Reckon Democrats Could Use a Few Million Votes??

As Georgia10 mentioned in an Open Thread earlier, Bill Frist snuck a provision into a Port Security Bill to prevent U.S. banks from allowing their customers to transfer money to off-shore gambling websites.

With a little help from Democrats this can be made the most stunningly stupid political move Bill Frist ever made, and might well swing one or more seats our way.

Follow me and I'll try to explain...

Other than civil libertarians and other such eccentrics, this issue really only matters to those who play poker online (there are other forms of online gambling but they are dwarfed by poker), but it matters to those people intensely, they ALL see it the same way (universal opposition), AND...

THERE ARE 23 MILLION OF THEM!!

IF Democrats get off their asses and firmly tie this around the necks of the Republicans who now control Congress, within the online poker community, this single factor could easily motivate several million people who wouldn't otherwise bother to actually vote, and vote against Republicans.

While the lead time is probably too short to advertise in the various poker magazines they all have websites, and there are various poker shows on TV where the message would hit the target audience.

Whether such an effort should be undertaken by the Party itself or "issue groups" I'll leave to those smarter than I to decide, but they need to get off their asses; there are millions of low-hanging plums for the picking.

•  Part of the R success has been

  this micro targeting to every conceivable niche. Turnabout certainly seems fair play.

  by melvin on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:49:43 PM PDT

  •  I Ain't Entirely Sure 23 Million Is a 'Niche'

    But I take your meanin'.

    by The Baculum King on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:54:10 PM PDT

    •  dunno how you market this specifically

      to those 23million without a large segment of the population who sees gambling as a bad thing being turned off by seeing Democrats as going to bat for gamblers.

      what Frist did was easy money in the vote tank... to turn it around isn't so easy p.r. wise.

      anyone know how much the u.s. gaming industry has donated to a Frist PAC or any other PACs of Goopers who voiced an opinion on it and are actually up for re-election?   My bet is that there is payoff for someone or another and Frist went to bat for them by sneaking it in the bill.

      by tlh lib on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:10:51 AM PDT

      •  Advertise on the Gambilng Sites, Stupid

        You go directly where the people you want to reach are.  This is too easy!

        by gatordem on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:29:25 AM PDT

        •  that's a given

          but missing the point.   it's not that you can't market it to the people who will appreciate it.   it's the fact that it will be a massive negative ad in the making that will be marketed nationwide against us.

          by tlh lib on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:33:23 AM PDT

    •  23 million is a bit much

      You can't really count everyone who's ever opened a poker account as a voter for whom banning online poker would be a big issue.  But let's say there are 2 million fairly active American online poker players for which this is a pretty big issue.  Swinging even 500,000 of these people can be the difference in this election.

      If the 2+2 poker forums are any guide, the serious players are already freaking out.  Since poker players are by and large aggressive white males, it wasn't surprising to me that most of the players ranting were libertarians who now swear off the Repugs.  

      In politics, we know that a small core of passionate supporters will usually prevail on their issue over widespread but mild opposition.  Ethanol farmers usually get their way, for example, as folks who oppose ethanol subsidies aren't organized enough to beat the ethanol lobby.    

      By all rights, this should've been an easy bill to block.  The poker sites are printing money, with sites like Party Gaming making hundreds of millions in profits last year.  The banks didn't want this to go through, as it'll be costly to enforce.  Web site and TV stations were taking a lot ad money from the sites as well.  Lastly, you have a group of semi-pros, pros, and just poker enthusiasts that number in the millions.  You have a lot of people who are heavily invested in the future of online poker.  On the other side, you have the Religious Right who dislike gambling, but don't view it as one of their top five or six issues.

      So it's stunning to me that the Online Gaming Industry, who have spend hundreds of millions in marketing alone over the last couple of years, couldn't get it together to outmaneuver Bill Freaking Frist.  They've just cost themselves billions of dollars, and cost me half of my annual income.  I sure hope the online poker players will provide at least part of the blowback.  

      If the GOP can micro-target snowmobilers, the Dems can surely send some love to poker players.  

      by PigsandBattleships on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:25:49 AM PDT

      •  23 Million Is the Pool of Potential Voters

        NOT a realistic expectation of how many will be motivated to vote (or vote a certain way) by this issue, but I do think as many as 3 million or more could be garnered.

