[TheEngineer]

[ 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.