Ron Paul the pro-internet gambling candidate is now TOP TIER

[fearless]

On Thursday Illinois had its first-ever straw poll. The results:

1. Mitt Romney -- 40.35%

2. Fred Thompson -- 19.96%

3. Ron Paul -- 18.87%

4. Rudy Giuliani -- 11.61%

5. John McCain -- 4.12%

http://www.hoinews.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=45223

Ron Paul has to be considered a top-tier candidate now. His candidacy is gaining momentum. I think sports bettors should get behind him because he's the only pro-internet gambling candidate:

Ron Paul is co-sponsoring a bill to legalize online gambling along with Democrat Barney Frank.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/36606-ron-paul-champions-internet-freedom.html

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

[SBR Lou]

Of course we're all biased in a sense, but I actually agree with him on some issues aside from internet gambling.

[durito]

Ron Paul won't get more than 1/10 of 1% in the general election.

[fearless]

Ron Paul won't get more than 1/10 of 1% in the general election.

What kind of odds will you give on that?

How in the world can you say that? He got 9% in the Iowa straw poll and nearly 19% in the Illinois straw poll. Can you give any reasons for what you're saying?

[durito]

I'm assuming he's running for the libertarian party as he has in the past.

I just checked and I'm a little off. He's done better than that in the past. He got 1/2 of 1% in 1988.

Though the libertarian got .3% in 1992, .5% in 1996, .4% in 2000, and .3% in 2004.

I'd be shocked to see anything over .5%

[fearless]

I'm assuming he's running for the libertarian party as he has in the past.

I just checked and I'm a little off. He's done better than that in the past. He got 1/2 of 1% in 1988.

Though the libertarian got .3% in 1992, .5% in 1996, .4% in 2000, and .3% in 2004.

I'd be shocked to see anything over .5%

I'll bet you even odds on 5%.

[ritehook]

It would be great to see Ron Paul as president - a chance to reverse our slide into historical oblivion, a la the old Roman Empire. And of course our personal passion, to bet on the Net.

But I agree with the naysayers as a practical matter - he has little chance in a general election, or in the Republican primaries.

Tho this time with the electorate pissed and bewildered, as a 3rd party candidate he could actually break the 5% barrier.

BTW, I think the Frank bill will not much affect sports bettors (it's being pushed by poker players). As I understand it any sports league can opt out. So how many milliseconds will it take, if this bill became law, for the NFL, NBA, MLB, NCAA etc to opt out? (The over/under is 2 milliseconds)

[durito]

I'll bet you even odds on 5%.

You are serious? 5% of the vote in the general 2008 presidential election? (That's a 10x increase on any libertarian in the last 5 elections)

You are on. How much?

[durito]

Tho this time with the electorate pissed and bewildered, as a 3rd party candidate he could actually break the 5% barrier.

Sure, a 3rd party candidate like say Bloomberg could easily break 5%. He, however, has unlimited funds available much as Ross Perot did. The Libertarian candidate (presumably Ron Paul) will not.

[fearless]

You are serious? 5% of the vote in the general 2008 presidential election? (That's a 10x increase on any libertarian in the last 5 elections)

You are on. How much?

I misunderstood what you said. Ron Paul has said that he won't run as a third party candidate. Us Ron Paul supporters are hoping that he will get the republican nomination, that's the only way he'll be president.

Now, he's definitely in the top five at the moment. He took fifth in the Iowa straw poll and third in the Illinois straw poll. He's gaining momentum and he's got a legit shot!

Also, he is the presidential candidate that will end the Iraq war immediately. I can't see why people aren't rallying around that more. Ron Paul is the guy that would bring us back to following the constitution. His presidency would be a revolution in America and it's just what we need!

[fearless]

As I understand it any sports league can opt out. So how many milliseconds will it take, if this bill became law, for the NFL, NBA, MLB, NCAA etc to opt out? (The over/under is 2 milliseconds)

Please explain that to me? Betting on games only makes those leagues more popular. More popularity means higher ratings, more tickets sold, and more revenue. For example, I have almost no interest in sports when I'm not betting on them and I'm sure that there are tens of thousands (if not millions) of people like that. Most of the sports leagues just aren't interesting enough unless you can bet on them, imo.

