Terms & Conditions

|
The 2+2 Forums
Before using this Forum, please refer to the Terms
and Conditions
(Last modified: 2/26/2006)
Be sure to read the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
This is an archive. The main forums are here
These forums are read only.
Nate tha\\\' Great
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/07/03
Posts: 8480
Loc: blogging
|
|
There are a lot of reasons for poker players to hope for substantial Democratic gains tonight. A split or Democratic 110th Congress is more likely to pass study or tax-and-regulate legislation, and less likely to pass further restrictions along the lines of the UIGEA. Democrats would come to control committees that have authority for drafting and enforcing the UIGEA regulations. And Democratic victories might even make foreign companies like NETELLER more inclined to "stay the course" and remain open to US business.
However, the main reason to root for the Democrats -- and vote for the Democrats -- is a little bit more subtle than all of that.
This election can be described as a referendum on all sorts of things. It's certainly in some measure a referendum on President Bush, the Iraq War, and the leadership of the 109th Congress. However, more profoundly than any of that, it's a referendum on the direction of the Republican Party.
Republicans have captured an ever-increasing fraction of the white evangelical vote, and particularly the Southern white evangelical vote, since at least the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These voters played an important part in the electoral majorities that Reagan captured in 1980 and 1984. However, it's only in relatively recent times that white evangelicals have come to dominate the policy of the Republican Party, and by extension, the country.
White Evangelical Protestants represent a relatively small fraction of the electorate; somewhere between 20-25% according to most surveys. Yet, they exhibit a disproportionate influence on the direction of the country. President Bush is a white evangelical (as was President Clinton, by the way). Majority Leader Frist, while perhaps not technically an evangelical, kowtows to them in his policy-making. It's because of their allegiance to white evangelicals that the Republicans brought us the Terry Schiavo incident, the ban on stem-cell research, the various attempts at gay marriage amendments, and the UIGEA. It's perhaps the reason they brought us the Iraq War.
The GOP leadership of the past twelve years is not your father's Republican Party. It's not even your older brother's Republican Party. "Morning in America" Republicans of the Reagan years, which can be characterized by their advocacy of limited government, fiscal conservatism, social values that lean libertarian, and strong-but-prudent defense policy, have been shuttered to the side of their party. These mainline Republicans are likely to be allies of online poker; witness the opposition to the UIGEA from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other (mainline) Republican-leaning organizations. But they have largely been disenfranchised.
How has the evangelical minority come to take power over the Republican party? That's a question for sociologists and political scientists to explore. It certainly involves some element of disorganization on the part of the Democrats, some brilliant Machiavellian politics on the part of leaders like Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, and perhaps the fortuity of events like the disputed Florida vote in the 2000 Elections, and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. However, the main reason is that the country has yet to tell the evangelical Republicans otherwise. They have yet to tell them that they won't stand for the tyranny of the minority.
Tonight is the chance to change all of that. If something like regulated US internet gambling is to take place, we first need a paradigm shift. Not a paradigm shift in the composition of the electorate itself. Americans are, at best, ambivalent about efforts to ban internet gambling. Religious participation in the country is decreasing. Tolerance for gambling is increasing. The underlying demographics are favorable. But we need a paradigm shift in the alignment between the electorate and the country's policy. That's what tonight's election is all about.
This is why you should break out the champagne if Bush, Frist, Kyl and their buddies are repudiated tonight.
-Nate
Recommended reading:
American Theocracy, Kevin Phillips.
Whistling Past Dixie, Thomas Schaller
Edited by Nate tha' Great (11/07/06 12:59 PM)
|
5thStreetHog
veteran
Reged: 09/24/06
Posts: 1234
|
|
Applause!!!Well written post.I also agree with you 100%.
|
APerfect10
old hand
Reged: 01/22/05
Posts: 979
Loc: PokerTracker 3
|
|
Overall I agree with you but I think this line is absurd.
Quote:
It's perhaps the reason they brought us the Iraq War.
|
4_2_it
Donktastic
Reged: 07/12/05
Posts: 18437
Loc: Trying to be the shepherd
|
|
Nate,
Nice post. However, most people vote with their pocketbooks. Many, like me, cannot vote for anyone whose platform is to raise taxes.
|
Nate tha\\\' Great
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/07/03
Posts: 8480
Loc: blogging
|
|
Quote:
Overall I agree with you but I think this line is absurd.
