How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?

[bocablkr]

It would have passed but a larger number of Democrats would have voted against it.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]

So it makes no difference to you/us if all senators are for prohibiting internet gambling, some are and some are not, or a few are or most are? It makes no difference to us which senators support bans on internet gambling and which senators are against it?

[/ QUOTE ]

bkholdem,

His perspective accounts for the fact that there are two steps:

(1) Get it to the floor in a given form
(2) Vote

(Step 1) is done by only the most determined, and when done right, as by Frist, it makes Step 2 a nonissue. This is why pork passes that would normally be voted down 93-7.

As far as the OP, I think I see what he's getting at, and I think it's a given that the direct approach, a tidal wave of popularity, won't work.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not binary. Mr K could make the list better than I, but it's better described as a partial order on the following and more. I tried to put it in order:

Yes and I'm willing to fight for it
Yes and I got money to say yes
Yes
Yes because my Party leader wants it
Sure, because I'm getting something in exchange
Ok, but not worth pushing to get to the floor
Could go either way. What are you offering?
Yes because everyone else is voting yes
Abstain
Nay
Nay and I'll argue against it
Nay and I'll filibuster or place a hold
Nay and I'll filibuster and place a hold

[/ QUOTE ]

It also seems there is a public/private distinction. You have "Nay and I'll place a hold," but I bet there are also a few "Yea if it comes to the floor, because officially voting yea is best for me politically, but please place a hold someone. (because this is a waste of the senate's time/a bad idea/I'd rather it were addressed in a different political climate (when leadership will phrase the soundbites differently)).

Probably a subset of yes because everyone is voting yes.

[fnord_too]

I don't think it would have easily passed on its own. I tend to doubt it would have even made it out of the starting gate since it really is such a minor item (that is, I don't think anyone would have really cared enough about it to push it up to the floor).

The reason I don't think it would have passed easily is because there are a large number of voters who would have phoned and written in against it, and I think there are a number of republicans who actually don't see merit in this, though I could be wrong.

At any rate, I am still waiting to see what it actually does. I am not in the alarmist camp. I would hope that the major poker sites would be working hard on a protocol to ensure minors don't gamble and taxes can be collected in the US. Perhaps a gaming fee and monies deposited in person (which is not as cumbersome as it sounds, just set up arrangements with the big check cashing chains would probably work).

I think if the industry can present a plan that protects minors from gambling and shows how the government will garner tax revenue, they are almost home. Especially if the current law proves to be ineffective, and/or if sates still have sway over the issue (i.e. if a state could legalize internet gambling, and presumably garner some revenue from it, then it could easily happen I think).

Oh well, I am not a poly sci type guy but a bit of an optomist, so I am probably just spewing nonsense. Seems to me that there are plenty of ways things can work themselves out favorably.

[scrapperdog]

Some guy got something banned that almost no one cares about (trans fats in NY) with a small media campain that featured full page newspaper advertisements and such.

Yes this would have passed the senate as the hand was played. However getting them to fold the hand would have been easy if it was played correctly.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I don't think it would have passed easily is because there are a large number of voters who would have phoned and written in against it, and I think there are a number of republicans who actually don't see merit in this, though I could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of people phoned in against the bill when it was under consideration in the House, and yet it passed easily with broad bipartisan support.

[Beastmaster]

This is really a non issue to most Senators, the key is the carve outs and placing holds on bills before they come to a vote. What if a bill was in place to ban lotteries or ban placing bets on horse racing. Do you believe most Senators are for gambling and placing bets in general...probably not but all you need is a few to lobby for a carve out.

[faustusmedea]

I don't know what the count of the current Senate would have been if the bill stood on its own, but historically the Senate has passed or favorably reported Internet Gaming bills out of committee.

105th Congress - Kyl bill S 474 passed by a vote of 90 to 10
106th Congress - Kyl bill S 692 passed by the senate

Since 1997, Kyl has brought up legislation in the Senate. In nearly every case, he has received democrat cosponsors for his bills.

Once this issue cleared the House, it was really only time that was on our side as the Senate clearly would have voted to pass legislation on Internet Gambling.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
But the reason I said it was important was because a lot of people are implying that most senators didn't even want this prohibition. Whether that is true or not would determine future strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that most Senators did not know or care enough about the issue to really want the prohibition, but also saw little or no reason to actively oppose it.

The authors cleverly wrote the bill so that it did not sound like big brother trying to legislate what you do in the privacy of your home. They framed it as stopping the international flow of funds used for activities that the average person probably vaguely considers of questionable morality and legality.

The bottom line is that a vocal minority wanted the bill for many different reasons, and few if any Senators saw any political upside to opposing it. Briefly, the tail wagged the dog, and the bill was passed through the inertia of the majority.

Online poker is tarred with the vice brush. Like booze, smoking, B&M gambling, etc., virtually no politician will be actively for it on principle, but will publically posture as tolerating it from the standpoint of personal adult freedom and as a painless source of revenue.

[pushit7]

This bill was not high priority at all in the Senate as a stand alone. Also, I think what angers most of us is the principle at which this was snuck onto an unrelated, yet high priority bill.