Republican David BratDavid Alan BratTed Cruz, AOC have it right on banning former members of Congress from becoming lobbyists Corey Stewart to lead pro-Trump super PAC The animating forces behind the Democratic Party are true, radical leftists MORE says he beat House Majority Leader Eric CantorEric Ivan CantorEmbattled Juul seeks allies in Washington GOP faces tough battle to become 'party of health care' 737 crisis tests Boeing's clout in Washington MORE (R-Va.) in a shocking upset because of immigration.

Brat on Wednesday said immigration was the “clear differentiator” between the two candidates.


“Amnesty, at the end, was the clear differentiator between myself and Eric Cantor. It fits into the whole narrative that he was not present in the district, and not in touch with supporting the U.S. Chamber agenda,” Brat said on MSNBC’s “The Daily Rundown.”

The Chamber of Commerce supported Cantor's reelection.

Brat beat Cantor Tuesday by double digits — 56 percent to 44 percent — in a stunning result after painting his opponent as a pro-amnesty candidate. Cantor had expressed support for proposals to provide legal status to young people who came to the United States illegally.

Brat also attributed his victory to other issues, including his support of equal treatment of everyone under the law, fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, a strong defense, faith in God and strong moral character. 

Brat deflected a question about whether he believes the federal government should have a minimum wage or whether it should be raised.

“I don’t have a well-crafted response on that one,” he said. “I’m a free-market guy. Our labor markets right now are already distorted from too many regulations. … You can’t artificially make up wage rates. They have to be made related to productivity.”

Brat was asked whether he would support the U.S. government arming the Syrian rebels, but he was hesitant to continue detailing his policy positions. 

“I just wanted to celebrate the victory we had,” he said.

Brat declined to define himself as an interventionist or isolationist, but said, “I think it is important for the U.S. to project its power abroad. Without that, there would be chaos.”