[durito]

I misunderstood what you said. Ron Paul has said that he won't run as a third party candidate. Us Ron Paul supporters are hoping that he will get the republican nomination, that's the only way he'll be president.

Now, he's definitely in the top five at the moment. He took fifth in the Iowa straw poll and third in the Illinois straw poll. He's gaining momentum and he's got a legit shot!

Also, he is the presidential candidate that will end the Iraq war immediately. I can't see why people aren't rallying around that more. Ron Paul is the guy that would bring us back to following the constitution. His presidency would be a revolution in America and it's just what we need!

I will bet you my entire bankroll he won't win the Republican nomination. The powers that be (big corporations/wealthy individuals) will never let that happen.

[durito]

Please explain that to me? Betting on games only makes those leagues more popular. More popularity means higher ratings, more tickets sold, and more revenue. For example, I have almost no interest in sports when I'm not betting on them and I'm sure that there are tens of thousands (if not millions) of people like that. Most of the sports leagues just aren't interesting enough unless you can bet on them, imo.

While that may be true, they will all opt out.

[fearless]

I will bet you my entire bankroll he won't win the Republican nomination. The powers that be (big corporations/wealthy individuals) will never let that happen.

I wouldn't bet on this either for the same reason. If everything was fair I might on Paul winning.

But, do you remember what Jesse Ventura accomplished? I think the big Ron Paul movement we're seeing is similar to what Ventura did. The big difference is that Ventura didn't have to deal with Diebold voting machines...

However, I've heard it said that TPTB will only overturn a close race with the machines because otherwise it would be too obvious. What we need is for Paul to win a big majority, it's definitely still possible and I'm keeping faith.

[fearless]

While that may be true, they will all opt out.

Why? Aren't they there to make as much money as possible? If betting makes the leagues more popular and thus raises revenue, what's the problem?

[LVHerbie]

I've been active in the libertarian party in the past and there is no way Ron Paul gets 5% on that ticket... he has already said he has no interest in running as a third party again and he is no longer actively affiliated with the libertarian party...

[remmy358]

agreed. ron paul has a 0% chance of winning.

don't let the democrats fool you. just because a few of them are "pro gambling", doesn't mean they can sway an entire party to vote on it, and then beat out the repub's, then a possible presidental veto...won't happen.

the democrats were once big on the iraq war too....they are just desperate and go where the wind is blowing for the time being. hillary will obviulsy beat out obama, obama will be too proud to run as hilarys VP, and will go back into the hole he belongs. rudy G will win NYS, and take out hillary in a land slide victory. hillary doesnt appeal enough to male voters, will never win, also a lot of women out there who actually dont want a female president. i also assume a lot of the blacks will be pissed off that obama didnt run, and wont even vote...

[LVHerbie]

bodog has paul at 25-1 to win the R nom and 60-1 to become president... I guess that makes the true numbers like 100-1 and 300-1, huh?

[fearless]

bodog has paul at 25-1 to win the R nom and 60-1 to become president... I guess that makes the true numbers like 100-1 and 300-1, huh?

He's in the top five now and he's gaining strength and momentum. What do you have against him? He wants to end the war, he wants to get back to the constitution, he wants to dismantle the IRS, he wants to legalize internet gambling, he's pro-freedom, pro-rights, etc.

He just took third in the last straw poll, he's a serious contender. What do you have against him?

[David]

bodog has paul at 25-1 to win the R nom and 60-1 to become president... I guess that makes the true numbers like 100-1 and 300-1, huh?

Ron Paul +2400 to win nomination at WSEX.

[curious]

Online gambling is only illegal because the crooks (er, politictians) can't figure out a way to get their vig, er I mean tax it. If they could figure out a way to make money from online gambling there would be an internet gambling cafe on every corner.

[LVHerbie]

He's in the top five now and he's gaining strength and momentum. What do you have against him? He wants to end the war, he wants to get back to the constitution, he wants to dismantle the IRS, he wants to legalize internet gambling, he's pro-freedom, pro-rights, etc.

