Speculation about President Joe Biden’s future because the Democratic presidential candidate within the United States appears to be all over the place: on cable television, podcasts, social media and, perhaps unexpectedly, on foreign sports betting web sites.

After the primary 2024 presidential debate, lots of these web sites offered bets on whether Biden would stay within the race.

As a scholar of political communication And Sports mediawe examine how online betting platforms, typically related to sports, influence the US presidential election.

In our study of the 2020 and 2024 elections, we found that betting is greater than only a way for people to play with or take advantage of politics. Betting also highlights certain points of the electoral process and reflects people's understanding of those elections.

And while people take part in these games for various reasons, it’s also true that these bets flatten and simplify vital election issues. Consider a few of the bets offered by a platform before the recent presidential debate: “Will Donald Trump or Joe Biden swear live?” “Will Joe Biden’s age be mentioned during the debate?” and “Will the debate include a question about climate change?”

Betting on Biden

Foreign sports betting sites could also be surprising platforms for politics. Although sports betting has been legalized on the federal level within the United States, American sports betting firms usually are not permitted to supply bets on political events.

However, sportsbooks outside the United States offer bets on who will win a celebration's presidential nomination and which candidate will win the election. These bets also extend to presidential debates, where participants have the chance to predict the colour of a candidate's tie or who shall be the primary to take a sip of water.

These bets are organized in a menu and players can select which bets they need to position and the way much money they need to risk. Each selection is assigned odds that concurrently indicate the payout of a winning bet and its probability. Options marked with a negative sign usually tend to occur and can herald less money. A positive sign signifies that the choice will herald more cash since it is less likely.

For example, foreign sports betting providers corresponding to BetOnline.ag offer bets on whether Biden will resign before the Democratic Party Convention. Each option carries a unique risk and subsequently a unique reward.

These odds change repeatedly, but on July 8, a successful bet that Biden will resign would pay $3 for each dollar wagered – a profit of $2. Every dollar wagered that he is not going to resign would return $1.33, a profit of just $0.33. The site subsequently makes a financial assumption that Biden is more more likely to stay within the race.

The bets offered are based on the political context. During the 2020 US presidential election, a few of the most memorable bets focused on two issues that defined the political moment: the COVID-19 pandemic and widespread discussions about race and racism.

The politics of wearing masks

The first presidential debate of 2020 took place on September twenty ninth within the midst of a world pandemic. US authorities had mandated the wearing of masks in 33 states and on public transport.

Despite the recommendation of his own administration's experts, Trump held large rallies. Biden, however, held virtual meetings or small, socially distanced events attended mainly by journalists. Where Trump made fun of amongst those that wore a mask, Biden argues that that is one in all the “responsibilities of the people as Americans.”

In this context, two web sites invited players to position bets on whether the candidates would seem on stage wearing masks throughout the debate.

The odds that Biden would wear a mask were estimated at 69.2% and the percentages that he wouldn’t were estimated at 36.4%. Trump's odds that he would wear a mask were estimated at 20% and the percentages that he wouldn’t were estimated at 87.5%. The odds don’t add as much as 100% because betting sites set the percentages to maximise profits, no matter what consequence actually occurs.

These odds not only reflected how each candidate talked about and embodied competing views on mask-wearing and public health, but additionally simplified this complex scientific and political issue into two “yes” or “no” answers that might be bet on.

“Proud Boys” and race

Throughout the 2020 presidential campaign, betting web sites were capable of place quite a few bets on how Trump and Biden would speak about race. What they couldn't have predicted, nevertheless, was that the incumbent president would directly address white supremacists throughout the first debate.

When Biden called on Trump to sentence the Proud Boys, a far-right, white supremacist organization, replied: “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 face by.

Typically, sportsbooks have taken advantage of this post-debate exchange. For the second debate, Mybookie.ag asked bettors to think about whether or not Biden would reference a few of Trump's statements. This included betting on whether Biden would say “Proud Boys” – yes: 40.8% – or “racist” – yes: 75%.

The gambling web sites predicted that it was quite likely that Biden would sooner or later address Trump's statements from the sooner debate, but reduced the difficulty as to if Biden would simply mention the Proud Boys and admonish Trump with insults.

The 2024 elections and beyond

Four years later, foreign betting web sites proceed to scale back key political questions – corresponding to whether Biden should stay within the race – to easy, isolated events.

It's perhaps not surprising that sites typically dedicated to sports betting don't cover elections in a nuanced and in-depth manner, nevertheless it's vital to think about where and the way vital national conversations are going down.

While people play for various reasons and with different levels of political engagement, these sites reflect a superficial and polarized view of the present political situation. But that doesn't mean the sites can or should do otherwise.

But it’s price considering whether it is useful for the democratic process to once more portray the US elections as superficial, binary and controversial.

