In the United States, the outcome of the presidential election, which will be decided on Nov. 5, is expressed primarily by people voting. In Great Britain and other jurisdictions around the world, it is expressed by people betting.
Considering that, in line with previous years’ numbers, billions are expected to be wagered on America’s presidential campaign outcomes. In the UK alone, the money generated by the event is massive and anticipated to be in the nine figures.
Stateside, however, betting on the upcoming election is only gray-area legal and fairly tepid: less than $1 million in wagers from American punters on two different exchanges.
The action is considerably more robust on at least one crypto gaming site that already has in excess of $1.2 billion staked on Donald Trump vs. Kamala Harris. And the wagering is expected to amp up significantly as Election Day approaches.
But there is no need to go too far out of your way if you happen to be in the right place.
Inside the Odds
At the time of this writing, on Oct. 19, the oddsmaking wizards working for 888 have Trump at 8/13 and Harris at 11/8. This makes Trump the favorite to win right now. Bet $130 on Trump and you will take down $80 if he comes in. Wager $80 on Harris and you will win $110 if she snags the election.
As far as the gamblers and the bookies are concerned, Trump is the favorite to win and those who bet on him to do so give up a premium for the privilege. Harris, as a longshot, will pay off more handsomely.
While this is fun for most of us and profitable for sharp gamblers, it is also meaningful for those who have a non-monetary interest in the election. Election odds, derived from gambling, are great predictors of actual outcomes.
The US presidential candidate who was favored by oddsmakers has lost only twice since 1866. Once was in 1948 and the second time was in 2016 when Hillary Clinton pooched it against Donald Trump.
So, that last bit might be comforting to people who oppose Trump as the leader of the United States.
Looking Ahead
The 2016 outcome provides recent proof that the odds do not always pan out. Such was the case, to a wild degree, outside of politics, when the heavily favored Mike Tyson lost a fight to Buster Douglas. Douglas was a 42/1 underdog and his 10th round knockout of Tyson cost the bookies a bundle. A similar outcome could happen with the presidential election.
It’s also worth noting that, heading toward the November showdown, election polls in America show what is pretty much a neck-and-neck race.
Not so in the world where people put their money where their mouths are. On the top crypto site, Trump has a 60% chance of winning and where it is legal for Americans to wager on the election, Trump trades at 56%.
That said, when it comes to voting, it’s one ballot per person. Where wagering is concerned, a whale with strong convictions and deep pockets can swing the odds one way or the other. But anyone who dares to discount the wagering side of things does so at his peril.
Bloomberg News, a major disseminator of business information in the United States, displays the gambling market right alongside the polling numbers in showing who is likeliest to make it as President of the United States.
While there are plenty of Americans who like to bet on elections, there are also those who take issue with people wagering on political outcomes. The general concern is that they’re turning something serious into the equivalent of a sporting event and possibly influencing the way that people vote.
Elon Musk does not count himself among the naysayers. In fact, he recently crowed on his social media site X, “Trump now leading Kamala by 3% in betting markets [a number that has expanded since his post]. More accurate than polls, as actual money is on the line.”
All of us who follow and participate in the betting world – whether it’s wagering on blackjack or pushing money through slot machines – would likely agree with Musk’s sentiment. But the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates the trading of commodities on Wall Street, has expressed a different view.
The commission has described election betting as “contrary to the public interest.” It also maintained that making bets on elections “essentially reduce key facets of the democratic process to a source of revenue for some, fascination and entertainment for others.”
Those of us who enjoy gambling and advocate it – including me – might yawn and wonder what is wrong with betting for profit, fascination and entertainment. Isn’t that why we do it?
Besides, election wagering has a venerable history that should be embraced rather than scoffed at.
History Lesson
Between 1868 and 1940, betting on presidential elections was common and organized if not exactly legal. Half the election betting in the United States took place in New York City. It started in pool rooms and taverns, out of which bookies operated. But by the 1880s, it was pretty much run by a predecessor to the American Stock Exchange and the amount in action on the election sometimes eclipsed that in the stock market.
Brokers shouted out betting odds as if they were on a trading floor, offering bids that others would take. The betting died down as a way of predicting elections when more official polling came into vogue during the 1940s.
Before then, however, the New York Times, ran a story stating in 1924 that Wall Street’s betting odds are never wrong. The article also made clear that sharp bettors do not let sentiment get in the way of a strong wager. I am with the golden-age gamblers on that one. I feel that there is nothing wrong with favoring one side for money and the other for politics.
Personally, I’d bet on Trump to win while voting for Harris. It’s like gambling against the Dallas Cowboys even as you root them on because you are a fan. Some people are all heart, others are all wallet, some of us are both. I fall into the latter category, with a vote to cast and money to bet. On the upside, no matter what happens with the election, at least I will have one positive result.
