So there is finally new president on his way into the White House. He is going to have a litany of problems to deal with and I’m sure one of the most trivial will be regulating gambling. But it is of some concern to us so lets take a look at what sorts of things one might expect from President Obama.

He has made comments during the primary race that suggest he is wary of measures that expand the legalization of gambling in America. He has concerns for “moral and social costs” associated with gambling and its effects on the lower income segment of society. I think one can safely assume that  these concerns are driven primarily by economic ramifications.  I believe that most economists consider casinos and gambling to be, in the long run, detrimental to an economy. They provide high up front revenue, but the negative aspects that tend to assert themselves (not the least of which being crime and a depreciation of surrounding property value) significantly outweigh those benefits. Now I am no economist and am not familiar enough to say definitively that that is a prevailing view; so take it with a grain of salt.

Now, the reason I say it is primarily on economic grounds that he objects is in contrast to moral objections. He probably doesn’t have strong ones. He is a poker player. A pretty good one from first hand accounts. He would regularly come out on top at weekly games among Illinois political figures. He apparently knows the odds well and, like most things, he always plays to win. He is up for a game of poker like anyone else. His problems with gambling are from a purely pragmatic, social effects standpoint.

That might explain why he was not as strong in his opposition of online poker. In fact he wants an independent study done on the subject in order to be better informed and make the best possible decision. Sounds a lot like the play to win, methodical poker strategy he’s credited with.

Probably can’t say for sure what his final decisions on these matters will be, but he seems to embody the decision making capacities of a calm, dispassionate poker player, so I’m not worried. Whichever way he goes with this decision, or any others really, its a good bet that he can be trusted to make an informed, careful decision. Something this country has been sorely lacking.

Here are a couple of articles that might prove informative on this topic.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/18/nation/na-gambling18

http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/viewarticle.php?id=2920

I think last night’s debate showed that the obvious answer is Barrak Obama. Sorry for another only mildly poker related post so soon, but I would be remiss if I did not use my one and only bullhorn to a mass audience in an election as important as this.

Last night’s debate really showed how little emotional control John McCain really has. When you’re behind, in anything, the worst thing you can do is lose your cool. You can’t start acting all erattic on the poker table or in politics just because you’re taking some lumps.

Unfortunately for McCain, that is exactly what happened to him. He had fallen way behind over the course of the last few weeks. A combination of a crumbling economy and poor debate showings as well as myriad other factors gave Obama the boost he needed. On top of that, mere hours before last night’s debate, CNN revised their electoral map putting Virginia leaning toward the Obama camp; that was unthinkable for a republican in the recent past. Check out the link here. There’s even a slick little interactive map to tool around with

All that led to a belligerent, angry McCain. Obama, with his calm demeanor, just let him stomp and fume. He reasonably shot down McCains emotionally charged, ad hominem attacks. And with every relaxed retort, you could see the fluster on Johnny’s face. If I was at the table with him, I’d be check raising every round. All I can say is that McCain might do well to check out my post on the dangers of going on tilt. He’s already behind and a bad tilt now would clinch a victory for Obama

You can check out the debate here and judge for yourself.

I just read a brief piece about Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama in The New Yorker called Aces by James McManus.   It was about Obama’s interest in the game of poker, even though he has been opposed to expanded legalized gambling. 

McManus points out that there have been a number of American presidents who were fans of the game of poker -Andrew Jackson (7th), Ulysses S. Grant (18th), Theodore Roosevelt (26th), Warren Harding (29th), Franklin Roosevelt (32nd), Harry Truman (33rd), Dwight Eisnenhower (34th), Lyndon Johnson (36th), Richard Nixon (37th), George W. Bush (43rd).   I’m not sure whether Abraham Lincoln (16th) played poker, but McManus points out that “he did use a poker analogy to explain his decision not to apologize to Queen Victoria during the Trent Affair“.  

Given this history, one might think that Obama’s position on legalized gambling is an anomoly.  But this may not be the case.  According to Rodney Reyman in his article Gambling, there is evidence that the Founding Fathers of this country were far from fond of gambling.   Consider these quotes: 

George Washington:  “Gambling is the child of avarice (greed), the brother of iniquity and the father of mischief.”

Thomas Jefferson:  ”Gambling corrupts our dispositions, and teaches us the habit of hostility against mankind.”

Benjamin Franklin: “Keep flax from fire, youth from gambling.”

Do these quotes indicate that these three Founding Father would be opposed to poker?  I’m not so sure, especially in light of the fact that while Obama has been opposed to the expansion of legal gambling, he still plays in a regular game (see here), and, as McManus reports, considers himself to be “a pretty good poker player.”

About a week ago, I wrote to the presidential campaigns of Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Dennis Kucinich, Fred Thompson and Ron Paul to find out about their views on poker (see here).  Specifically, I wanted to know whether they play poker and how they feel about the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) preventing banks and other financial institutions from allowing people to use funds to pay for online gambling.  So far I’ve received emails from the campaign teams of Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Huckabee, but haven’t learned anything about their views on my questions.  What then did I learn?

Here’s what Clinton’s team had to say: 

Thank you for your message. I have received thousands of emails from people all over the country. Your comments are very important to me and I am excited that so many people are joining our conversation about how to change the direction of the country. Unfortunately, due to the high volume of comments, I am unable to respond to each email individually.

Expected, but disappointed.  The letter goes on to list some suggestions for how I can get involved in helping Clinton’s national campaign.   No, I don’t think so.  If the Clinton team is too busy to answer two simple questions that millions of people would like to know the answer to, then I don’t think that the Clinton campaign is worth working for.  Sorry, Hillary, you lost my vote.

Here’s what the Obama team had to say:

Thank you for contacting Obama for America.  The volume of messages we’re receiving has gone up since Barack’s victory in Iowa.  While we cannot respond individually to over a thousand messages per day, the level of interest and thoughtfulness of the comments reflected in these communications are very gratifying.  Your thoughts on our campaign and America’s future are greatly appreciated.

I guess my thoughts aren’t greatly appreciated enough.  Is the suggestion that if Barack had lost Iowa I might have received an answer to the questions?  Give me a break.   Sorry, Barack, but you’re campaign team has let you down.  Perhaps they’re not getting paid enough.  I’m not sure why they have a section of their website for questions if they have no intention of answering them.

The Edwards team didn’t answer my questions nor did they explain why they couldn’t answer them.  Rather they keep sending me Edwards propaganda.  I keep on replying to these spam emails, asking for the answers to my questions.   But, guess what?  No answer.  Surprise, surprise, surprise.  I’m beginning to think that there may be no human life on their end of this line of communication.  

The Huckabee team wrote that they would make “every effort to respond to specific policy questions not addressed on [their] website in a timely manner.”  They have kept hope alive. 

Do I expect to ever learn anything about these politicians poker positions from their campaign teams?  I’m not betting on it.

I just contacted the online campaigns of John Edwards, John McCain, Dennis Kucinich, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney to find out two things: (1) Whether they play poker (I already know that Barack plays – see here); (2) What their views are on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) preventing banks and other financial institutions from allowing people to use funds to pay for online gambling.  I’ll be surprised if anyone gets back to me.  My prediction is that Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul will be most opposed to the Act.  Stay tuned.