2008 Presidential Primaries

[TheEngineer]

The 2008 presidential primaries are only a few months away. In some states, registered voters who wish to change parties (necessary to vote in that party’s primary in some states) must do so by the end of the year, so it’s time to think about the implications of each candidate for online poker.

We discussed this a bit at Republican Presidential Candidates' Stands on Internet Gaming; this is an update of that.

Republican Candidates (in order of latest CNN polling):

Rudy Giuliani, 27%
Former two-term mayor of NY. Social moderate (pro-choice, favors some gun restrictions). I found no record on his stand on any gaming issue. He’s made some pro-gaming statements, but he also zealously enforced gaming laws in New York. Rep. Peter King (R), cosponsor of IGREA, is his ally.

Pros: a win for him will reduce the influence of the anti-gaming social conservative Republicans. In fact, many will sit out the general election if Giuliani is the candidate, which would be an awesome result for us there and (especially) in the Congressional races.

Cons: Giuliani is no libertarian. In fact, he believes big government provides law and order, and his history is one of big government. If he thinks Internet poker is legal, we’re golden. If he thinks it’s illegal…watch out! Also, there’s a risk that he’ll look for some common ground between him and the anti-gaming religious right. For some reason, we’re usually the bone that gets thrown to these folks.

Fred Thompson, 19%
Former senator from TN. Often described as a Goldwater/Reagan conservative. Championed by many social conservatives as the best candidate who has a good chance of winning. I found no record on his stand on any gaming issue. Endorsed by Sen. D’Amato (not as PPA Chairman, but as a private citizen).

Pros: He believes in limited government, so he’s historically been hesitant to empower the federal government to control issues that traditionally belong to the states.

Cons: He doesn’t appear to be on our side. Our opponents are his core constituency.

John McCain, 14%
F. AZ senator. Clear record of opposing our rights, right along with fellow AZ senator Jon Kyl.

Pros: none

Cons: He’s simply against us.

Newt Gingrich, 12% (undeclared)
Former House speaker.

Pros: He believes in limited government.

Cons: Same as Thompson. He’s not on our side and he’s trying to win the support of our opponents.

Mitt Romney, 11%
Former MA governor. I found no record on his stand on Internet gaming. While Mormons don’t personally gamble, they don’t necessarily have issues with non-Mormons gambling. In fact, many Mormons work in Vegas casinos.

Pros: can’t think of one

Cons: Same as Thompson and Gingrich. He’s not on our side and he’s trying to win the support of our opponents.

Sam Brownback, 3%
F-. Senator from Kansas. Proud social conservative. Cosponsor of several Internet gaming ban bills. Also sponsored bills on broadcast decency and on bans of violent video games. Supports big-government social conservatism. Reportedly met with former Atty. Gen. Gonzales to pressure him to push through harsh UIGEA regs.

Pros: If he’s the nominee, he won’t win, and he’ll take down other anti-gaming folks with him.

Cons: Sworn enemy of ours...may as well vote for Kyl or Goodlatte.

Mike Huckabee, 2%
F. Baptist minister, former Gov. of Arkansas. As governor, he opposed the Arkansas state lottery. I. Nelson Rose says Huckabee is staunchly anti-gaming ( <a href="http://gaming.unlv.edu/reading/rose84.html)." target="_blank">http://gaming.unlv.edu/reading/rose84.html[/url]).</a> And, the CATO institute gave him an F for spending and tax policy, and an overall D in 2006. www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa581/reportcard_table.html

Pros: Same as Brownback. If he’s the nominee, he won’t win, and he’ll take down other anti-gaming folks with him.

Cons: Sworn enemy of ours…may as well vote for Kyl or Goodlatte.

Tom Tancredo, 2% .
CO representative. Supported HR 4411 and HR 2143 (banned credit card use for Internet gaming)

Pros: none

Cons: Trying to get the support of our opponents.

Ron Paul, 1%
A+. Texas congressman. Big proponent of our rights.

Pros: Perfect candidate for us.

