What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

Reading the latest post of a Congressman's reply to a letter triggered a few random thoughts.

It seems to me that most members of Congress have now had their staff put together a boilerplate response for this issue. Being an optimist at heart, I see this as a positive for a couple of reasons.

First, it seems to indicate that they are receiving a large enough volume of mail to warrant having a stated responses (and in some cases a position) to avoid contradiction and ensure consistency.

Second, it has forced them (or more likely their staff) to become more educated on the entire the issue of Internet gambling. Our letters have debunked most of the standard anti-gambling talking points so they have had to deep deeper in formulating a reply.

At a minimum, we have planted a seed in the back of their minds that hopefully makes it harder for additional legislation to be passed.

Now I don't believe that the tide is about to turn, but I do believe that these letters and phones have had some positive impact for our cause.

Comments are welcome.

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

From personal experience I agree.

My first responses from one of my Senator's and my congresswoman were adament in favor of UIGEA.

After several exchanges and one meeting, I do see a shift from 100% against to a reasoned response lacking a commitment either way; more of a wait and see attitude.

In many ways they are reminding me of a childhood remark made to me by my parents, Monkey See, Monkey do. The are waiting to see what the wind blows and then do as may to save that temp job they have.

At this point, we need to continue the writing and calling.

More important, each time there is a news article we can add comments too, we need to control the conversation.

Senators and House members have staff that do read the many papers daily and do follow some online.

D&D said it best; we do not 9though we are) have to be right, we have to be able to move votes, that is ALL congress cares about, votes.

obg

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

[ QUOTE ]
Reading the latest post of a Congressman's reply to a letter triggered a few random thoughts.

It seems to me that most members of Congress have now had their staff put together a boilerplate response for this issue. Being an optimist at heart, I see this as a positive for a couple of reasons.

First, it seems to indicate that they are receiving a large enough volume of mail to warrant having a stated responses (and in some cases a position) to avoid contradiction and ensure consistency.

Second, it has forced them (or more likely their staff) to become more educated on the entire the issue of Internet gambling. Our letters have debunked most of the standard anti-gambling talking points so they have had to deep deeper in formulating a reply.

At a minimum, we have planted a seed in the back of their minds that hopefully makes it harder for additional legislation to be passed.

Now I don't believe that the tide is about to turn, but I do believe that these letters and phones have had some positive impact for our cause.

Comments are welcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've just started reaching out to friends on the hill in staff positions. I wanted to have something of a firm grasp of the issues before making those calls. Got a good education here....

So far your impression that there is some visibility but they are in a wait and see mode seems valid. The lack of traction for Fletcher in KY with his stance seems to be the short term focus on the hill in this regard.


D$D

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've just started reaching out to friends on the hill in staff positions. I wanted to have something of a firm grasp of the issues before making those calls. Got a good education here....

So far your impression that there is some visibility but they are in a wait and see mode seems valid. The lack of traction for Fletcher in KY with his stance seems to be the short term focus on the hill in this regard.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really want to derail this thread, but I was struck by your last comment regarding hill folks taking a wait-n-see on gambling matters until KY Governors race clears up (at least that's how i read it).

To me, that doesn't make any sense.

Fletcher has been in big trouble for a very long time. His poll numbers and approval ratings have been in the dumps for well over a year, perhaps longer. Using the KY race to bellweather the mood of the country on gambling issues seems like a basic flaw.

Yes, Fletcher has attempted to reframe the race about anti-gambling--but I haven't seen evidence that his plan is working. I'd be interested in seeing a full poll to see if they fleshed out that a bit more in the responses, but this election is about his record in the office. He's trying to run away from that given the public's view of his pardons and other (lesser) political errors.

From my perspective, using a Fletcher defeat to somehow point to a "hey, look at this example--gambling is popular" or anything remotely similar is not accurate.

It is probably nice that there is a major political election that is bringing the discussion up, but why any hill folks (or otherwise) would base their legislative agenda around how it turns out is poor judgement.

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

"It seems to me that most members of Congress have now had their staff put together a boilerplate response for this issue. Being an optimist at heart, I see this as a positive for a couple of reasons.

First, it seems to indicate that they are receiving a large enough volume of mail to warrant having a stated responses (and in some cases a position) to avoid contradiction and ensure consistency."

The boilerplate letter probably shows more of the volume of contacts we have had to the offices more than anything else. I agree with your view here.

"Second, it has forced them (or more likely their staff) to become more educated on the entire the issue of Internet gambling. Our letters have debunked most of the standard anti-gambling talking points so they have had to deep deeper in formulating a reply."

This possiblitiy is going to vary widely by office and staff. Obviouly you'd hope that they take the time to dig into things and get to fully understand the arguments on all sides. Some will, some won't.

"At a minimum, we have planted a seed in the back of their minds that hopefully makes it harder for additional legislation to be passed."

Agreed, plus the overall shift in control really helped that.

