Candidates playing for high stakes (in more ways than one)
I generally don’t care for pop psychology, especially when it’s applied to politics. It’s only natural that the public wants to know more about the personalities and styles of national leaders, but it’s very hard to believe there’s much to be gleaned about a presidential candidate, for example, by checking out their iPod.
Having said that, it’s with a tinge of guilt that I admit to finding this piece from Michael Scherer and Michael Weisskopf in Time pretty interesting.
The casino craps player is a social animal, a thrill seeker who wants not just to win but to win with a crowd. Unlike cards or a roulette wheel, well-thrown dice reward most everyone on the rail, yielding a collective yawp that drowns out the slots. It is a game for showmen, Hollywood stars and basketball legends with girls on their arms. It is also a favorite pastime of the presumptive Republican nominee for President, John McCain.
The backroom poker player, on the other hand, is more cautious and self-absorbed. Card games may be social, but they are played in solitude. No need for drama. The quiet card counter is king, and only a novice banks on luck. In this game, a good bluff trumps blind faith, and the studied observer beats the showman. So it is fitting that the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, raked in so many pots in his late-night games with political friends. […]
For both men, games of chance have been not just a hobby but also a fundamental feature in their development as people and politicians. For Obama, weekly poker games with lobbyists and fellow state senators helped cement his position as a rising star in Illinois politics. For McCain, jaunts to the craps table helped burnish his image as a political hot dog who relished the thrill of a good fight, even if the risk of failure was high.
Scherer and Weisskopf might be onto something here.
While I don’t know Obama or McCain personally, this piece about their gambling habits tends to reinforce the popular perceptions about their personalities. Obama, for example, is competitive and methodical.
[H]e always had his head in the game. The stakes were low enough — $1 ante and $3 top raise — to afford a long shot. Not Obama. He studied the cards as closely as he would an eleventh-hour amendment to a bill. The odds were religion to him. Only rarely did he bluff. “He had a pretty good idea about what his chances were,” says Denny Jacobs, a former state senator from East Moline.
Obama’s play-to-win approach drove other players crazy. Former state senator Larry Walsh, a conservative corn farmer from Joliet, once got ready to pull in a pot with a four-of-a-kind hand. But Obama had four of a kind too, of higher rank. Walsh slammed down his cards. “Doggone it, Barack, if you were more liberal in your card-playing and more conservative in your politics, you and I would get along much better,” he said. […]
Obama usually left a winner. But he reaped a bigger payoff politically. When he announced his plans to run for the U.S. Senate, his poker pals — white guys from small-town Illinois — were among his earliest supporters…. But Obama’s risk-averse, methodical approach to five-card stud gives Link confidence in his potential governing style. “If he runs his presidency the way he plays poker, I’ll sleep good at night,” he says.
And then there’s McCain, who seems more interested in an adrenalin rush than in thinking things through.
In the past decade, he has played on Mississippi riverboats, on Indian land, in Caribbean craps pits and along the length of the Las Vegas Strip. Back in 2005 he joined a group of journalists at a magazine-industry conference in Puerto Rico, offering betting strategy on request. “Enjoying craps opens up a window on a central thread constant in John’s life,” says John Weaver, McCain’s former chief strategist, who followed him to many a casino. “Taking a chance, playing against the odds.” Aides say McCain tends to play for a few thousand dollars at a time and avoids taking markers, or loans, from the casinos, which he has helped regulate in Congress. “He never, ever plays on the house,” says Mark Salter, a McCain adviser. The goal, say several people familiar with his habit, is never financial. He loves the thrill of winning and the camaraderie at the table.
Only recently have McCain’s aides urged him to pull back from the pastime. In the heat of the G.O.P. primary fight last spring, he announced on a visit to the Vegas Strip that he was going to the casino floor. When his aides stopped him, fearing a public relations disaster, McCain suggested that they ask the casino to take a craps table to a private room, a high-roller privilege McCain had indulged in before. His aides, with alarm bells ringing, refused again, according to two accounts of the discussion.
