Eric Cantor’s Unusually Expensive, Surprisingly Negative Primary Campaign

The House majority leader went negative on his little-known, underfunded opponent, showing how much the power of incumbency has waned.

Cantor: Pro-repeal spinner.
National Journal
Jack Fitzpatrick
June 9, 2014, 5:30 p.m.

When the House ma­jor­ity lead­er spends mil­lions of dol­lars on a reelec­tion cam­paign — es­pe­cially against a little-known polit­ic­al novice who is not con­sidered a ser­i­ous threat — the na­tion­al me­dia are sure to no­tice.

That’s not be­cause Rep. Eric Can­tor’s chal­lenger, Ran­dolph-Ma­con Col­lege eco­nom­ics pro­fess­or Dave Brat, has be­gun to show some un­ex­pec­ted mo­mentum. Quite the con­trary: Can­tor’s cam­paign spokes­man is right when he says his boss is “well-known, well-liked, and well-re­spec­ted” in his dis­trict. And he’s cer­tainly ex­pec­ted to win.

In­stead, the con­test has drawn such out­size at­ten­tion in large part be­cause of the ef­fort Can­tor felt he had to pump in­to it, run­ning hard for the kind of safe seat party lead­ers once could take for gran­ted. And for that he can thank im­mig­ra­tion re­form.

In­deed, Can­tor has ex­pen­ded un­usu­al ef­fort (and funds) against a seem­ingly harm­less op­pon­ent, go­ing to the trouble of run­ning neg­at­ive TV ads and send­ing mail­ers de­fend­ing his po­s­i­tion on im­mig­ra­tion le­gis­la­tion after Brat suc­cess­fully dir­ec­ted the de­bate away from loc­al jobs and to­ward a na­tion­al is­sue.

It’s yet an­oth­er piece of evid­ence that nom­in­at­ing con­tests are no longer com­pletely friendly ter­rit­ory for Wash­ing­ton op­er­at­ors. While party lead­ers used to rule over loc­al polit­ics while deal­ing with messy le­gis­lat­ive saus­age-mak­ing in Wash­ing­ton, they are now get­ting in­to the mud with in­creas­ing fre­quency at the loc­al level.

For in­stance, Can­tor’s cam­paign re­ferred to Brat as a “lib­er­al col­lege pro­fess­or,” which FactCheck.org called “mis­lead­ing.” Plus, Can­tor sent mail­ers to voters say­ing that he was work­ing to stop “the Obama-Re­id plan to give il­leg­al ali­ens am­nesty” des­pite his own sup­port for a path to leg­al­iz­a­tion for chil­dren brought to the coun­try il­leg­ally. 

Brat cam­paign spokes­man Al­len Wag­n­er ac­cused Can­tor of mis­lead­ing voters by sup­port­ing that meas­ure while his ads said he op­poses am­nesty. “He won’t stand on his re­cord,” Wag­n­er said.

But Can­tor cam­paign spokes­man Ray Al­len said the cam­paign wanted to fo­cus less on im­mig­ra­tion and more on job cre­ation, but that con­ser­vat­ive news sites, like The Daily Caller and Breit­bart.com, covered the race’s im­mig­ra­tion angle closely, call­ing at­ten­tion to it for the pur­pose of at­tack­ing a GOP party lead­er. 

Can­tor’s cam­paign may have hit a low point in May, as it re­spon­ded to Brat’s im­mig­ra­tion at­tacks — and as Can­tor failed to get a friend elec­ted as chair­man of the dis­trict Re­pub­lic­an Party. The Wash­ing­ton Post de­scribed the race as “open war­fare” with the tea party. But Al­len said epis­odes like that were ul­ti­mately a dis­trac­tion from the is­sues that will drive loc­al voters to the primary polls and res­ult in an­oth­er reelec­tion for Can­tor.

“The glit­ter­ati doesn’t want to talk about those [eco­nom­ic] is­sues,” Al­len said, “be­cause it doesn’t view them as sexy.”

Can­tor’s team dis­misses sug­ges­tions that Can­tor is run­ning harder than he needs to, or has be­fore. Al­len said the cam­paign has mostly op­er­ated nor­mally, not­ing the No. 2 House Re­pub­lic­an runs ads each cycle.

And at least one out­side group that has opened its check­book for Can­tor agreed. The Amer­ic­an Chem­istry Coun­cil spent more than $300,000 sup­port­ing Can­tor, which is among the lar­ger ex­pendit­ures by a single group in a primary this elec­tion cycle, ac­cord­ing to the Cen­ter for Re­spons­ive Polit­ics. But ACC spokes­wo­man Anne Kolton said the group first star­ted run­ning ads sup­port­ing Can­tor in Au­gust 2011 and that it reg­u­larly runs ads that sup­port people and policies that are fa­vor­able to the man­u­fac­tur­ing in­dustry. “It’s not dis­sim­il­ar from the work that we do throughout the elec­tion cycle,” Kolton said.

But Can­tor has cer­tainly spent more heav­ily this time around — about a mil­lion dol­lars between April 1 and May 21. By com­par­is­on, in 2012, when Can­tor won reelec­tion with 79 per­cent of the vote, he spent $746,000.

What We're Following See More »
LOTS OF STRINGERS
Inside the AP’s Election Operation
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
THE QUESTION
What’s the Average Household Income of a Trump Voter?
2 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Seventy-two thousand dollars, according to FiveThirtyEight. That's higher than the national average, as well as the average Clinton or Sanders voter, but lower than the average Kasich voter.

Source:
VERY FEW DEMS NOW REPRESENT MINING COMMUNITIES
How Coal Country Went from Blue to Red
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
STAFF PICKS
History Already Being Less Kind to Hastert’s Leadership
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."

Source:
‘STARTING FROM ZERO’
Trump Ill Prepared for General Election
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."

Source:
×