He just took third in the last straw poll, he's a serious contender. What do you have against him?

In the past I was very active in Libertarian party... I've ran for office twice, been to a couple national conventions, and was extremely active in the local and state party.... I also knew one of Paul's grandsons in college and somewhere I have autographed copy of one of Paul's books...

My point is I have virtually nothing against Ron Paul and I agree with probably 98% of his views (well, except for his prohibitionist view of abortion)... Disregarding his stance on that issue I would still probably vote for him if I was given the opportunity (but as I'm not a registered Republican, and he has basically no chance of being on the general election ballot, I'm afraid this conversation will remain theoritical)

Disregarding all of this (along with the fact I no longer vote for my own personal reasons,) my first post was made to point out that he has already said he won't run as an independent or on a third party ticket and if he did (which he he wouldn't) his total wouldn't be anywhere near 5% of the vote (probably not 1% of the vote either... since the Libertarians have only gotten 1% in one election since 1972 and, I believe, he only like a third of percent when he ran in 1988...) Mr. Paul knows this and knows he can't win as a independent and this is exactly why he serves as a congressman as a Republican...

My second post in this thread was made because I thought the "the square" odds of him succeeding were interesting...

I've personally gathered thousands of signatures and knocked on hundreds of doors campaigning for myself and others... this was all done knowing that I had basically a zero chance of getting myself, or anyone else, elected... we all knew this and did what we did, many who did these same kinds of things for decades longer then me, because it was what we believed in...

I now realize that there are more productive ways to make ones' self free and choose to put myself and family first before a silly and unfair electoral process...

Anyhow, my point is that if this is what you want to spend your time doing you should go in with a realistic understanding of what kind of society and nation you live in... or, at the very least, find a better reason to do these types of activities then expecting to win...


Regardless, I could write another three pages about why I don't think Paul will win but then again if he is 60-1 on a book like bodog you should already know his chances aren't very good...

[homedog]

It's amazing that people would consider gambling in their top 10 reasons to vote for or against someone.

[SBR Lou]

It's amazing that people would consider gambling in their top 10 reasons to vote for or against someone.

I highly doubt gambling is number one on anyones political wish list. Of course we wouldn't want the presidency to fall into the wrong hands, but it seems this has a way of happening anyway. Being in the top 10 is certainly reasonable. I'm certain that the current climate in regard to online gambling will eventually change, it's not only what is right, but there is too much money involved - and potentially much more to be generated - not to regulate it.

[ritehook]

Re the reason why the big sports league oppose legal gambling on thier games:

They say, basically, that gambling corrupts the game. They will cite the recent case of the NBA ref who made biased called to win money.

In their view, if gambling were legal that type thing would become more common, because of more opportunity.

However, amateur and pro sports in Europe and elsewhere don't seem to have been any more corrupted than our sports, even tho many countries on that contenent have legal sports betting.

The opposition is a uniquely American thing. Sort of like the fact that few other nations would elect a crisscrossed conundrum like GW Bush as president, who believes he is acting on behalf of God, and couldn't care less if everyoe esle disagrees. Welcome to the year 1407 A.D. . . .

Of course, it is also soaked in hypocrisy. Of course the NFL, NBA, NCAA foots and hoops, etc, have prospered because of gambling on their games.

And of course legalizing and regulating it will likely cut down on future Donoghys tossing a fix, rather than the reverse.

The NFL had a developmental league in Europe - I'm guessing the legal books there booked the games? Was there any game-fixing? Doubt it. Bookmakers have a vested interest in honest sports events.

I believe the NFL will play a regular season game in Mexico, where there are over a hundred sports books in the country, booking NFL games. Think the NFL doesn't know this?

It's a peculiar, very American type of cant, of hypocisy. It goes beyond reason, to something strange deepdown in the plumbing of the Eagle's psyche.

[durito]

In the past I was very active in Libertarian party... I've ran for office twice, been to a couple national conventions, and was extremely active in the local and state party.... I also knew one of Paul's grandsons in college and somewhere I have autographed copy of one of Paul's books...

