Great Neteller Poker Story At USA Today

[Teemoney]

[ QUOTE ]
For some it was the poker ban that made them re-examine their voting patterns... For many many more it was the "nanny state"/"moral highground" the Republicans are trying to stand on, which poker became a victim of. This has been cited in many polls as a weakness of the current Republican party.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true for many people. The poker was the straw that broke the camels back. The bigger issue, like you said, is the 'nanny state' attitude many republicans have. But when it became a direct hit on many wallets, it changes a lot of peoples minds.

I have always voted Republican, with the exception of a few times, and shall NEVER vote for one again that has ANY hint of standing against poker. If some Republicans changed their minds, I would happily support them.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
While your thought may be true, a poll in Iowa showed as follows after the defeat of Leahy:

75% care not at all.
15% voted against him because of the UIGEA and his involvement
10% for him because of it.

He lost by 3%.

UIGEA a net loss of votes to him 5%. Ergo, the UIGEA.

A look was going to be made in Virginia as well, however, that vote was so close requiring less that .05% of shift.

Yes, the UIGEA did influence the results.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that people here have been overstating the case for influence of the UIGEA in Leach's defeat by Loebsack. This is a relatively liberally-leaning district with a lot of college kids. Leach was far from a hardline conservative. Leach would be a Democrat in some other jurisdictions in the country. I've been voting in most elections since 1990, and he is the only Republican I ever voted for at any level above county clerk of court. I wrote him a letter after he voted to impeach Clinton saying that I think that he made the right decision and that I would not hold that against him in the future.
Elections are usually multifactorial. There were plenty of reasons why Leach got edged out. It borders on absurd to think that 25% of those casting votes did so solely on the gambling. Even the NRA could never boast that kind of single issue voting. I think that Loebsack would have won even without the gambling.

Iowa politics doesn't quite work the same way as in some other places. Leach lost points because he was associated with a war president in a place in the country where the war wasn't so popular. Loebsack was a political science professor who could make a very compelling anti-war case. Leach was sort of backed into support for his president. If you wanted to pick out one factor that put Loebsack over the top, I would point to some extremely unpleasant negative campaigning by the national Republican party. This sort of thing is unusual for Iowa. It didn't play well. Leach asked them to stop. At first they refused to stop. I think that Leach even went so far as to threaten to drop his party affiliation if they didn't pull the ads. By the time they stopped, I think too many people were pissed off.

In Leach's case, this wasn't pandering to the religious right at all. It was a genuine belief in his cause. I don't agree with him at all, but I don't think it was a calculated political decision.