Cons: none

Duncan Hunter. 0%
F. CA congressman. Voted for HR 2143, banning Internet gaming by credit card, 2003. Voted for HR 4411. Cosponsored HR 4477 (Goodlatte’s ban bill). Big-time anti-gaming guy.

Pros: none

Cons: opponent of ours

Republican Summary:

Ron Paul: A vote for Paul is a vote for our freedom. Even if he doesn’t win your state’s primary, a vote for him is a statement for what we believe.

Rudy Giuliani: A vote for Giuliani is a Republican vote against nanny-state social conservatism. Of the leading Republican candidates, he may be the best one for our long-term goals.

Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich: Open questions at this point.

John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter: Opponents of our freedoms. Avoid at all costs.


Democratic Candidates (in order of latest CNN polling):

Hillary Clinton, 40%
Two-term NY senator. I found no record of her position on Internet gaming. The Clinton administration, of which she was a part, was strongly anti-Internet gaming.

Pros: She could not care less what FoF thinks, and they know it.

Cons: Her negatives among all Republicans (social conservatives included) are so high that they’ll go to the polls just to vote against her, hurting us in congressional races.

Barack Obama, 21%
IL senator. No known position on Internet gaming but reputed to be a good player.

Pros: He doesn’t mind letting it be known that he enjoys playing poker for money. These stories are even on his own website. Probably would be good for us.

Cons: He hasn’t come out in support of us.

John Edwards, 13%
Former NC senator. No known position on Internet gaming.

Pros: He’s unlikely to draw the social conservatives to the polls specifically to vote against him.

Cons: Position on Internet gaming unknown.

Al Gore, 11% (undeclared)

Former TN senator and vice-president. I found no record of his position on Internet gaming. The Clinton administration, of which he was a part, was strongly anti-gaming.

Pros: Invented the Internet [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Cons: Position on Internet gaming unknown.

Bill Richardson, 5%
NM governor. Made statements in support of Internet gaming.

Pros: Appears to be with us.

Cons: none.

Joe Biden, 2%
DE senator. Voted against Kyl’s S 474 (an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have amended the Wire Act to ban most Internet gaming), an amendment that passed 90-10. Current senators against that amendment were Larry Craig (R-ID), Pete Domenici (R-MN), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and Ted Stevens (R-AK).

Pros: With us, at least on this occasion

Cons: Hasn’t really spoken out for us

Dennis Kucinich, 2%
A- OH congressman. Voted against HR 4411.

Pros: With us.

Cons: none.

Chris Dodd, 0%
F CT senator. Spoke on the Senate floor in favor of S 627, Kyl’s Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act.

Pros: none.

Cons: Against us.

Mike Gravel, 0%
F Former AK senator. Seems like he could be with us, but I don’t really know.

Pros: none.

Cons: Hasn’t spoken for us.

Democratic Summary:

Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Dennis Kucinich: With us, or likely with us. At this point, votes for them help us.

John Edwards, Al Gore, and Mike Gravel: Open questions at this point.

Hillary Clinton: Open question. Unfortunate issue of her strong negatives motivating our opponents.

Chris Dodd: Opponent of our freedoms. Avoid at all costs.

So, that's my take at this point. What do you all think?

[TheEngineer]

Cliff's Notes version:

Republican Summary:

Ron Paul: A vote for Paul is a vote for our freedom. Even if he doesn’t win your state’s primary, a vote for him is a statement for what we believe.

Rudy Giuliani: A vote for Giuliani is a Republican vote against nanny-state social conservatism. Of the leading Republican candidates, he may be the best one for our long-term goals.

Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich: Open questions at this point.

John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter: Opponents of our freedoms. Avoid at all costs.

Democratic Summary:

Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Dennis Kucinich: With us, or likely with us. At this point, votes for them help us.

John Edwards, Al Gore, and Mike Gravel: Open questions at this point.

Hillary Clinton: Open question. Unfortunate issue of her strong negatives motivating our opponents.

Chris Dodd: Opponent of our freedoms. Avoid at all costs.

