Online Gambling Bill Sponsor Jim Leach Defeated
 

[ QUOTE ]
"While the rest of the US will be discussing the Democratic victories that secured a House majority and a potential Senate majority, most online poker players will be discussing a single victory; the one that unseated 30 year incumbent Republican Jim Leach....While Leach may have been the most vulnerable of the anti-online gaming contingent, his defeat was still considered something of an upset. Although the race was tight, Leach never trailed his opponent in the polls prior to the election. Some of the Republicans facing defeat this morning are those that can blame their strong conservative ties to the Bush administration. Leach, however, was perceived to be a moderate Republican, positioning himself as pro-choice and voting against the 2003 Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war resolution. One has to wonder if the online gaming vote helped edge Leach onto the rail."

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Online Gambling Bill Sponsor Jim Leach Defeated
 

Best first post ever.

Re: Online Gambling Bill Sponsor Jim Leach Defeated
 

[ QUOTE ]
Best first post ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Online Gambling Bill Sponsor Jim Leach Defeated
 

I like to think the anti-gambling law is what pushed the Senate into the hands of the democrats. Think maybe 7000 voters out of 2.3 million in Virginia were pushed over to the other side, or convinced to come out and vote by the poker bill--Virginia, where there ain't no B&M poker? Sure, Foley was a factor. Sure, Iraq was a factor. Sure, Abramoff was a factor. But so was poker. With one less of these issues, the senate would still be in the hands of the elephants in 07. Sweet justice.

Re: Online Gambling Bill Sponsor Jim Leach Defeated
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like to think the anti-gambling law is what pushed the Senate into the hands of the democrats. Think maybe 7000 voters out of 2.3 million in Virginia were pushed over to the other side, or convinced to come out and vote by the poker bill--Virginia, where there ain't no B&M poker? Sure, Foley was a factor. Sure, Iraq was a factor. Sure, Abramoff was a factor. But so was poker. With one less of these issues, the senate would still be in the hands of the elephants in 07. Sweet justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think this? Poker had no impact whatsoever on the election. Anyone who puts Poker ahead of national security, taxes, defense, ect., should hang themselves.

Re: Online Gambling Bill Sponsor Jim Leach Defeated
 

Grrr. Probably the only time I'll ever get quoted in the National Review...and they don't use my byline.

Re: Online Gambling Bill Sponsor Jim Leach Defeated
 

[ QUOTE ]
Poker had no impact whatsoever on the election.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it had an impact. Leach lost. Senator Kyl had a huge lead before the UIGEA was passed, after which it shrank considerably.

I agree with Radley Balko's column: Online Gambling Ban a Bad Bet for Republicans.

Re: Online Gambling Bill Sponsor Jim Leach Defeated
 

Just a note. My original post gave credit where it was due, with appropriate links. The quote comes from PokerNews.com. I also gave a hat tip to The Corner at National Review Online where I first found the item. For some reason my post was edited to delete these references. I have no idea why.

Re: Online Gambling Bill Sponsor Jim Leach Defeated
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just a note. My original post gave credit where it was due, with appropriate links. The quote comes from PokerNews.com. I also gave a hat tip to The Corner at National Review Online where I first found the item. For some reason my post was edited to delete these references. I have no idea why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good chance it's because you gave links to affiliate pages or sites which have affiliate advertisments.

Re: Online Gambling Bill Sponsor Jim Leach Defeated
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think this? Poker had no impact whatsoever on the election. Anyone who puts Poker ahead of national security, taxes, defense, ect., should hang themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, seriously. Because if you're not scared enough of the terrorists to base your vote on them, then the terrorists have won.

I also don't understand your logic in bringing up "taxes" as a pivotal issue. Yeah, it's ok to base your vote on which party might tax you a couple percentage points higher... but apparently it's not ok to vote against someone who tries to outlaw your livelihood altogether. Strange.