Hey,

I lurk a lot and don't post much, but I am very active politically, especially for poker.

I live in GA, and my Senate race between Saxby Chambliss (R) the incumbent, an avowed hater of online poker, and Jim Martin (D) has really heated up. Martin is now within 3 points of Chambliss, which was unthinkable just a few weeks ago.

I sent a letter to Martin's office asking if he would protect my rights as a poker player and would he be an opponent or proponent of S. 3616 if elected to the Senate.

It's been 5 days and I have not received a response from Martin's office.

There is also a Libertarian running, and I would normally vote for him.

I clearly do not want to vote for Saxby Chambliss, but without a response from Martin's office, who is probably ignoring my e-mail, how do I decide who to vote for?

I don't want to waste my "Libertarian" vote, but if Martin won't respond I'll have to assume the worst about him.

Is there any other way to get Martin to respond to my request to answer how he would stand on internet poker?

Thanks,
Pete

I live in GA too and I think your vote may be a process of elimination.

The libertarian vote would be wasted.
Saxby is about as anti-poker in his personal beliefs as Kyl

The democrat might go along with the rest of his party and vote pro-poker.

Do you want a "non-poker" reason to get Saxby out? How about all the layoffs and massive amounts of jobs that have been lost in this state in the last 30 days? How about the fact that rest of the country can get gas but Atlanta was bone-dry for a few weeks and neither Sonny Perdue nor Saxby would even SET FOOT IN THE STATE to address it?

This is more about getting Saxby out than getting Martin in. If you vote Libertarian or Republican, Saxby stays, vote Democratic, he goes. Its that simple.

Vote Martin for the same reason you'd vote Obama WRT to the issue of online poker. Neither candidate has really taken a stance publicly, but it's obvious Martin and Obama are a better choice over the opposition.

I can't imagine anyone replacement for Saxby Chambliss being worse alternative for poker (or much else for that matter).

After he was willing to question the patriotism of someone who lost 3 limbs in service to his country, Saxby should have some sort of massive payback coming his way.

I don't disagree with any of you, I just simply want a response from the Martin Campaign.

Silence is just as damning as opposing an issue.

I've sent a follow up, and if I don't get one, I'm voting for Buckley. I'm simply asking for this candidate to support my rights, and I can not get an acknowledgment that he will do so. Why should I assume he will be any better than Saxby?

I recommend you call his office and ask for a firm position.

You guys realize that poker players supported the current governor of Kentucky in his race before getting anything firm from his office about whether he'd support poker. Now look what he is doing. I think one of the worst mistakes we are making is assuming that someone would be good for us when in fact they are not.

Also, please don't fall into the myth that voting for the libertarian is a wasted vote. The true reality is that your single vote has no statistical chance of changing the election no matter of who you vote for. You are more likely to get struck down and killed by lightening on your way to the voting booth than you are that your single vote will determine the outcome of election. So if you are looking at this exclusively from an EV standpoint, then you should not vote at all to avoid the chance of getting struck by lightening.

However, if you want to vote for other reasons (like duty, to express yourself, etc.), then vote for whom best represents your interest. Don't vote for the lesser of two evils. When you are in the voting booth, vote for whomever you believe best represents your interests best.

The major two parties propogate the myth of the wasted vote. It serves their best interest. Because until we get away from the myth of the wasted vote, the "Republicrats" will continue to dominate the political scene.

If this Saxby is that bad for online poker, then it really doesn't matter what Martin's stance on it is. Worst case scenario, it can't be worse.

You do deserve to know where he stands IMO, but I don't think you should not vote for him even if you can't get a response.

Andronicus is not wrong in his statement, but Saxby is in a close race and I'm voting for whoever has the best chance of unseating him.

I lived in Georgia when the UIGEA came up and the ridiculous garbage Saxby sent me when I emailed him my beliefs were beyond belief. It read as if I was a criminal or a junky. Vote for anyone else. These "my morals are your morals" nutcases have to go to get the country back.

This. You put it better than I ever could. That's why I won't give a blanket vote to Martin, because he "may be better" than the incumbent.

Who knows, he may be worse.

I'll do this, but what specifically do you recommend that I ask, before I'm put on hold for 40 minutes while they research the issue?

Seriously, I'll call, but I'd like a pointed statement to ask before I do so.

Blame Martin's staff, not Martin.

Just ask him for his opinion -- exactly what you want to know. He wants to work for you, after all. From my personal experience, I recommend writing the question down prior to calling.

I'd ask if he wants the federal government to prohibit adults from playing poker on the Internet in their own homes with their own money. UIGEA doesn't do that, but our opponents would to that if they could.

The Cook Political Report now rates this as "Toss Up". In fact, I'm adding Chambliss to the Leach List.