I've noted that whenever it's suggested that sportsbetting may one day be legal in the U.S. a host of naysayers and crepe hangers emerge to negate the idea.
I'm wondering if any "wise guys" in the 1920s somberly opined that Americans would never again enjoy a glass of legal booze?
Or that Wise Men in, say, the 1940s ever laughed anyone out of the room if they dared suggest that abortion would be legal by the '70s?
An English historian once opined: WHAT TODAY SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE IN THE EYES OF PRACTICAL MEN, TOMORROW PREVAILS.
Many here are handicappers, not only of sports but of markets, etc. Without being pollyannish, let's assess the realistic possibilities of legal sports betting in about five years.
In 2000 and in 2004 the GOP won the presidency by a narrow margin (lost the popular vote in '00), due to one particular power bloc, the so-called "religious right."
This bloc had and has several prime objectives, mainly anti-abortion, and also "family values," which means not only anti-gay but also better safety for children, moral values in the nation, etc.
Anti-gambling was part of that, but not a major part. One had the impression that if they could but ban abortion they'd allow casinos to operate down the street from their houses.
A handful of their political water-carriers, mainly Sen Frist, not having a lot of success on other issues important to this bloc, managed to sneak the UIGEA into an unrelated bill. The issue was attached to that bill, and never discussed in Congress.
LESSON: there is no overwhelming groundswell of support for UIGEA, not even among the Religious Right, some of whom I'd wager play in casinos now and then.
While most of the leading GOP candidates are making their obeisances to the RR, none really are as much in their pocket as was Georgie Bush last time around. (OK, except maybe Thompson and Huckabee, but they have only three chances to win the nomination - the proverbial Fat, Slim and None.)
The RR itself is very divided in their support this year. Some are in Fred's camp, some in Mike's, a few in Romney's but not enough to make a difference.
The division lessens their power. And some reports from the RR indicate that many of it's most fervent members intend to sit this presidential election out, now that Georgie Porgie is heading back to the ranch.
Definite diminution of power . . .
The Democrats! Their big chance to grab the White House, and increase their majorities in the Senate and House.
I personally think they'd have their best chance with Edwards, as Hillary has huge negs among many people (including many women), and there are still many folks in all parts of the nation that won't vote for a black.
Regardless, NONE OF THE LEADING DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES OWE A THING TO THE RR!!
That's a biggie. They will owe nothing! -nicht! - nada!- to the RR.
And being Democrats, they will want social programs for everyone, for every incompetent who bought a house they couldn't afford, who can't get a job because they have an IQ of 80, for the seniors (big bloc and growing yearly) - you name it.
THEY WILL NEED TONS OF MONEY, EVEN IF THEY WIND DOWN THE WAR (and there is no real guarantee of that, Hil was a warmonger before deciding to run for prez, and wants a huge military presence in the region)
So, (a) they will not owe sh-t to the RR; and (b) they will scramble like maniacs to grab every loose dollar they can to fund their social programs.
Wow, guys, look at all those loose dollars floating around online, being wagered. How many more wonderful programs can they fund if they could but tax that bucket of bucks!?
Don't think that Vegas is opposed. They've have beta programs for online gambling in place for years.
It's a no-brainer for Vegas - they know that the average American, given the chance to bet sports or blackjack online at Harrah's, Hilton, MGM, Caesar's etc, ___ or one operating in the Caribbean and run by a guy named Dirty Lenny . . . . well,the choice is obvious.
One of the more powerful Democrats in Congress is Sen Harry Reid, of Nevada. Guess who kicks in the most bucks for Harry's re-election bids?
Even if a Republican again wins the White House, eyes will be cast on online betting by the ever-greedy spendthrifts in DC.
If a Dem wins the White House, I'm figuring 3 years after he/she takes office the push will be made to legalize online betting, and grab those lucious tax dollars.
If the GOP scores again, make it five years, they'll pass on it in their first term.
But a good Dem candidate has the best chance to win. So look toward around 2011.
Of course, according to the New Age folks the Aztec calendar predicts the end of the world by December 2012, with cataclysmic events starting a year before.
So it may not matter by then if you can get a legal bet down via your laptop, or if Houston will win in their first SuperBowl appearance, or if San Diego State has a chance at the national title . . . .
