Never heard of it, is that some new variant of stud?

Well said, and I agree on both counts. Your second paragraph is what I was trying to get at with the bolded point. Even if it doesnt change anything for the banks, there is value to passing the bill.

Until poker players affect the outcome of a political election(s) they will never have the power you seek. Not until enough players get off their asses and do the work necessary to affect an electoral victory it just isn't going to happen. No amount of lobbyists can gain you the legislative victories you need without it.


D$D

It's sort of like the anti-stud actually;-)

You are not wrong here, but it takes time for new groups, organizations(PPA), and lot's of money to build up a large and powerful base that can have influence over politicians. Powerful and influential groups just don't happen over night, it takes time. The PPA and poker players have come a long way in just a few years, each year we will get more powerful as a group. IT took the NRA 90+ years before they became the force they are today in politics.

I'm getting a little tired of the "the PPA" is to young to pick an electoral fight yet. This will be the third Congressional cycle "under new management". The PPA ought to be able to look at it's membership base, and it's State leaders and be able to find at least a few targets. If nothing else to get some experience show that its not just lobbyists and lawyers. At least IMHO.

Get some plans in the hands of the State Dirs and see what they can do. Get some experience in the trenches.


D$D

The PPA is easily exceeding expectations.

Your one-size-fits-all plan for the PPA to spend its resources sending representatives to every bar league in America to manually sign up players doesn't play to the strengths of the organization or of the players.

This article seems to disagree. http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/legal-...emocrats-4945/

OTOH, it also suggests that no online gambling legislation will become law anytime soon.

Wow, smug, condescending, and distortion, all in one one post?

I know I told you that I visited the bar leagues to see how much was know about the PPA in the area and to get volunteers for the 1st fly-in. It was something I wanted to do and thought others, on their own dime, might find useful.

Isn't membership recruitment an activity suggested to members?

I know it seems to be in KY.

Speaking of KY.

What I am talking about you have done in KY but seems to be near a one off in PPA land, at least from the website.

Its clear from your own efforts and from talking to you in the past, we are talking about the same thing decent organization at the State and local level to the point where an organized effort can be mounted in elections.

I'm disappointed that your efforts seem to be the exception rather than the rule. Perhaps if other State Directors had your experience their States would be, and the PPA as a whole, better position to make an electoral difference. Perhaps you could get some help and write a guide for the other State Dirs.




D$D

I disagree. I was smug and condescending, of course, but I didn't distort anything.

The state directors are committed to the cause. They are all volunteers doing this out of love for the game. For the most part, I've been quite happy with their contributions.

I don't see where the article disagrees????

"For far too long, groups like the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) believe they can win the political debate with simple logic. Sure, our argument is better than their argument and most rational people would agree after listing to a five-minute exchange, but this isn’t a high school debate class. It’s a political street fight versus powerful forces camped out on both the right and the left."

Yes he does go on and suggest the solution is massive spending on media and donations. Those methods can be successful but they are extremely expensive.

One cheap alternative is to organize volunteers from the PPA membership to support the campaigns of friends and actively and visibly oppose foes. As I've posted more than once the NRA Congressional District rep will visit campaigns friendly to them and coordinate their member to volunteer to the campaign. They show up in NRA gear and actively help with the campaign activities.

You do not have to mount an expensive independent campaign effort to make a difference nor gain credit for the effort.

No this isn't as sexy as "an all-out media bombardment", and takes time and commitment.




D$D

This might work for social conservative groups (in fact, that's exactly what they did), but this approach doesn't play to our strengths at all. Poker players are active in other ways. Why try to shoehorn us into the template optimized for a very different group?

Why all the carriage returns?

I'm not looking to pick a fight. But when you state my "one-size-fits-all plan" the PPA spend resources to sign up members at bar leagues that is a distortion.

But as one of many activities volunteers might participate in to spread the word and potentially sign up members while enjoying a little poker, might it not fit one of the goals listed on your own KY PPA blog?



D$D

You went to PPA with a proposal to spend resources to sign up members at bar leagues.

PPA is on that. We have downloadable brochures, professionally printed brochures available upon request, easy-to-remember websites www.joinppa.com & www.joinppa.org , and promotional poker chips for use as card protectors with the web address www.joinppa.org on it.

Volunteering for campaigns only works for "social conservatives"?????

The suggestion is to add to efforts not to suggest all others stop and only mine followed, there is no shoehorning.......

If the argument is cost then you add your efforts to others where beneficial.

Habit.

Why are you reflexively opposed to any suggestion I post.

Habit?



D$D

You're getting off the topic of the thread, but I'll answer this one.

No, volunteering does not only work for social cons, but it plays to the strengths of these groups. They have time to volunteer, while poker players would generally prefer to use that time playing poker. Some will volunteer, but not enough to push legislation.

We have strengths that we're playing to:

• Money to donate.
• Computer savvy -- we were the top tech item on Obama's Citizen's Briefing Book, for example.
• Social networking. We're strong on Digg and Twitter. This helps us push articles about us in a way that mainstream media simply won't.
• Writing to Congress. We're WAY ahead of our opposition there. Congress is really hearing from us. This strengthens our lobbying, and our lobbying strengthens the letters.

I don't reflexively oppose your ideas. I evaluate them and sometimes give my opinion. This is a discussion forum, so that's what we do.

Your suggestions almost always involve meeting people in person, having people volunteer in person, or doing other things in person. I simply don't see these as focusing on our strengths.

D$D is right in one sense...turning an election where it is very clear poker players made the difference would be a biiiiig help.

Thats said, while we're going to need to beef up the grassroots movement if we end up with a state opt-out bill...I would say the state level efforts have been pretty successful.

We've done it a few times.

Leach lost because of us, and he even admits it. We also helped defeated Rep. Virgil Goode and several others last election.

Sort of, and I almost wrote "yes Im a aware of Jim Leach".

We're gaining clout, but we havent quite clearly swung a race yet. We've been a factor, but D$D is right here, we need more of a ground game in a few, very targeted races.

Leach wears his loss as a badge of honor, so its not really what we're looking for.

We did target a few races last election and we did pick off a few seats. We know we did it and the losing congressmen know we did it. Unfortunately, to prove it PPA needs to commission exit polling at each of these elections. We did it for Leach, but cannot do it for every election.

We wear it as a badge of honor as well.

We're talking past each other. I'll just leave it at I think the work done so on the Congressional Ratings Guide and the Leach list and things of that nature are very good, but there's another step there that we havent taken.

PPA's PAC, PokerPAC, was focused on a few close races. There were fundraisers, alerts to PPA members in these districts, and other actions. Much of the work we do doesn't get mainstream attention, but is known in Congress.

Im interested in learning more about this, where can I find more information about these races and what the PokerPAC contributed? If its on the PPA site I dont see it.

Alternatively, what races were swung in '08?

I don't have a list of races that we feel we swung in our favor. I'll ask John Pappas for it next time I talk with him.

PAC info is at http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/look...trID=C00448688.