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really want to derail this thread, but I was struck by your last comment regarding hill folks taking a wait-n-see on gambling matters until KY Governors race clears up (at least that's how i read it).

To me, that doesn't make any sense.

Fletcher has been in big trouble for a very long time. His poll numbers and approval ratings have been in the dumps for well over a year, perhaps longer. Using the KY race to bellweather the mood of the country on gambling issues seems like a basic flaw.

Yes, Fletcher has attempted to reframe the race about anti-gambling--but I haven't seen evidence that his plan is working. I'd be interested in seeing a full poll to see if they fleshed out that a bit more in the responses, but this election is about his record in the office. He's trying to run away from that given the public's view of his pardons and other (lesser) political errors.

From my perspective, using a Fletcher defeat to somehow point to a "hey, look at this example--gambling is popular" or anything remotely similar is not accurate.

It is probably nice that there is a major political election that is bringing the discussion up, but why any hill folks (or otherwise) would base their legislative agenda around how it turns out is poor judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they may be looking to see if red state voters will completely disregard Fletcher's anti-gaming stance. The politican establishment may not blame Fletcher's loss on his stance, but they'll note that he could have such a stance and still lose by double-digits. In other words, they'll note that the anti-gaming folks aren't as strong as they say they are.

And, when he does lose, he'll take Kentucky's anti-gaming folks with him, as that's all anyone here will remember about the race.

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

I can see that argument, but pinning down that level of specificity on why the ~50% of Kentuckians who self ID as conservative either don't show up to support him or vote for the other guy to only the anti-gambling issue (or mostly) can more easily be found in a few polling questions. More accurately too, IMO.

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've just started reaching out to friends on the hill in staff positions. I wanted to have something of a firm grasp of the issues before making those calls. Got a good education here....

So far your impression that there is some visibility but they are in a wait and see mode seems valid. The lack of traction for Fletcher in KY with his stance seems to be the short term focus on the hill in this regard.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really want to derail this thread, but I was struck by your last comment regarding hill folks taking a wait-n-see on gambling matters until KY Governors race clears up (at least that's how i read it).

To me, that doesn't make any sense.

Fletcher has been in big trouble for a very long time. His poll numbers and approval ratings have been in the dumps for well over a year, perhaps longer. Using the KY race to bellweather the mood of the country on gambling issues seems like a basic flaw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The GOP to some degree is worried about the anti-gambling forces that pushed through the UIGEA after a 10 year effort. The KY race has turned into a fight over gambling.

The GOP folks I spoke to in this regard know exactly where Fletcher is and his attempt to mobilize his dead campaign with a switch to this issue since a little before Labor day.

The issues isn't if Fletcher wins or looses, that pretty much at this point seems like a done deal. The test is to see if the anti-gambling forces can move the race. Most Hill people I spoke to didn't care what happens to Ernie, they are looking at their own primaries and general elections.

This fall when the inital strategies are mapped out and the issue folks come out of the wood work with offers of help for position platforms is when the effect of either sides efforts on this issue will have value.

If bothsides sit out of a done deal race, then it's credibility that wins the winter planning sessions.

If one makes a move and the other counters and the effects are unknowible or neglible, again the planers revert to past preformance.

One side can make a move an move the race and claim victory in the winter planning sessions.

That was my take on the gambling anti-gambling issue on the Hill in regards to KY's race. No they are not just going to look at the results and pee their pants worring about poker.


D$D

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

I got one of those canned responses from my congressman in Maryland. I was pleasantly surprised although it doesn't mean much.

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

Gotcha

I still think they could do that more effectively with some polls and focus group testing, but perhaps I'm just a polling whore. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

A 20 person focus group on remote gaming from a random sample could have so many widely different opinions. Im not sure I want them doing focus groups on it. Unless its rigged in our favor Absolute Poker style.

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

Not on remote gambling, but on the KY election and why people did what they did. It's more polling than focus group in this instance anyway. I'm done derailing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

[ QUOTE ]
Gotcha

I still think they could do that more effectively with some polls and focus group testing, but perhaps I'm just a polling whore. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Politicans are cheap as hell when it comes to spending campaign resources, but spend like drunken trillionaires with tax dollars. It is one of the things that drives me nuts about this town.

A campaign penny wise pound foolish, government pound foolish penny wise just the nature of the beast.


D$D

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not on remote gambling, but on the KY election and why people did what they did. It's more polling than focus group in this instance anyway. I'm done derailing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Exit polls are not hard to do.

If TE has pored over the KY election map I'm sure we can come up with a valid set of questions and hit enough polling stations to make a satistically sound case. Even carpetbaggers could do this job.

Heck Zogby or someone might allow you to tag a few questions on to theirs for next to nothing or for a favor or two. All it takes is the right words in the right ears.


D$D

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

Could we keep a lid on the numbers if they were bad?

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

[ QUOTE ]
Could we keep a lid on the numbers if they were bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the numbers could be quit small impact wise for a victory.