I'm wondering if any "wise guys" in the 1920s somberly opined that Americans would never again enjoy a glass of legal booze?
Or that Wise Men in, say, the 1940s ever laughed anyone out of the room if they dared suggest that abortion would be legal by the '70s?
An English historian once opined: WHAT TODAY SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE IN THE EYES OF PRACTICAL MEN, TOMORROW PREVAILS.
Many here are handicappers, not only of sports but of markets, etc. Without being pollyannish, let's assess the realistic possibilities of legal sports betting in about five years.
In 2000 and in 2004 the GOP won the presidency by a narrow margin (lost the popular vote in '00), due to one particular power bloc, the so-called "religious right."
This bloc had and has several prime objectives, mainly anti-abortion, and also "family values," which means not only anti-gay but also better safety for children, moral values in the nation, etc.
Anti-gambling was part of that, but not a major part. One had the impression that if they could but ban abortion they'd allow casinos to operate down the street from their houses.
A handful of their political water-carriers, mainly Sen Frist, not having a lot of success on other issues important to this bloc, managed to sneak the UIGEA into an unrelated bill. The issue was attached to that bill, and never discussed in Congress.
LESSON: there is no overwhelming groundswell of support for UIGEA, not even among the Religious Right, some of whom I'd wager play in casinos now and then.
While most of the leading GOP candidates are making their obeisances to the RR, none really are as much in their pocket as was Georgie Bush last time around. (OK, except maybe Thompson and Huckabee, but they have only three chances to win the nomination - the proverbial Fat, Slim and None.)
The RR itself is very divided in their support this year. Some are in Fred's camp, some in Mike's, a few in Romney's but not enough to make a difference.
The division lessens their power. And some reports from the RR indicate that many of it's most fervent members intend to sit this presidential election out, now that Georgie Porgie is heading back to the ranch.
Definite diminution of power . . .
The Democrats! Their big chance to grab the White House, and increase their majorities in the Senate and House.
I personally think they'd have their best chance with Edwards, as Hillary has huge negs among many people (including many women), and there are still many folks in all parts of the nation that won't vote for a black.
Regardless, NONE OF THE LEADING DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES OWE A THING TO THE RR!!
That's a biggie. They will owe nothing! -nicht! - nada!- to the RR.
And being Democrats, they will want social programs for everyone, for every incompetent who bought a house they couldn't afford, who can't get a job because they have an IQ of 80, for the seniors (big bloc and growing yearly) - you name it.
THEY WILL NEED TONS OF MONEY, EVEN IF THEY WIND DOWN THE WAR (and there is no real guarantee of that, Hil was a warmonger before deciding to run for prez, and wants a huge military presence in the region)
So, (a) they will not owe sh-t to the RR; and (b) they will scramble like maniacs to grab every loose dollar they can to fund their social programs.
Wow, guys, look at all those loose dollars floating around online, being wagered. How many more wonderful programs can they fund if they could but tax that bucket of bucks!?
Don't think that Vegas is opposed. They've have beta programs for online gambling in place for years.
It's a no-brainer for Vegas - they know that the average American, given the chance to bet sports or blackjack online at Harrah's, Hilton, MGM, Caesar's etc, ___ or one operating in the Caribbean and run by a guy named Dirty Lenny . . . . well,the choice is obvious.
One of the more powerful Democrats in Congress is Sen Harry Reid, of Nevada. Guess who kicks in the most bucks for Harry's re-election bids?
Even if a Republican again wins the White House, eyes will be cast on online betting by the ever-greedy spendthrifts in DC.
If a Dem wins the White House, I'm figuring 3 years after he/she takes office the push will be made to legalize online betting, and grab those lucious tax dollars.
If the GOP scores again, make it five years, they'll pass on it in their first term.
But a good Dem candidate has the best chance to win. So look toward around 2011.
Of course, according to the New Age folks the Aztec calendar predicts the end of the world by December 2012, with cataclysmic events starting a year before.
So it may not matter by then if you can get a legal bet down via your laptop, or if Houston will win in their first SuperBowl appearance, or if San Diego State has a chance at the national title . . . .