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Democratic and Republican presidential nominees, faced off on a debate stage on Thursday for the primary time since 2020. Because of strict debate rules, they managed to avoid the near-constant interruptions that had marred their previous encounters.

Biden, who spoke in a croaky voice and infrequently struggled to articulate his arguments clearly, once said his administration had “finally defeated Medicare.” Trump, meanwhile, repeated quite a few falsehoods, including that Democrats wanted doctors to give you the chance to abort babies after birth.

Trump took responsibility for the Supreme Court's 2022 decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and returned abortion policy to the states. “That's what everybody wanted,” he said, adding, “It was a great thing.” Biden's response: “It was a terrible thing.”

In a notable moment, Trump said he would revoke FDA approval of medication abortions, which were approved last 12 months in almost two thirds of abortions within the United States. Some conservatives have targeted the FDA's approval of the drug mifepristone, which has existed for greater than 20 years, in an try to further restrict access to abortion nationwide.

“The Supreme Court just approved the abortion pill. And I agree with their decision and I will not block it,” Trump said. The Supreme Court ruled this month that an alliance of anti-abortion medical groups and doctors didn’t have standing to challenge the FDA's approval of the drug. The court's decision, nevertheless, didn’t amount to approval of the drug.

CNN hosted the talk, which didn’t have an audience, at its headquarters in Atlanta. The moderators were CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. The debate format allowed CNN to mute the candidates' microphones when it was not their turn to talk.

Our PolitiFact Partners fact-checked the talk in real time as Biden and Trump clashed over the economy, immigration and abortion, and again returned to the discussion about their ages. Biden is the oldest sitting U.S. president at 81; if Trump defeats him, he would finish his second term at 82.

Biden: “We have lowered the price [of] prescription drugs[s]which is a big problem for many people, to $15 for an insulin syringe instead of $400.”

Half true. Biden touted his efforts to lower prescription drug costs by pointing to the $35 monthly cap on insulin that his administration put in place as part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. But during debate, he initially muddled the number, saying it had been reduced to $15. In his closing argument, Biden corrected the amount to $35.

The price of insulin for Medicare beneficiaries dropped to $35 a month, not $15, starting in 2023. Drug pricing experts told PolitiFact in evaluating a similar claim that most Medicare beneficiaries probably did not pay an average of $400 a month before the changes, although some may have paid that much in a given month because costs vary by coverage phase and dosage.

Trump: “I’m the one who lowered the insulin levels of seniors.”

Mostly flawed. As president, Trump led the Part D Senior Savings Modela program that capped insulin costs at $35 per month for some older Americans in participating drug plans.

But because it was voluntary, only 38% of all Medicare drug plansincluding Medicare Advantage plans, participated in 2022, according to KFF. Trump's plan also covered only one form of each dosage and insulin type.

Biden calls the $35 monthly mandatory insulin cap established in the Inflation Reduction Act a major success. That cap applies to all Medicare prescription plans and will be expanded to all covered insulin types and dosages. While Trump's model was a start, it did not have the far-reaching reach that Biden's mandatory cap achieved.

Biden: Trump “wants to repeal the ACA.”

Half true. In 2016, Trump campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In the White House, Trump supported a failed attempt to do just that. He said repeatedly in campaign appearances and social media posts throughout 2023 that he would repeal the health care law. In March, however, Trump walked back that stance, writing on his Truth Social platform that he was “not running to finish the ACA” but to make it “higher” and “cheaper.” Trump has not said how he would do that. He has often promised Obamacare replacement plans without ever having produced one.

Trump: “The problem [Democrats] They are radical because they take the life of a child in the eighth month, in the ninth month and even after birth.”

False. The intentional killing of a newborn is infanticide and is illegal in all U.S. states.

Most elected Democrats who have spoken publicly on the issue have said they support abortion under the Roe v. Wade standard, which allows abortions up to fetal viability—usually around 24 weeks of pregnancy, when the fetus can survive outside the womb. Many Democrats have also said they support abortions after that point if the attending physician deems it necessary.

Medical experts say situations that result in fetal death in the third trimester are rare — less than 1% of abortions in the U.S. occur after 21 weeks — and typically involve fatal fetal abnormalities or life-threatening emergencies for the pregnant person. For fetuses with a very short life expectancy, doctors may induce labor and provide palliative care. Some families choose this option when faced with diagnoses that limit their babies' survival to minutes or days after birth.

Some Republicans who have made similar claims to Trump point to the Democrats’ support for the Women's Health Protection Act of 2022that would have banned many state restrictions on abortion access, pointing to the law's provisions that say providers and patients have the right to perform and receive abortions without specific restrictions or requirements hindering access. Abortion opponents say the bill, which was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 49 to 51, would have created a loophole in the law that would have eliminated any restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy.

