2008 Presidential Primaries
 

The 2008 presidential primaries are only a few months away. In some states, registered voters who wish to change parties (necessary to vote in that party’s primary in some states) must do so by the end of the year, so it’s time to think about the implications of each candidate for online poker.

We discussed this a bit at Republican Presidential Candidates' Stands on Internet Gaming; this is an update of that.

Republican Candidates (in order of latest CNN polling):

Rudy Giuliani, 27%
Former two-term mayor of NY. Social moderate (pro-choice, favors some gun restrictions). I found no record on his stand on any gaming issue. He’s made some pro-gaming statements, but he also zealously enforced gaming laws in New York. Rep. Peter King (R), cosponsor of IGREA, is his ally.

Pros: a win for him will reduce the influence of the anti-gaming social conservative Republicans. In fact, many will sit out the general election if Giuliani is the candidate, which would be an awesome result for us there and (especially) in the Congressional races.

Cons: Giuliani is no libertarian. In fact, he believes big government provides law and order, and his history is one of big government. If he thinks Internet poker is legal, we’re golden. If he thinks it’s illegal…watch out! Also, there’s a risk that he’ll look for some common ground between him and the anti-gaming religious right. For some reason, we’re usually the bone that gets thrown to these folks.

Fred Thompson, 19%
Former senator from TN. Often described as a Goldwater/Reagan conservative. Championed by many social conservatives as the best candidate who has a good chance of winning. I found no record on his stand on any gaming issue. Endorsed by Sen. D’Amato (not as PPA Chairman, but as a private citizen).

Pros: He believes in limited government, so he’s historically been hesitant to empower the federal government to control issues that traditionally belong to the states.

Cons: He doesn’t appear to be on our side. Our opponents are his core constituency.

John McCain, 14%
F. AZ senator. Clear record of opposing our rights, right along with fellow AZ senator Jon Kyl.

Pros: none

Cons: He’s simply against us.

Newt Gingrich, 12% (undeclared)
Former House speaker.

Pros: He believes in limited government.

Cons: Same as Thompson. He’s not on our side and he’s trying to win the support of our opponents.

Mitt Romney, 11%
Former MA governor. I found no record on his stand on Internet gaming. While Mormons don’t personally gamble, they don’t necessarily have issues with non-Mormons gambling. In fact, many Mormons work in Vegas casinos.

Pros: can’t think of one

Cons: Same as Thompson and Gingrich. He’s not on our side and he’s trying to win the support of our opponents.

Sam Brownback, 3%
F-. Senator from Kansas. Proud social conservative. Cosponsor of several Internet gaming ban bills. Also sponsored bills on broadcast decency and on bans of violent video games. Supports big-government social conservatism. Reportedly met with former Atty. Gen. Gonzales to pressure him to push through harsh UIGEA regs.

Pros: If he’s the nominee, he won’t win, and he’ll take down other anti-gaming folks with him.

Cons: Sworn enemy of ours...may as well vote for Kyl or Goodlatte.

Mike Huckabee, 2%
F. Baptist minister, former Gov. of Arkansas. As governor, he opposed the Arkansas state lottery. I. Nelson Rose says Huckabee is staunchly anti-gaming ( <a href="http://gaming.unlv.edu/reading/rose84.html)." target="_blank">http://gaming.unlv.edu/reading/rose84.html[/url]).</a> And, the CATO institute gave him an F for spending and tax policy, and an overall D in 2006. www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa581/reportcard_table.html

Pros: Same as Brownback. If he’s the nominee, he won’t win, and he’ll take down other anti-gaming folks with him.

Cons: Sworn enemy of ours…may as well vote for Kyl or Goodlatte.

Tom Tancredo, 2% .
CO representative. Supported HR 4411 and HR 2143 (banned credit card use for Internet gaming)

Pros: none

Cons: Trying to get the support of our opponents.

Ron Paul, 1%
A+. Texas congressman. Big proponent of our rights.

Pros: Perfect candidate for us.

Cons: none

Duncan Hunter. 0%
F. CA congressman. Voted for HR 2143, banning Internet gaming by credit card, 2003. Voted for HR 4411. Cosponsored HR 4477 (Goodlatte’s ban bill). Big-time anti-gaming guy.