Quote:
It's perhaps the reason they brought us the Iraq War.
This point is debatable but not absurd. I'd refer you to the Phillips book, which makes the argument that the belief in the second coming of Christ among evangelicals, which under some interpretations is to be brought about by cataclysmic events in the Middle East, was at least one motivation behind the decision to invade Iraq. Personally I think the decision to invade Iraq was more a matter of realpolitik gone awry, but the religious underpinnings of the Bush administration are (even) deeper than they might appear at first glance.
I don't want this thread to get sidetracked, so to repeat, read the Phillips book. He's a lifelong Republican and not some kind of partisan hack.
|
Nate tha\\\' Great
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/07/03
Posts: 8480
Loc: blogging
|
|
Quote:
Nate,
Nice post. However, most people vote with their pocketbooks. Many, like me, cannot vote for anyone whose platform is to raise taxes.
This is increasingly not true. Republican tax and welfare policy seeks unambiguously to transfer income from the poorest Americans to the richest ones. And yet, poor Americans who are the least bit right of center on social policy have voted overwhelmingly Republican in recent elections.
|
4_2_it
Donktastic
Reged: 07/12/05
Posts: 18437
Loc: Trying to be the shepherd
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Nate,
Nice post. However, most people vote with their pocketbooks. Many, like me, cannot vote for anyone whose platform is to raise taxes.
This is increasingly not true. Republican tax and welfare policy seeks unambiguously to transfer income from the poorest Americans to the richest ones. And yet, poor Americans who are the least bit right of center on social policy have voted overwhelmingly Republican in recent elections.
Nate, you misinterpreted my comment. Most people in America are not poor. The fact that some poor don't vote their pocketbooks doesn't invalidate my assertion.
democrat voters have outnumbered republican voters since I have been alive. How do republicans manage to win state-wide and national elections? It's because people vote in what they perceive to be their best interest, which usually translates to people voting with their pocketbooks.
It's how Reagan got elected and how Clinton got re-elected.
Anyway, I fear we are treading dangerously close to politics here. Go ahead and make one rebuttal and let's be done with this line.
|
charlie_t_jr
addict
Reged: 07/09/03
Posts: 683
Loc: Free State Of Winston, AL
|
|
Well since this is not the political forum, but the legislation forum, I'll try to refrain from replying to the obvious political tone of your post. Yes, the one SINGLE issue of online poker would most likely fair better under Democratic control of the House and Senate. It's one SINGLE issue that has made me angry and disappointed.
What frightens me though, Nancy Pelosi as new Speaker of the House. There's always ton's of tax/poker questions...here's another frightening thought...Charles Rangel chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Yes what happened with the bill and how it was passed pisses me off to no end. But it is one SINGLE, and in the grand scheme of things, somewhat unimportant issue.
Issues like a nuclear Iran and N. Korea, border security, taxes, etc still have to be considered. To me, People like Pelosi, Rangel, John Conyers, Pat Leahy, or Dennis Kucinich don't inspire much confidence in handling those issues effectively.
I'm sure we could debate whether they could or not, but this isn't the forum for that, is it.
|
crzylgs
veteran
Reged: 12/13/05
Posts: 1292
Loc: Rewinding.
|
|
Quote:
Nate,
Nice post. However, most people vote with their pocketbooks. Many, like me, cannot vote for anyone whose platform is to raise taxes.
I will also be voting with my pocketbook, but for the Dems. I hope anyone who derives a substantial portion of their income from gambling will do the same.
|
vinyard
old hand
Reged: 11/12/04
Posts: 999
|
|
As the post I am responding to indicates, these threads have no chance to remain unpolitical. And as a poster I have no interest in reading FoxNews Talking Points and outright lies from other posters in a non-political forum here on 2+2 I am respectfully asking for the OP/another moderator to lock this thread.
|
|
0 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Ryan Beal, iron81, Mat Sklansky, Mike Haven
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Rating:
Topic views: 1444
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5
|


|