“He clearly knows that this is on the borderline of what is acceptable for him to be doing,” says a Republican who has watched McCain play. “And he just sort of revels in it.”
Without more information, it’s hard to say for sure whether this might qualify as “compulsive” behavior, but it’s striking that McCain wanted a table brought to his private room in the midst of a presidential campaign, and even fellow Republicans wonder whether he’s going beyond what’s “acceptable.”
For that matter, Time’s article noted that McCain “tends to play for a few thousand dollars at a time.” I’m going to hope this is referring to McCain’s gamble per outing, not per roll.
As for what’s to be learned about the candidates from all of this, I had the same reaction Noam Scheiber did: “At the end of the piece, a former Obama colleague, refering to Obama’s contemplative gambling style, tells Time, ‘If he runs his presidency the way he plays poker, I’ll sleep good at night.’ I think the converse is true of McCain — I’d sleep pretty poorly if he were to run his presidency the way he plays craps. (And I think the odds are high that he would. He certainly seems to run his campaign that way...)”
For the last almost 8 years, the tin-horn crooks and gunsels who ran this country fancied themselves high-stakes, no-limit Texas-Hold-Em stars. They had the big stack, and played bully poker the whole time, and now they’re getting ready to pull out of the game and take their winnings with ‘em. They won some pretty big pots.
The gambler metaphor makes my blood run cold. In high-stakes gambling, the really successful gamblers have learned to forget the ab$olute value of the bets they make, but to regard the chips merely as disposable counters.
In the games we’re discussing here, friends, in case you hadn’t noticed, it’s you and me who are the things that give their chips value. When one of these sons of bitches goes “all in,” they’ve thrown US into the pot to back their play. So they don’t really CARE if they win any particular hand, cuz they’ve got the bank, and an endless supply of chips to play. The House always wins in the long run.
So please forgive me if I wish we’d stop valorizing these cheap hustlers, okay?
interesting. i knew about mscstain's gambling habit. its easy when you are playing with the wife's money.
If being captured in battle and being tortured for more than 5 years qualifies John McCain to be President, then there are more than 250 current and former Gitmo detainees who are "qualified" to be the next Afgan president.
Too true Woody, all too true.
I find the card game analogy very enlightening.
Obama sounds like the guy to beat. McCain? ... Well, he should just stay a senator ... or better yet, retire. He could go on a love tour of Bush speaking to GOP audiences with dead eyes.
Simon White-Thatch Potentloins @ 5:
OK, make that "love tour with Bush" ... the typo is a little creepy.
Something I took from the article is that Senator Obama plays cards for sport and fun, the way my husband and his friends used to play. Sure everyone wants to win but it's not a cut throat competition. McCain seems to just like to gamble with little thought required.
Anyone who takes chances just for the hell of it and who would be running our country, scares the hell out of me.
Old man likes to crap. No news here.
I find Obama's playing poker with lobbyists and generally winning a little unseemly.
These analogies are interesting though I am unsure if they are useful. What I find more telling in this gambling analogies is the choice of venues for the players. Obama plays dollar-ante poker in private settings with his own money. McCain plays in Vegas with big bucks which, arguably, came from his wife. Who knows?
I see nothing wrong with guys, or women for that matter, playing low stakes poker with their friends just for fun. It's just another form or wits and competition. I don't see that the same as a driving urge to gamble, as it appears McCain seems to have.
One more thing to realize about this is that Obama plays a game that is winnable. All you need is the proper skill and patience.
McCain's game is a loser - play long enough and you will always go broke. No matter the camaraderie, the thrills, or whatever - craps is unbeatable in the long term.
You can be a professional poker player, you can never be a professional craps player.
So one candidate is using his head, and the other is playing for a rush (with his wife's money).
What I find interesting is the subtle wording used to further the McCain CW on Obama. Things like "backroom", "self-absorbed", "card counter" all help to further the "elitist Chicago politician" narrative theyve been pushing. Meanwhile, the craps player (by association McCain) is described as a "social animal" "reward(ing) most evryone". i.e. the good guy that wants to cross party lines and help everybody, regardless of party. McCain's base strikes again.
pissed off patricia @ 11:
Agreed, but lobbyists? I wouldn't mind seeing a list of that.
