Poker Played Its Part

I'm sure Irag was main reason for the Republican defeats, but I'd guess the online gaming "ban" played its part, in particular for Leach. If it did, it would be good to draw attention to it wherever possible as the mainstream news organisations probably won't. Many newspapers have internet sites where public comments can be added to the main story. If you voted Democrat because your freedom to enjoy poker is under attack why not find a couple and say so there.

[feelixthegreek]

Taking credit for results is a key component of political success. We'd be crazy not to claim some influence over yesterday's election returns.

[Bilgefisher]

Lets brainstorm a bit. We need to make it heard that poker helped sway votes possibly contributing to the removal of Leach. So I ask;

What can/should we do to let others know that this poker legislation resulted in Leach being voted out?

I'll leave you with this statement by Autobet [ QUOTE ]
Tell Me What To Do With My Mouse, and Lose Your Seat in the House

[/ QUOTE ]

[Carlson411]

Should definitly try to take some type credit. Its the way America works anyway. Even if it was a small % of credit, take it and run. Just like when everybody folds to you in the Borgata b/c they suck. Take the small pot and run.

[ArtMonkRules]

I know for a fact we made a differnece... I live in Virginia, and have several buddies that like me, consider online poker our passion, passtime, and even part time job... we all voted for Webb, and before this election, I had NEVER voted democrat. In a state of 6 million people, and an election of 2.5 million votes that appears to have been decided by a mere 6000 votes (less that one half of one percent difference) consider that if Virginia is inline with the national numbers, then there are apprx. 300,000 people playing poker online in virginia. If even a tenth of those players voted, then it may have swung this entire election!

[spidey74]

If you take a look, every single one of the candidates that supported poker players ended up winning in this past election:

- Jon Tester
- Claire McCaskill
- Maria Cantwell
- Jim Webb

What's more Jim Leach lost and his race wasn't even on the radar!! True, we didn't win the Jon Kyl race, but we were able to help narrow a 29 point lead from a poll taken in January down to 9 points!

I think it is very clear, poker players do have a voice in American politics and its only been a few months since we started working together. The takewaway is clear, we need to continue working together and we need to continue getting stronger. We went from being an abandoned orphan a few months ago, to now having a decent amount of people in our corner. That list needs to continue to grow. We need to continue to enlist new politicians to fight for our cause and brainstorm new ideas to progress our fight.

Let's celebrate the victory of this battle, but let's also make sure we win the war!!

Spidey

[jackaaron]

I have no real way to determine in Ohio if poker swayed the vote. I, like many of you, have typically voted Repub. Of course, I voted Dem this time, and asked others too as well. If you pay attention to our elections, you'll notice that we are typically a Repub state, and we've had Repub Governors forever. We now have a Dem governor, and Repub Sen Dewine has been ousted by a Dem as well. Essentially, the Dems took over Ohio.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
What's more Jim Leach lost and his race wasn't even on the radar!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Repeatedly saying this won't make it true. The race wasn't heavily polled. It was conducted very civilly. Very little advertising money was spent. The Des Moines Register seemed to think that the race was going to be close. The Iowa City Press-Citizen in November considered it the closest race in the state, thinking it was going to be close to 50-50. The only real poll conducted there had the race 50-48 at the end of October.

[BruinEric]

People can "take credit" all they want, but no politician with any electoral sense about him/her will believe that the pro-online-gaming constituency will play a significant role in vote tallies in their future.

The way to influence politicians is for the PPA or other lobbying organizations to guide them to plentiful CASH MONEY for their campaign coffers.

Otherwise, politicians in unsafe districts won't often come out strongly in favor of legalization of online poker. Because there is more electoral and fundraising risk inherent in that position. A Republican faces lost votes and lost donations by some values-based groups focused on gambling. A Democrat faces the same from the "protect the children" and the "gambling is an addiction/disease" types.

The risk now is that a Democrat congress keeps with this effort in order to 'triangulate' and show small signs of being "in touch" with values voters and "save the children" voters. Remember -- it took a Democrat president to sign Welfare Reform for just that kind of reasoning.

[Eaglesfan1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's more Jim Leach lost and his race wasn't even on the radar!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Repeatedly saying this won't make it true. The race wasn't heavily polled. It was conducted very civilly. Very little advertising money was spent. The Des Moines Register seemed to think that the race was going to be close. The Iowa City Press-Citizen in November considered it the closest race in the state, thinking it was going to be close to 50-50. The only real poll conducted there had the race 50-48 at the end of October.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for adding the manditory, un-needed negativity that must find its way into every thread... which ultimately starts an argument about some non-important point, and takes the thread totally off topic.

