Think a Republican president supporting this us a pipe dream for the medium-term. The official platform is super likely to support banning online gambling again.

Of course its unclear to me Obama supports us either so....

funny how careful these guys are with regards to buzzwords.

"blah blah blah, online gambli... I mean gaming, blah blah blah"

won't even say the word gambling lest he be associated with its negative stigmas.

• Reid floated drafts of a federal bill that would outlaw all interstate i-gambling except i-poker.
• The Barton bill would make all interstate i-gambling illegal under federal law except i-poker.
• Ceasars and MGM established an astroturf political organization whose first principle is to strengthen the Wire Act and the UIGEA.
• Kyl is negotiating a bill with Reid to outlaw all interstate i-gambling except i-poker.
• The PPA backs most any federal interstate anti-gambling bill that has a carveout for i-poker.

Why are poker players up in arms about a Republican presidential candidate who says they are against i-gambling?

IMO, the casinos want non-intrastate gambling expressly outlawed under federal law, to give the federal govt the enforcement tools necessary to shut off offshore casino-game i-gambling. The US casinos can operate intrastate-only casino i-gambling where it will benefit only their casinos. They don't need interstate and foreign for casino-game i-gambling.

IMO, at the same time the casinos want federally-authorized interstate and international licensed i-poker as i-poker needs combined player pools for liquidity. Plus, the i-poker market is established internationally and the US casinos want their portion of the market. And, i-poker has been shown to increase foot traffic to b&m casinos.

At this point, the Republican anti-gambling stance is good for i-poker players, in terms of gaining a licensed and regulated interstate/international competitive market operated by US casinos.

he didn't come out against i-gambling, he came out against i-gaming. I'm not convinced that they are necessarily synonyms, and think its entirely possible that gaming is more encompassing word.

It sounds like your point is that poker is not gambling so anti gambling regulation doesn't affect us.

My point is that anti-gaming stances could very well include poker.

FYP

this

Along the same lines, PX is making several assumptions. The key one is that Romney would support/sign an anti-gambling bill that included a carve out of poker. I see no logical reason to believe this is true. Given his stance, why should any Republican stick his head on the block and support such a bill THIS YEAR?

i guess he really does have the nomination locked up now that he's trying to play the "social conservative" card.

When people run in the primary their strategy is to go as far to the right (or left if democratic primary) to win the nomination. When you have the nomination locked up, that is when you race as-fast-as you can back to the center.

Politicians lead from the back, so as long as we keep doing what we do (PPA etc.) he will support us eventually.

You should freely assume a statement like this means he is against online poker. Most politicians consider poker to gambling, including many supporters of online or B&M poker.

On the merits, i think that Obama is much more likely to sign an i-poker bill than any Republican, because he isn't reliant on the religious right for votes.

I am not surprised by this at all. I have been disgusted with the republican party for years and i am ashamed to be regestered as one.

Mr Romney, congrats on confirming your party does not support my values. What are your partys values sir, Making sure washington does what it can to get nothing done so your party can win. Yes that is a value i want to see, NOT. You dont seem to care about the poor. That was a honest coment by the way. OMG poker is wrong. Are you kidding me.


I will be voting for Obama and not your backward thinking party. Oh yeah, when your party comes to my state to see who we want to see run against Obama i will vote against you.

This one hurts.

Really could use an Ipoker bill before the election, or at least during the lame duck.

wtf is the point of this post? What did this add to the discussion?

I think posters should watch the actual show. I take a far less ominous view of the reported Romney "opposition" statement after doing so.

Romney visibly froze at hearing the question, he stuttered and really cast avbout for a response to make.

Clearly he was surprised at the "out of the blue" (to him) issue. he had no ready response canned and was apparently concerned it was a "trick" question. ..... so he fell back on the "social cost", we have enough gaming already position. However, he DID promptly segue into how revenue from lotteries supported state budgets. He was working through the issue as he spoke, which was pretty apparent, and is not opposed to revenue from gaming to be put to good use ..... so,

I think if he were "educated" about effective regulation of igaming, and knew or was reminded that Governor Sandoval, a conservative Republican, is pushing iGaming as a Nevada jobs measure, you might have seen a different outcome.

In keeping score, I would mark Mitt down as someone who can be turned into a supporter, with the right approach, certainly open to a State-by-State traditional means of revenue.

IF, and it is a big IF, a federal bill were passed in 2013 to expressly enable/legalize multi-state internet poker on a State-by-State opt-in basis, I believe that a possible "President Romney" would sign it .

IF a bill passes to "force" any States to act to avoid being included or would auto-opt-in certain States, that could be enough to draw a Romney veto perhaps.

"Hear me now, and believe me later", gaming is a traditional State-level arena. Taking it onto the internet did not change that.

Perhaps it's a case of projection.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point. It is something I try to use to our advantage when posting on FB walls, but if the politician says he's against online gaming, i assume that to include poker unless he specifically states otherwise. IMO, Mitt Romney just cast his lot with the enemy.

Boy, are you gullible.

This is bad news even if Romney does not get elected. Obama/Reid is unlikely to do anything before the election that Romney can draw effective contrast against.

I completely disagree.

Host: "Are you a supporter of legalizing online gaming?"
Romney: "No. No, I'm not."

The response was clear and immediate. He may have stuttered over some words during his explanation to the followup "why not" question, but the initial "no" was without hesitation.

Don't think so. I live in a very Morman-heavy area in Nevada, have dealt with LDS folks about a host of gaming business matters, and have a lot of experience reading political folks on policy issues.

I'did watch it again, you ARE correct, I was wrong about not being prepared. He did answer quickly. The stuttering was on the "why", but I think my read on th3e bottom line was good. Business interests + state lotteries = public works funding + States rights to regulate gaming = an opening for review and reflection. He might not like gaming, but he would defer to States...


FWIW, I am not a Romney supporter and frankly was surprised by what I saw, given the thread title and the hand-wringing posts.

I thought Romney was prepared. He promised an answer prior to the caucuses back in November. Also, his answer included mention of state lotteries, which to me was the tip-off that he had researched this to some degree.

I do agree we may have the "low" here, where poker gets into legislation that bans online casino gaming, but I don't see this (Romney's statement) as a positive at all.

What needs to happen is for Romney to lose Nevada to Paul. That could cause him to change his mind and carve out an exception to poker.

I just went back and watched it again. I have to agree with your thought and the poster who called me wrong on the "unprepared" conclusion I had reached.

However, I do not see any veto of a 2013 State-enabling federal bill. A "President Romney" could take a lot of cover if the ultimate decision will be at the State level.

By the way, any update on the federal propsects in 2012 ?

I thought this was informative (sub requrired):


Best Chance Yet For Internet Gambling Bill Is 2012

Donkey, Mitt has real problems with the Christian Right, which is a huge portion of his base in a general election campaign against Obama, because of his history on abortion and gay rights and his Mormon faith.

He's not going to open one inch of additional distance with them. It is entirely possible to have a Republican candidate who supports ipoker, but it would need to be someone with enough credibility with social conservatives that they won't bolt if he opposes them on this issue.