[TheGambler]

I don't really have a favorite right now but I do know that I will eliminate all Republicans from my ballot. My wife and I have been Republicans forever but since the Online Gambling ban, I completely have no respect for any Republican. My wife can't believe that I have switched my views because of an online gambling bill. I guess it really comes down to the things that are important to you in life and online gambling was definitely one of those for me.

[betplom]

Originally Posted by TheGambler

Which presidential candidate gives us the best chance to bring back online gambling?

The one that has not yet been born.

[michael777]

Romney

[durito]

None.

It's a non-issue.

[Seattle Slew]

Second that.

Originally Posted by durito

None.

It's a non-issue.

[isetcap]

Originally Posted by durito

None.

It's a non-issue.

Third

[DrunkenLullaby]

http://www.millionairerepublican.com...ews.php?id=811

[The Nit]

Greg Raymer - if he gets the Libertarian nomination.

[JoshW]

Ron Paul. He is pretty much a libertarian running as a Republican. He is likely too small government to every win (wants to get rid of the CIA), but he would certainly be against regulations on gambling and vices in general.

[jjgold]

Any Dem

I think Hilliary, I am a huge supporter of the Clintons

[increasedodds]

The ban will be in effect forever.

But in a few years it will be all but forgotten. It will go the way of cocaine, hookers, pornography, alcohol, and every other vice the religious fools try to regulate. 5 years from now, it will be biz as usual and you'll occasionally hear about a bust of some processor or bookie who comes to the US.

Sean

[gotsteam]

Originally Posted by durito

None.

It's a non-issue.

Very true it is a total NON ISSUE

not to mention the fact that whomever is elected will be equally incompetent, crooked and corrupt as their predecessor, after all, it is the American Way!

[BuddyBear]

This issue does not even register for any of the candidates.

[durito]

Originally Posted by gotsteam

not to mention the fact that whomever is elected will be equally incompetent, crooked and corrupt as their predecessor, after all, it is the American Way!

I disagree. The current administration is as incompetent, crooked, and corrupt as any we have ever had. I would expect, and surely hope that the next administration, regardless of party, is a vast improvement.

[Senator7]

Originally Posted by BuddyBear

This issue does not even register for any of the candidates.

In my former career, I ran political campaigns. I used to get paid good money to get people elected and I was quite good at my job.

Take it from someone who used to advise political candidates on what issues to talk about, this issue is probably the furthest thing from their minds possible.

[BuddyBear]

Good point Senator...not an issue a candidate could seriously run on. It may resonate with people on here but there is a real world outside gaming forums where pointspreads have little substance in the real world outside the last Sunday in January.

[Senator7]

Originally Posted by BuddyBear

Good point Senator...not an issue a candidate could seriously run on. It may resonate with people on here but there is a real world outside gaming forums where pointspreads have little substance in the real world outside the last Sunday in January.

Gamblers are a voting bloc that most politicians aren't concerned about appealling to.

There is a reason that Medicare and Social Security is discussed at length in every political campaign. Old people vote and they vote in droves.

[increasedodds]

Ask Leech how well that theory worked...

The poker group is actually becoming big enought to make some difference...

Sean

[Senator7]

Originally Posted by increasedodds

Ask Leech how well that theory worked...

The poker group is actually becoming big enought to make some difference...

Sean

I hate to break it to the online gambling community, but Leach didn't lose because he pushed the UIGEA.

I support what they're trying to do, but saying that Leach lost because of them is pure spin.

Leach lost because:

1. He was a Republican (albeit a very liberal one) in an election year where Republicans were tremendously unpopular. In 2006, the R might as well have been a swastika.

2. His district had been trending more Democratic since the 2000 redistricting. He only won by 4 points in 2002, one of the slimmest margins of victory for an incumbent House member and alarming for a guy that had been in office since Carter was President (1977).

Once again, I support what the online gambling communities are trying to do, but for them to take credit for Leach's loss is pure spin and pure fiction.

[tblues2005]

I think the Democrats can use this to get more tax revenue and end banning it which has never worked in the past and never will work either. I am with jjgold with Hillary she's pretty tough and she has a chance to win the election without a doubt.

