The voters have spoken. And Tuesday's Third District congressional race is a warning to incumbents everywhere.

From 1998 through 2004, 98 percent of the representatives seeking re-election won. In 2006, a year noted for voter unrest, 94 percent of incumbents running won re-election. On the surface, the conservative Cannon should have been able to hold the seat without much effort as long as he wanted. Yet he barely scraped up enough votes to get out of the state convention, and struggled to close the gap in the primary, despite a funding advantage that most years should have made him unbeatable. But this isn't most years. How did it happen?

One factor is the caucus system, which showed its advantages yesterday. It allows a challenger to neutralize some of the head start any incumbent has. Instead of having to make himself known to all the voters, Chaffetz at first was able to focus on Republican delegates. That doesn't require a huge amount of money to buy ads, but rather a willingness to spend a lot of time talking one-on-one with delegates. Any challenger willing to do so at least demonstrates a level of commitment to the position.

Chaffetz excelled there. In the campaign, we at the Herald were very impressed with Cannon's grasp of the issues, but Chaffetz was clearly the superior politician. That's no insult. A politician's job is to tune in to what voters want, and express their feelings and desires. Chaffetz clearly did that.

And he really went to the people. We don't doubt Cannon's heart remained here. But he often was in Washington -- doing his job, to be sure -- as Chaffetz worked the grass roots patiently and effectively.

It's true that Cannon has had some close scrapes before. Still, the 2008 campaign suggests that voter concerns and frustrations aren't short-term phenomena.

The most important issue may have been illegal immigration. For years, a segment of the GOP electorate has longed to punish Cannon over his past moderate stands. Cannon this year has pointed to numerous votes to improve border security. But that didn't seem to be enough to placate much of the electorate. One might theorize that voters' anxiety about immigration is so great that Cannon's more recent votes to fight illegal immigration only reminded voters of his original stands. The inescapable conclusion is that immigration is a more potent and durable issue than many political experts realize.

The same goes for government spending, No Child Left Behind, and other issues that have frustrated a wide range of Utahns.

That holds a warning for other politicians. For example, this spring the state Legislature passed measures addressing illegal immigration, but delayed implementing the law until July 2009. Chaffetz's showing suggests that voters still hold this issue to be of top importance, and any attempt to waffle or backtrack on the immigration crackdown will set off a political explosion in Utah.

As for the future, Jason Chaffetz has demonstrated determination and superb organizational skills. We have no doubt that his values reflect the majority feeling in the district. What remains unanswered is whether, as a rookie to the big league of politics, he will be able to quickly master the art of political maneuver under the dome of the Capitol, assuming he defeats his Democratic opponent in November.

It's also intriguing to speculate about what the Cannon-Chaffetz race might mean nationally. Each state has its own unique characteristics. Still, if Utah Republicans are so mad and fed up, what are other Republicans thinking across the nation? Yesterday's election could be a bellwether for other Republican incumbents. The voters really are fed up. Chris Cannon's long service, thoughtful ideas, and hard work within the congressional system were not enough. Voters want action, and they want more than what politicians have done in the past. If that is so, it is an ominous portent for John McCain, too.

On the other hand, Chaffetz turned voters' unrest to his advantage. If the GOP nationally can likewise convince voters it can bring real change, it too can succeed. But even dogged efforts within the system or pledges to better may not be enough.

Yesterday's vote here suggest that across the nation the GOP's only hope may be an impassioned drive to completely revamp what it's done in the past, and convince voters on a personal level that it will deliver what it promises.

Whether that will be enough to change Washington is a question that remains to be answered.