It is one of those oddities of politics and business that one might support legalized gambling but oppose casinos. Here's what I mean: the casinos in Detroit clearly support legalized gambling, but when Indian tribes anywhere in the lower peninsula explore the possibility of opening their own casino, the Detroit casinos get their lobbyists and Detroit's congressional representatives busy to block any attempt. Those Congressmen and congresswomen may say they support casino gaming, but they will also seek to maintain Detroit's advantage in the market.

I would say that a candidate might support land-based casinos but be opposed to internet gaming or off-shore operations due to the inability to regulate their activities and guarantee that winners are actually paid. I could also envision a candidate who is opposed to legalized gambling (as Detroit's former mayor Dennis Archer was) but would be involved in making sure that, once adopted by the voters, the casinos were run in the best public interest - which could include expanding competition or placing limits on the number of casinos.

Thus, if you favor internet casinos, having a pro-gambling politician or a pro-casino representative does not ensure the outcome you're looking for.