2008 Presidential Primaries

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
IMPO I believe we have the potential through the PPA's future successful efforts to move this issue to a reasonable conclusion. If you expect the PPA in its second year to over come the work of an organized 10 year effort to get you back to pre-UIGEA days I think you need to re-set your goals.


[/ QUOTE ]


Very true indeed.

[j555]

You guys are fools if you think any of the establishment candidates are going to care anything about poker players. I couldn't believe that someone actually called Fred Thompson a libertarian! Have you seen the guy's Congressional record? Thompson is not the small government conservative some people think he is. He can say he's a federalist all he wants, but you have to look at his record! His record suggests that he's anti 2nd amendment, he voted to grant illegals amnesty, supported McCain-Feingold, lobbied for a pro choice group, and he's for the Iraq war when 70% of the people are against it! He's got no shot. I don't care either way, but you should get behind an anti-establishment candidate. Paul is probably your best shot since he actually is a libertarian and has the record to back it up. Didn't he co-sponsor Barney Frank's bill?

[Legislurker]

I'm of the same mind about the Presidency. The candidates don't care. Where we need to be is UNSEATING incumbent Congressional people. Holding scalps up so they take notice, its the only way. We shouldn't look to endorse, but to beat.
If Kentucky gets the PPA moving in that way, it gives me some hope. All we need are the national Parties to do the math that avoiding us is better than ignoring us/trampling us. It won't take much to go back to pre-UIGEA. We just need to strike a little fear for the powers to be to decide its worth more to them to placate us now and get rid of our reason to organize.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm of the same mind about the Presidency. The candidates don't care. Where we need to be is UNSEATING incumbent Congressional people.

[/ QUOTE ]

We should definitely be looking at what we can do in close races in Congress.

I'd like to elaborate a little on what I said earlier about Giuliani keeping FoF at home, and Clinton bringing them to the polls to oppose her. For example, let's look at Internet gaming opponent Jean Schmidt's race. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) won re-election in '06 (her margin of victory was 1.26%), following a tough term in which she called Marine Corp. veteran Rep. John Murtha a coward for advocating leaving Iraq. Some of her supporters are die-hards for her. Others are not so strongly behind her. How does the presidential race affect this?

Well, if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, it seems many conservatives would make it a point to show up just to vote against her. The NRA would lobby strongly against her, as would other conservative groups. Jean Schmidt would receive more votes from this than she'd receive from conservatives voting against Obama or Edwards, neither of which have particularly high negatives at this point.

If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, many FoF-types will not be able to bring themselves to vote for this pro-choice, thrice-married, social moderate-to-liberal big city mayor. As this election will likely be within a couple of percentage points, it doesn't take much to swing it.

Thompson will bring FoF-types to the polls, as they (right now...a lot can change between now and the primaries) perceive him as the best candidate for them who can win. Jean Schmidt would pick up votes from this.

So:

Giuliani vs. Clinton: not much effect on the Schmidt race, both neutralize one another

Giuliani vs. Obama or Edwards: hurts Schmidt

Thompson (or any frontrunner besides Giuliani) vs. Clinton: helps Schmidt

Thompson (or any frontrunner besides Giuliani) vs. Obama or Edwards: probably close to a wash


If Thompson doesn't come out for us, I think we can make a good case to support Giuliani and Obama or Edwards (either whichever is ahead at that point, or whichever comes out in support of our position before the primaries). We may be better with a big-time statist like Giuliani as the nominee (or even as president) as long as we get a better Congress as a result. Also, his election would likely cause some needed changes in the GOP.

Of course, the above discussion is based on today's polls. Things can change.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Look, I'm only slightly to the right of MoveOn, but to say they have accomplished anything is a stretch. Ok, Lieberman had to run as an 'independent' but other than that they're many accomplishments have been ruffling the feathers of Fox News anchors. (Which is a fine thing, mind you...) Yes, they've 'raised awareness'. But Bush is still President, we're still in Iraq, the NSA is still listening, Alito is on the Supreme Court and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Among other things MoveOn has a huge get out the vote effort which I participated in last election. To the extent that these things are effective I don't see how you can say MoveOn has not accomplished anything.

[Skallagrim]

Again, our model must be the NRA. We need to show the politicians that there are enough folks out there that will make poker a top issue in deciding their votes that we can make a difference in close elections. Doing the other thing D$D suggests will help, but some ability to influence elections is what gets noticed.

If a congressperson has a close race and knows supporting poker (or at least not opposing it) will result in getting more votes than catering to the religious right, we are 90% of the way home. I believe this is true and doable in many close elections in the next year; here in NH we have very close congressional races and a very close senate race. I intend to contact the candidates (once we get a little closer to the election) and inform them that the loss of 5000 poker playing voters is not something they can afford - in a state with a very tiny religous right and a libertarian tradition, I think this will get these cadidates either neutral or somewhat on our side.

At least I hope so.

Skallagrim

[Skallagrim]

And as to presidential politics, the tactic is similar. While no amount of spin could ever get me to vote republican next year (the fiasco in Iraq is just too much) unless the R. Paul miracle happens, one of the main reasons I will vote in the NH primary for Richardson or Obama as opposed to Clinton is, in fact, poker.

If the politicians get that message and see opposing legal poker as costing them votes, then we get movement in our direction.

And especially with Democrats this time: they need some issue to take some voters in the poker-playing demographic away from its recent republican leanings.

And thanks Engineer, as always, for the overall strategic impact analysis.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Doing the other thing D$D suggests will help, but some ability to influence elections is what gets noticed.



[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong. I fully expect to influence National elections.

What I'm saying is lets see if we can even stand up and toddle before we try to actually try to walk and chew gum, let alone expect to win the Boston Marathon.


D$D

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we can make a good case to support Giuliani

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no way I would ever support that guy, ever.

Besides running NYC like a police state, arresting homeless people, shutting down honest street vendors, so much much more and then has the audacity to grandstand during the 9/11 tragedy.....still today, exploiting it for his own selfish political gain.

He's also shown a wilingness to shut down long standing city card rooms.

He is no friend to poker.

No way.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look, I'm only slightly to the right of MoveOn, but to say they have accomplished anything is a stretch. Ok, Lieberman had to run as an 'independent' but other than that they're many accomplishments have been ruffling the feathers of Fox News anchors. (Which is a fine thing, mind you...) Yes, they've 'raised awareness'. But Bush is still President, we're still in Iraq, the NSA is still listening, Alito is on the Supreme Court and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Among other things MoveOn has a huge get out the vote effort which I participated in last election. To the extent that these things are effective I don't see how you can say MoveOn has not accomplished anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point. However, I think the GoTV is separate to a degree from the advocacy efforts.