2008 Presidential Primaries

[omgwtf]

Engineer, I agree with you, that it's good to have Ron Paul's representation in congress, and his presence in the primary race.

Reading through this thread, there are two things that catch my attention that I think are counter-productive to your objectives.

The first is that any support for Ron Paul risks unintentionally lumping poker players in the fringe with him and the rest of the crazies talking about the federal reserve, ignoring the world beyond our borders, etc. Personally I'd like poker to be viewed as mainstream as possible, as "the other American pastime". Any endorsement or praise of him should be done with care (I think you have, BTW) and take into account that he has marginalized himself as a candidate

The other is that several comments come across as "here's how we can defeat the Republicans". As I mentioned I have no love for the R party, but that sort of partisanship only serves to limit your influence. Keep it about the issues, not about the party. We will only win if poker is a liberties issue, where the message easily resonates with all Americans regardless of party.

Regarding Guiliani, the problem I see is that he's shrewd enough, and shallow enough (IMO) to understand the political capital to be gained through a crackdown on internet gaming. This is evidenced by his stance that pot should never be legal for any reason, including legitimate medical treatment, regardless of what any research shows (his words).

I would also expect the whole "money laundering" and "ties to terrorism" rhetoric to make Guiliana enforce the gambling prohibition with gusto.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The other is that several comments come across as "here's how we can defeat the Republicans". As I mentioned I have no love for the R party, but that sort of partisanship only serves to limit your influence. Keep it about the issues, not about the party. We will only win if poker is a liberties issue, where the message easily resonates with all Americans regardless of party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good comment. I am a conservative Republican. However, it's hard to deny that we're sunk if Republicans regain committee chairs in Congress. Still, we'll need their votes (at least 30% will have to come our way), so we should keep this in mind.

Also, (aside from the above paragraph) my comments were more about FoF-types showing up to vote. Rank-and-file Republicans didn't historically desire big government censorship of the Internet. I sure never did.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Giuliani vs Clinton I garuntee you we have a third candidate. They may win the nominations but they are tow of the most acerbic [censored] to ever run for elected office. 80-90% of people will have a negative opinion on one of them, and thats just too high to ignore for a mega-rcih individual who wants to be President.

[/ QUOTE ]

Giuliani vs. Clinton vs. Bloomberg? I like that. FoF wouldn't go near the polls.

Could someone from the religious right make a third party run? Nah. Much as I wish they'd try, they know where their bread is buttered.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I doubt Bloomberg runs if Giuliani is in the race. Its kinda like Wright and Reyes trying to win the MVP on the same team. I think Bloomberg wants HIllary vs Mitt. He could win then. Giuliani vs Hillary could very well lead to
a 4 or 5 way race of people who could poll 5-10%, depending on how the Supreme Courts rule on ballot access. So many states have punitive ballot laws. Personally, the more the merrier, as it will lead to the breakup of the Republican Party. If you don't vote R for pres, you don't vote R for Congress. Thats borne out statisitically more than the D side.

FoF candidate? Hmmmm, the pipeline is in place. These little homeschooled nits that litter Bush's playpen will show up again in gerrymandered districts and think tanks. I don't think any have amassed political experience and capital enough to run. 2016? Provided they aren't all registered sex offenders by then. I think why we have never had a charismatic Protestant/Evangelical candidate win is that in order to build a following in American Christianity, you have to poach someone else's flock. Creative destruction has always been at work in America's churces. Its kept them fresh with ideas, but politically unable to flex disciplined muscle. Not this cycle.

RP has disavowed a run by himself. It would make for lively debates if he could get in them. Obama might even net 20% as an independent.

We have a LOT of people with net worth above 300million, which is what Id think it takes to try to win and still be megarich after.

[TStoneMBD]

i know this isnt the right forum for this, but i figured i might as well do someone a favor.

i have no idea how accurate these cnn polls are, so i have no intention of betting on this myself, but if the polls are anywhere near accurate then political betting lines are not correctly reflecting these polls.

according to those polls obama, edwards, mccain and gingrich are all +ev bets:



http://www.wsex.com/market/REPUBLICNOMINEE-2008.html
http://www.wsex.com/market/DEMOCRATNOMINEE-2008.html

ftr, i have no money invested in this and dont plan to bet on the election at all.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If Obama comes out for poker, and adds Iran to the bombing list, he's got this repub's vote for sure if he gets the dem nod.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, it's just my opinion mind you, but when I see you make a statement like the one above, it makes me question your opinion on every subject.

I read this last night and just finally had to say something.

