Pure fantasy.

Not that he is going to lose, but even if he did, what would be the point of changing his position? It is NOT like they are going to vote again in NV just because he has changed his mind. No do-overs in elections.

While it is pure fantasy, if he lost Nevada to Paul, he'd have to reconsider the issue for the general election. Nevada is a swing state that went to Obama the last time, and could be huge in a close election.

This just in: Republicans want to legislate morality. We'll have film at eleven.

Glad to see they've fallen into our trap.

Definitely sucks but it's not like having a poker player for a president helped us at all either. Romney was never likely to push anything anyway. I still doubt that he would veto a bill.

The real swing states are PA, OH, and FL, plus a couple of smaller ones. NV maybe close, but is expected to go Obama's way. And if Obama was in trouble in NV, he would be in trouble in so many other states as well, so it would all be moot.

The population at large makes no distinction between poker and "gaming." Poker is gambling to any one outside of 2p2 and your local card room. Not even everyone in your local card room makes a distinction between poker and gaming.

Can't read. Cliffs?

Brilliant!

Pretty much. Romney's history may seem more moderate than the Republican party line, but as soon as any candidate is running for a major party presidential nomination they turn into a puppet for the party. They abandon all individuality in favor of not trying to alienate core party groups. It's amazing how Romney's views on abortion suddenly "changed" when he went from GOP governor of a left leaning state to presidential candidate. McCain routinely eschewed the party line as a legislator, but you'd never know it based on the 2008 campaign he ran.

That's why I always laugh at people who say "I don't vote based on party, I wait until I hear candidates stances on the issues." Great. Show me a presidential candidate that does not echo the party line on 95% of all political issues.

I just want to get some sort of poker bill passed so I can stop giving a crap about all these worthless politicians and go back to playing poker.

Marco from QJs wrote up a nice story on this, at http://www.quadjacks.com/2012/02/03/...o-hypocritical

nice article thx.

What is Obama's stance on Igaming/poker? Has he made one yet?

Mixed. His DOJ appointment caused black Friday. However the DOJ has also opened the door for intrastate online gambling as long as it's not sports, by issuing an opinion that wire act only applies to sports. His personal stance? Who knows, but I think overall his political party is going to be more favorable to our cause than any of the current GOP candidates with the exception of Paul. I wouldn't really expect Obama to push for our cause though, but I'd say he's less likely to oppose us than a president Romney or Gingrich.

Obama's DOJ appointment did not "cause" BF. BF was inevitable, no matter who was in office.

NOBODY in Washington, of any party and any ideology, was going to support offshore unregulated poker sites. Tax evasion, underage play, and games in states that ban gambling are all dealbreakers, even for the most pro-poker politicians.

I'm not saying Obama is poker's friend-- the jury is very much out and he could screw us over.

in the indictment the FBI intel on FTP went back to 2007, so

yeah Obama pushed this **** personally. he was orchestrating this just like how he had bin ladin whacked.*

* I decided to mark sarcastic paragraphs with an asterisk to avoid confusion with the new readers.

someone might have mentioned to him in passing "so um, massive financial black hole, illegal online gambling, bank fraud, money laundering. we've been working on it for years. good?"

Other than not really caring about poker, Romney's people have been talking to Adelson's people. He wants him to cut Newt off and back him. Maybe, probably, this was a foregone outcome, but if Romney ends up getting millions from Adelson, and wins, forget ipoker legislation federally. And we still have a supine PPA pretending Adelson is not a problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/us...lines&emc=tha2

Clearly no connection between this and Romney saying he does not support online poker and stuttering and bumbling for thirty seconds when asked why

you suck romney, poker 2012

Not much the PPA can really do to Adelson, he's a 90 year old bazillionaire. Obviously facebook spamming him isnt going to do anything, but even a successful boycott is unlikely to matter.

Agree with your conclusion though. Romney needs Adelson's support and money long-term and pledging to block Federal i-poker legislation is a super easy give for him. At this point Romney's probably better off with Adelson keeping Newt alive for a few rounds through Super Tuesday and cutting down Santorum's vote, but if Romney is the nominee that connection will be made.