Only slim majority favor legalized on-line gambling

[YoungGifted]

just joe lieberman, but he's not really a democrat. :-)

[peritonlogon]

You really need to understand polls and phrasing before you make too much of this. One important aspect is the status quo implied in the question.

If you were to ask the same group of people "Do you think the federal government should ban online poker?" You will get drastically different results from asking "Do you think the federal government should legalize online poker."

I've seen polls in asking the first question with aproval being in the 70%-80% neighborhood.

My guess is that the question in this poll was asked with the implication that it is already illegal. And I'd like to add, that there is really no way to ask this question neutrally. "Do you think that online poker should or should not be legal?" comes close but there is still a slight implication that it is not. Whereas almost the same question is "Do you think that online poker should or should not be prohibited (or banned if you want a few more people opposed to its prohibition since Americans don't like the word "banned")?" implies that it is currently legal.

If you add in the words "the federal government" you will invariably get more people opposed to prohibiton and/or for legalization.

Further the treatment of "undecideds" will skew the results one way or another. Often, polls ask with very strong language "should it be this or that" then they will have a follow "are you leaning more this way or that" question. Sometimes the "leanings" are lumped in with the "shoulds." Some polls, alternatively, use weaker language "do you think that" "would you prefer."

These all have huge impacts on the results of the poll.

As a result, I would say, this is neither encouraging nor discouraging since it appears to me that this poll presumed online poker to be illegal and did not specifcy fed/state/local.

I happen to believe that the most honest way to ask this question would be "Do you think the federal government should prevent people from playing poker online?" And not just because this would lean the results more in the direction of what I think. This phrasing implies it is legal on a federal level, which it is, and asks the question specifically about the federal level, which is the level of the most recent bill and is really the only level we've ever been talking about. Plus, the question does not specifically state making the practice illegal, just preventing it.

When you ask this question you will find that around 70% of the US population does not think the government should make the act illegal.

Just my 2 cents.

[Jay36489]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This legislation was pushed by Republicans so people on 2+2 are naturally angry at them, but in other cases, Democrats are the ones pushing to restrict our freedoms. The restriction of our freedoms has bipartisan support...just depends on which of our infringed freedoms we are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, I keep hearing this from people. Can you provide even a single example of a Democrat-led initiative to restrict our freedoms in the Bush era. This sounds like a justification from a Republican to keep voting Republican with a clear conscience. All my Repub. friends say the same garbage.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the republicans control the house, senate and executive branch there really aren't any democrat led initiatives. This is just how politics works. So you could say there haven't been any dem led initiatives to restrict our freedom, but there haven't been and dem led initiatives to preserve our freedom either.

I think people are blaming the repubs too much. The dems take campaign finance comtributions from gaming companies too. Those companies play both sides of the aile. Its not like big oil or the unions.

[E.Z.]

all i know is that when the house voted on the gambling bill it passed by a overwhelming percent.

to me this article seems more encouraging than that house vote. perhaps down the line the poker alliance and others will get this back up for debate

[Castleman]

Min,

Right off the top of my head, any push to restrict the right of a law abding citizen to own a gun has been from Democrats. I live in a state (Massachusetts), under a Democrat Party dominated legislature, where you cant gamble in a casino or have a poker room. You can be pulled over by the police and fined for not wearing your seat belt. The legislature here ignored their original promise and a public referendum vote to reduce income taxes so that we might actually get a chance to keep more of our hard earned money. They know how to spend it better than we can. I will get you more examples but at least know that it is far from garbage. Both parties can and will restrict freedoms. This time it was something that was important to online poker players. Maybe in the past it was something else that didnt matter to you.

[Moonshine]

[ QUOTE ]
You really need to understand polls and phrasing before you make too much of this. One important aspect is the status quo implied in the question.

If you were to ask the same group of people "Do you think the federal government should ban online poker?" You will get drastically different results from asking "Do you think the federal government should legalize online poker."

I've seen polls in asking the first question with aproval being in the 70%-80% neighborhood.

My guess is that the question in this poll was asked with the implication that it is already illegal. And I'd like to add, that there is really no way to ask this question neutrally. "Do you think that online poker should or should not be legal?" comes close but there is still a slight implication that it is not. Whereas almost the same question is "Do you think that online poker should or should not be prohibited (or banned if you want a few more people opposed to its prohibition since Americans don't like the word "banned")?" implies that it is currently legal.

If you add in the words "the federal government" you will invariably get more people opposed to prohibiton and/or for legalization.

Further the treatment of "undecideds" will skew the results one way or another. Often, polls ask with very strong language "should it be this or that" then they will have a follow "are you leaning more this way or that" question. Sometimes the "leanings" are lumped in with the "shoulds." Some polls, alternatively, use weaker language "do you think that" "would you prefer."

These all have huge impacts on the results of the poll.

As a result, I would say, this is neither encouraging nor discouraging since it appears to me that this poll presumed online poker to be illegal and did not specifcy fed/state/local.

I happen to believe that the most honest way to ask this question would be "Do you think the federal government should prevent people from playing poker online?" And not just because this would lean the results more in the direction of what I think. This phrasing implies it is legal on a federal level, which it is, and asks the question specifically about the federal level, which is the level of the most recent bill and is really the only level we've ever been talking about. Plus, the question does not specifically state making the practice illegal, just preventing it.

When you ask this question you will find that around 70% of the US population does not think the government should make the act illegal.

Just my 2 cents.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a very intelligent post. i applaud you.

[poiuytrewq]

Would you all STOP with this Democrat/Republican baloney! The bill passed by all but 2, so it was voted on equally by both sides of the aisle. If you want to see Democrats telling people what to do, just look at California. The land of Boxer "shorts" and Feinstein "the frankenstein". Helmet Law, Seatbelt Law, No Smoking anywhere law (just about), etc.... IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY, not what party anyone belongs to. All Politician's care about is your vote and your money, they don't care about your health or happiness. And that refers to politicians on any side of the fence. The point here is to attack the LEGISLATION, not some particular politician. They are already in office, and until voted out, all we can do is let them know how we feel. Tell them they lose your vote if they allow this kind of legislation pass.

[LesJ]

Back on topic:

This poll is fine, IMHO. The general public is largely ambivelant concerning this issue, which is pretty much what I would have expected. Almost any press online gaming has received over the past few years has been negative (click a mouse, lose a house), so what do you exepect a poll to indicate.

The way this will eventually blow over and become totally legal and regulated here in the United States is when the major US based casino operators step in and lobby for it TIED TO a positive public policy agenda for which gaming receipts will fund. For instance, "we can save Social Security by taxing interent gambling." When the debate is finally painted in that way, expect 70%+ in favor of the deal. Unfortunately, it will take many years for us to get there.

Les

[Castleman]

I agree with you. Im beginning to believe in term limits for politicians. I fully want to restrict their freedom to take power for too long...no matter what side of the political fence they are on. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[trdi]

I couldn't care less about your political parties. I'm talking about the political system, "religious democracy".