[GardenaMiracle]

I guess that I would agree that poker played some part in the conscience of the nation. Extremists within our government have been stealthily taking our rights away one by one. Adding poker to the safe ports bill was clearly an abuse of power. At some point we had to say enough, and we did.

[antneye]

All issues play "Some" part in an election. It all depends on what motivates people to get off their asses and vote (sadly, this is a big problem).

This election, while being a landslide for the Democrats was actually very close. Most of the seats that swayed power came down to a handful of votes. With that in mind it is very possible, that the poker issue motivated a group of people who don't normally vote just enough to actually change the balance of power.

I am a Republican. I am also upset with my party because they allowes themselves to be swayed from their normal platform to pay off promises to the extreme right which were made to keep power over the last few years. This sad "drift" plagues all parties when they try to keep power. I still voted Republican on most tickets, but I kept my promise to Peter King and did not vote for him in protest of him allowing Frist to tack UIGEA on to the Safe Port Bill which King was the committe chair on. I plan on letting him know why he lost my vote.

Students of history will recognize that this type of switch in the balance of power plagues most Presidents in their 6th yr.

[DuderinoAB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's more Jim Leach lost and his race wasn't even on the radar!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Repeatedly saying this won't make it true. The race wasn't heavily polled. It was conducted very civilly. Very little advertising money was spent. The Des Moines Register seemed to think that the race was going to be close. The Iowa City Press-Citizen in November considered it the closest race in the state, thinking it was going to be close to 50-50. The only real poll conducted there had the race 50-48 at the end of October.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for adding the manditory, un-needed negativity that must find its way into every thread... which ultimately starts an argument about some non-important point, and takes the thread totally off topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

He makes a valid point though. That's the idea behind a forum. People make arguments on topics. I don't really see how that is off topic. I mean it breaks up the "yeah we really did make a difference" man love session, but its relevant info stated in a civil manner. Let's be realistic here.

[Python49]

What confuses me is that if only a very small % of poker players out there are winning players, what would motivate a losing player to vote according to this issue....? Im not too sure what it must be ilke in their shoes but it seems to me that if ive been losing 2k of my monthly pay checks for over 2 years maybe poker being outlawed is not such a bad thing after all?

[autobet]

Some players can afford to lose and write it off as entertainment.

Others lose more than they can afford, are trying to quit and can't, and may be happy the government is doing it for them.

[autobet]

Here is part of an article posted on the PPA website

Root says, “The GOP has squandered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to control all levels of government for decades. The migration of GOP voters to low tax red (Republican) states had the potential to put the GOP in the drivers seat for many years to come. But President Bush made 2 primary mistakes:

First he allowed government growth and spending to spiral out of control. He spent like a combination of a Democrat and a drunken sailor! Republicans can never win by outspending Democrats.

Second, “W” turned off Libertarian Republicans (like me) and mainstream moderate voters on issues such as stem cell research, Terri Schiavo, global warming and the ban on online gaming- which polls showed was opposed by 90% of the electorate.”

Root believes that the online gaming ban was the stealth smoking gun of election 2006- with millions of angry online poker fans- mostly high income males that traditionally vote Republican- voting Democrat in mass protest to this egregious violation of their freedoms.

Root says, “This election was not won by Democrats. It was lost by Republican arrogance. Voters didn’t choose Democrats for their views- because they offered none. Voters certainly didn’t vote Democrat in support of higher taxes. They chose moderate to conservative Democrat candidates over the perceived religious and right-wing extremist GOP image created by Bush and Rove.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
What confuses me is that if only a very small % of poker players out there are winning players, what would motivate a losing player to vote according to this issue....? Im not too sure what it must be ilke in their shoes but it seems to me that if ive been losing 2k of my monthly pay checks for over 2 years

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is entertainment for most people. What if the government banned buying baseball tickets? Would everyone think of it as saving us money?

Americans enjoy playing poker, why should we be told we can't?

[ QUOTE ]
People can "take credit" all they want, but no politician with any electoral sense about him/her will believe that the pro-online-gaming constituency will play a significant role in vote tallies in their future... .

