are online poker players enough to tip the election

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
However, from a larger perspective, there's a clear culprit at work here: the religious right. They are the only group that has this on their agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why did 60% of Democrats in the House vote for it when it was a separate bill? Remove "the right" entirely and it still goes through...

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
The gambling part of the bill will be a non issue. To help defeat him there would have to be those in the media or the Democrats who oppose the bill. While some Dems may not like the attack on liberties none of them are going to argue it was a bad idea and be seen as "on the side" of gabmling interests. Its a non-starter as an issue

[/ QUOTE ]

Gambling is certainly a pretty minimal issue. The issue of attaching irrelevent riders to important bills is a pretty damned huge issue though. It undermines our democracy in a big way and cannot be tolerated.

[peritonlogon]

I haven't read all of the replys, but all of them that I read have said no because online poker players and gamblers don't make up a large enough portion of the electorate.

I disagree.

I don't think they will make a huge impact, but I think it will be noticeable, and perhaps enoght to swing an election, and here's why.

Most online poker players, and a lot of gamblers in general, have become one issue voters. There have been dozens of posts here of people saying that they have swithced partys because of this, and there have been a number of libritarians who have posted that, in light of this and Barney Franks' remarks, voting for Democrats is the only way to go.

Elections are usually not won by large demographic segments of the population anymore. The large segments usually balance each other leaving room for the swing votes to be catered to and win the elections.

I submit that the Democratic party could have won (assuming no vote rigging) the presidential elections of 2000 and the 2004 if the party and the candidates decided to remove gun control from their platform and endorse removing most all firearm restrictions (machine guns still require a federal firearms license excluded).

Gun voters only vote republican because they are one issue voters, they make up around 3%, half of which would have been enough to swing both of the elections (1.5% in certain key swing states, that is). I know a lot of one issue gun voters, and a whole lot of them have said things to the effect of "Yeah, I don't like anything Bush and the Republican led congress have done...except let the Brady Bill expire." My father being one of them.

I suspect that online poker players and poker enthusiasts make up around 1% of the electorate. The losing players will be upset about this new legislation along with winners and a number of them will be one issue voters. This means that around .5% of the electorate will swing. (I could be overestimating the % of one issue voting poker players, but, I actually think it could be more.)

This may not be enough to swing too many elections and electors, but it is liable to be enough to swing some. As a result, it is likely that candidates, mostly Democrat, and mostly in close elections, will come out, not "in favor of online gambling" but rather "in favor of the freedom to do it" or "in favor of letting the states decide."

To that effect, I think that this bill was a tactical mistake by the Republicans because, the "values voters" would have voted for these candidates in the same number anyway, which makes this issue only a loser for them, and it's really not polarizing enough to help "mobilize the base" as it were.

[David Steele]

Sorry to break this to you, but 15 year old 12-tablers still won't be able to vote come the next presidential election.

I am not so sure, many of them are prime candidates be the first hackers of the voting machines.

[rageotones]

my 2 cents (summary at bottom):

i have been under the impression for years that the election years that don't have a presidential candidate are usually controlled by far right or left wingers. in other words, i believe the bill might have been a move to make the far right happy and get more support for that one bad bad man.

however, i believe it was a mistake because it is probably not going to produce more votes for the right-wing conservatives since they will probably be out voting anyway. what i believe it will do, is bring out many middle-ground people like myself that wouldn't have made it to the polls originally.

i believe this bill will bring out more voters that will solely vote anti-republican.