[Coy_Roy]

[Emperor]

I have pledged to wear my Ron Paul Tshirts EVERYDAY until Nov. 5, 2008. If he doesn't get the nomination, I'll be writing him in.

Wearing the Tshirts has definitely been noticed by my friends/family/college classmates and professors.

[TheEngineer]

Correction #1. Replaced "leading" with "top tier" for clarification:

[ QUOTE ]
Rudy Giuliani: A vote for Giuliani is a Republican vote against nanny-state social conservatism. Of the top tier Republican candidates, he may be the best one for our long-term goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correction #2. Mike Gravel not "F":

[ QUOTE ]
Mike Gravel, 0%
Former AK senator. Seems like he could be with us, but I don’t really know.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Legislurker]

Don't run away with RP enthusiasm please. His campaign has a lot of other negatives. We need a higher profile mainstream candidate to endorse if we ever get to that place in the primaries. We should consistently lobby every major canddidate, even Romney. The last thing we need is to be lumped into the RP camp as just another band of whackjobs with the abolish the government and legalize pot crowd. Somewhere, somehow, a candidate will get desperate for a slice of the electorate. The Republicans more than Dems since single digit swings can mean the nomination on Feb 5th. Sit tight and try to be noticed.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't run away with RP enthusiasm please. His campaign has a lot of other negatives. We need a higher profile mainstream candidate to endorse if we ever get to that place in the primaries. We should consistently lobby every major canddidate, even Romney. The last thing we need is to be lumped into the RP camp as just another band of whackjobs with the abolish the government and legalize pot crowd. Somewhere, somehow, a candidate will get desperate for a slice of the electorate. The Republicans more than Dems since single digit swings can mean the nomination on Feb 5th. Sit tight and try to be noticed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try to do these ratings the same way as the NRA does, which is evaluating where the candidates appear to be on Internet gaming. I hope we can read this and gain more insight into where the candidates currently stand. Hopefully we can get more folks on our side.

Of "top tier" Republicans, hopefully we can pick one off. Giuliani or Thompson seem most likely. As for Romney, his state seems to strongly support our position, so maybe there's some hope there as well. He's one of the "open question" Republicans.

Still, it's something how six of the ten declared Republican candidates are clearly against us, three are question marks, and the one certainly with us is seen as outside the mainstream of the party (and is still polling in the low single digits). I hope we can start getting more Republicans with us, but it's sure been tough. The KY election should be where we at least start to change this, as we'll have data on how people really vote. It won't swing everything overnight, of course, but it will start things off. A thrashing of Republican in '08 should get them to reconsider their allegiance to big government nanny-staters.

Likewise, it's something that only one Democratic candidate is strongly against us. Our solution has to be bipartisan, but I think Internet poker will be far better off for now with Democrats chairing Congressional committees.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't run away with RP enthusiasm please. His campaign has a lot of other negatives. We need a higher profile mainstream candidate to endorse if we ever get to that place in the primaries. We should consistently lobby every major canddidate, even Romney. The last thing we need is to be lumped into the RP camp as just another band of whackjobs with the abolish the government and legalize pot crowd. Somewhere, somehow, a candidate will get desperate for a slice of the electorate. The Republicans more than Dems since single digit swings can mean the nomination on Feb 5th. Sit tight and try to be noticed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try to do these ratings the same way as the NRA does, which is evaluating where the candidates appear to be on Internet gaming. I hope we can read this and gain more insight into where the candidates currently stand. Hopefully we can get more folks on our side.

Of "top tier" Republicans, hopefully we can pick one off. Giuliani or Thompson seem most likely. As for Romney, his state seems to strongly support our position, so maybe there's some hope there as well. He's one of the "open question" Republicans.

Still, it's something how six of the ten declared Republican candidates are clearly against us, three are question marks, and the one certainly with us is seen as outside the mainstream of the party (and is still polling in the low single digits). I hope we can start getting more Republicans with us, but it's sure been tough. The KY election should be where we at least start to change this, as we'll have data on how people really vote. It won't swing everything overnight, of course, but it will start things off. A thrashing of Republican in '08 should get them to reconsider their allegiance to big government nanny-staters.