Pros: none

Cons: opponent of ours

Republican Summary:

Ron Paul: A vote for Paul is a vote for our freedom. Even if he doesn’t win your state’s primary, a vote for him is a statement for what we believe.

Rudy Giuliani: A vote for Giuliani is a Republican vote against nanny-state social conservatism. Of the leading Republican candidates, he may be the best one for our long-term goals.

Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich: Open questions at this point.

John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter: Opponents of our freedoms. Avoid at all costs.


Democratic Candidates (in order of latest CNN polling):

Hillary Clinton, 40%
Two-term NY senator. I found no record of her position on Internet gaming. The Clinton administration, of which she was a part, was strongly anti-Internet gaming.

Pros: She could not care less what FoF thinks, and they know it.

Cons: Her negatives among all Republicans (social conservatives included) are so high that they’ll go to the polls just to vote against her, hurting us in congressional races.

Barack Obama, 21%
IL senator. No known position on Internet gaming but reputed to be a good player.

Pros: He doesn’t mind letting it be known that he enjoys playing poker for money. These stories are even on his own website. Probably would be good for us.

Cons: He hasn’t come out in support of us.

John Edwards, 13%
Former NC senator. No known position on Internet gaming.

Pros: He’s unlikely to draw the social conservatives to the polls specifically to vote against him.

Cons: Position on Internet gaming unknown.

Al Gore, 11% (undeclared)

Former TN senator and vice-president. I found no record of his position on Internet gaming. The Clinton administration, of which he was a part, was strongly anti-gaming.

Pros: Invented the Internet [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Cons: Position on Internet gaming unknown.

Bill Richardson, 5%
NM governor. Made statements in support of Internet gaming.

Pros: Appears to be with us.

Cons: none.

Joe Biden, 2%
DE senator. Voted against Kyl’s S 474 (an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have amended the Wire Act to ban most Internet gaming), an amendment that passed 90-10. Current senators against that amendment were Larry Craig (R-ID), Pete Domenici (R-MN), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and Ted Stevens (R-AK).

Pros: With us, at least on this occasion

Cons: Hasn’t really spoken out for us

Dennis Kucinich, 2%
A- OH congressman. Voted against HR 4411.

Pros: With us.

Cons: none.

Chris Dodd, 0%
F CT senator. Spoke on the Senate floor in favor of S 627, Kyl’s Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act.

Pros: none.

Cons: Against us.

Mike Gravel, 0%
F Former AK senator. Seems like he could be with us, but I don’t really know.

Pros: none.

Cons: Hasn’t spoken for us.

Democratic Summary:

Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Dennis Kucinich: With us, or likely with us. At this point, votes for them help us.

John Edwards, Al Gore, and Mike Gravel: Open questions at this point.

Hillary Clinton: Open question. Unfortunate issue of her strong negatives motivating our opponents.

Chris Dodd: Opponent of our freedoms. Avoid at all costs.

So, that's my take at this point. What do you all think?

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

Cliff's Notes version:

Republican Summary:

Ron Paul: A vote for Paul is a vote for our freedom. Even if he doesn’t win your state’s primary, a vote for him is a statement for what we believe.

Rudy Giuliani: A vote for Giuliani is a Republican vote against nanny-state social conservatism. Of the leading Republican candidates, he may be the best one for our long-term goals.

Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich: Open questions at this point.

John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter: Opponents of our freedoms. Avoid at all costs.

Democratic Summary:

Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Dennis Kucinich: With us, or likely with us. At this point, votes for them help us.

John Edwards, Al Gore, and Mike Gravel: Open questions at this point.

Hillary Clinton: Open question. Unfortunate issue of her strong negatives motivating our opponents.

Chris Dodd: Opponent of our freedoms. Avoid at all costs.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

http://infowars.com/images2/cartoons...d_standard.jpg

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

I have pledged to wear my Ron Paul Tshirts EVERYDAY until Nov. 5, 2008. If he doesn't get the nomination, I'll be writing him in.

