How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?

[thetruest]

[ QUOTE ]
While everyone is making a big deal about how the issue was brought to a vote, I think it is important to know what the vote would have been if the internet bill stood alone. My impression is that it would still have passed easily. Am I right? If so that is important to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. Most of them don't care about this stuff and for the democrats this could have turn into an EASY issue about personal freedom and rights, government doesn't have the right to invade privacy, etc etc. and generally tap into alot of the middle of the road people who enjoy poker as a pasttime, younger voters who obviously are all into the trend of online poker/big tourneys, etc.

It's stupidly pessimistic to just say it would have passed anyway, really an assumption built around this communities insecurities. It's the year 2006 people; everybody in the burbs plays poker in their garages now. You aren't basement nerds or societal rejects.

[BillJames]

[ QUOTE ]
While everyone is making a big deal about how the issue was brought to a vote, I think it is important to know what the vote would have been if the internet bill stood alone. My impression is that it would still have passed easily. Am I right? If so that is important to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is very unlikely that it would have passed easily, because if it stood on its own it never would have reached the floor.

Several Senators of BOTH parties apparently had holds on the legislation that would have prevented it moving on its own. The fact that the legislation did not reach the floor in stand-alone form by 9/29, the last legislative day before the lame duck session after the elections, leads one to believe that the holds were still in place.

In any case, Sen. Reid was considering filibustering the entire Port Security bill because of the gaming provision before deciding against this strategy (probably wisely from a political perspective). If he was thinking about taking this step, it seems clear that if the measure was standing on its own he would have set-up a filibuster.

I have little doubt that the majority of Senators, consisting of both parties (though a higher % of Republicans) would vote for the gaming provision on its own. But the important question is not whether the bill would have recieved a majority of votes in a vaccum, but whether the bill in stand-alone form would have reached the floor for a vote at all. And the answer to that appears to be no.

[betgo]

It wouldn't have been brought up for a vote, as the online poker lobby would have kept it tied up in committee.

If it did go to a vote in the Senate, it is probable but not certain it would pass. In terms of voter reaction, Senators offend people either way. There wouold probably also be special interest pressure both ways.

[thehotspur]

As a stand alone bill it wouldn't have been passed in the Senate, the American Gaming Association is so strong as a lobby group in the Senate that given their revised position on regulating Internet gambling it would not have gone through.

[Guthrie]

[ QUOTE ]
We need a leader. Of course, none of the management here is going to step up so we better start looking elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]
The management here, as far as I can tell, make their living as authors, publishers, consultants to b&m casinos, and b&m poker players. How does that make them the voice of online poker?

[MrWookie]

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, Sen. Reid was considering filibustering the entire Port Security bill because of the gaming provision before deciding against this strategy (probably wisely from a political perspective).

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to know your source for this claim. I'm very skeptical.

[Russ Fox]

If this bill came to a vote by itself, it would pass easily, say 80 - 20. There would be four groups voting for the bill:

- The religious fundamentalists who believe that all gambling should be illegal (Jon Kyl and many others from the South)

- The nanny-state Senators who want to protect us from everything (e.g. Diane Feinstein)

- Voting for the measure because it will help them politically (e.g. Frist)

- Voting for the measure for [political] party reasons

Although I'm no expert in this like Berge or Mr. K, I'd expect the first three groups to total over 50. And this points out the problems we will have in getting this measure reversed. There are many Senators who believe that all gambling should be illegal. There are many other Senators, including both California Senators, who want to protect us from ourselves. I can't see any way that a measure "carving out" poker would pass the Senate by itself. Indeed, the only way I can see something like that passing is by attaching it to some must-pass bill.

Eventually, Congress will see that Internet gambling could bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues, and that's when I see it being legalized (and taxed and regulated).

[BillJames]

[ QUOTE ]
I want to know your source for this claim. I'm very skeptical.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 9/29 Washington Post:

"Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), whose home-state casinos are split over the Internet gambling measure, briefly weighed scuttling the bill over the provision before agreeing to go along, aides said."

Washington Post Article

[MrWookie]

Wow, OK, I'll take that. Thanks for the link.

[derosnec]

DS,

you should write a letter to the New York Times (somewhat apolitical) simply describing how poker is different from games against the house. You can give some math, analogies, etc. The Times loves publishing "guest columns" from professors, authors, etc. It would be a terrific step in educating the public on poker.