Speculation about President Joe Biden’s future as the Democratic nominee for U.S. president is seemingly everywhere: cable television, podcasts, social media, and – perhaps unexpectedly – overseas sports betting websites.
After the first 2024 presidential debate, many of these websites offered wagers about whether Biden would stay in the race.
As scholars of political communication and sports media, we study how online betting platforms usually associated with sports frame U.S. presidential elections.
In our study of the 2020 and 2024 elections, we have found that the bets are more than just ways for people to play with or profit from politics. The bets also highlight distinct aspects of the electoral process and reflect people’s understanding of those elections.
And while people engage with these games for different reasons, it’s also the case that these bets flatten and simplify important electoral issues. Consider some of the bets offered by one platform before the recent presidential debate: “Will Donald Trump or Joe Biden curse on air?” “Will Joe Biden’s age be mentioned during the debate?” and “Will the debate include a question about climate change?”
Betting on Biden
Overseas sports betting websites might be surprising platforms for politics. Though betting on sports has been federally legalized in the U.S., American sports betting companies are not permitted to offer bets on political events.
However, sports betting companies housed outside of American borders offer wagers on who will clinch a party’s presidential nomination and which candidate will win the election. These bets also extend to presidential debates, affording participants the option to predict a candidate’s tie color or who will be the first to take a drink of water.
These bets are organized into a menu and gamblers can choose which bets to wager on and how much money to risk. Each selection is assigned odds, which simultaneously communicate the payout of a winning bet and its probability. Options marked with a negative sign are more likely to occur and earn less money. A positive sign denotes the selection will collect more money because it is less likely to occur.
For instance, overseas sports betting companies like BetOnline.ag are offering bets on whether Biden will step aside before the Democratic National Convention. Each option carries different risk and therefore profit.
These odds change regularly, but on July 8, a winning bet that Biden will withdraw would pay out $3 for every $1 wagered – a win of $2. Every $1 bet that he won’t step aside would deliver $1.33, a win of just $0.33. The website, therefore, has taken a financial stance that Biden is more likely to stay in the race.
The bets offered are based on the political context. During the 2020 U.S. presidential election, some of the most memorable wagers focused on two issues that defined the political moment: the COVID-19 pandemic and widespread conversations about race and racism.
The politics of mask-wearing
The first 2020 presidential debate took place on Sept. 29 and in the midst of a global pandemic. U.S. officials had mandated the use of masks in 33 states and on public transportation.
Despite the advice of his own adminstration’s experts, Trump held large rallies. In contrast, Biden hosted virtual meetings or small, socially distanced events comprising mostly journalists. Where Trump poked fun at those who wore a mask, Biden argued that doing so was part of people’s “responsibilities as an American.”
It was in this context that two sites asked bettors to place wagers on whether the candidates would appear in masks onstage at the debate.
One put the chances that Biden would wear a mask at 69.2% and that he wouldn’t at 36.4%. Trump’s odds were set at 20% that he would and 87.5% that he wouldn’t. The probabilities don’t add up to 100% because the betting sites set odds to maximize profit regardless of which outcome actually happens.
These odds not only reflected how each candidate spoke about and embodied competing attitudes toward mask-wearing and public health, but also simplified what is a complex scientific and political issue down to two “yes” or “no” propositions to be wagered on.
‘Proud Boys’ and race
Throughout the 2020 presidential campaign, betting websites featured numerous wagers predicting how Trump and Biden would talk about race. What they could not have predicted was that the sitting president would directly address white supremacists during the first debate.
When Biden asked Trump to denounce the Proud Boys, a far-right white supremacist organization, Trump responded: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.” Instead of condemning the group, the president effectively told the Proud Boys – and other white supremacist organizations – to be at the ready.
True to form, sports betting companies capitalized on this exchange post-debate. For the second debate, Mybookie.ag asked bettors to consider whether or not Biden would refer to some of Trump’s statements. These included wagers over whether Biden would say “Proud Boys” – Yes: 40.8% – or “racist” – Yes: 75%.
The gambling websites predicted it was fairly likely that Biden would address Trump’s statements from the earlier debate at some point but reduced the topic to the question of whether Biden would simply mention the Proud Boys and admonish Trump with name-calling.
The 2024 election and beyond
Four years later, overseas betting websites continue to distill important political issues – like whether Biden should remain in the race – down to simple and discrete events.
It is perhaps unsurprising that websites usually dedicated to sports betting don’t treat elections with nuance or depth. It is, however, important to consider where and how essential national conversations are being held.
Even though people may gamble for different reasons and with different levels of political engagement, these sites reflect a flattened and polar way of understanding the contemporary political moment. That’s not to say that the websites can or should do otherwise.
But it is worth reflecting on whether it is helpful to the democratic process to have yet another representation of U.S. elections as superficial, binary and contentious.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