Wearing the Tshirts has definitely been noticed by my friends/family/college classmates and professors.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

Correction #1. Replaced "leading" with "top tier" for clarification:

[ QUOTE ]
Rudy Giuliani: A vote for Giuliani is a Republican vote against nanny-state social conservatism. Of the top tier Republican candidates, he may be the best one for our long-term goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correction #2. Mike Gravel not "F":

[ QUOTE ]
Mike Gravel, 0%
Former AK senator. Seems like he could be with us, but I don’t really know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

Don't run away with RP enthusiasm please. His campaign has a lot of other negatives. We need a higher profile mainstream candidate to endorse if we ever get to that place in the primaries. We should consistently lobby every major canddidate, even Romney. The last thing we need is to be lumped into the RP camp as just another band of whackjobs with the abolish the government and legalize pot crowd. Somewhere, somehow, a candidate will get desperate for a slice of the electorate. The Republicans more than Dems since single digit swings can mean the nomination on Feb 5th. Sit tight and try to be noticed.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't run away with RP enthusiasm please. His campaign has a lot of other negatives. We need a higher profile mainstream candidate to endorse if we ever get to that place in the primaries. We should consistently lobby every major canddidate, even Romney. The last thing we need is to be lumped into the RP camp as just another band of whackjobs with the abolish the government and legalize pot crowd. Somewhere, somehow, a candidate will get desperate for a slice of the electorate. The Republicans more than Dems since single digit swings can mean the nomination on Feb 5th. Sit tight and try to be noticed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try to do these ratings the same way as the NRA does, which is evaluating where the candidates appear to be on Internet gaming. I hope we can read this and gain more insight into where the candidates currently stand. Hopefully we can get more folks on our side.

Of "top tier" Republicans, hopefully we can pick one off. Giuliani or Thompson seem most likely. As for Romney, his state seems to strongly support our position, so maybe there's some hope there as well. He's one of the "open question" Republicans.

Still, it's something how six of the ten declared Republican candidates are clearly against us, three are question marks, and the one certainly with us is seen as outside the mainstream of the party (and is still polling in the low single digits). I hope we can start getting more Republicans with us, but it's sure been tough. The KY election should be where we at least start to change this, as we'll have data on how people really vote. It won't swing everything overnight, of course, but it will start things off. A thrashing of Republican in '08 should get them to reconsider their allegiance to big government nanny-staters.

Likewise, it's something that only one Democratic candidate is strongly against us. Our solution has to be bipartisan, but I think Internet poker will be far better off for now with Democrats chairing Congressional committees.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

TE, I think you dare doing a great job on all of this.

As for Republicans, ALL the Republican talking heads (Rush, Hannity, etc..) were very adamant about what kind of Republican was needed to win the election.

They all described a candidate who is:

1. Pro Smaller government
2. Pro Lower Taxes
3. Strong on National DEFENSE

They said that with these 3 things more republicans would show up to vote than democrats and it would be a landslide victory...

Ron Paul supporters notice, "Hey! Ron Paul is all of these things! AND he doesn't have a whole walk-in closet full of skeletons like the other guys!"

Now the talking heads are all:

4. He has to be PRO-WAR!

Which is just a farce with 70% of the public wanting the troops to come home ASAP.

I do think Ron Paul will win the nomination AND win the election.

Why:

1. 97% of Republicans want MUCH SMALLER government
2. 97% of Democrats want the war over a long time ago. (plus they like to smoke pot)

Personally the only thing I see wrong with a Ron Paul presidency is the population would have to grow up and learn how to be responsible adults instead of depending on the federal government.

Oh and the influx of fish at pokersites would cause me to lose a lot of sleep.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
His campaign has a lot of other negatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does? I can't find any.

I'm 40 years old and he's the closest I've ever seen to the "perfect" candidate.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

Nice post Engineer, very informative as usual.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His campaign has a lot of other negatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does? I can't find any.

I'm 40 years old and he's the closest I've ever seen to the "perfect" candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

He wants to abolish the federal reserve. Enough said.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His campaign has a lot of other negatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does? I can't find any.

I'm 40 years old and he's the closest I've ever seen to the "perfect" candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem realistically is he has no support in in the Republican "machinery" the state parties nor in established "circles." How do you think Thompson shows up in the polls at all other than name recognition?

Numbers matter when it comes to elections, even primaries, dollars convince people to run. Word is the Thompson campaign has the backing of a number of old time GOP faithful. A lot of Bush 41 old timers as well as a number of people not so happy with 43.

D$D

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem realistically is he has no support in in the Republican "machinery" the state parties nor in established "circles."

