Eric Cantor's Contribution to Electoral History--and to the Senate Election in Alaska

There was a certain primary I dismissed offhand only hours ago as likely to be "more of a Kentucky than a Mississippi." That race was another one marketed as a "Tea Party vs. establishment" brawl, despite the fact that the "Tea Party" candidate wasn't really a tea partier. But the incumbent in the GOP primary for the 7th District in Virginia was actually just about as establishment as it gets--House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defending his seat against economics professor David Brat. With 99% of precincts reporting, Prof. Brat has unseated Rep. Cantor with 55% of the vote. In doing so, Rep. Cantor's become the first ever Majority Leader to have been primaried. Congratulations! (Note: I wish people would stop saying the "first Majority Leader since 1899" figure. There was no such thing as a House Majority Leader before 1899. It's just the first ever House Majority Leader.)

Not-so-Super-Tuesday Mk. III Update

When I called today "Super Tuesday Mk. III" last week, I sort of overstated it. Today's primaries have neither the excitement of the McDaniel - Cochran face-off on Super Tuesday Mk. II on June 3, nor the importance of the Georgia GOP primary on Super Tuesday Mk. I on May 20. In fact, there are only five states holding primary elections today:

The Run-Down: March 31, 2014

To start off, we're going to give basically the crash-course summary of this election, of who wants what to happen.

Thirty-six elections to the Senate will happen on November 4, 2014: 33 "class 2 Senate seats" as well as three special elections in Hawaii, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. Currently, the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, with 53 Democratic senators as well as two independents in Vermont and Maine who are caucusing with the Democrats. Republicans, therefore, need to pick up six seats in order to capture the majority (in the event of a 50-50 split, Vice President Joe Biden would be able to cast a tie-breaking vote).

It's way easier than it sounds. The quirk of Senate elections is that if a senator is elected in a presidential election year, that senator's next election is guaranteed to be in a midterm year, and vice-versa. Midterm elections have historically been horrendous for the president's party: only twice since World War II (in 1998 and 2002) has the president's party gained seats in a midterm election. Even in a neutral or sort-of-okay year, we'd expect the Democrats to lose seats in the Senate. However, this year the Democrats' problem is much worse simply because they did so well six years ago, in 2008, when Senator Obama's popularity allowed him to win the presidential election and swept in a number of Democrats on his coat-tails. As a result of their stellar performance in 2008, not including the special election seats (which are safe for one party or the other, as described below) Democrats now must defend 21 seats, while Republicans only have 12 to defend. Even worse for the Democrats, the GOP seats this year consist of the safest ones that they were able to defend in 2008, while the Democratic seats include many marginal victories they won in competitive states like North Carolina, Louisiana, and Alaska.