New Statesman: Racing card - gambling on the U.S. election

The Bet: Who will be voted US president in 2004?

Hillary Clinton

(Source William Hill)

Whoever is eventually declared the winner of the race to the White House, money is already pouring in for the next president. Hillary Clinton, who had a spectacular win for the Senate in New York, was quoted at 50-1 before her result was announced. These odds were immediately slashed to 12-1; then, after a big-money bet, they fell to 5-1. No money has been placed on any other serious candidate, so Hillary is out there on her own.

Despite this, the bookies are offering odds on which party will hold the presidency in 2004. The Republicans are favourite at 8-11, with the Democrats evens. Tiger Woods has seen his odds cut from 1000-1 to 250-1, despite no one being sure where his political affiliations lie. He actually cast his postal vote in Florida, because he was too busy playing golf to vote in person.

Millions of pounds were wagered on this year's race. Most of this money came from the US, where betting on the race is illegal. I used to think this was a bonkers law -- especially now that you can bet on the internet -- but given the events following the close of the ballot, it makes a lot of sense. The room for fraud in the US seems frightening, and can you imagine the scope for corruption if big money were regularly staked on elections there.

I think I have lost the money I put on Gore to win, although I can claim a moral victory because Gore did win more votes than Bush. The bookies don't care who eventually wins, as they will win either way. Although Gore was favourite for most of the year, the closing prices were Bush 1-2 and Gore 6-4. Given the interest this time, the bookies promise lots more "fun" bets next time around. Good news for me.