[/ QUOTE ]

What you describe is an "obstacle", not a "negative", there is a difference.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
He wants to abolish the federal reserve. Enough said.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for the negative.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/feddees.jpg

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]

Mitt Romney, 11%
Former MA governor. I found no record on his stand on Internet gaming. While Mormons don’t personally gamble, they don’t necessarily have issues with non-Mormons gambling. In fact, many Mormons work in Vegas casinos.

Pros: can’t think of one

Cons: Same as Thompson and Gingrich. He’s not on our side and he’s trying to win the support of our opponents.

Republican Summary:

...

Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich: Open questions at this point.

John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter: Opponents of our freedoms. Avoid at all costs.



[/ QUOTE ]

the summary seems a lot more negative on the romney than the main part of the post.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't run away with RP enthusiasm please. His campaign has a lot of other negatives. We need a higher profile mainstream candidate to endorse if we ever get to that place in the primaries. We should consistently lobby every major canddidate, even Romney. The last thing we need is to be lumped into the RP camp as just another band of whackjobs with the abolish the government and legalize pot crowd. Somewhere, somehow, a candidate will get desperate for a slice of the electorate. The Republicans more than Dems since single digit swings can mean the nomination on Feb 5th. Sit tight and try to be noticed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try to do these ratings the same way as the NRA does, which is evaluating where the candidates appear to be on Internet gaming. I hope we can read this and gain more insight into where the candidates currently stand. Hopefully we can get more folks on our side.

Of "top tier" Republicans, hopefully we can pick one off. Giuliani or Thompson seem most likely. As for Romney, his state seems to strongly support our position, so maybe there's some hope there as well. He's one of the "open question" Republicans.

Still, it's something how six of the ten declared Republican candidates are clearly against us, three are question marks, and the one certainly with us is seen as outside the mainstream of the party (and is still polling in the low single digits). I hope we can start getting more Republicans with us, but it's sure been tough. The KY election should be where we at least start to change this, as we'll have data on how people really vote. It won't swing everything overnight, of course, but it will start things off. A thrashing of Republican in '08 should get them to reconsider their allegiance to big government nanny-staters.

Likewise, it's something that only one Democratic candidate is strongly against us. Our solution has to be bipartisan, but I think Internet poker will be far better off for now with Democrats chairing Congressional committees.

[/ QUOTE ]


Im not bashing your summary of him, just the gushing of love from other people who think he would be a poker hero. Maybe. But is poker the only issue? You can't see the negatives?

1. He wants to go back to the gold standard. Uhm, hello, we don't have a trillion in gold to hand to the Chinese who own almost that in paper. Put that together with leaving the WTO a 2nd Great Depression sounds fine and dandy.

2. He wants to run as a freedom candidate but he is anti-gay and has anti-gay elements in his campaign. The full on pro life stance is a bit hypocritical as well.

3. The last candidate who wanted to abolish all the federal institutions was Andy Jackson and his white trash ass almost totally [censored] the country up.

4. He has no foreign policy experience. Leave the war or don't leave the war, but I want to feel like youre not going to do something stupid to start WWIII. I don't trust RP on China, or to stand up for Taiwan. I don't trust him to watch Iran or North Korea.

Poker isn't the only issue. Im sure you all would like my poker stance in the White House, but you wouldn't vote for me. Why vote for a crazy loon from Texas just because he has a poker friendly plank. Im very Libertarian and yearn for the day we have a real, pragmatic Lib run for office with cred and standing. But RP isnt that candidate.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

You offer all these reasons like Ron Paul has a legitimate chance to become President. In reality, he has no more chance than I do, sorry to say.

In terms of "sending a message" to the Republican Party, there is probably nothing that would be as effective as Ron Paul getting a shockingly high level of support in the primaries. They understand why people support him and that he represents a break from the nanny-state turn the party has taken in recent years. If you want a sane Republican Party again, this is definitely the message you want to send.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Mitt Romney, 11%
Former MA governor. I found no record on his stand on Internet gaming. While Mormons don’t personally gamble, they don’t necessarily have issues with non-Mormons gambling. In fact, many Mormons work in Vegas casinos.

Pros: can’t think of one

Cons: Same as Thompson and Gingrich. He’s not on our side and he’s trying to win the support of our opponents.

