The seniority issue is a very interesting point I hadnt thought of...but doesnt that become a factor when opposing Harry Reid?

As Majority Whip, when thinking of Reid, we must also consider Dick Durbin. I cannot for the life of me find PPA Senate rankings, and his emails posted haven't swayed one way or the other. But he would no doubt take over as Majority Leader if Reid were to be canned.

www.congressionalpoker.com

Absolutely. It makes him a bigger target for us.

The Engineer

Just wanted to let you know about a mistake.
Senator Benjamin Cardin (DEM) of Maryland should be a D instead of ?. He voted for HR 4411 when he was in the House of Representative before he was voted into the Senate.

Thanks

Thanks. I just sent PPA a note to update it.

He also makes US a bigger target for HIM if we miss.

I do agree that negative consequences are possible. However, it would be hard for him to get worse for us.

Some who oppose us simply do not respect poker players. A good showing by us could improve our stature with him even if he gets reelected. As it's unlikely that we'll have funding for television commercials, I see this as a respectful campaign on principles that Reid would be less likely to take personally.

Nevada is a good state for us. Its people are more pro-gaming than any other, and the media are pro-gaming as well.

My initial PERSONAL reaction is that Reid is indeed a good candidate for us to concentrate on.

His seat is hardly "safe" and is in a state where poker players are truly a statistically meaningful number to make a difference.

Plus, I still think he is persuadable on the subject.

This gives us opportunities at both levels: we can use our threat of opposition to help persuade him to help us in the coming year (very important), and if he does not help us in the coming year we have a real chance to make our votes determine an election.

The only catch in this being a prefect scenario for us is making sure the Republican opponent supports our cause.

Skallagrim

Oh sure, Im not saying he's not a guy to go after. Its just that I had honestly never thought of the seniority angle and it made me think that there is a downside with regard to Reid.

That said, close race and a state with tons of poker players, swinging that race would bring huge juice.

FWIW, Harry Reid is a small dog on Intrade right now (~45% to retain seat). Nevada is relatively small so easier to have a "bigger force". This is something we should really look at IMO.

A quick note to add is that I suspect www.twoplustwo.com has by far the most traffic of any website that is located in Nevada (and if this is not the case, we have to be right up there). If this is done well, and we will be looking into this, this site can have an impact on the Reid/Republican candidate Senatorial race.

Best wishes,
Mason

lol that poker players have any influence in Nevada.
Corporate gaming owns all Nevada representatives on any issue related to gambling. Republican or Democrat.

yes but it is the people who elect/re-elect those representatives

In addition to being an ignorant, arrogant little twit, Barbara Boxer is also an enemy of on-line poker? Didn't know that. I don't live in CA, but I will certainly be contributing to her opponent, and I urge all who care for this country and for poker rights to do the same.

Hope to see you on the unemployment line soon, MA'AM.

PS - This is a great thread.

We've been effective in close elections like this. We don't have to own the election. As the electorate is already split roughly 50/50 ±1% - 2%), we just have to get a decent number of those who support us already to participate.

You might want to prioritize the list in order of power. The bigger the target taken down, the more the rest down the line will take note. Fear is a powerful weapon.

Fine. Do what you can.
But when Corporate Gaming comes calling, it doesn't matter which guy you helped get elected.

/cynicism

Why doesn't the PPA make commercials to air on ESPN and other major networks to make more people aware of our cause.

PPA hasn't in the past, mainly due to the expense involved. I hope we can in the future.

We have the support of some withing corporate gaming.

Your cynicism is hardly misplaced, the power of Corporate Gaming is the biggest power in the state.

But your are wrong to think that Corporate Gaming CONTROLS what happens.

This is especially true with respect to online poker; as TE notes correctly, Corporate Gaming is split on the issue of online poker.

It is clear to me that there are lots of other factors at play. And it is also clear to me that the "variance" inherent in those other factors makes the 2010 NV Senate race a toss up. In a toss up a small but united minority can make the key difference.

That gives us leverage.

It is bit too soon to develop any sort of actual anti-Reid campaign. It is not too soon to think about how to do that should it become the correct move as things develop.

2010 and Reid present a great opportunity: Reid either becomes our ally in passing a good Federal Bill for licensed online poker, he stays neutral, or he blocks us. If the first or the last of those options happens, our next move is obvious. If he does nothing, that would make the choice dependent on the Republican's position: we support a supporter, and stay neutral if (s)he is against us.

This could get very interesting. What Harry Reid does or does not do with respect to us in the spring of 2010 will make a difference.

Exactly how to go about making the most out this opportunity, I'll leave that to the political experts.

Skallagrim

Some history of relevance

Arlen Spector told Frist to go f**k himself when Frist sought to attach the UIGEA to a bill in Spector's Committee. (As did John Warner R-Va, retired.) If Peter King had had the same cojones, there would have been no UIGEA attached to the Safe Ports legislation.

I would have to see a strong support from anyone who wants a nod over Spector.

I strongly support Harry Reid, in the interests of both the US and Nevada.

However, forget my personal preferences. ........ I also think is is complete nonsense to pretend that any favorable online gaming legislation passes Congress without each of the following conditions:

1. a Democratic-controlled Congress,
2. Support of the AGA
3. a worsening econmic crisis.

(These conditions are necessary, but NOT sufficient).

So, without #2, what is the point of taking on Senator Reid. .... when we have so many more productive ways to spend time/money for this cause ?

So your logic is:

1. It is my opinion that we don't have enough backing from the industry to pass the legislation.

2. Therefore, we shouldn't do actions that would help us to pass the legislation.

Crazy, mon.