My point is I have virtually nothing against Ron Paul and I agree with probably 98% of his views (well, except for his prohibitionist view of abortion)... Disregarding his stance on that issue I would still probably vote for him if I was given the opportunity (but as I'm not a registered Republican, and he has basically no chance of being on the general election ballot, I'm afraid this conversation will remain theoritical)

Disregarding all of this (along with the fact I no longer vote for my own personal reasons,) my first post was made to point out that he has already said he won't run as an independent or on a third party ticket and if he did (which he he wouldn't) his total wouldn't be anywhere near 5% of the vote (probably not 1% of the vote either... since the Libertarians have only gotten 1% in one election since 1972 and, I believe, he only like a third of percent when he ran in 1988...) Mr. Paul knows this and knows he can't win as a independent and this is exactly why he serves as a congressman as a Republican...

My second post in this thread was made because I thought the "the square" odds of him succeeding were interesting...

I've personally gathered thousands of signatures and knocked on hundreds of doors campaigning for myself and others... this was all done knowing that I had basically a zero chance of getting myself, or anyone else, elected... we all knew this and did what we did, many who did these same kinds of things for decades longer then me, because it was what we believed in...

I now realize that there are more productive ways to make ones' self free and choose to put myself and family first before a silly and unfair electoral process...

Anyhow, my point is that if this is what you want to spend your time doing you should go in with a realistic understanding of what kind of society and nation you live in... or, at the very least, find a better reason to do these types of activities then expecting to win...


Regardless, I could write another three pages about why I don't think Paul will win but then again if he is 60-1 on a book like bodog you should already know his chances aren't very good...

Excellent post. I agree almost entirely.


rainbowworld:

don't think because we think Paul stands no chance that we are against him. That's not the case at all. I've followed him and the libertarians since about 1988 when my dad was voting for him for president. I am clearly not as familiar with the party as LVherbie, but I know enough about American politics to know that he has no chance.

I did not know last night that he was not planning on running as a third party candidate. Although, that changes nothing. Unfortunately, straw poll aside, once the primaries kick in, he will be done.

[fearless]

In the past I was very active in Libertarian party... I've ran for office twice, been to a couple national conventions, and was extremely active in the local and state party.... I also knew one of Paul's grandsons in college and somewhere I have autographed copy of one of Paul's books...

My point is I have virtually nothing against Ron Paul and I agree with probably 98% of his views (well, except for his prohibitionist view of abortion)... Disregarding his stance on that issue I would still probably vote for him if I was given the opportunity (but as I'm not a registered Republican, and he has basically no chance of being on the general election ballot, I'm afraid this conversation will remain theoritical)

Disregarding all of this (along with the fact I no longer vote for my own personal reasons,) my first post was made to point out that he has already said he won't run as an independent or on a third party ticket and if he did (which he he wouldn't) his total wouldn't be anywhere near 5% of the vote (probably not 1% of the vote either... since the Libertarians have only gotten 1% in one election since 1972 and, I believe, he only like a third of percent when he ran in 1988...) Mr. Paul knows this and knows he can't win as a independent and this is exactly why he serves as a congressman as a Republican...

My second post in this thread was made because I thought the "the square" odds of him succeeding were interesting...

I've personally gathered thousands of signatures and knocked on hundreds of doors campaigning for myself and others... this was all done knowing that I had basically a zero chance of getting myself, or anyone else, elected... we all knew this and did what we did, many who did these same kinds of things for decades longer then me, because it was what we believed in...

I now realize that there are more productive ways to make ones' self free and choose to put myself and family first before a silly and unfair electoral process...

Anyhow, my point is that if this is what you want to spend your time doing you should go in with a realistic understanding of what kind of society and nation you live in... or, at the very least, find a better reason to do these types of activities then expecting to win...


Regardless, I could write another three pages about why I don't think Paul will win but then again if he is 60-1 on a book like bodog you should already know his chances aren't very good...

I really appreciate your post, I won't be spending my time knocking on doors for several reasons (for one I'm not living in the USA currently). I'm excited about Ron Paul because he'll end the war and bring the US government back in line with the Constitution. He would bring freedom back to the USA, including internet gambling which is a relatively small piece of the puzzle overall but you obviously know what Paul believes in.