[/ QUOTE ]

+1. (At risk of turning this into politics, spin me a single plausible scenario where such a course of action is anything short of disastrous)

As for the primary purpose of this thread, my opinion is this - any GOP president will be bad for poker, because the nominee will have needed to curry at least some favor with the FoF types. These people will expect something. The modus operandi amongst successful coalition building pols is to give the necessary-but-annoying types a bone, which typically equals a portfolio where they can do the least damage. Amongst the general scheme of things, internet gambling is a pretty minor deal, making it a prime candidate for whoever is tasked with overseeing it to be a staunch co-called anti-vice crusader.

To put it more shortly, this issue is really, really, really not on the radar of any viable candidate of either party. So it comes down to what kinds of people will be appointed.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the primary purpose of this thread, my opinion is this - any GOP president will be bad for poker, because the nominee will have needed to curry at least some favor with the FoF types. These people will expect something. The modus operandi amongst successful coalition building pols is to give the necessary-but-annoying types a bone, which typically equals a portfolio where they can do the least damage. Amongst the general scheme of things, internet gambling is a pretty minor deal, making it a prime candidate for whoever is tasked with overseeing it to be a staunch co-called anti-vice crusader.

To put it more shortly, this issue is really, really, really not on the radar of any viable candidate of either party. So it comes down to what kinds of people will be appointed.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've been the bone thrown to FoF for a long time now. This year, we've spoken up enough to at least not be a freebee anymore. I'm proud of everyone here for doing their part. In two months, we'll show that a red state Repbulican incumbent governor can run on an anti-gaming platform and still lose by double digits. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

FoF will never love us, but we may become a less attractive bone to be thrown.

[canvasbck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My immense knowledge says that any interest group worth a grain of salt would not spend one second supporting or encouraging their members to support a fringe candidate.

My immense knowledge says that an interest group that really wants to get a law changed or regulations weakened would get behind candidates who have a chance to win and change the law.

I don't want the PPA to become the LPP (Libertarian Poker Players).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, it seems all you can do is tell us what NOT to do. Which candidate do we support? How do we gain their support? What's your plan?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that Ron Paul is too far away from the mainstream to be a viable candidate. While I like some of his views, many of them are a little out there.

I believe our best approach (in the Republican primary) is to support the federalist candidate. Thompson has already seperated himself from FoF by saying that he personally opposes gay marriage but does not feel that the Federal Govt. should be the ones legislating it. It should be left up to the states. I honestly believe that he will take the same approach to gaming. He seems to be the only true "small government" candidate that has a real shot at the nomination.

Here is a good explanation of his idea of federalism:
Thompson on Federalism

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe our best approach (in the Republican primary) is to support the federalist candidate. Thompson has already seperated himself from FoF by saying that he personally opposes gay marriage but does not feel that the Federal Govt. should be the ones legislating it. It should be left up to the states. I honestly believe that he will take the same approach to gaming. He seems to be the only true "small government" candidate that has a real shot at the nomination.

Here is a good explanation of his idea of federalism:
Thompson on Federalism

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. I made a similar point a few posts ago as well.

Basically, Ron Paul will have to move up to over 10% before he moves from a protest vote to a candidate to consider backing (IMHO), as I mentioned earlier. Giuliani is a big-time statist who's good for us mainly to keep FoF at home and to change the Republican Party (just by being who he is). Many congressional races are within a couple of percentage points, so that is a really big factor that we shouldn't discount, especially if Clinton is the Dem. nominee. For for Thompson, I think he could become the best choice for us in the Republican primary if he chooses to say pretty much anything in our favor. That's up to him.

As for the Dems, it's starting to look like it won't matter. Clinton is building a huge lead, and it continues to grow. If Obama or Edwards gains traction, we may wish to vote for either of them simply because Clinton's high negatives will draw FoF-types to the polls just to vote against her (except possibly against Giuliani...I just don't see them voting for a thrice-married, pro-choice candidate, and they've said so pretty loudly so far).

Hopefully we'll learn more before the primaries, so we can make a wise choice in the voting booth. We have time....it's just time to start thinking about it.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
To put it more shortly, this issue is really, really, really not on the radar of any viable candidate of either party.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this possible with an advocacy group (PPA) rapidly approaching 1 million members? Is there another advocacy group anywhere near this size that gets zero attention one way or another from all the major candidates? Why doesn't the PPA (glad you're on the board Engineer [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) demand a position from each of the candidates? I'd especially like to hear Obama's position as I think he may support us.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To put it more shortly, this issue is really, really, really not on the radar of any viable candidate of either party.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this possible with an advocacy group (PPA) rapidly approaching 1 million members? Is there another advocacy group anywhere near this size that gets zero attention one way or another from all the major candidates? Why doesn't the PPA (glad you're on the board Engineer [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) demand a position from each of the candidates? I'd especially like to hear Obama's position as I think he may support us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they might all go tell us to [censored] ourselves?