Gambling with national security is an addiction for many of the worst administration ever, no doubt McSame will continue the tradition.
Matt V @ 12:
Just being nitpicky here, but technically all forms of gambling are unwinnable. The odds are always stacked against the player so play any game long enough and you will find yourself losing money. Hence why casino's don't usually go broke (assuming they have a regular clientele or run by a bush)
I don't know how they put their poker games together but I know my husband and his friends would invite anyone they knew who liked to play poker. This was all about one guy against the other and it was a game. It had nothing to do with individual occupations.
The article seems par for the course.... John McCain the "Maverick" navy pilot is a thrill seeker... who likely shoots first then asks questions later and likely operates all the time on gut... sounds a bit like George W Bush....
nothing wrong with that kind of personality... but, you are always taking a chance... the country would be rolling the dice on whether John McCain would be a good decision maker.
Unfortunately, I think the country already rolled the dice on George "I would like to have a beer with" Bush... and it did not work out.... I don't think the country needs to take any more chances....
craps is an idiots game. Putting your money on dice when the odds are stacked against you is just plain stupid.
Poker is a game that you can win.
Well, I think the Republicans have been betting all they want as it's not their money they're using to gamble.
I wonder if all the Christo-facists who are supposedly warming up to McCain would be so supportive if they knew he gambled - those folks (the common ones, not the preachers) usually are dead-set against gambling, as well as drinking (Cindy's beer money). I can't figure out why they would support him with all his "sins" (not to mention his adultery).
I think woody hit it right on: the fact that both major contenders are gambler is disturbing. To think that our next president (Barack or McCain) is a gambler says that our nation is royally fucked.
Uh, I'd actually prefer it if neither of our presidential candidates had a gambling habit.
@16 - In poker you don't play against the house, so if you are the best player at the table you can win long-term, and a few people do well enough to make a living at it. The casino makes a percentage, so it is like a wealth transfer mechanism. Losing player pass money to winning players, and the house gets a small percentage of that. Losing players bust out and are replaced, winning players stay around and make more profits. Read the "The Poker Face of Wall Street" for more information about how poker acts like a market simulation.
You are correct about any game where you play against the house, though - like craps.
Blackjack is a borderline case, where there are things you can do to convert the house's small advantage to a small advantage to you, but it is difficult, and the casinos are pretty tough on those who can do it.
pissed off patricia @ 7:
Yeah, like we've had the last 7.5 years....
A good game of nickle/dime poker amongst friends is more funner'n hell. Even if you lose, you still had fun...
Playing craps...while indeed fun...requires no skill at all...poker...though still a game of chance, does require a good deal of thinking, and actually does good stuff for the ol' noodle.
all hail the hypno toad @ 16:
Maybe in a casino...but evidently Obama played with "associates" outsides the casino's crooked reach. the chances of winning in such an environment might be a little better.
monkfish @ 9:
Yeah....that does kind of seem...unseemly don't it? Still...that's not gonna sway me from voting for Obama...
FDR, Lincoln, John Q Adams, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, and Theodore Roosevelt were all believed to be poker players. Truman even had a set of chips with the presidential seal on them. GWB apparently played a few times in Bill Gates' game at Harvard, but wasn't very good at it, and didn't make much of an impression on the other players.
Matt V @ 24:
Or as my probability professors would say, the only game of chance worth playing is flipping a coin, at least there you have a 50/50 chance of winning or losing. You can have winning streaks, but that just means you haven't played the game long enough, if you could live forever and keep playing, it would approximate the odds calculated.
some voters are born losers, best keep it in your pants
Who cares about the gambling analogy. We know MCain is certifiably a wingnut capable of starting WWIII. Obama is starting to show signs of corporate control. So are either of these guys gonna improve the situation? Forget McCain . Obama might make things slightly better but bottom line is we need deep institutional change NOW.
the deck was stacked the day they forced two corporate dealers down our throuts, !
<Forget McCain . Obama might make things slightly better but bottom line is we need deep institutional change NOW.
