Update - Week of September 25th

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
"I'd say there is a 40 percent chance it comes back up during the lame-duck session (in November), a 40 percent chance the defense bill passes this week without an Internet gambling ban or any other attachments, and a 20 percent chance the defense bill passes this week with the Internet gambling ban," said the lobbyist, who requested anonymity."

http://www.casinocitytimes.com/news/...ntentID=161365

P.S. That lobbyist needs some help with (conditional?) probabilities. He has missing probability mass, unless he really believes there is a 60% chance this may all go away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, he's positing a 60% chance of the defense authorization bill being voted on this week, whereas it's realistically more like .6%.

FWIW, I think the overall chances of a ban passing (this week + lame duck) are probably in the neighborhood of 30-40%.

[Silent1]

Guys, it looks like the detainee bill cleared the House today. I don't understand all these procedures very well (I went to school outside the US), but I believe that the Senate already OK'd a corresponding bill.

Question: This will go through tomorrow, it looks like. What are the chances of Frist trying an attachment here? Is there a conference committee involved?

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/du...r/15615763.htm

Also, the last part indicates that McCain and Warner are together in not liking some of the crap from the White House, as far as "detainee treatment" goes, and I assume other things as well.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
More exciting: post-Election 2000, pre-Election 2004, or this?

[/ QUOTE ]

post-2000 would be hard to beat, with the 50-50 senate it produced, a nailbiter presidential, and a few other things. But this year's cycle will give 2000 a run for its money. Maybe even 1994, though I am not convinced of that.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't be so comfortably Nrogish in your certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Motion to make "nrogish" an officially recognized adjective in the Legislation Forum, meaning all things premature and sensationalist. Do I hear a second?

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I'd say there is a 40 percent chance it comes back up during the lame-duck session (in November), a 40 percent chance the defense bill passes this week without an Internet gambling ban or any other attachments, and a 20 percent chance the defense bill passes this week with the Internet gambling ban," said the lobbyist, who requested anonymity."

http://www.casinocitytimes.com/news/...ntentID=161365

P.S. That lobbyist needs some help with (conditional?) probabilities. He has missing probability mass, unless he really believes there is a 60% chance this may all go away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, he's positing a 60% chance of the defense authorization bill being voted on this week, whereas it's realistically more like .6%.

FWIW, I think the overall chances of a ban passing (this week + lame duck) are probably in the neighborhood of 30-40%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[BluffTHIS!]

Seconded!

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't be so comfortably Nrogish in your certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Motion to make "nrogish" an officially recognized adjective in the Legislation Forum, meaning all things premature and sensationalist. Do I hear a second?

[/ QUOTE ]

I move to table the motion by Mr K due to its inflamatory, though humorous, nature.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I couldn't resist

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't be so comfortably Nrogish in your certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Motion to make "nrogish" an officially recognized adjective in the Legislation Forum, meaning all things premature and sensationalist. Do I hear a second?

[/ QUOTE ]

I move to table the motion by Mr K due to its inflamatory, though humorous, nature.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I couldn't resist

[/ QUOTE ]

2+2 RECORD, LEGISLATIVE DAY OF 27 SEPTEMBER 2006

Mr. K: I oppose the motion and request a recorded vote.

Mr. Sklansky (the PRESIDING OFFICER): The motion by the gentleman from DC, Mr. Berge20, is not debatable. The question now occurs on the motion to table. Members will cast their votes by electronic device. This will be a 15 minute roll call vote.

(forum participants should now feel free to post "aye" or "nay" for the next 15 minutes to decide whether my motion should be tabled (killed), as suggested by Mr. Berge20.)

[palmdrive]

[ QUOTE ]
"If they close (negotiations on the defense bill) with only that (Internet gambling ban) in it, it would be a tough thing to vote against," Reid said.

[/ QUOTE ]

That statement is pretty alarming IMO. It seems to open the possibility that Frist/Hastert attempt to trade the immigration and courthouse amendments for the gambling amendment. It even raises the possibility that Hastert inserted those other amendments knowing full-well that they'd never get past Warner but would be useful as bargaining chips on other legislation. But perhaps that's a bit too conspiratorial.

In any event, as a total outsider it's not inconceivable that Warner would stand his ground on controversial issues like immigration but rollover on internet gambling. Particularly if Reid himself wouldn't put up a fight.

[Ron Burgundy]

nay