Republican Summary:

...

Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich: Open questions at this point.

John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter: Opponents of our freedoms. Avoid at all costs.



[/ QUOTE ]

the summary seems a lot more negative on the romney than the main part of the post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct. Thanks. I had Romney in the wrong category. I mentioned in my reply to Legislurker that I meant to have him as "open question".

I'll have to request mod access someday just so I can edit my own posts after 30 minutes. Here's the correction:

Correction #3:

[ QUOTE ]

Republican Summary:

Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney: Open questions at this point.


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
TE, I think you dare doing a great job on all of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ QUOTE ]
As for Republicans, ALL the Republican talking heads (Rush, Hannity, etc..) were very adamant about what kind of Republican was needed to win the election.

They all described a candidate who is:

1. Pro Smaller government
2. Pro Lower Taxes
3. Strong on National DEFENSE....

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a big Ron Paul fan, as everyone here probably knows. I post at sites like Townhall to remind them of what Republicans are SUPPOSED to believe, and then remind them that Ron Paul is that guy. I hope he wins the nomination, of course.

Regardless, it seems the political calculus is straightforward. Unless Barack Obama comes out for Internet poker, it seems like our votes will count the most in the Republican primary. We can vote for Ron Paul to make a statement (and with the hope that many others will as well). We can vote for Giuliani to keep the FoF-types at home on Election Day. Or, we can vote for Thompson or Romney if they come out for Internet gaming.

With regards to the Barack Obama exception I mentioned earlier, if he sponsors any of our legislation in the Senate we may wish to vote for him in the Democratic primaries. We'll have plenty of lead time.

Just something to think about. We can always switch back to our "real" parties after the primary.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]

Im not bashing your summary of him, just the gushing of love from other people who think he would be a poker hero. Maybe. But is poker the only issue? You can't see the negatives?

1. He wants to go back to the gold standard. Uhm, hello, we don't have a trillion in gold to hand to the Chinese who own almost that in paper. Put that together with leaving the WTO a 2nd Great Depression sounds fine and dandy.

2. He wants to run as a freedom candidate but he is anti-gay and has anti-gay elements in his campaign. The full on pro life stance is a bit hypocritical as well.

3. The last candidate who wanted to abolish all the federal institutions was Andy Jackson and his white trash ass almost totally [censored] the country up.

4. He has no foreign policy experience. Leave the war or don't leave the war, but I want to feel like youre not going to do something stupid to start WWIII. I don't trust RP on China, or to stand up for Taiwan. I don't trust him to watch Iran or North Korea.

Poker isn't the only issue. Im sure you all would like my poker stance in the White House, but you wouldn't vote for me. Why vote for a crazy loon from Texas just because he has a poker friendly plank. Im very Libertarian and yearn for the day we have a real, pragmatic Lib run for office with cred and standing. But RP isnt that candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like everything in politics, what one person sees as a negative someone else sees as a positive. My ratings, much as the NRA's legislator ratings, only concern our issue -- poker. (Likewise, Rep. Ron Paul is A rated by the NRA.) None of the issues you brought up negatively affect poker. If I were doing this while biasing the results with my own personal beliefs, it wouldn't be I guide for poker players...it would be a guide for me.

The NRA is also pragmatic. For example, they won't endorse a Libertarian presidential candidate over an even nominally pro-gun rights Republican no matter how much more favorable the Libertarian's beliefs on gun rights are to the NRA. Likewise, we'll want our strategy to be the one that benefits us the most. If the primaries were held today (assume we have a national primary for this exercise), we'd have two equally valid choices...vote for Ron Paul to make a statement, or vote for Rudy Giuliani to keep our opponents at home on Election Day. There will be changes between now and then, of course, including the fact that the results from Iowa and New Hampshire be available, helping those of us not residing in those states to refine our decision.

Finally, I hope Thompson and/or Obama come out in support of our position before the primaries.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
You offer all these reasons like Ron Paul has a legitimate chance to become President. In reality, he has no more chance than I do, sorry to say.

In terms of "sending a message" to the Republican Party, there is probably nothing that would be as effective as Ron Paul getting a shockingly high level of support in the primaries. They understand why people support him and that he represents a break from the nanny-state turn the party has taken in recent years. If you want a sane Republican Party again, this is definitely the message you want to send.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

I'll definately be out voting for Ron Paul when my states primary rolls around.