Example: Fletcher loses by 6. 15% voted for him / against Casinos. 22% voted AGAINST him favoring casinos.

Net 7%, lose by 6, we win by 1.

The other 63% voted for other reasons......

WE claim victory.

obg

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

[ QUOTE ]
Could we keep a lid on the numbers if they were bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

My personal fear is the anti-gambling forces are organized and have the potential to capitalize on the traditional voting paterns of KYians, tightening of races that happen after Labor Day, and any mistake Beshair might make and make a claim of victory.

We have many sound reasons for a real effort in KY. I am not privy to all of the PPA's current plans nor future plans. All of my personal suggestions have been met with "I'll think about it." To be completely fair this could mean anything from we are already doing or planning this, to we don't think you have a clue what you are talking about and everything in between.

My personal feel I've sort of expressed. In campaigns time is so critical, every minute so valuible, my personal clock tends to tick louder than most. This is because my reputation was built on comming in late to a campaign and "saving the day". Like my feelings on government tax dollars, campaigns squandering the most valuible asset TIME, drives me nuts. You can always get more money, you can always get more volunteers, you can even fix past mistakes and lost opportunities, you can NEVER get a minute more. Well unless you get a re-count, then you get a chance at a do-over...........

So yeah we can keep our personal exit polling numbers a secret, what will never be a secret is the actual effort we put forward when compared to any credible claim of victory.


D$D

Re: What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress
 

[ QUOTE ]

Exit polls are not hard to do.

If TE has pored over the KY election map I'm sure we can come up with a valid set of questions and hit enough polling stations to make a satistically sound case. Even carpetbaggers could do this job.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've been discussing exit polling. Recall that PPA made use of exit polling after Leach lost. Here's the post-election article from the Des Moines Register posted here back when Leach lost:


Poker players: We helped beat Leach
Online gambling fans were angry about his role in passing a new ban

November 17, 2006
BY: Jane Norman

Washington, D.C. - Advocates of online gaming are taking credit for playing a role in the Nov. 7 defeat of longtime Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, a chief backer of a new law that effectively outlawed gambling on the Internet.

Leach, a Republican from Iowa City, lost his bid for a 16th term in a stunning upset to Democrat David Loebsack of Mount Vernon, as Democrats swept offices across the country and took control of the U.S. House and Senate.

Leach's defeat by 2 percentage points came less than a month after President Bush signed a law making it illegal for financial institutions and credit card companies to process payments on Internet wagers. Aides to Leach dismissed the suggestion that online gaming advocates had anything to do with his defeat.

John Pappas, a spokesman for the Poker Players Alliance, said Thursday that his non-profit organization blasted out e-mails to 150,000 poker fans across the country with instructions on how to register to vote, as well as a scorecard on how members of Congress voted on the gambling bill.

While the alliance did not specifically target Leach, Pappas said he believes motivated poker players in eastern Iowa's 2nd District turned out to vote, and word quickly spread online about Leach's work on the new law.

"There were lots of stories in the publications online gamers read," he said, such as CardPlayer, Bluff and Wicked Chops Poker.

While the alliance can't take credit for Leach's loss, "I can certainly say it played a very significant role in his defeat," Pappas said.

Online gaming sites gloated after the election. "Online Gambling Ban Proponent Leach Booted," was one headline. "A victory for Internet gambling as Jim Leach gets voted out," said Gambling911.

In addition, following the election the poker group commissioned an automated poll of 1,033 voters in the 2nd District, asking how the poker issue influenced their decisions.

Among those who knew about the law, 15 percent said it influenced them to support Loebsack. Another 10 percent said that it influenced them to support Leach.

Online poker advocates contend that was enough to doom Leach in a race lost by just 5,711 votes.

"There's enough evidence here to suggest it didn't help him," said Thomas Riehle of RT Strategies, a partner in the firm that conducted the poll Sunday through Monday. It had a margin of error of 3 percentage points, Riehle said.

However, Greg Wierzynski, Leach's chief of staff, scoffed at the notion that the gaming ban was Leach's undoing. "As we all know, when poker players have weak hands, they bluff," he said.

Wierzynski said Leach's congressional office received "a bunch of angry phone calls" from opponents of the gambling bill, but couldn't tell whether any were from Iowans because the callers refused to identify themselves. The calls were "laced with four-letter words," added Wierzynski.

Leach for years has pushed for an end to Internet gambling, saying large losses by gamblers destroy families, and Internet gambling was bound to spread.

"If Congress had not acted, gamblers would soon be able to place bets not just from home computers but from their cell phones while they drive home from work or their Blackberrys as they wait in line at the movies," Leach said in September.

With Leach gone, the gaming lobby now is hoping to obtain an exemption from the new law for online poker.

Pappas conceded that Leach listened to poker players' arguments, even sitting down for a hand of poker in his office earlier this year with three of the world's top professional players so they could make the case it is a game of skill, not chance. "I wasn't in the room, but I think one of the pros won," Pappas said.