Alina Salganicoff, director of KFF's women's health policy program, said the legislation would have allowed health care providers to perform abortions without obstacles such as wait times, medically unnecessary testing and in-person visits or other restrictions. The bill would have allowed post-viability abortion if, the bill states, “in the great faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuing the pregnancy would pose a risk to the life or health of the pregnant patient.”

Trump: “He's destroying Social Security because thousands and thousands of individuals are flooding into our country they usually're paying into Social Security. They're paying for Medicare and Medicaid.”

Wrong. It is wrong to say that immigration will destroy Social Security. Social Security's financial challenges stem from a shortage of workers relative to those receiving benefits.

Immigration is far from a fiscal panacea for Social Security's problems. But more immigrants in the U.S. would likely increase the ratio of workers to beneficiaries, possibly for decades, thereby extending the program's solvency.

Most immigrants in the United States without legal permission are also no entitlement to social insuranceHowever, people who have entered the United States without authorization and who have been granted temporary residency for more than one year on humanitarian grounds are eligible to receive benefits under this program.

Immigrants without legal residency in the United States are usually not eligible Registered mail in government-funded medical health insurance plans equivalent to Medicare and Medicaid. (Some States offer Medicaid coverage under government-funded programs no matter immigration status. Immigrants are entitled to Medicaid Emergency no matter their legal status.)

©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

politics

PHOENIX (AP) – Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long argued that that is his biggest hurdle Presidential campaign believes that independent candidates cannot win. He checked out it Debates as a singular opportunity to face side by side Joe Biden And Donald Trump in front of an enormous audience.

But to try this first phase of debateHe must secure a spot on the ballot in no less than a dozen more states and improve his ends in statewide polls in a month.

With a famous name and a loyal base, Kennedy has the potential to do higher than any third presidential candidate since Ross Perot within the Nineteen Nineties. Both the Biden and Trump campaigns, fearful that he could play spoilsport, bypassed the non-partisan debate commission and agreed to a schedule that leaves Kennedy with little or no time to qualify for the primary debate.

Kennedy publicly expresses his confidence that he can do it.

“I look forward to holding Presidents Biden and Trump accountable for their record in Atlanta on June 27 to give Americans the debate they deserve,” he wrote on the X platform.

According to CNN, candidates might be invited in the event that they have secured a spot on the ballot in states with no less than 270 Electoral College votes, the minimum needed to win the presidency, and 15 in 4 reliable polls released since March 13 % have achieved The criteria are the identical as those of the Commission on Presidential Debates, the nonpartisan group that has organized debates since 1988, except that the commission's first debate would have taken place in September, which might have given Kennedy more time.

Kennedy doesn’t appear to have met the poll criteria yet, although he has polled at 15% or higher in no less than two polls that meet CNN standards.

The hurdle to ballot access is even tougher.

State officials have confirmed Kennedy's place on the ballot in Delaware, Oklahoma and Utah, which together have just 16 electoral votes. In California, Hawaii and Michigan, minor parties selected Kennedy as their candidate, effectively abandoning existing options, although the states didn’t officially confirm Kennedy's position. Adding them would bring Kennedy's total to 89 electoral votes, even though it's not clear whether his position in those states would meet CNN's criteria.

Kennedy's campaign says he has collected enough signatures in Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas, states with a complete of 112 electoral votes. But either he hasn't submitted the signatures or they haven't yet been certified by the state's election officials.

These states still only have 201 electoral votes.

Independent candidates like Kennedy face a maze of laws that change widely from state to state but generally require tons of or 1000’s of signatures and adherence to strict deadlines.

The patchwork of laws is stuffed with pitfalls. And the Democratic National Committee has pledged to review Kennedy's filings for errors that might keep him off the ballot or no less than tie up money and time for his campaign.

Kennedy, for his part, has resorted to secrecy and artistic tactics in a game of cat-and-mouse to get on the ballot before his critics can thwart him. In California, Delaware and Michigan, Kennedy allied with little-known existing parties and won their nominations. In Hawaii he formed his own political party to nominate him, and in Mississippi and North Carolina he pursued the same strategy.

Elsewhere, he waits to submit signatures until the deadline to offer critics time to comb through them in search of errors. If he were to enter the controversy next month, he would almost actually need to change his strategy and submit the petitions he’s sitting on as quickly as possible.

The signatures have to be submitted in New York by May 28, which might bring Kennedy 28 votes closer if certified on time. He could then attempt to make an all-out push in various states with relatively easy requirements — many require 5,000 or fewer signatures, but they typically don't usher in many electoral votes — or concentrate on larger states like Illinois, which has 19 electoral votes or Florida at 30.

To make matters worse, some states will not be yet accepting applications from potential independent candidates and won’t achieve this before the primary debate.

Kennedy's vice-presidential candidate Nicole Shanahan, who’s divorced from Google co-founder Sergei Brin, has committed $8 million of her personal fortune to ballot access, the campaign announced Thursday, saying her $15 million effort was ” fully funded.”