This message was self-deleted by its author

[cascadiance]

67. And the big media supported the corporate candidates that were the only ones heard...

... while so much was spent against any progressive candidates.

One exception here was in Oregon, where Democrats actually gained seats to have a solid majority now in the State Senate instead of a slight one seat "majority" they had before, which wasn't a majority when one of the so-called Democrats voted with the Republicans all the time (Betsy Johnson).

And you want to know why they won those extra two seats? Last minute heavy sums of money from Bloomberg and Tom Steyer that helped those two newer Democrats win, one a very close race for the seat where my own state senator now is a Democrat rather than a Republican. I helped a bit by being one of the few 100 seats that won him the seat by moving to that district the year before that election.

Yes, money has been what has swayed elections of candidates. I know my new senator from talking to him a lot at PCP meetings, etc., so I don't think he's a sellout, but it is this kind of money influence that often times buys more than just things like helping with arms control bills, but other favors as well, even from more liberal money spenders like Bloomberg, who also sought to put in place an open primary in this state, which really works against political parties as an institution.

On state propositions and measures though, you are voting for an issue, not a person. And an issue can't be "corrupted" in to doing other favors for a donor when in office. Therefore it is a lot harder to get the public to vote against their interests on issues, though that can be done, as has been shown by GMO bills that have been heavily spent against in fear campaigns, that despite that huge record amount of money spent on one here in Oregon, they only NARROWLY defeated that from passing.

We should observe how people vote on issues and note that it perhaps reflects in many cases more of a sentiment that voters want to see happen in a state, that if you had some courageous candidates that ran as populists rather than just on party line that is approved by campaign donors, they likely would get even more support than many here would expect they would, being called "far left extremists" the way the corporate media depicts them.