Alfonse D'Amato just on Fox News....live

[oldbookguy]

In reality, none, including Brownback.

The perception of the public, in the GOP, 3. Huckabee, Brownback and Romney (even though his religion is considered odd by most).

As to th Dems, I would again go with 0 and add a 0 to who is even perceived that way.

Again, I was just pointing out the disconnect between what people say and reality. The GOP candidates should be doing the same.

obg

[IndyFish]

obg, thanks for the update on Frist. I had really hoped I'd never hear his name again.

Concerning religion, I found it odd (to put it lightly) that after the debate Fox News Channel interviewed each candidate and to the left of the screen they had a "playing card" type of display showing "stats" like current government position, state, etc. Also listed was the candidate's religious preference. I'd really like to ask FoF which branch of Christianity has the better decision-making skills. Isn't that what's important???

Anyway, the Republicans lost me when they became the big government, big spending, ultra-religious nanny-state party. I really hope I'm not just the exception.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fnurt,

Thompson or any other repub candidate is going to have to make a choice. Either make the core religious conservatives 100% happy or just take them for granted in an attempt to reach more of the middle. With things going against the repubs, just energizing the base and getting out its maximal voting potential won't be nearly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hot damn we actually agree on something!

But then I'm not sure sucess now would be a good thing for the party. The GOP seems to need a few years in the wilderness to wake up.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Presidential politics are going to be state by state, again.
What states are in play that matter? Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, WV, Colorado, and Florida. A republican has to win almost all of those. Florida and Ohio may be 100% must wins. Our goal should be to show that poker could cost a Republican nominee every one of those states. Our other goal should be to tell the Dems poker can throw them every one of those states and several Senators into the bargain. We don't want to be an issue, we want to pitch to them to avoid the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only problem with this analysis from a gambling perspective in motivating "poker" votes is both MO and Ohio have riverboat gambling, FL and WV have passed recent changes allowing more poker, KY is likely by next year to have gambling on the ballot. This isn't to say that we like all advocacy groups shouldn't look at swing states, but the issue in these isn't going to be as hot as we'd like, IMO. So to some degree we are left with getting mainly on-line players.

I'm also uncomfortable throwing our lot with either main party just yet.


D$D

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
With things going against the repubs, just energizing the base and getting out its maximal voting potential won't be nearly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Republicans are unlikely to agree with this sentiment. They win elections by energizing the base, energizing the base, and energizing the base some more. In the 3 minutes they spend getting votes that are not part of the base, they will focus the debate on taxes and introduce gay marriage legislation in some swing state.

[Berge20]

Re the Frist-Thompson thing

Not sure why anyone is surprised by this. Both were Senators from the State of Tennessee and have long political ties going well back.

[oldbookguy]

For more on the Frist / Thompson connection and support, this takes you to Frist's Thompson Watch Headlines page:


http://volpac.org/index.cfm?Fuseacti...hText=thompson


These are why, those who recall, I posted when it was announced that Witcherman(? correct spelling ?) was hired by Thompson and the need to write.

obg

[canvasbck]

I don't think Thompson will be an enemy of gaming. He is running as a federalist. He has stated many times that when he voted on a bill he always asked himself "Should governement be doing this, and if so, at what level" The following is a direct quote from his website;

" Back in my days in the Senate, I found myself on the short end of a couple of 99 to 1 votes. They involved issues that had been under the purview of states for over 200 years. I asked why we should federalize what rightly were state and local issues.

I’ve been saying it for years, and it bears repeating: what works in Tennessee may not work in Nebraska and may be different from what succeeds in Oregon. That’s why President Ronald Reagan compared federalism to letting a thousand sparks of genius in the states and communities around this country catch fire. It’s not a perfect system, but it works a lot better than the alternative of central planning.

We need to allow local authorities to apply their own good ideas and use their own good judgment. Each state can find its own way, learning from the successes and failures of the others. There is a wealth of creativity and initiative out there in the states, and often the best ideas in Washington started out as state initiatives. ."

Of course, he isn't going to pizz off his conservative base by supporting gaming. If he is a true federalist, he should want to see gaming legislation kept at the state level. Just my .02.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
fnurt,

Thompson or any other repub candidate is going to have to make a choice. Either make the core religious conservatives 100% happy or just take them for granted in an attempt to reach more of the middle. With things going against the repubs, just energizing the base and getting out its maximal voting potential won't be nearly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my point completely if you thought I said the GOP would try to make FoF 100% happy.

The point is, they will go against FoF on issues where they think they can pick up a substantial number of votes in the middle. FoF is still a powerful force within the party and they're not going to go against it just to go against it, there has to be some benefit.

Unless we put together a million man march or something, I very much doubt any Republican candidate is going to see online poker as an issue with enough upside to warrant dissing FoF over it.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
I very much doubt any Republican candidate is going to see online poker as an issue with enough upside to warrant dissing FoF over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul has already done that and will continue to do it in the future. He doesn't sell out to any group.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fnurt,

Thompson or any other repub candidate is going to have to make a choice. Either make the core religious conservatives 100% happy or just take them for granted in an attempt to reach more of the middle. With things going against the repubs, just energizing the base and getting out its maximal voting potential won't be nearly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my point completely if you thought I said the GOP would try to make FoF 100% happy.

The point is, they will go against FoF on issues where they think they can pick up a substantial number of votes in the middle. FoF is still a powerful force within the party and they're not going to go against it just to go against it, there has to be some benefit.

Unless we put together a million man march or something, I very much doubt any Republican candidate is going to see online poker as an issue with enough upside to warrant dissing FoF over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know a lot of people seem to want a Million Hand March, but I don't. You would get more impact with a few hundred or more showing up in each of the state capitals to march. Even more if you regularly show up at candidate's offices, their events, and help those who support us, you will get more action. IMO. But if you are going to push for it you are running out of time. Isn't October 13th the day the UIEGA passed?

Look at the simple cost vs. benefit analysis. Who are you trying to move? Given the published numbers of poker players and polls on the subject we don't have to move the general population through action or education as much as we do have to convince legislators we are more than a heard of cats.


D$D