Great show this morning, nice to hear you guys having something to gloat about.

Well deserved.

Thanks TA! We were not gloating for ourselves, of course. Rather, we were celebrating community victories.

If you missed last night's show, check it out at http://podcasts.ontiltradio.com/play...ug-27-2012.mp3 or on iTunes as a free download at http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/o...er/id502875902.

Don't be modest Rich, it wasn't the whole community fighting the skill game argument, some (like myself) not only didn't fight for it, we passive-aggressively opposed it, so all credit to the PPA!

Thanks TA!

Be sure to tune in this Monday (9/3), when I'll be joined by QJs Marco Valerio.

On 9/10, Libertarian presidential nominee Gov. Gary Johnson will return to the program for what is sure to be a great discussion.

I'm surprised the president and Mr. Romney turned you down. You did invite them also right? They should be provided an opportunity to rebutt.

(jk i'm not surprised. I am looking forward to this episode though, I'll probably actually listen to it!)

The MP3 file is at http://podcasts.ontiltradio.com/play...ept-3-2012.mp3. It was a good interview, so I hope you all enjoy it!

I hope they'll both wish to come on the program.

After the interview, Greg Raymer will join me for the post-interview analysis!

Now that the Ninth Circuit has restored "None" to the Nevada ballot, I will offer the following prop bet:

Who will get more votes in November for President from Nevadans, Gary Johnson or None of the above ?

(In 2008, None beat out four candidates, finishing ahead of Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate and Ralph Nader, the man who would be King.)

It will be interesting to see. Gov. Johnson is doing a better job of reaching out to Nevada voters than Barr did (Barr's running mate, Nevadan Wayne Allyn Root, did try to reach out to his home state voters, of course).

i don't get the point. if "none of the above" can't win, why is it on the ballot? If people don't want to vote for any other candidates, they don't need to vote for "none of the above" they can just not vote for any of the above.

No one "needs" to vote in any event.

However, why not let someone voting in other races express their reason for not voting for one of the named candidates in other races where they wish.

As a practical matter, the two major parties apparently believe that someone disenchanted with the incumbent in the Presidential election might NOT vote for Mitt Romney if they can voice their discontent in another fashion.

Whether anti-Obama folks vote for someone other than Mitt OR choose to vote "none" MAY actually determine who is elected President in 2012.

If you think that the Republicans were pissed off at the Ron Paul Nevada revolt at the RNC, wait until None gets a sizeable vote; If Obama wins by a smaller margin in Nevada than vote None, and gets re-elected as a result ....

There's no spot on any ballot to express the reason for your vote.

As a practical matter, they can also voice their discontent via not voting for anybody, which has the same effect as voting for "nobody".
Total Ballots - Votes for Candidates = Votes for None

Current system is
Votes for Candidates + Votes for "None" + Votes for None = Total Ballots

Seems redundant to have 2 methods to vote for no candidates.

The "current system" in Nevada includes a None of the Above option on the ballot.

Checking the None space on a "ballot" is a very clear expression of why you did not vote for one of the named candidates. It refelcts a conscious decision by the voter.

"As a practical matter", it might swing the election outcome in Nevada, and with that, swing the national election ..... unless you think the litigation was simply empty jockeying over a meaningless "redundancy".

it absolutely does not express why. this is obvious since there are many different reasons why people choose that option.

you think people go to the ballot box and skip voting for president by accident? not voting for anybody is just as conscious a decision as voting for 'nobody'.

link to the GJ interview?

Even though "Not voting" may be a conscious decision, it is the same decision as that made when presented with a choice of voting for "None of the Above."

Similarly, it is a different decision than that made when presented with no choice of voting for "None of the Above".

Bluntly put, an anti-incumbent electorate, given the option on the ballot of voting for "None of the Above" is less likely to vote for the challenger than if "None" were stricken from the options.

Clearly, the folks who this year spent a ton of money, and even perhaps sacrificed a professional reputation, litigating over the Nevada ballot format, trying to knock "None" off the ballot perceived the choices as different, and sought to work the difference, however marginal.

ABC politics is no more effective than ABC poker in high stakes contests.

Why is no one discussing the GJ interview? Is there a place I can listen to it?

second question answers the first question.

I listened live and you didn't miss anything, every time Rich asked about his support for poker he would go on a rant about eliminating the income tax, legalizing marijuana or some other tangent.

Why would any politician say anything about poker? Why would we ever think they would?

Politicians speak two words:
Money
Votes

Poker provides very little of either one.

I highly appreciate the PPA. But, if we ever wanted this to have a chance of helping poker players, from the outset we should have understood those two words that politicians speak.

We had a good live audience.

The podcast isn't up yet. OnTilt Radio expects it to be up this morning.