        The vehemently anti-gambling crowd is already solidly Republican because, by and large, they are also anti-abortion and/or anti-gay, so the risk of alienating them is, I judge, a side issue.

        23 million is a big pool.

        by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:18:03 AM PDT

        •  It's not just the votes you move to D

          Any default Republican who votes Libertarian over this is subtracted from the Rs

          by ben masel on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:23:32 AM PDT

          •  Or Just Doesn't Vote At All

            There are a lot of Republicans who simply won't vote if they are disgusted enough.

            I simply can't see a significant downside to an effort to put a Republican face on this. I think we should nail it to their foreheads.

            by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:29:02 AM PDT

            •  How was it voted in House? Committees?

              If it had heavy D backing at the other stages, that won't fly. In which case Ds should be quiet ald let the Libertarians own the issue, which is still helpful.

              by ben masel on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:37:54 AM PDT

              •  It Passed the House Overwhelmingly

                Only 90-something voted against it.

                In the Senate it passed on a voice vote, so there was no recording of the vote.

                However, by Frist sneaking it into the port security bill he gave us an opening, if we will but grab it and run with it.

                by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 04:06:52 AM PDT

•  Urinal/ Spittoon/ General Receptacle

  The logical thing would be to legalize, regulate and tax online poker operations, which would allow them to relocate into the States and which practically every operator has been begging for...

  by The Baculum King on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:52:15 PM PDT

  •  Vegas would never allow it

    There would be literally a non-stop cross-country pipeling from the strip to Capitol hill with money flowing through it to influence that decision.

    by Paper Cup on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:18:06 AM PDT

    •  Vegas would run it

      if we could make it legal in the U.S. and having the Nevada gaming commission regulate it is the holy grail for poker players.

      by YetiMonk on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:42:40 AM PDT

•  For whose benefit was this done? n/t

  by LNK on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:53:14 PM PDT

  •  Primarily Frist's Presidential Ambitions

    I think this was a bone thrown to the Religious Right. Some have speculated that Native casinos were behind it but I don't think so, they actually gain players who learn online and then yearn to try the "real thing". I get to play in a brick-and-mortar room two or three times a month usually, and almost always sit at a table with one or more online players holding cards in their hands for the first time, frequently players who had to wait until they turned 21 to get in.

    Poker players as a whole are rich in the 18-30 demographic we could use in the political process as Democrats, votes that are going uncast.

    by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:00:49 AM PDT

    •  Have you sounded out any players on

      politics?

      by LNK on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:29:51 AM PDT

      •  They Literally Run the Gamut

        Every scrap of ground is covered, from dedicated conservatives to dedicated liberals, but the majority, like the majority of Americans, gives little thought to politics. I've been calling a couple of poker-related radio shows for the past couple of months (since this effort got serious) but I've primarily been advocating a general anti-incumbent bent, because almost nobody thought this had any chance of passing this year.

        The organizing of poker players has recently started, with the Poker Player's Alliance getting the most early traction, but there wasn't a huge urgency.

        That changed Friday night. The shit is about to hit the fan, and I'd like to get it pointed towards the Republicans in time for this Election, but the notion has not gone over all that well. It will be a missed opportunity, in my opinion.

        by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:54:59 AM PDT

        •  Dear Baculum King, an idea

          for your talking points, from something I posted elsewhere about GOP lies:

          To the GOP, the ends justify the means.

          If the Dems took over, they believe it would be anarchy, immorality, God-killing, forced Communism, and total annihilation of everything the GOP elite stands for --ooops, I mean---has stashed away in the bank.

          Therefore, IOKIYAR.

          I think these are obstacles/objection to dislodge when you talk to GOP-leaning potential voters.

          by LNK on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:44:11 PM PDT

    •  More on this story

      http://business.timesonline.co.uk/...

      by LNK on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:44:40 AM PDT

•  AND this could turn Diebold into an asset

  

  How can they resist!

  by Junior Bug on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:56:41 PM PDT

  •  You need

    To photoshop that so the fruits are heads of presidents.

    by Demena on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:08:40 AM PDT

•  I'm not so sure

  that becoming the spokesperson for the on-line gambling industry is a good tactical move.  It tends to be a "sin" issue with a lot of people that we are trying to get to stay on the sidelines.  Handing them another "moral values" issue to use to whip up their base, might turn into a counter-productive exercise.  With the Foley issue, we have the upper hand on the "moral values" issue right now.  Let's not muddy the water.