One thing I'd like to add -- and it is just a guess of course at this point but -- IMO the most likely ticket combos for the republicans are either Gulianni/McCain or Thompson/McCain. And on the democrat side I'd guess they would be either Clinton/Richardson or Obama/????. The vp usually doesn't control a whole lot of policy issues but we need only look at the current situation with Cheney to see that it is possible, so make sure you watch who the candidates select as their running mate it could make a difference for us too.

Oh and Engineer congrats on the new position with the PPA!

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

Engineer, let's face it, any Democratic candidate will be demonized in such a way that the FOF crowd will turn out in bunches. The fact has become that the FOF have taken over your beloved party and the Libertatian wing has been marginalized in such a way that they have absolutely no say. You guys can keep pissing in the wind about how great Ron Paul and his libertarian ideas are, but until you realize how insignificant he is in this race, you are wasting your time.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

Where is the libertarian wing going to go? Not to the democrats, to which we oppose on more issues.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, let's face it, any Democratic candidate will be demonized in such a way that the FOF crowd will turn out in bunches. The fact has become that the FOF have taken over your beloved party and the Libertatian wing has been marginalized in such a way that they have absolutely no say. You guys can keep pissing in the wind about how great Ron Paul and his libertarian ideas are, but until you realize how insignificant he is in this race, you are wasting your time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think they'll be as enthusiastic to vote for Giuliani vs. Obama or Edwards as they'd be to vote for Huckabee vs. Clinton? No difference at all?

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, let's face it, any Democratic candidate will be demonized in such a way that the FOF crowd will turn out in bunches. The fact has become that the FOF have taken over your beloved party and the Libertatian wing has been marginalized in such a way that they have absolutely no say. You guys can keep pissing in the wind about how great Ron Paul and his libertarian ideas are, but until you realize how insignificant he is in this race, you are wasting your time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many Democrats are already raising concerns over what they've dubbed the "Hillary Effect" (I don't just make this stuff up or write my opinions as fact....I actually research it, at least to some degree):

http://politics.wizbangblog.com/2007...ary-effect.php

[ QUOTE ]
Indiana Dems fear Hillary effect
Some Indiana Democrats are afraid of the effect nominating Senator Hillary Clinton might have on the down-ticket in their state, reports Mike Smith for AP

Crooks' concerns were included in a recent national Associated Press article that said many Democrats quietly fear Clinton at the top of the ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom. They also said Clinton might be too polarizing for much of the country, will jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans a stronger reason to vote.....

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293025,00.html

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats Weigh Effect of Hillary Clinton Down the Ballot
Sunday, August 12, 2007

WASHINGTON — Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

The Religious Right will oppose whomever the Democratic party runs. The Democratic nominee will have plenty of issues which those folks disagree with. Attack/scare ads will be run, sermons will be given in church, pamphlets will be put on windows. Hillary would seem the easiest to trash, but I believe after they get done with Obama or Edwards the difference would be negligible.

If you guys want to put your libertarian philosophy ahead of poker, I totally understand that. But let's not act like we have much, if any, hope to convert the Republican party. That train has done left and its driven by social conservatives. I believe our best hope comes in getting the social liberals in our corner.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

For the record, I agree with the Indiana Democrats. I think Hillary's negatives are too high and she is too risky to nominate, in what should be a landslide year for the Democrats.

I guess I am concerned that some of you are holding onto hope that we can win this by supporting the last standing Republican to support us. The trouble is the guy is seen as a wackjob and is ignored, ridiculed, and scorned by his own party. If Hillary is going to be the nominee, which many think is inevitable, I could see her getting behind us.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I agree with the Indiana Democrats. I think Hillary's negatives are too high and she is too risky to nominate, in what should be a landslide year for the Democrats.

