, that opponent would have been free to attack Graham in the primary rather than proving to be the best man or woman to attack Graham in the runoff.

Also, because there were six opponents, conservatives like me were hoping for a runoff at which time we would financially contribute against Graham.

The fact there were six candidates made the primary a circus and was the key factor in Graham winning (along with the fact that he outspent ALL his opponents combined by about 20-1).

Conservatives need to learn that they need to limit the opposition to one or two candidates. And, if there are six, at least four need the smarts to drop out.

bw222 on June 13, 2014 at 9:41 AM

….#1!

KOOLAID2 on June 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Lindsey won because the conservatives were split 6 ways. He probably paid 5 of the other candidates to run.

stenwin77 on June 13, 2014 at 9:24 AM

This would help Graham come in first but with lots of opponents getting votes from friends and families, the assumption was that this would threaten his cracking 50%.

It wasn’t even close.

Pythagoras on June 13, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Cantor, R-Va., underestimated the anti-Washington sentiment among voters in his 7th Congressional District, said Bruce Haynes, a Washington-based Republican strategist.

“What this race tells me is that people do not care about seniority as an argument for re-election, or how high up you are in leadership,” Haynes said. “They care that who they send to Washington is ‘one of us.’ ” …

No, they care that their representative represents their interests. It’s always campaign managers who think a message of ‘one of us’ is all you need.

But Haynes is right about the anti-Washington sentiment. In ordinary times, Thad Cochran would not even have a primary opponent. He just lost his primary election, and is trying desperately to avoid losing the runoff, to the extent of trying to encourage Democrats and independents to vote in a Republican primary.

It’s not that Thad Cochran is not “one of us.” He’s very much “one of us” to Mississippi voters. But he’s been in Washington too long, and no longer represents us.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 13, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Cantor lost because he was lying to the public. He would push through a very restricted immigration bill which republicans could support . The bill would go to conference and he would snake us by accepting large measure of amnesty

scboy on June 13, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Based on what I’ve read about Cantor’s loss (staffers not returning phone calls and his staff drowning their sorrows in an elite DC restaurant after raising money to close the doors: http://hoh.rollcall.com/cantor-staff-6500-tune-inn/). “Out of touch” rings true.

Sometimes something happens to people’s heads when decent people go to DC – they get caught up in the bright lights (so to say) and forget where they came from. IF they “discover” that they are better than their constituents, eventually they will lose. And, this is a shame b/c many of them have fine minds (Cantor included) but one must always remember who got him/her where they landed.

To all R candidates: Remember your base; remember your constituents; remember that THEY go you there. Sure, you have a lot of plusses but without voters, you’re nobody. And, it’s critical, absolutely critical to HONESTLY remember your base.

Food for thought.

MN J on June 14, 2014 at 12:21 AM

Why call a conservative movement “populism”?
Akzed on June 13, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Because to a squishy who aspires to be part of the washington elite, we conservatives are just the unwashed masses easily swayed by jargon and slogans. We are not as enlightened as he.

peacenprosperity on June 14, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Ed, you keep peddling the meme that Cantor won simply because he was out of touch with his district and conveniently leave out… AMNESTY.

He conveniently leaves out that cantor lost because he was a slimey weasel that treated his constituents,and the American people, like they are a bunch of idiots. The republicans don’t even try to hide their lies anymore, they campaign on one position and go right back to washington and act in the opposite direction. The leadership of the republican party are as bad as the democrats in their disdain and lack of respect for the American people.

peacenprosperity on June 14, 2014 at 2:25 PM