This has actually been an interesting election year for me. If I was voting purely on gambling issues in the U.S. presidential race, I would have voted for Ron Paul, who not only supports the regulation of online gaming in the U.S., but also the larger cause of Net neutrality, which many candidates give lip service to until they're actually forced to vote on particular issues. But instead I cast my ballot for Barack Obama, who at best is neutral on the subject of online gambling. Now any political scientist (and I used to be one) would ask, "Why did you vote against your economic interest?" And that's a valid question. As I said, Obama is probably neutral at best when it comes to the issue of gambling. He's professed worries before about the impact of gambling on disadvantaged communities and families. But he himself is an avid poker player, and has used it as a tool for both bridge building and fun. So on the whole, I don't think he'll do anything stupid on the online gaming front. So since he's not going to anything that will make things worse on the online gambling front, and I believe his post-Boomer approach (don't get me started on this, I could go for days) to policy will fundamentally yield better results, he's earned my vote (for now).
In local elections, where gambling is pretty much the only issue I care about, I'll vote for the pro-gambling types.
|