Obama or Romney

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by tangled

I understand the “Nixon-to-China” maneuver and have commented on it before on this forum. It is why I think Kyl is so important, probably essential, to a bill getting through Congress. But there is a difference between Kyl and Romney. Kyl has shown some interest in conceding an Ipoker exception. Romney has shown no interest in any compromise.

The “Nixon-to-China” opportunity flows from its unusualness. To bet on the “unusual” because it came in before is the classic fish mistake: Remembering when something hits, but not when it misses.

Moreover the Obama v Romney question is not just about generalities, it’s also about specifics. The lame duck session is our best chance of getting something through. Most people believe our bill will have to be attached to a larger, more important piece of legislation. No way Republicans will allow Obama’s legacy to have such a legislative win when he would be so close to being out the door. Republicans don’t just want to beat Obama electorally, they want to burn his houses and salt his land.

Nixon to China isn't remarkable because of 'unusuallness', the lesson learned from that is a Republican President can get away (politically) with things that a democrat couldn't, and vice versa.

Johnson may have been branded a communist sympathizer if he had gone to China, George Bush might have been thrown out of office if he had been caught for infidelity, etc.

I seriously doubt that a Democratic President would have gotten the IGRA expansion of tribal gambling through Congress, but the 'evil conservative' Reagan was able to pull it off.

If a Democratic President put his weight behind a Barton type bill he would be attacked as pro gambling - as Obama already has been for simply restating the current law (it's up to the states), but if a Republican president supported the same legislation it might be viewed as a 'pragmatic compromise to halt the expansion of casino gaming and video scratch-off tickets over the internet'.

[mapleleaf]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

BF was designed to eventually happen when GWB made a series of moral crusades high priority for the DOJ. High among the moral crusades, second only to pornography, was elimination of online gambling. That is where the ball started rolling.

Is there documented evidence that Bush pushed the DOJ in this direction?

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

In sum, Romney is highly likely to veto any bill allowing online poker. Obama is highly likely to sign a bill allowing online poker. Neither is likely to do anything else with respect to online poker.

All other comparisons between the two really belong in the politics forum.

I think another relevant comparison is that each will set the makeup and direction of the DOJ. True Holder's DOJ screwed us (he took my job), but going forward a hands-off approach to intrastate/interstate iPoker sounds pretty promising. AGA's Fahrenkopf has discussed the important point that the opinion expressed in the DOJ letter to Reid/Kyl is just an opinion - it's not law - and could be changed at the drop of a hat by a new administration. Plus the specter of an Attorney General Kyl, even if it's only a 5% chance, is relevant in comparing an Obama vs. Romney administration in terms of iPoker.

[tangled]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

Nixon to China isn't remarkable because of 'unusuallness', the lesson learned from that is a Republican President can get away (politically) with things that a democrat couldn't, and vice versa.

Johnson may have been branded a communist sympathizer if he had gone to China, George Bush might have been thrown out of office if he had been caught for infidelity, etc.

I seriously doubt that a Democratic President would have gotten the IGRA expansion of tribal gambling through Congress, but the 'evil conservative' Reagan was able to pull it off.

If a Democratic President put his weight behind a Barton type bill he would be attacked as pro gambling - as Obama already has been for simply restating the current law (it's up to the states), but if a Republican president supported the same legislation it might be viewed as a 'pragmatic compromise to halt the expansion of casino gaming and video scratch-off tickets over the internet'.

Yes, it does stem from "unusualness." Nixon went against his usual political persuasion of being a staunch anti-Communist when he went to China. Reagan went against his usual social conservative leanings when he signed IGRA.



Again! I agree with the concept you are advocating, just like I would agree that playing 10-2 in the right kind of game can be profitable. But where is your proof that Romney is the right kind of game? I don’t see it. All I see is a straight-line social/neo-conservative.

Without an indication that Romney will flip, supporting him is a donkey play, just like playing a trash hand is a donkey play, just because it once came in big.

[LastLife]

I'm not saying support him. I don't think he would ever want IPoker regulated. I do think that his administration would want to stop (mostly liberal at this point) states from regulating all IGaming. The only real question is could the pro-Ipoker lobby block an anti-Igaming bill if it doesn't have a poker carve out? Call me an optimist, but I'd say yes.

Does anyone else feel like if there is an act of god federal legislation that it is guaranteed to have a poker carve out? The only thing that I'm worried about is not having anything pass at all, and I think that is more likely under Obama.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by BillyPhelan

To bad the Black Panthers,gays and illegal immigrants did'nt play online poker in large numbers.If they did Obama would have ordered Holder to ignore the UIGEA.
Remember one thing when politicians are deciding things their first thought is "whats in it for me''

PS. to Skillagram.I doubt Bush ever knew there was gambling on the internets.Kyl,Frist and the FOF church ladies hung UIGEA on the impossible to vote against Port Security Act.

