Quote:
Originally Posted by Teppec
I'm from Pennsylvania originally. I disliked Santorum in Congress, despised him in the Senate. He's the worst kind of republican and the worst kind of politician. However, I think it'd almost be worth it to help him keep the GOP fractured going in to their convention to pick a presidential candidate because I think in the end it would help the Dems win the general election. I don't think we have any chance of getting any kind of poker legislation through with the GOP having control of either house or a GOP president in the White House. We need Dem control, of the non-nanny state variety, to have any hope.
|
I think many 2p2ers will be inclined to disagree with this, because they think of the "right" (lol) to play internet poker as a libertarian cause, and of republicans as the libertarians (relatively speaking). But the map I just put up of 2p2 usage within the US suggests that the highlighted is correct: 2p2 activity, and therefore probably internet poker and its acceptance, is very much a liberal-state thing, suggesting in turn that it is dems who will be more inclined to give us what we want.
Edit to add what should be obvious: I'm not saying anything at all about which party should be expected to support internet poker based on professed ideology, nor anything about which party is more nearly correct about anything; I'm just pointing out that it looks like support for internet poker will tend to fly much better in blue states than red states.
Also, this presumes that there are no genuinely libertarian candidates involved, but at this point it's clear that no such candidacy is viable this time around.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
