are online poker players enough to tip the election

Roswell · #1 10-02-2006, 05:35 AM

away from Frist, if he runs for President in 2008?

Dynasty · #2 10-02-2006, 05:38 AM

No.

One of the reasons this legislation got passed fairly easily is that online gambling is a relatively unimportant activity. I doubt it would make the top 40 for most important election issues.

Also, there's no doubt Frist will be running for President and the passage of this legislation has helped him in the early stages of the election process (Iowa caucus).

graarrg · #3 10-02-2006, 05:40 AM

Ahahahahah, no. But, if there are primaries (if the GOP doesn't hand us Bush descendants), the power of the poker player lobby might be enough to take a state or two away from him and that could put another prominent Republican competitor out in front. And that's if we try hard, and play dirty. maybe fabricate a sex scandal. By votes alone, we can't do crap unless we all move to one state and pile up in one district.

Poker_Hoar · #4 10-02-2006, 05:41 AM

I was thinking the same thing and think the answer is yes. If each of 500,000 players convinced their family to vote differently then it could make a difference.

See, here is the problem there is no material difference between Republican and Democrat. Look at the vote we just had. Two un-patriots voted against the ports deal. ONLY TWO!

So in this issue there was no party difference.

It makes me want to puke.

Jooka · #5 10-02-2006, 05:42 AM

not even close.

viper930 · #6 10-02-2006, 05:43 AM

Thats because everyone wants to be "secure" [censored]. Not every single issue has to have bipartisan dispute.

2461Badugi · #7 10-02-2006, 05:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Also, there's no doubt Frist will be running for President and the passage of this legislation has helped him in the early stages of the election process (Iowa caucus).

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you feel this way? Historically Iowans have frowned upon heavyhanded federal government, and if Frist is anything, he's heavyhanded.

jimmytrick · #8 10-02-2006, 05:44 AM

You guys are dead wrong if you think there is no difference between the parties. This bill was a sacrifice to the Religious Right by Frist & Co.

If any good comes from this it will be that none affected by this ever votes Republican again. Unless, you are stupid donkeys.

graarrg · #9 10-02-2006, 05:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking the same thing and think the answer is yes. If each of 500,000 players convinced their family to vote differently then it could make a difference.

See, here is the problem there is no material difference between Republican and Democrat. Look at the vote we just had. Two un-patriots voted against the ports deal. ONLY TWO!

So in this issue there was no party difference.

It makes me want to puke.

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't underestimate the power of Hill politics. This was a much needed bill that most Congressmen would not want to be caught dead opposing. Any sort of opposition would be like a Congressman voting no to "Do you support our troops? Y/N." Riders make it through because they're either part of negotiation in a controversial bill to pick up more votes, or because they're tacked on to the most uncontroversial bill possible.

Nick C · #10 10-02-2006, 05:46 AM

No.

It's a big deal for you and me, but it isn't for most voters.

Frist pushed as hard as he did because he saw the bill as beneficial to his campaign. This is probably because of money more than actual votes -- the groups he was pandering to aren't going to vote Democrat anyway (though they might vote for a different Republican in the primary) -- but that money does translate into votes once it's used for the campaign.

Even if more people are annoyed by the bill than elated by it, Frist can benefit so long as great numbers of people aren't irritated enough to let this one issue swing their vote.

Edit: Nate has a point about the Iowa caucus, and it could be the case that Frist pushed the bill largely with the short-term goal of doing well in Iowa in mind.

Nevertheless, I think that appeasing campaign contributors is sometimes the main strategic objective of politicians, even when such appeasement is not widely popular, because of the money involved that can be used in campaign ads that address (or create) more general voter concerns.