No one is claiming that money is all that determines elections. It is a decisive factor in many of them. Cantor's district was highly conservative, and apparently immigration policy was a hot button issue; something Cantor was, in the view of local voters, inconsistent on.
It hardly means that money doesn't have a major impact on elections. It isn't about the integrity of the voter, but it is about name recognition, getting your message out, drowning out your opponent's message. There are hundreds of factors, but money is still among the largest of them.

Kinda puts reality at odds with all those who claim that money can win elections.

And this is why we think you don't understand science. 1 Data point does not confirm or deny anything. Even if that 1 data point was radically outside the norm, it could be errors in data collection or some other circumstance outside your control. Repeated experimentation and/or observation still leads to the overwhelming conclusion that money absolutely can help win an election.

And this is why we think you don't understand science. 1 Data point does not confirm or deny anything. Even if that 1 data point was radically outside the norm, it could be errors in data collection or some other circumstance outside your control. Repeated experimentation and/or observation still leads to the overwhelming conclusion that money absolutely can help win an election.

Not every vote is cast by an educated voter.

You can be "literate" and stupid or "illiterate" and smart. How about some simple questions related to the ballot?

What is issue X? If you can answer it you vote, if you can't you wont.

Yeah.. and who decides what "Issue X" is? Don't give the "approved" answer and you can't vote.. regardless if its because you just don't know, or because your viewpoint doesn't line up with those who designed the questions.

For that matter, who decides what the issues are that warrant a question?

Spoken like someone who has no self awareness of how deeply they're being manipulated by their environment.

This isn't an insult. EVERYONE is manipulated by their environment. Your degree of awareness of it does dilute its effect. The fact that you are unaware of it, may mean you're actually more manipulated than most.

The same people that do the Gerrymandering of course.

Yeah.. and who decides what "Issue X" is? Don't give the "approved" answer and you can't vote.. regardless if its because you just don't know, or because your viewpoint doesn't line up with those who designed the questions.

For that matter, who decides what the issues are that warrant a question?

It'd be the first issue on the ballot. Sometimes it is 1, sometimes 2, etc. And the answer is... OMG What's on the ballot?

Example from my last election:
http://www.voterfind.com/lakeoh/data/20 ... 0248070301

Question: What is issue 1?
Answer: Proposed Constitutional Amendment TO FUND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BY PERMITTING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS

(Caps-lock on them, not me) We aren't talking partisan bullshit or trick questions to guage your political bent.

It sounds to me like Taskiss just misspoke: He said "kinda puts reality at odds with all those who claim that money can win elections." Clearly, it can; what he probably should have said (and may have meant to) is "kinda puts reality at odds with all those who claim that money always wins elections." It doesn't always win elections, and this is a case where it didn't. "Awarness of being manipulated by one's environment" has nothing to do with it; it's a simple case of taking a reasonable claim and misstating it as a wild exaggeration.

constitutional amendments might qualify DE.