I know his odds as Bodog aren't good, he's been reported as having as high 8-1 odds to get the republican nomination and I wouldn't be getting excited unless there was a real reason to get excited. Check out the results of the two latest straw polls:

Ron takes the Strafford County, NH, GOP straw poll today by another landslide:

Out of 286 votes cast:

Ron - 208 (73%)
Romney - 26
Huckabee - 20
Tancredo - 8
McCain - 7
Cox - 5
Hunter - 5
Fred Thompson - 3
Giuliani - 3
Brownback - 1

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014783.html

Ron Paul Wins By Landslide in Alabama Straw Poll
Posted by Chris Brunner at August 18, 2007 01:59 PM

Ron Paul - 216 (81%)
Mitt Romney - 14 (5%)
Duncan Hunter - 10 (4%)
Fred Dalton Thompson - 9 (3%)
Rudy Giuliani - 7 (3%)
Mike Huckabee - 6 (2%)
John McCain - 2 (.75%)
Sam Brownback - 2 (.75%)
Tom Tancredo - 0 (0%)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014782.html

If Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, then who does? We've got to look at those numbers.

[fearless]

Re the reason why the big sports league oppose legal gambling on thier games:

They say, basically, that gambling corrupts the game. They will cite the recent case of the NBA ref who made biased called to win money.

In their view, if gambling were legal that type thing would become more common, because of more opportunity.

However, amateur and pro sports in Europe and elsewhere don't seem to have been any more corrupted than our sports, even tho many countries on that contenent have legal sports betting.

The opposition is a uniquely American thing. Sort of like the fact that few other nations would elect a crisscrossed conundrum like GW Bush as president, who believes he is acting on behalf of God, and couldn't care less if everyoe esle disagrees. Welcome to the year 1407 A.D. . . .

Of course, it is also soaked in hypocrisy. Of course the NFL, NBA, NCAA foots and hoops, etc, have prospered because of gambling on their games.

And of course legalizing and regulating it will likely cut down on future Donoghys tossing a fix, rather than the reverse.

The NFL had a developmental league in Europe - I'm guessing the legal books there booked the games? Was there any game-fixing? Doubt it. Bookmakers have a vested interest in honest sports events.

I believe the NFL will play a regular season game in Mexico, where there are over a hundred sports books in the country, booking NFL games. Think the NFL doesn't know this?

It's a peculiar, very American type of cant, of hypocisy. It goes beyond reason, to something strange deepdown in the plumbing of the Eagle's psyche.

That's really interesting and unbelievable, especially for the NBA! Anyone who watched the NBA hand Wade and the Heat the championship can't really doubt that, imho. The articles below give an excellent theory as to how the NBA is actually run, imo.

As for the NFL, the Pittsburgh-Seattle Super Bowl was all the evidence I needed that things weren't right.

The 2001 World Series, I smelled a fix immediately when I watched the untouchable Mariano Rivera go to the mound with a 2-1 lead in the bottom of the ninth. He looked like he was calmly pitching batting practice in that inning and the Diamond Backs made it look like he was too. The thing that made my heart sink was the fact that, although Rivera was struggling the whole time, no one came to the mound in that situation? I was broken hearted and I thought, my god, if they do this in game 7 of the world series...? I mean, in my heart I knew the thing was fixed. Rivera had been untouchable and suddenly he looked like a mop up man and the thing about was it all had a "planned" feel to it, he didn't look surprised, worried, nothing. I guess it's therapy for me to write this because I still feel the shock of it in my soul.

http://www.bet2gamble.com/PlayerResources/Columns/Air_Judden/Air_Judden_NBA_Fix_1.html

http://www.bet2gamble.com/PlayerResources/Columns/Air_Judden/Air_Judden_NBA_Fix_2.html

http://www.bet2gamble.com/PlayerResources/Columns/Air_Judden/Air_Judden_NBA_Fix_3.html

[fearless]

Excellent post. I agree almost entirely.


rainbowworld:

don't think because we think Paul stands no chance that we are against him. That's not the case at all. I've followed him and the libertarians since about 1988 when my dad was voting for him for president. I am clearly not as familiar with the party as LVherbie, but I know enough about American politics to know that he has no chance.

