What kind of impact have we been having on members of Congress

[4_2_it]

Reading the latest post of a Congressman's reply to a letter triggered a few random thoughts.

It seems to me that most members of Congress have now had their staff put together a boilerplate response for this issue. Being an optimist at heart, I see this as a positive for a couple of reasons.

First, it seems to indicate that they are receiving a large enough volume of mail to warrant having a stated responses (and in some cases a position) to avoid contradiction and ensure consistency.

Second, it has forced them (or more likely their staff) to become more educated on the entire the issue of Internet gambling. Our letters have debunked most of the standard anti-gambling talking points so they have had to deep deeper in formulating a reply.

At a minimum, we have planted a seed in the back of their minds that hopefully makes it harder for additional legislation to be passed.

Now I don't believe that the tide is about to turn, but I do believe that these letters and phones have had some positive impact for our cause.

Comments are welcome.

[oldbookguy]

From personal experience I agree.

My first responses from one of my Senator's and my congresswoman were adament in favor of UIGEA.

After several exchanges and one meeting, I do see a shift from 100% against to a reasoned response lacking a commitment either way; more of a wait and see attitude.

In many ways they are reminding me of a childhood remark made to me by my parents, Monkey See, Monkey do. The are waiting to see what the wind blows and then do as may to save that temp job they have.

At this point, we need to continue the writing and calling.

More important, each time there is a news article we can add comments too, we need to control the conversation.

Senators and House members have staff that do read the many papers daily and do follow some online.

D&D said it best; we do not 9though we are) have to be right, we have to be able to move votes, that is ALL congress cares about, votes.

obg

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Reading the latest post of a Congressman's reply to a letter triggered a few random thoughts.

It seems to me that most members of Congress have now had their staff put together a boilerplate response for this issue. Being an optimist at heart, I see this as a positive for a couple of reasons.

First, it seems to indicate that they are receiving a large enough volume of mail to warrant having a stated responses (and in some cases a position) to avoid contradiction and ensure consistency.

Second, it has forced them (or more likely their staff) to become more educated on the entire the issue of Internet gambling. Our letters have debunked most of the standard anti-gambling talking points so they have had to deep deeper in formulating a reply.

At a minimum, we have planted a seed in the back of their minds that hopefully makes it harder for additional legislation to be passed.

Now I don't believe that the tide is about to turn, but I do believe that these letters and phones have had some positive impact for our cause.

Comments are welcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've just started reaching out to friends on the hill in staff positions. I wanted to have something of a firm grasp of the issues before making those calls. Got a good education here....

So far your impression that there is some visibility but they are in a wait and see mode seems valid. The lack of traction for Fletcher in KY with his stance seems to be the short term focus on the hill in this regard.


D$D

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
I've just started reaching out to friends on the hill in staff positions. I wanted to have something of a firm grasp of the issues before making those calls. Got a good education here....

So far your impression that there is some visibility but they are in a wait and see mode seems valid. The lack of traction for Fletcher in KY with his stance seems to be the short term focus on the hill in this regard.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really want to derail this thread, but I was struck by your last comment regarding hill folks taking a wait-n-see on gambling matters until KY Governors race clears up (at least that's how i read it).

To me, that doesn't make any sense.

Fletcher has been in big trouble for a very long time. His poll numbers and approval ratings have been in the dumps for well over a year, perhaps longer. Using the KY race to bellweather the mood of the country on gambling issues seems like a basic flaw.

Yes, Fletcher has attempted to reframe the race about anti-gambling--but I haven't seen evidence that his plan is working. I'd be interested in seeing a full poll to see if they fleshed out that a bit more in the responses, but this election is about his record in the office. He's trying to run away from that given the public's view of his pardons and other (lesser) political errors.

From my perspective, using a Fletcher defeat to somehow point to a "hey, look at this example--gambling is popular" or anything remotely similar is not accurate.

It is probably nice that there is a major political election that is bringing the discussion up, but why any hill folks (or otherwise) would base their legislative agenda around how it turns out is poor judgement.

[Berge20]

"It seems to me that most members of Congress have now had their staff put together a boilerplate response for this issue. Being an optimist at heart, I see this as a positive for a couple of reasons.

First, it seems to indicate that they are receiving a large enough volume of mail to warrant having a stated responses (and in some cases a position) to avoid contradiction and ensure consistency."