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure that anyone was trying to claim much credit, merely that the gaming issue caused many people to change their vote and in some cases life-long allegiences. You may be right that it was not in absolute terms a "significant" number but in "first past the post" election systems that is not needed - only enough to tip the balance. In some areas activating poker players to speak up and say why they voted the way they did may well give politicians cause for thought. It may also encourage others to turn out and vote.
I was trying to suggest one way of doing that. Other/better ideas are certainly welcome.

[PokerNoob]

I am a Reagan/Contract with America Republican. The strategy of pandering to the Religious Right (Shiavo, Stem Cell, Defense of Marriage, Internet Gambling, ad nauseum) obviously pissed of a lot more swing voters and libertarian republicans than it "energized the base", and made the difference in the election. I think it was pretty clear to the Religious Right that their boys are all ethically challenged anyway (Abramoff, sex scandals).

[rjp]

It's tough to get a handle on the impact, but it was a strong reason for me to go vote for the Democrat House representative in a mostly Republican district here in South Carolina.

The Republican (Brown) won by a hefty margin, but I was happy to see them lose enough seats to see a shift in power.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
People can "take credit" all they want, but no politician with any electoral sense about him/her will believe that the pro-online-gaming constituency will play a significant role in vote tallies in their future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. Thinking about Leach in Iowa (my state, not my district), I have to wonder how in the hell he lost. This was one good, decent, positive individual that was loved by nearly everyone.

How do college students vote? Do they vote in their college district, or do they file absentee in their home district?

I can imagine one hell of a lot of pissed off University of Iowa poker players that may have voted against Leach, when otherwise they may not have bothered.

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]
I can imagine one hell of a lot of pissed off University of Iowa poker players that may have voted against Leach, when otherwise they may not have bothered.

[/ QUOTE ]

The college vote across our country could have been huge. If not, it can be next time with more time to organize.

[flytrap]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no real way to determine in Ohio if poker swayed the vote. I, like many of you, have typically voted Repub. Of course, I voted Dem this time, and asked others too as well. If you pay attention to our elections, you'll notice that we are typically a Repub state, and we've had Repub Governors forever. We now have a Dem governor, and Repub Sen Dewine has been ousted by a Dem as well. Essentially, the Dems took over Ohio.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ohio is probably a very good example. Since to my knowledge there is no legal live poker in Ohio, I could definately see the Ohio poker players being especially upset at the online poker ban. Here in Michigan I can drive 20 mins to play in some decent NL games, but in Ohio you're SOL without the internet.

[Bilgefisher]

While I agree with many folks, that poker was not the key issue resulting in certain close raises swinging towards one canidate or the other, it can still be considered the straw that broke the camels back. (Any number of issues can be considered as such, but we need to champion our cause)

Power is perceived. If we want politicians to be wary of the average poker player who votes, they need to perceive poker as one of the key incredients in this years election result. So I say we do what it takes to give them that perception.

[Archon_Wing]

Given that the races were extremely close, I guess a straw would have a little impact. Not many people really know about the legislation due to the clandestine measures used to pass it. I guess if more people know, it would annoy them a little more and might have had some small impact. As of now, not really but it's fun to think about it as such.

[WooIsMe]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know. Thinking about Leach in Iowa (my state, not my district), I have to wonder how in the hell he lost. This was one good, decent, positive individual that was loved by nearly everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

This election was about IRAQ. Republicans were voted out of office because it seemed the only way to get through Bush's thick skull.

[GardenaMiracle]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a Reagan/Contract with America Republican. The strategy of pandering to the Religious Right (Shiavo, Stem Cell, Defense of Marriage, Internet Gambling, ad nauseum) obviously pissed of a lot more swing voters and libertarian republicans than it "energized the base", and made the difference in the election. I think it was pretty clear to the Religious Right that their boys are all ethically challenged anyway (Abramoff, sex scandals).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am amazed how many people I speak to fall into this category. I hope that a strong message was sent to any candidate, that America will not tolerate extremists on either side.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
This election was about IRAQ. Republicans were voted out of office because it seemed the only way to get through Bush's thick skull.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the case of most Republicans you may be correct, but not in Leach's case. He opposed the war from the beginning.

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]

Root says, “This election was not won by Democrats. It was lost by Republican arrogance. Voters didn’t choose Democrats for their views- because they offered none. Voters certainly didn’t vote Democrat in support of higher taxes. They chose moderate to conservative Democrat candidates over the perceived religious and right-wing extremist GOP image created by Bush and Rove.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would describe my normally Republican vote for Democrats across the board.