[Senator7]

Originally Posted by tblues2005

I think the Democrats can use this to get more tax revenue and end banning it which has never worked in the past and never will work either. I am with jjgold with Hillary she's pretty tough and she has a chance to win the election without a doubt.

Hillary has absolutely no chance to win the Presidency and Democrats would be foolish to nominate her. She's not liked by women and she can't win in the swing states. Same goes for Barack Obama. I've met Senator Obama on numerous occasions. I think he's a great man and he's a rockstar, but he won't win the Presidency.

The only Democrats that could win are John Edwards and Al Gore and neither will be their party's nominee.

[abacus30]

I don't think any candidate will be better or worse for our gaming cause. I believe most of them could give a sh*t either way, but if they are forced to take a stand one way or the other, then they would all vote to keep it illegal for fear of being perceived as a supporter of gambling, which means they must also be a supporter of organized crime, which means they probably support drug use too, and drug money supports terrorists, so they must support terrorism, etc...

I'm with you Senator... Hillary and Barack have no chance of winning, regardless of who represents the republican party... and this is coming from a very left leaning independent voter. America is still several years away from the possibility of a woman or a black guy winning the presidency, regardless of political affiliation.

[Seattle Slew]

Why would you think Edwards can win the general election? He did nothing for Kerry in 2004, and his profile is actually lower than Clinton and Obama.

Do you think he could win some traditional red states?

Originally Posted by Senator7

The only Democrats that could win are John Edwards and Al Gore and neither will be their party's nominee.

[Seattle Slew]

I think they both have a shot. Whoever wins the GOP nod, McCain or Guiliani, you can bet the Dems will run 20,000 commercials with those two fools backing Bush's agenda all these years.

Originally Posted by abacus30

II'm with you Senator... Hillary and Barack have no chance of winning, regardless of who represents the republican party... and this is coming from a very left leaning independent voter. America is still several years away from the possibility of a woman or a black guy winning the presidency, regardless of political affiliation.

[Senator7]

Gore and Edwards are the only two Democrats right now that could carry traditional red states. Its sad to say, but Hillary and Obama (being minorities) could make states that are "purple", or even some that went Democrat in 2004, swing to the GOP in 2008. Not too mention, Hillary Clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics right now. Be it bad or good, everyone in America has some opinion of Hillary and that's not what you want in a Presidential candidate because those opinions aren't likely to change over the course of a campaign.

I don't see McCain or Guiliani winning the GOP nomination. The GOP base doesn't trust either and Guiliani has a lot of skeletons in his closet. I think it will be a dark horse candidate like Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, or even Tommy Thompson that wins the GOP nomination. You may laugh at that last one, but he has an amazing organization in Iowa right now and he's one of the best I've ever seen at retail politics. If Tommy can finish first or second in Iowa, he could ride a wave of momentum into New Hampshire.

The only announced candidate right now that has any shot of winning the GOP nomination is Mitt Romney and even that's a stretch.

I have no doubt that the Democrat in 2008 should win the popular vote, but if the Dems nominate the candidate I think they will, they have little shot of winning the electoral college.

[slacker00]

Originally Posted by Senator7

but if the Dems nominate the candidate I think they will, they have little shot of winning the electoral college.

Gore?


I've completely decided to vote Democrat no matter what in any upcoming elections. But if Tommy Thompson gets the GOP nod, that would really make me think. Isn't he a very liberal guy for being GOP?

[moonbeam]

Originally Posted by TheGambler

I don't really have a favorite right now but I do know that I will eliminate all Republicans from my ballot. My wife and I have been Republicans forever but since the Online Gambling ban, I completely have no respect for any Republican. My wife can't believe that I have switched my views because of an online gambling bill. I guess it really comes down to the things that are important to you in life and online gambling was definitely one of those for me.

wow ... moronic americans rules!

[Willie Bee]

Originally Posted by gotsteam

not to mention the fact that whomever is elected will be equally incompetent, crooked and corrupt as their predecessor, after all, it is the American Way!

Perhaps someday America will be as perfect and free of corruption as the rest of the world

Write me in! Willie Bee for president!

