Posted on 12/17/2006 5:37:31 PM PST by neverdem
One of the problems inherent in being just one voice in 300 million is that it's easy to believe that individual votes do not matter. Not only do individual votes matter, but the mainstream has noticed that the voices and votes of gamblers may have had a crucial impact in a few key races in the recent mid-term elections.
On Wednesday, Robert Novak of the Evans-Novak Political Report published his morning-after overview of the wave that washed many Republicans out of office. Here's his quick take on the unexpected defeat of Representative Jim Leach, (R-IA), who was the original author of the Congressional legislation that ultimately became the UIGEA:
"Moderate Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) had a gambling problem -- not to say that he gambled, but he was the driving force behind a bill that all but banned gambling over the Internet. He was the victim of the so-called "Green Velvet Revolution," a campaign by the Internet gambling industry and gamblers to defeat those who pushed the measure. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) survived this campaign. Leach had had serious races in the past -- most recently in 2002 -- but he was apparently not ready for college professor Dave Loebsack (D)."
More specifically, Loebsack defeated Leach by barely 5,700 votes in a race that was not on the endangered list from the Republican perspective before Tuesday's results were in. Novak rightly identified that that online gamblers in Leach's gamblers were extraordinarily motivated to show up and remove Leach from his Representative post.
While Arizona Sen. John Kyl did survive a late attack from pro-gambling forces, gamblers' impact was also felt elsewhere. Assuming that a significant majority of voters newly energized by the UIGEA broke for the Democratic side, then it becomes clear that in the two most highly contested Senate races, Montana and Virginia, the votes of online gamblers were of crucial importance.
Pending recounts and adjustments due to provisional ballots, the races in both states came down to a fraction of a single percentage point. The latest tally from Montana shows the victorious Democratic challenger, Jon Tester, with a margin of less than 2,850 votes over the incumbent, Conrad Burns. Whether this margin represents 2,850 new votes for the Democratic side, or a shift of some 1,400 already existing votes away from Burns' count, the point is clear --- gamblers breaking to the Democratic side made the difference. The same held true in Virginia, where Democratic challenger James Webb notched a provisional triumph of barely 7,000 votes, over Republican incumbent George Allen, Jr., in a race where more than 2.36 million votes were cast. Given that some 23 million Americans report having gambled online, it's a mathematical surety that rather more than 7,000 of them live in Virginia and found themselves energized to vote anti-Republican by the undemocratic manner in which the UIGEA was passed.
No less a poker authority than WSOP Media Director Nolan Dalla was quoted elsewhere, before the election, as follows:
"Oddly enough, this bill might be worth 2-3 percentage points to Democratic candidates and could be a decisive issue which determines the outcome of the mid-term elections. Wouldn't that be justice if the Republicans were to be punished by poker players for their misdeeds?"
Dalla's words were prophetic. Based on the numbers themselves, at least the two Senate races in Montana and Virginia swung Democratic due to the anger of online gamblers. The Democrats had to win both of these races to achieve the narrowest of margins, 51-49, allowing them control of the Senate, and win both they did. Technically, the new Senate is 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and two independents, but both of the independents --- Connecticut's Joe Lieberman and Vermont's Bernie Sanders --- will caucus with the Democrats, allowing the Democrats to chair all Senate committees. The change offers hope that no more Frist-style shenanigans will occur on gambling-related matters.
Come January, the United States Senate will have a new Democratic majority, directly due to the punitive votes of enraged online gamblers. It's not a "maybe," it's not a "possibly;" it has happened. The voice of online gamblers has changed America's government.
How about state lotteries, race tracks and bingo games?
I thought it was a pretty stupid thing to make a priority.
GOP lost the Libertarian voters who were disgusted at this and the out-of-control federal spending and massive government. People just want government to stay out of their lives, and big government is big government regardless if it comes from the nanny-state Left or the religious Right.
What is the balance in the account that you need in order to really gamble in the stock market?
His point is that gamblers have not been particularly inclined Democratic in any previous election. This time, one issue caused them all to line up on one side.
I rather thought his point was that "single issue" voters, in the case he cited, those into gambling, feel confident that Democrats will not mess with their penchant for on-line wagering, whereas the Republicans might continue to take away more than their off-shore opportunities already attacked.....
The sex deviates are also a single-issue voter block, and Democrats are notoriously deviant-supportive.
Why do it at all?
I don't like this law as much as the next guy. But voting third party or DEM is positively suicidal. On the issue of gambling alone you are willing to hand over the reins of America to the party of baby killing, terrorist coddling, nuclear tech selling, enviro-socialist traitor maggots?
Brilliant.
Don't worry, there aren't that many issues left the Republican party hasn't gotten its big government hands into.
As to your statement 'On the issue (fill in the blank)' at what point will party faithful finally accept that Republicans could care less about the opinions of the citizens of the respective states and more to the special interests that fill their coffers? They are no better than the Democrats when it comes to liberty and freedoms. They may attack them differently, they may attack ones different than the Democrats, but they are still limiting them unnecessarily
You have a better chance of reforming the GOP than the DEMontraitors. They are still more pro-2nd ammendment, pro-life, pro-war, and pro-freedom than the alternative.
Everytime a DEMon comes to power, the consequences are near irreconciable. We haven't undo ANY of the damages inflicted by Carter, toon, and other traitors. This lousy bill is nothing compared to half the treason and socialism they inflict upon us regularly.
We still have planty of good people out there. They just didn't get voted in the Primaries. That's an issue to take up with the voters.
don't worry... I still voted Rebulican... not that it helped my congressman (Bonilla... who also voted for this bill). I just won't support those repubs in the primaries....
I'm not that thrilled with them when they win elections either.
Thank you. We need to clean house during the Primaries. A shame the voters have decided that these good, conservative men will not represent them as well as greedy RINOs and cowards.
Bump.
My post in October, right after the bill passed. "Considering national-scope elections are now decided by single digit margins (mostly), this issue alone will probably encourage many quasi-conservative swing voters to vote against the party in control. I hate to say it, but I was mad about the provision also......but I do have a moral dilemma with gambling too (I have been successful at poker, but now try refrain from playing). Many swing voters are seemingly devoid of "moral dilemmas", so in my view keeping the majority is more in doubt than before."
I'm still mad myself, but also haven't spent any cash gambling.....online.....
With a name like mine, that's silly. I posted the article because we need to try to understand why the dems took control of Congress. While there were a number of issues, this certainly didn't help.
Rhetorical you. I got to be careful about that. Sorry. :P
Part of the problem is the cowardly and despicable tactic of uppending bills like this to important legislation. That's why the President didn't veto as much. There's no way he's going to veto a port security bill in a time of war because the gambling bill was attached to it.
I posted this article on News/Activism as an editorial. Now it's in the Bloggers & Personal section. Is it hard to figure why the GOP is the stupid party on a supposedly conservative forum espousing limited government?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.