I did not know last night that he was not planning on running as a third party candidate. Although, that changes nothing. Unfortunately, straw poll aside, once the primaries kick in, he will be done.

In case you didn't see it, the latest straw poll results are below. I realize it's gonna take a relative miracle for Ron Paul to win but our country needs a miracle and there's signs that it's actually happening. This is not a pipe dream, look at these numbers:

Ron takes the Strafford County, NH, GOP straw poll today by another landslide:

Out of 286 votes cast:

Ron - 208 (73%)
Romney - 26
Huckabee - 20
Tancredo - 8
McCain - 7
Cox - 5
Hunter - 5
Fred Thompson - 3
Giuliani - 3
Brownback - 1

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014783.html

Ron Paul Wins By Landslide in Alabama Straw Poll
Posted by Chris Brunner at August 18, 2007 01:59 PM

Ron Paul - 216 (81%)
Mitt Romney - 14 (5%)
Duncan Hunter - 10 (4%)
Fred Dalton Thompson - 9 (3%)
Rudy Giuliani - 7 (3%)
Mike Huckabee - 6 (2%)
John McCain - 2 (.75%)
Sam Brownback - 2 (.75%)
Tom Tancredo - 0 (0%)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014782.html

[remmy358]

unfortunately it will take more than winning a few counties in 'bama and NH

wake up and smell the coffee...ron paul isn't a candidate...he's a benny

[fearless]

unfortunately it will take more than winning a few counties in 'bama and NH

wake up and smell the coffee...ron paul isn't a candidate...he's a benny

Your reaction really bothers me. Ron Paul won in outright landsides, 73% and 81%, that's incredible. What do you want, 100%? How can you put victories like that down?

Anyway, why are you laughing about Paul? According to the Associated Press, "Paul bills himself as "The Taxpayers' Best Friend," and is routinely ranked either first or second in the House by the National Taxpayers Union, a national group advocating low taxes and limited government."

On every single issue of national importance - borders, the war, limited government, U.S. sovereignty, tax and the federal reserve - Ron Paul stands for populist ideals that the country is screaming out for after seven years of hell under Bush, preceded by eight years of disgrace under Bill Clinton.

Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act, opposes the draft, advocates the abolition of the income tax, urges the re-introduction of the gold standard, and stands against initiatives to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty such as CAFTA and the FTAA.

From reforming Marijuana laws to supporting an unregulated Internet, to supporting the 2nd amendment, Ron Paul hits home with keystone populist issues across the board. He's popular for many reasons.

[ritehook]

Even if one is dead certain that Paul can' win even one primary, it's still worth trudging to the polls (or via snailmail or the Net in states that so permit) to cast a vote for him if you live in a primary state where he's on the ballot (and some states have open primaries, where anyone can vote regardless of party.)

Simple reason being that the more votes he gets in losing, the more his basic message of individual freedom and butting the govt's nose our of our business must be accorded some credence among the stronger candidates.

In this case, a vote for RP in not a "waste." It's a necessity.
And if he's still in the race by the day after the Super Bowl I intend to toss him a few percent of my net winnings. (And may the Force be with me! And with Rep. Paul!)

[BuddyBear]

Too bad straw polls are scientifically meaningless.......

[remmy358]

[QUOTE=rainbowworld;322585]Your reaction really bothers me. QUOTE]

it's not about what i think. if you step away from the imaginery world of a compulsive gambler and look at this presidential race with non bias view you will clearly see that ron paul has no realistic shot of even coming close to winning the primaries, yet alone getting elected over a democrat.

a few BS poll's in a few meaningless states means nothing. ron paul doesn't even have a significant portion of the overall vote, and is not even considered a true candidate by most.

he has no shot. deal with it...

[tacomax]

Too bad straw polls are scientifically meaningless.......

That must be why people do them.

Polls of any sort, assuming that they are large enough (and you'd be surprised on how small they need to be) and unbiased, have meaning to them. It's statistics 101.