Poll Finds Americans Wary of Political Betting

A growing prediction market industry has attracted attention from investors, media organizations, and political observers, but new polling suggests many Americans remain uneasy about allowing wagers on elections and other political events.

Results from The POLITICO Poll, conducted with research firm Public First, indicate that a significant share of Americans who understand prediction markets draw a distinction between betting on sports and betting on politics. While many respondents support the legality of sports-related event contracts, fewer are comfortable with markets tied to election outcomes, presidential actions, or comments made by public figures.

The survey examined attitudes toward prediction markets such as those operated by Kalshi, Polymarket, and other platforms that allow users to trade contracts based on future events. Researchers surveyed 2,035 U.S. adults online in May, with key findings based on a subgroup of 1,667 respondents who demonstrated some familiarity with the industry.

Election Markets Face Public Resistance

One of the clearest findings involved political betting. According to the poll, 44% of respondents said prediction markets on election outcomes should be illegal, while only 30% supported allowing such activity. Similar skepticism appeared regarding markets based on statements made by public officials. Forty percent of respondents said trading on what figures such as President Donald Trump might say should be prohibited, while 27% favored permitting those markets.

Concerns extend beyond election forecasting. Respondents also expressed reservations about contracts linked to presidential pardons and other political developments. Markets involving wars and terrorist acts drew even stronger opposition, with a majority favoring bans on those types of wagers.

The findings arrive as political prediction markets continue to expand. Since a federal court ruling before the 2024 election cleared the way for regulated election betting in the United States, activity on these platforms has increased substantially. Markets now cover subjects ranging from presidential races and congressional contests to Cabinet positions and legislative outcomes.

Supporters argue that these markets provide useful information by reflecting collective expectations about future events. Longtime prediction market trader Caleb Davies said the approach offers a different perspective than traditional polling and analysis. “It’s not the same as getting a whole bunch of smart people betting money,” he said.

Others remain unconvinced. Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon criticized election wagering, telling POLITICO, “It’s a bad bet for democracy.” He added, “If you allow election betting, you now have very affluent folks who can bet millions of dollars and simultaneously affect the outcome of an election through dark money. … That type of corruption in our elections is deadly.”

Industry Growth Meets Public Skepticism

The survey found limited participation in prediction markets despite their growing visibility. Only 6% of respondents reported placing a prediction-market wager, while 53% said they would not consider doing so.

Interest is strongest among younger adults. Among respondents aged 18 to 24, 12% said they had already used a prediction market, and 30% indicated they would consider doing so. Similar participation levels were reported among those aged 25 to 34.

When asked whether the spread of prediction markets benefits society, only 20% viewed the trend positively. Twenty-eight percent described it as neither positive nor negative, while 32% viewed it negatively. Another 24% said they did not know.

Views on the nature of prediction markets also reveal uncertainty. More than one-third of respondents said these platforms are essentially gambling operations comparable to sportsbooks and casinos. An additional 20% said prediction markets offer gambling products but should receive different treatment than traditional betting businesses. Only a small minority viewed them primarily as financial exchanges rather than gambling platforms.

The survey repeatedly showed large numbers of respondents selecting “don’t know” when asked about regulation, legality, and the role of prediction markets in society. Questions about industry oversight, gambling comparisons, and the legality of specific market categories all generated substantial uncertainty.

Regulation and Market Integrity Remain Key Issues

Respondents also expressed concerns about how prediction markets should be governed. Twenty-eight percent favored federal oversight, while 15% preferred regulation at the state level. Seventeen percent supported industry self-regulation, and 8% said no regulation was necessary.

A third of respondents said authorities should impose stricter limits on who can participate and what types of contracts should be offered. Nineteen percent believed current restrictions are adequate, while 11% favored fewer limitations.

Questions about potential risks produced some of the strongest responses in the survey. The most commonly cited downside was the possibility that markets could be manipulated, selected by 28% of respondents. The same percentage pointed to increased gambling addiction. Another 27% worried about people losing money they could not afford to lose, while 21% highlighted concerns about insider trading.

Those concerns have gained additional attention following a recent case in which the Justice Department and Commodity Futures Trading Commission charged a U.S. soldier with allegedly using confidential information to trade on a market related to the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.

Despite the skepticism reflected in the poll, industry advocates argue that prediction markets still have substantial room for growth. Bloomberg Intelligence analysts recently described politics and public policy contracts as “the greatest opportunity” for platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, estimating that trading volume in those categories could reach $266 billion by 2030.