Likewise, it's something that only one Democratic candidate is strongly against us. Our solution has to be bipartisan, but I think Internet poker will be far better off for now with Democrats chairing Congressional committees.

[/ QUOTE ]


Im not bashing your summary of him, just the gushing of love from other people who think he would be a poker hero. Maybe. But is poker the only issue? You can't see the negatives?

1. He wants to go back to the gold standard. Uhm, hello, we don't have a trillion in gold to hand to the Chinese who own almost that in paper. Put that together with leaving the WTO a 2nd Great Depression sounds fine and dandy.

2. He wants to run as a freedom candidate but he is anti-gay and has anti-gay elements in his campaign. The full on pro life stance is a bit hypocritical as well.

3. The last candidate who wanted to abolish all the federal institutions was Andy Jackson and his white trash ass almost totally [censored] the country up.

4. He has no foreign policy experience. Leave the war or don't leave the war, but I want to feel like youre not going to do something stupid to start WWIII. I don't trust RP on China, or to stand up for Taiwan. I don't trust him to watch Iran or North Korea.

Poker isn't the only issue. Im sure you all would like my poker stance in the White House, but you wouldn't vote for me. Why vote for a crazy loon from Texas just because he has a poker friendly plank. Im very Libertarian and yearn for the day we have a real, pragmatic Lib run for office with cred and standing. But RP isnt that candidate.

[fnurt]

You offer all these reasons like Ron Paul has a legitimate chance to become President. In reality, he has no more chance than I do, sorry to say.

In terms of "sending a message" to the Republican Party, there is probably nothing that would be as effective as Ron Paul getting a shockingly high level of support in the primaries. They understand why people support him and that he represents a break from the nanny-state turn the party has taken in recent years. If you want a sane Republican Party again, this is definitely the message you want to send.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]

Im not bashing your summary of him, just the gushing of love from other people who think he would be a poker hero. Maybe. But is poker the only issue? You can't see the negatives?

1. He wants to go back to the gold standard. Uhm, hello, we don't have a trillion in gold to hand to the Chinese who own almost that in paper. Put that together with leaving the WTO a 2nd Great Depression sounds fine and dandy.

2. He wants to run as a freedom candidate but he is anti-gay and has anti-gay elements in his campaign. The full on pro life stance is a bit hypocritical as well.

3. The last candidate who wanted to abolish all the federal institutions was Andy Jackson and his white trash ass almost totally [censored] the country up.

4. He has no foreign policy experience. Leave the war or don't leave the war, but I want to feel like youre not going to do something stupid to start WWIII. I don't trust RP on China, or to stand up for Taiwan. I don't trust him to watch Iran or North Korea.

Poker isn't the only issue. Im sure you all would like my poker stance in the White House, but you wouldn't vote for me. Why vote for a crazy loon from Texas just because he has a poker friendly plank. Im very Libertarian and yearn for the day we have a real, pragmatic Lib run for office with cred and standing. But RP isnt that candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like everything in politics, what one person sees as a negative someone else sees as a positive. My ratings, much as the NRA's legislator ratings, only concern our issue -- poker. (Likewise, Rep. Ron Paul is A rated by the NRA.) None of the issues you brought up negatively affect poker. If I were doing this while biasing the results with my own personal beliefs, it wouldn't be I guide for poker players...it would be a guide for me.

The NRA is also pragmatic. For example, they won't endorse a Libertarian presidential candidate over an even nominally pro-gun rights Republican no matter how much more favorable the Libertarian's beliefs on gun rights are to the NRA. Likewise, we'll want our strategy to be the one that benefits us the most. If the primaries were held today (assume we have a national primary for this exercise), we'd have two equally valid choices...vote for Ron Paul to make a statement, or vote for Rudy Giuliani to keep our opponents at home on Election Day. There will be changes between now and then, of course, including the fact that the results from Iowa and New Hampshire be available, helping those of us not residing in those states to refine our decision.

Finally, I hope Thompson and/or Obama come out in support of our position before the primaries.