  The war, corruption, and covering for molesters is enough to work with.  We just need to keep pounding the message home.

  by Grannus on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:57:08 PM PDT

  •  Personally I'm Sick of Running

    From the religiously insane, but it doesn't have to be a National theme of the Democratic Party, just a targetted effort to tie it around the Republican Party's neck.

    Democrats could officially largely stay out of it. It's cheap votes we wouldn't otherwise get just laying on the table waiting for a bet...

    by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:05:53 AM PDT

    •  I'm not suggesting

      running from the religiously insane, but you don't have to run if you don't whack the hornets nest with a stick either.

      by Grannus on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:09:51 AM PDT

      •  How Is It 'Whacking the Hornet's Nest'

        To point out to a particular audience that Republicans did this??

        by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:15:52 AM PDT

        •  Once you start

          the issue ads, and it WILL take issue ads to push this meme, you are no longer targeting a particular group.  You give the spinmeisters of the Republican party the opportunity to say that you are for corrupting our children with online gambling which is hard for parents to monitor and prevent.  This is the kind of "white noise" issue that can drown out otherwise good points.

          I get to play in a brick-and-mortar room two or three times a month usually, and almost always sit at a table with one or more online players holding cards in their hands for the first time, frequently players who had to wait until they turned 21 to get in.

          You say it yourself.  Not all of these players are of legal age.

          by Grannus on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:24:17 AM PDT

          •  They Aren't of 'Legal Age' to Play in a Casino

            But they are of age to vote.

            But you are probably right, better to stay huddled in a corner and hope the mean old preachers don't notice us...

            by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:31:28 AM PDT

            •  How do you know

              that they are of age to vote.  Give a credit card number online and say that you are 18, and you are in.  They don't care whether you are old enough or not.  The idea is to take your money, not babysit.

              I could give a rats ass whether the mean old preachers noticed me or not, but I won't hand them an issue on a silver platter.  We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

              by Grannus on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:37:11 AM PDT

              •  Where Do These Children Get Credit Cards??

                How is it difficult for parents to monitor??

                Incidentally, poker players do not play against the "house", they play against each other in what the Supreme Court has ruled a game of skill, not chance. The "house" takes a small rake off each pot (or a "buy-in" in tournament play).

                by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:02:48 AM PDT

                •  Which is why it is legal to play

                  brick and mortars in Los Angeles.

                  Nobody in the U.S. uses credit cards to play online poker.  You have to use an intermediary company like neteller or firepay.

                  by YetiMonk on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:14:28 AM PDT

                  •  I Used My Visa Debit Card Friday Night

                    At AbsolutePoker, but even those who use Neteller or the like generally fund those accounts with plastic.

                    It's weird how the legal age to play live varies. In many (or all) Native casinos you can play at 18, I think everywhere else requires you to be 21.

                    by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:23:35 AM PDT

                    •  Really?!

                      I've heard it's possible.  I don't know anyone but you that's been able to use plastic directly.

                      Most that I know xfer money directly from their bank acct to neteller (firepay sucks) partly because it's more convenient to xfer winnings directly back into your bank acct.  But that's for those who win consistently online, and I do.

                      You can go to war and be killed if you're 18 but you can't gamble your money in Vegas.

                      by YetiMonk on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:39:03 AM PDT

                      •  It Might Not Work Now

                        But I've been moving money back and forth for two years through it. I don't like to leave more than a couple hundred in any online account at a time (early PayPal training).

                        Hell, when I joined the Army I couldn't drink beer anywhere off-post, or be issued a handgun. I could have an M16 but not an M1911A1.

                        Fortunately, by the time I turned 18 I was in Texas, where nobody asked...

                        by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:06:20 AM PDT

          •  You don't make issue ads

            You micro-target.  With poker players, that means you can have a DNC ad during a televised poker program like "High Stakes Poker" on the Game Show Network.  You can advertise on web sites like Cardplayer.com or pokernews.com.  