[Jamie_UK]

There is a very odd market on Betfair for the next US election

Hilary is +100 fav to win as the Democratic Candidate
Obama is +330

The democrats are fav to win the election
Dem -146
Repub +142

But

will there be a female president
yes +196
no -210

So Hilary is fav to win, the democrats are fav to win , yet the market does not believe there will be a female president? The bit I dont get is because they are related contingencies, I assume if Hilary wins as the candidate then the democrats will drift out to evs or something in the win market.

[KC]

i got hillary at 6/5 a few months ago...why not vote for her, it's like getting bill back for another 8 years...like him or not the country was far better off with him

[BrentCrude]

Put a fork in this country,it's done!Those were pretty much the words from U.S.comptroller David Walker on 60 minutes assessing the state of the bankrupt teenie weenie dollar value nanny state we call a country that has been gutted out by socialism.We are sunk from entitlement ''corruption''programs to defense ''corruption''spending to a bloated socialistic and inept public education system and FDR lit this fuse going on 80 years ago. If any of the politicians running for president ran an online bookie joint SBR forum would have given them an F- rating saying it's inevitable that you will lose all of your deposit.What a shame,a once great country that could have become greater that's just trying to fill a 3rd world rating status in the new world order.Voting for a libertarian like Ron Paul to these people working in some capacity for the government would be like a kid voting out of office santa claus,the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy

We lost all of our industrial base because of lawsuits,over regulation and burdensome taxes so we create Keynesian economic industries out of thin air like the medical system where we turned everyone into pill popping hypochondriacs that get operations they don't need.Almost everyone these days works in some capacity directly or indirectly for a branch of government at makework jobs that shouldn't even exist.I personally know dozens of hard working well skilled tradesmen that do nothing but vote democratic because all they do is work construction on worthless white elephant public works projects their union friendly politicians get funding for.

Ron Paul would be the most likely candidate to overturn the gambling bill where no taxes on it would occur but democrats would allow gambling over republicans because they realize the need to confiscate more tax revenue from gambling so they can throw it down some socialist entitlement rat hole.Hell,the democrats would legalize prostitution and pimp their mothers and daughters out to raise tax revenue to create more social and entitlement programs with their it takes a village mindset.

[gking3314]

I think if Guiliani gets the nomination and takes former MD governor Bob Erlich as his running mate, we would have a good shot. Erlich won the MD governor race with his stance on legalizing gambling in the state. However, his bills met constant opposition by the majority democratic state house. Erlich is a gambler himself and loves to make his picks on football on local radio shows. I think he would be a good person to have on our side to legalize it, however, I think the odds of another Republican getting in are slim to none based on the performance of the current staff.

[ShamsWoof10]

neither!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ion]

Originally Posted by Jamie_UK

There is a very odd market on Betfair for the next US election

Hilary is +100 fav to win as the Democratic Candidate
Obama is +330

The democrats are fav to win the election
Dem -146
Repub +142

But

will there be a female president
yes +196
no -210

So Hilary is fav to win, the democrats are fav to win , yet the market does not believe there will be a female president? The bit I dont get is because they are related contingencies, I assume if Hilary wins as the candidate then the democrats will drift out to evs or something in the win market.

Not odd if you do the math:

Hillary is about 50% to get the nomination and the democrats are about 60% to win the presidency. So Hilary is about 30% to win the presidency. That is very close to the 33% for a woman to be the next president, and there is no reason to believe the chance of a woman other than Hillary to become president is higher than 3%.

[isetcap]

It is truly unfortunate that an ethically strong and charasmatic individual with a libertarian leaning platform has not presented him/herself to the American public as a viable alternative. In the last 2 decades, there's never been a better opportunity for a third party candidate to polarize the political compass of the US.

As Senator7 mentioned, the Democrats are about to make a HUGE mistake in nominating Clinton or Obama. The best way to make sure that every Republican in the nation votes is to run a Clinton and the second best way is to run a minority candidate. That alone would make it a close contest and then you have to factor in the significant number of people who would blindly vote Democratic until they hear the candidate is a woman or a minority.