PPS. The Republican House overwhelmingly approved a stand alone bill that was basically UIGEA + Wire Act II months before the Senate took up the issue.

BF was inevitable. It was a question of when and how, not if.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

I seriously doubt that a Democratic President would have gotten the IGRA expansion of tribal gambling through Congress, but the 'evil conservative' Reagan was able to pull it off.

After the Supreme Court made the "unpopular" choice in 1987, some sort of legislation was going to be passed ASAP, regardless of whether the POTUS was a Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Green Party, w/e.

Bad analogy. Not as bad as Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon, but pretty bad nevertheless.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by LastLife

I'm not saying support him. I don't think he would ever want IPoker regulated. I do think that his administration would want to stop (mostly liberal at this point) states from regulating all IGaming. The only real question is could the pro-Ipoker lobby block an anti-Igaming bill if it doesn't have a poker carve out? Call me an optimist, but I'd say yes.

Does anyone else feel like if there is an act of god federal legislation that it is guaranteed to have a poker carve out? The only thing that I'm worried about is not having anything pass at all, and I think that is more likely under Obama.

I'm sure there is somebody in the world who agrees.

IMO, any Romney/Republican Senate bill is guaranteed NOT to have a carve out for poker. They are against ALL gambling, and have NO reason to compromise.

[Happy_Fish]

Originally Posted by WhoNeedmonyNEway??

IMO the chances of legal online poker is about the same with both candidates. Federally regulated online gambling is several billion dollars away.

Sadly that about sums it up.

[LastLife]

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

I'm sure there is somebody in the world who agrees.

IMO, any Romney/Republican Senate bill is guaranteed NOT to have a carve out for poker. They are against ALL gambling, and have NO reason to compromise.

Is it that simple though? The GOP is not going to have 60 senators, and I doubt every one them is against us.

[Grasshopp3r]

Obama wants federal control over everything. Milk, banks, poker, health care and so on.

With Mittens there is hope for a state by state slog with a states' rights argument.

I think that Reid gets it attached in the lame duck session and Obama signs it along with all of the pardons that he makes on the way out the door like Clinton.

[ScreaminAsian]

i'm learning so much from this thread.

[sunders]

they're both the exact same.

it will get done since it increases government revenue without raising taxes (other than sin taxes). just won't be until after Nov.

[NYC_Jon]

Originally Posted by Triguy11

Gary Johnson.

This is the reason I opened this thread.

[BlackAndRed]

I am a massively disappointed Obama 2008 voter - I'll be voting for Gary Johnson this time. I really thought that Obama had rare understanding for a Democrat about market principles, and had a willingness to act on his convictions, even when I disagreed with them, rather than preoccupying himself with reelection. Shows what little I know.

Between Romney and Obama, I still think that Obama will be marginally less bad for internet poker. Everything about Romney spells disaster. The theme of his political career has been expedience. He is essentially bereft of guiding principles and core values. If he has them in his personal life, they are not apparent in his political behavior. He is a relentless people-pleaser, who will bend to the slightest breeze in an attempt to win favor, to the point of parody.

Internet poker appears to the mainstream to be unsavory and disreputable. There is absolutely no chance of Romney showing the guts that it would take to do something even vaguely positive for us, while angering religious groups and local-news-watching nanny-voters. Add in his personal conservatism with how he's led his life, essentially absent vice, if reports are to be believed, and you have a recipe for total disaster.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

After the Supreme Court made the "unpopular" choice in 1987, some sort of legislation was going to be passed ASAP, regardless of whether the POTUS was a Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Green Party, w/e.

Bad analogy. Not as bad as Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon, but pretty bad nevertheless.

The Cabazon decision, that state gambling laws are regulatory and therefore can't be enforced under Public Law 280 by the State on tribal lands, forced Congress to act, but the action the States wanted was for Congress to use it's interstate commerce authority to amend the law requiring tribes to follow State gambling laws.

Reagan however, saw this as an opportunity to get tribes off the Federal dole, and took the non-conservative position that giving tribes a local monopoly over a recession proof industry was the right way to go.

Another analogy, since you don't like that one, is that it took a Democrat (Clinton) to overhaul the welfare program, when neither Reagan nor Bush could ever have even broached the subject.

We know what a second Obama term will mean: i-gaming will remain a state issue and in four years we might have a dozen states either offering i-poker or allowing their players on one of the hubs of a neighbor state via compact.

A concern about the Romney administration could possibly mean interstate i-gaming compacts would be blocked by his DOJ, but when he was Governor of MA he entered into gambling compacts himself, promising to not build casinos in exchange for revenue sharing with neighboring states.

The concerns about Adelson supporting Romney are also likely unfounded, as Adelson (and Wynn) oppose Obama because of his positions on China (Macau), not because of his support for online gaming.