The boilerplate letter probably shows more of the volume of contacts we have had to the offices more than anything else. I agree with your view here.

"Second, it has forced them (or more likely their staff) to become more educated on the entire the issue of Internet gambling. Our letters have debunked most of the standard anti-gambling talking points so they have had to deep deeper in formulating a reply."

This possiblitiy is going to vary widely by office and staff. Obviouly you'd hope that they take the time to dig into things and get to fully understand the arguments on all sides. Some will, some won't.

"At a minimum, we have planted a seed in the back of their minds that hopefully makes it harder for additional legislation to be passed."

Agreed, plus the overall shift in control really helped that.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really want to derail this thread, but I was struck by your last comment regarding hill folks taking a wait-n-see on gambling matters until KY Governors race clears up (at least that's how i read it).

To me, that doesn't make any sense.

Fletcher has been in big trouble for a very long time. His poll numbers and approval ratings have been in the dumps for well over a year, perhaps longer. Using the KY race to bellweather the mood of the country on gambling issues seems like a basic flaw.

Yes, Fletcher has attempted to reframe the race about anti-gambling--but I haven't seen evidence that his plan is working. I'd be interested in seeing a full poll to see if they fleshed out that a bit more in the responses, but this election is about his record in the office. He's trying to run away from that given the public's view of his pardons and other (lesser) political errors.

From my perspective, using a Fletcher defeat to somehow point to a "hey, look at this example--gambling is popular" or anything remotely similar is not accurate.

It is probably nice that there is a major political election that is bringing the discussion up, but why any hill folks (or otherwise) would base their legislative agenda around how it turns out is poor judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they may be looking to see if red state voters will completely disregard Fletcher's anti-gaming stance. The politican establishment may not blame Fletcher's loss on his stance, but they'll note that he could have such a stance and still lose by double-digits. In other words, they'll note that the anti-gaming folks aren't as strong as they say they are.

And, when he does lose, he'll take Kentucky's anti-gaming folks with him, as that's all anyone here will remember about the race.

[Berge20]

I can see that argument, but pinning down that level of specificity on why the ~50% of Kentuckians who self ID as conservative either don't show up to support him or vote for the other guy to only the anti-gambling issue (or mostly) can more easily be found in a few polling questions. More accurately too, IMO.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've just started reaching out to friends on the hill in staff positions. I wanted to have something of a firm grasp of the issues before making those calls. Got a good education here....

So far your impression that there is some visibility but they are in a wait and see mode seems valid. The lack of traction for Fletcher in KY with his stance seems to be the short term focus on the hill in this regard.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really want to derail this thread, but I was struck by your last comment regarding hill folks taking a wait-n-see on gambling matters until KY Governors race clears up (at least that's how i read it).

To me, that doesn't make any sense.

Fletcher has been in big trouble for a very long time. His poll numbers and approval ratings have been in the dumps for well over a year, perhaps longer. Using the KY race to bellweather the mood of the country on gambling issues seems like a basic flaw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The GOP to some degree is worried about the anti-gambling forces that pushed through the UIGEA after a 10 year effort. The KY race has turned into a fight over gambling.

The GOP folks I spoke to in this regard know exactly where Fletcher is and his attempt to mobilize his dead campaign with a switch to this issue since a little before Labor day.

The issues isn't if Fletcher wins or looses, that pretty much at this point seems like a done deal. The test is to see if the anti-gambling forces can move the race. Most Hill people I spoke to didn't care what happens to Ernie, they are looking at their own primaries and general elections.

This fall when the inital strategies are mapped out and the issue folks come out of the wood work with offers of help for position platforms is when the effect of either sides efforts on this issue will have value.

If bothsides sit out of a done deal race, then it's credibility that wins the winter planning sessions.

If one makes a move and the other counters and the effects are unknowible or neglible, again the planers revert to past preformance.

One side can make a move an move the race and claim victory in the winter planning sessions.

That was my take on the gambling anti-gambling issue on the Hill in regards to KY's race. No they are not just going to look at the results and pee their pants worring about poker.


D$D

[Rampage_Jackson]

I got one of those canned responses from my congressman in Maryland. I was pleasantly surprised although it doesn't mean much.

[Berge20]

Gotcha

I still think they could do that more effectively with some polls and focus group testing, but perhaps I'm just a polling whore. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]