The rest of the world is waiting with baited breath hoping that you get it. I watched Obama throughout your Primaries. I think he might just make that systemic and symbolic shift which you so need in your politics. We in Auustralia have just had ours. Although our new PM leaves much to be desired he has moved quite clearly and concisely away from our previous government on many important issues. (The War, Refugees, The Environment)
The difference is showing in people already. Their concerns are widening again. There is less fear of the "other". They are beginning to look outside of themselves and perceive that we live in a global village not an armed encampment.
I hope that happens for you too. Remember that what you do in your elections effects us all.
I have a hard time understanding some of these comments. Obama, as far as I know is not a gambler, gambler per-sa. What do you guys do the get to know other people, in your neighborhood, at work etc. Small stakes poker is a far cry from back room craps that goes on.
Nervous World Citizen @ 32:
The rest of the world is waiting with baited breath hoping that you get it. I watched Obama throughout your Primaries. I think he might just make that systemic and symbolic shift which you so need in your politics. We in Auustralia have just had ours. Although our new PM leaves much to be desired he has moved quite clearly and concisely away from our previous government on many important issues. (The War, Refugees, The Environment)
The difference is showing in people already. Their concerns are widening again. There is less fear of the "other". They are beginning to look outside of themselves and perceive that we live in a global village not an armed encampment.
I hope that happens for you too. Remember that what you do in your elections effects us all.
Wish I could offer you great hope. My biggest concern is shutting down the imperial march that will likely bankrupt us in a few years. I don't think Obama even gets this. Few in government even want to discuss it. We need to pull the plug on the warmongers.
It seems to me that Obama gave up the playing to win thing with his stance on FISA. Is he afraid of becoming President? Is he trying to throw the game?
History confirms running the country requires gambling skills. Obama practices risk management while McCain rehearses the act for his handlers. Money counts with Obama and is a prop for McForGlory.
history confirms that a politician starts runnung for his second term the day he starts his first term, i wouldnt bank on obama being any different , of course keeping a dictatorship going insures the beat goes on , more fisa ,more war , more crooked deals,
Because it's totally unheard of for card players to purposefully lose to someone with whom they want to be in their good graces, like say, the leading candidate for US President.
This article is trivial and stupid.
One thing about McCain I've been thinking about: We have a president now who never accomplished a thing in his life on his own. What has McCain accomplished? I'd like to see a timeline and notations that this was accomplished without the influence of his family, in-laws, etc. What has he accomplished as a legislator? I know McCain-Feingold the the disasterous immigration reform bill (that will allow cheap labor for his corporate pals to stay), but what else? Does he, like John Kerry, have life-long military buddies (our current president doesn't)?
pinochle and bridge , penny a point .
I open with two no trump .
ive always been surprised at this site's noticable silence on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which was snuck into the SAFE Ports Act (after failing two up-or-down votes) during the time between the 2006 election and inaugurations.
Matt V @ 24:
Very true. Having spent a year counting cards for a living, I can tell you that the casinos consider the house advantage a birthright; daring to pay attention to the game makes one persona non grata. You might call playing well against them The Audacity of Winning. The only game versus the house I know of where this is possible is blackjack, and then only in games that have certain rules friendly to the player, and then only through research, practice, and discipline.
And that is to the point. Obama may not hold all the cards (as it were), but at least he is engaging on on level where he has knowledge, skill, and hopefully a little control, in undertaking the effort to win. Even if I disagreed with his policies, I would be forced to appreciate the strategic approach. Son of Cain is simply spending other people's money on a loser's game in order to make people think he's a high roller.
Big difference.
.
Nervous World Citizen @ 33:
How does it go? "John Howard has his head so far up George Bush's arse he can see Tony Blair's heels?" Good stuff. Well done kicking the drongo out. Go the green and gold. (Except in the swimming pool in Beijing this summer.) :o)
I posted on this a month ago. Trust the MSM to take up the meme wihout any credit. My take is that we should be grateful Obama is not a really good poker player like Nixon.
Comments are closed on this entry