Democrats’ resounding midterm election victories usher in a new paradigm for American politics. The impact on gambling is less clear.
- Dan Patrick’s Texas loss removes a major obstacle to legal betting, but Democrats remain divided on gambling expansion.
- Nebraska rejected mobile sports betting by 10 points six years after backing casinos and retail sportsbooks by nearly a two-to-one margin.
- Democratic gains in Texas, Georgia, and Minnesota could bring more state scrutiny of prediction markets.
Democratic victories unseated several high-profile Republican opponents of gambling expansion across the country. Their replacements, however, do not guarantee significant policy changes.
With the new Democratic majorities in Congress and an influx of new members in statehouses, here’s what to expect for gambling policy changes in the coming years.
Democrats remain divided on gambling
Gambling policy may be one of the few remaining bipartisan issues in American politics, one that can unite the two parties while splintering them individually.
Conservative and evangelical Republicans have traditionally been among the biggest stumbling blocks for gambling. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who lost his reelection bid, and term-limited South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster were among the high-profile Republican officials who helped block gambling expansion in their states in recent years.
Their departures highlight a changing political landscape in states such as Texas and Ohio, where Democratic governors-elect will replace Republican incumbents. But their replacements may still not warm up to new gambling forms.
Republican gambling opponents have typically cited religious and moral objections, viewing gambling as a vice or even a sin. Many Democrats have also considered gambling a detriment to society, though their concerns have more often centered on problem gambling and the potential exploitation of low-income consumers.
More moderate, business-friendly Republicans have often backed or led gambling expansion efforts over the past decade, particularly the legalization of online U.S. sports betting.
These incoming Democrats, however, may face different political pressures than the business-friendly Republicans.
Democrat Gina Hinojosa, who will replace gambling-skeptical Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, voted against a sports betting bill while she served in the statehouse. Ohio’s Amy Acton, meanwhile, will replace a Republican governor who later expressed regret over approving mobile sports betting. She may face resistance from fellow Democrats over her support for legal iGaming.
And many of these incoming Democratic leaders will still face Republican-controlled legislatures that may be unwilling to work on any legislation that doesn’t have majority support within their caucus.
The departure of religiously conservative politicians who would not support gambling is good news for supporters. But their replacements, for a multitude of other reasons, may still resist significant changes.
Enjoying Covers content? Add us as a preferred source on your Google account
National gambling attitudes may be shifting
Gambling was unlikely to rank among the most important issues for most Americans who voted in the midterms. Still, several election results raise questions about whether public attitudes toward gambling are changing.
Commercial casino gambling expanded significantly in the 1990s, as more states authorized casinos and tribal gaming grew across the country. Over the following three decades, the number of commercial and tribally operated casinos surpassed 1,000. Public opinion polls during that period often showed growing support for casino gambling. The Supreme Court's 2018 decision striking down the federal sports betting prohibition then opened the door for states to legalize wagering, helping launch a multibillion-dollar industry and attract millions of mobile bettors.
That surge may have started a backlash.
Between 2018 and 2023, voters in four states overwhelmingly backed legal sports betting. Lawmakers in more than two dozen other states passed bills to legalize retail or online sports betting during that time.
With a similar ballot-led approach in 2024, Missouri voters only approved sports betting by hundreds of votes among several million cast. That same year, Arkansas voters rejected opening a fourth commercial casino.
And on Tuesday, Nebraska voters rejected statewide mobile sports betting by 10 points. This was more stunning after they approved commercial casinos and in-person sportsbooks by a nearly two-to-one margin six years earlier.
Meanwhile online casino gaming legislation has been limited to eight states, and few statehouses seriously considered any form of gambling expansion during the 2026 legislative season. Ohio this year became the first state to introduce legislation that would repeal legal online sports betting.
The surge in marketing and customer acquisition has brought increased scrutiny from lawmakers and media investigations, along with growing public concern that gambling has expanded too far, too fast. A few votes don’t assure a public sentiment shift. They do raise questions about Americans’ views on gambling, particularly real-money games that can be won or lost from one’s phone.
Prediction markets face less favorable terrain
Though prediction markets insist their products are not a form of gambling, many politicians arguing otherwise are poised to gain greater political power.
The Trump administration has aggressively supported prediction markets, in turn building support from Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and much of the Republican political establishment. The platforms' growth has sparked backlash against both the products and the political party backing them.
Texas and Georgia are among the prominent states where Republican officials have taken a hands-off approach to prediction markets. While roughly 20 states, both politically red and blue, have been involved in legal challenges, Republican-led states have generally tended to follow a less aggressive approach.
This could very well change.
Democrats have won key statewide offices in Texas and Georgia after decades sidelined. Their voters will expect the new leaders to act.
This could be especially consequential in Texas, where Democrat Nathan Johnson won the election to replace outgoing Attorney General Ken Paxton, Trump's endorsed Senate candidate. Texas, the nation's second-most populous state and one of prediction markets' highest-grossing jurisdictions, could become a less welcoming regulatory environment for the platforms.
Along with Texas and Georgia, high-population states including New York, California, and a host of others are set to face increased pressure from attorneys general looking to rein in prediction markets. Strong gains for Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party could embolden a legislature already the first to attempt to ban prediction markets.
Prediction market stakeholders remain confident their platforms are not subject to state gambling laws and believe they have a bright future - even if the Supreme Court rules against the sports event contracts that account for most of their revenue. But the platforms face a less favorable environment at the state level after this year's midterms, as well as an even more uncertain future once their biggest champion leaves the White House following the next election cycle.