I guess I am concerned that some of you are holding onto hope that we can win this by supporting the last standing Republican to support us. The trouble is the guy is seen as a wackjob and is ignored, ridiculed, and scorned by his own party. If Hillary is going to be the nominee, which many think is inevitable, I could see her getting behind us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you replying to something different than my OP? Sorry, but I'm not following your thought process at all. What is it you're suggesting as an approach (I'm not asking for your opinion of what we should not do....I'm asking what you think we should do)? Thanks.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

I believe we need to identify the Republican party as the enemy. I would like to see us become to the Democratic Party as the NRA is to the Republican Party.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe we need to identify the Republican party as the enemy. I would like to see us become to the Democratic Party as the NRA is to the Republican Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we've essentially done that. My OP is where our primary votes are best served.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

The NRA has a constitutional amendment (the right to bear arms) on which to lean. While I certainly think online gambling is a right to which all American citizens over the age of 18 ought to be allowed to partake in if they so choose, there is not an amendment that SPECIFICALLY says we do. Who knows maybe the PPA can become a large lobby in the same vain as the NRA, the oil companies, health care companies, unions, etc., but there is a LONG, LONG, LONG way to go.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]

I believe we need to identify the Republican party as the enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and shut out the one constitutionalist running on either side.

Not bright........EDIT: grr!

You clearly don't get it.

http://infowars.com/images2/cartoons...enShotFina.jpg

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I believe we need to identify the Republican party as the enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and shut out the one constitutionalist running on either side.

Not bright........EDIT: grr!

You clearly don't get it.



[/ QUOTE ]

You clearly don't get the realities of the two-party system and that Ron Paul makes zero difference in the American political system. By being associated with him, its marginalizes us. We should be actively courting the support of someone who has a chance of winning. Not someone with all the influence of the grass-roots party.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I believe we need to identify the Republican party as the enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and shut out the one constitutionalist running on either side.

Not bright........EDIT: grr!

You clearly don't get it.



[/ QUOTE ]

You clearly don't get the realities of the two-party system and that Ron Paul makes zero difference in the American political system. By being associated with him, its marginalizes us. We should be actively courting the support of someone who has a chance of winning. Not someone with all the influence of the grass-roots party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, we're looking for suggestions on what to not, not on what not to do. And I don't believe "hate Republicans" is a strategy in and of itself. Who should we support? How do we gain their support?

No offense, but anyone can run their mouth. You say we don't get the realities of the American political system. Please impress us with your immense knowledge.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

My immense knowledge says that any interest group worth a grain of salt would not spend one second supporting or encouraging their members to support a fringe candidate.

My immense knowledge says that an interest group that really wants to get a law changed or regulations weakened would get behind candidates who have a chance to win and change the law.

I don't want the PPA to become the LPP (Libertarian Poker Players).

And I didn't say you don't understand the realities of the American Political System, I said Coy Roy didn't. He's worked up in a lather about the freaking Federal Reserve system and its 2007.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I believe we need to identify the Republican party as the enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and shut out the one constitutionalist running on either side.

Not bright........EDIT: grr!

You clearly don't get it.



[/ QUOTE ]

You clearly don't get the realities of the two-party system and that Ron Paul makes zero difference in the American political system. By being associated with him, its marginalizes us. We should be actively courting the support of someone who has a chance of winning. Not someone with all the influence of the grass-roots party.

[/ QUOTE ]


You've been deceived by the "notion" of a 2 party system when in reality, at the presidential level, it's really just a "club" of globalists taking their orders from huge corporations.

http://infowars.com/images2/cartoons..._bill_golf.jpg


Ron Paul would break the cycle.

Because this is about far more than just online poker.


http://www.jonesreport.com/images/160307_ronpaul_sm.jpg

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
My immense knowledge says that any interest group worth a grain of salt would not spend one second supporting or encouraging their members to support a fringe candidate.

My immense knowledge says that an interest group that really wants to get a law changed or regulations weakened would get behind candidates who have a chance to win and change the law.

I don't want the PPA to become the LPP (Libertarian Poker Players).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, it seems all you can do is tell us what NOT to do. Which candidate do we support? How do we gain their support? What's your plan?

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

Roy, It's not about more than online poker to me. I hope to God the PPA locks tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy freaks like you in the closet.

Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
 

[ QUOTE ]
Roy, It's not about more than online poker to me. I hope to God the PPA locks tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy freaks like you in the closet.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're just going to rudely criticize without offering positive suggestions, I'll have to ask you to start your own thread, where you can bitch to your heart's content, because you're doing nothing more than flaming this one.

Cheers and goodbye.