            As outlined in a recent LA Times story, the Republicans have mastered micro-targeting by tailoring the marketing specifically to a niche group.  The beauty of micro-targeting is that you control your messsage almost perfectly.  If you aim to get poker players, you can target fora where you have no chance of alienating the anti-gambling crowd.  

            by PigsandBattleships on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:37:15 AM PDT

•  I wouldn't want to tie my ship to that anchor n/t

  by shpilk on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:01:49 AM PDT

  •  Spin it

    Wouldn't have to come right out and be pro-online poker or gambling, which many puritanical types consider sin.  You could say, "We need to study it more," or "With the vast number of jobs being lost to outsourcing we think there may be worthy benefits to consider here in the employment and investment sector."

    by Paper Cup on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:22:47 AM PDT

•  Class warfare.

  There's no law prohibiting transferring money from your Cayman Island tax shelter to off-shore gambling sites.

  More perks for the top 1%.

  by johnsonwax on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:03:56 AM PDT

•  We don't have to be pro-gambling....

  When the gamblers find out, i imagine they'll be an outcry. We can say that perhaps the Republicans acted too quickly, that they snuck this into another bill, that we seek a comprimise on the issue.

  I wish there was a way to get an email list of everyone who does this and just contact them directly instead of doing a general message in hopes that they hear it.

  by Mikesco on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:22:43 AM PDT

  •  There Is a Growing Outcry and Considerable Anger

    And it's going to grow. Our options are to hide in a corner and do nothing and let it run it's general anti-incumbent course, which will marginally benefit us because they have more incumbents, OR we can get busy and help channel it into anti-Republican anger.

    by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:36:28 AM PDT

    •  My understanding of the bill

      is that it only affects banks and credit cards.  Online gamblers already use alternative methods like neteller to fund their accounts so it's of little or no impact.  Now the law just passed in Washington state that makes it a felonly is a whole 'nother matter.

      by YetiMonk on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:39:45 AM PDT

      •  You Are Probably Right

        The people who run the sites probably don't know what they are talking about...

        by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:53:31 AM PDT

        •  Then something in this bill is

          radically different from what I understood to be going on if pacific is pulling out of the U.S.

          This comment fairly captures what I and quite a lot of people thought was happening.  The expectation was that neteller or some other entity offshore would take up the slack and it would be business as usual.  Banks and credit card companies already don't allow money transfers to gambling sites which is why we have neteller and firepay.  I guess this bill must take them out as well.

          What's with the attitude?  I was simply relating my understanding of it.

          by YetiMonk on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:11:26 AM PDT

          •  Sorry About the Attitude, You Didn't Deserve It

            It's no excuse, but I'm in several conversations simultaneously, on different subjects, and some of them involve obtuse children...

            You have my apology.

            by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:17:00 AM PDT

            •  De nada

              actually, this thread is more in line with my understanding of the issue.  But it in complete variance to pacific (888.com) pulling out of the U.S.  

              by YetiMonk on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:55:56 AM PDT

      •  For now

        Look at the story just out saying the FBI is investigating links between organized crime and al quada.  OC = Gambling in many people's minds.  If the notion gets out there that online gambling = aid to bin laden, then what do you think the next step is going to be?  They will put a system into place - it's in place already probably - that will track every penny that changes hands inside the country.

        Pressure on CC companies to forbid transactions with offshore gambling sites is only the beginning.  That's the foot in the door.  They will equate online gambling with terrorism and ANY company at all that wants to do business in the US will be prohibited from doing business with anyone on the blacklist.

        by Paper Cup on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:27:36 AM PDT

  •  Even Freepers Are Pissed About This

    Here and here.

    by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:42:54 AM PDT

  •  We can be pro freedom, less government

    on this. We don't frame it as pro-gambling. This is too good to pass up, particularly because it is so easy to target this market.

    by gatordem on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:32:18 AM PDT

•  Dunno

  Libertarians may pick up a few protest votes on this, less so Democrats. And I would not be surprised if Reid knew this was going down and didn't raise a peep.

  by George on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:30:41 AM PDT

  •  Who Do Tou Think Owns These OffShore Internet

    gambling sites? Same interests as own Las Vegas.  Do you really think they'd miss out on this action?

    by gatordem on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:34:00 AM PDT

•  More Freeper Reaction, EVERYBODY is Pissed Off

  Here

  This could be a significant winner for us if we had both the foresight and balls to grab it.

  by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:32:35 AM PDT

•  I heard recently theres 5 million people on

  MySpace.com that are being targeted (by them? or us?wasn't clear - bekuz just anchorette on teeveee saeee this) to register to vote. That seems like a possible source if anyone can figure out that site and how to approach it.

  by dotcommodity on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:33:18 AM PDT