if you re going to be against it, be against it and explain it, but don t try to have it both ways. voters really dislike someone they can t trust. i think that s a lesson that politicians on both sides of the aisle mostly have learned. the reason cantor lost is so surprising, that most of these republican politicians who have base problems, who have concerns with some conservative voters about whether they re conservative enough, they ve mostly been able to make that sale. if you look at john boehner who s been much more consistent than cantor was, who s done more things that should have annoyed the conservative base, he walked to a win in his primary because he s connected to his district, convinced people that he is genuine and of that place and also people wanted the establishment in the governing wing of the gop party showed up for him because they know that s who he is. he also had support of toe lowe cal tea party groups in his district. blocking and tackling of constit
a big issu the primary, andt who ended up winning, the tea party advocate, he said that cantor s support of a modified dream act that would have provided some path to legalization for some of the young people who are brought here illegally as children, he says that was am nature. congressman walden as the man in charge of getting more republicans elected to the house of representatives, do you worry about this hispanic vote and that the republican party will, really, offer nothing to hispanic as you heads into the election? well, first of all, i think, again, you have to go back and do a real analysis of what happened in the race and what didn t happen. a lot of people ascribe a lost reasons why cantor lost and i don t think the research has been done. you don t think immigration and david brat . i think it play add row.
it could be at least two years. i think it will be. we were mentioning labrador. what might he bring to the discussion? i think it ises showing that the tea party is alive and well. sure i was surprised cantor lost. it didn t come out of the blue. here on the ground, i see how powerful the tea party voice still is. we ll see the struggle. the interesting part is he s not for citizenship or finding a solution to immigration reform. his background is in immigration law. it s kind of a long shot. perhaps we d see a discussion
politically speaking the congress doesn t act this summer, the president takes executive action this fall and then that becomes the big rallying cry on the right, oh, that s a terrible overreach by the president. and i wonder if the republican party has to lose another national election before the republican party changes. or loses all of them. quickly. the first thing that ros-lehtinen said as soon as cantor lost, people that are saying that immigration reform is dead are dead wrong, there are leaders in congress who pointed to cantor as the big problem to reform. i don t see how eric cantor is the maybe reason. it seems like it s the psychology of the right and the psychology of the base and the price that too many republicans are paying. the psychology of the base is for it. 65% of brat voters want comprehensive immigration reform. 75% of cantor primary voters wanted it. when he ran for president it was for self-deportation. if they re so strongly for it i don t think th
warning is is that you cannot take anything for granted in politics. you never can. there s no such thing for the moment as a safe seat when you have an opponent and when you have especially as ed said new turf. so, i think why this is also great encouragement to the tea party movement, i don t know if there s a fundamental realignment here. i don t know if this will change the course of the contested house races necessarily. so i think as ed said, this was pretty much some singular reasons why cantor lost. i know people talked about immigration being a big issue in the race but it was a factor, i think one of several factors. all right. you have this baffling mystery here on how cantor s internal polls were so wrong. the congressman, the poll showed him with a 34 point lead. how could the pollsters have gotten this so wrong and be so off? you know, i don t think any explanation is going to justify