Texas summary

Negative:  There is very little discussion from the anti-gambling lobby in Texas.  Concerns are voiced about the unknown consequences of legalization but there is little evidence of a concerted "anti" campaign.

Positive:  Likewise there is only minor evidence of a 'pro sports gambling' campaign.  Yet in many senses it already exists, it just needs galvanising.  Texans are clearly interested in sports betting and want the law changed.  They are hopeful that the new President will do just that.  In the main, these are sports fans talking about the need to for change.

Neutral:  There is a fair bit of discussion here about sports betting which doesn't have any sentiment attached.  However, it is worth noting the size of the discussion around sports betting in general.  Conversations involving tips/advertisements/bitcoin, betting/odds/predictions/expert advice provide a sense of normalisation of this subject amongst the population.

Oregan summary

Negative:  This is not an anti-sports betting conversation per se, very few people mention that they would like the status quo to remain the same.  This is more of an informed discussion as to whether a change in the law is possible.  Most are pessimistic citing a legal judgement against New Jersey as proof.  Many mention Republican control of both houses as a key factor in preventing change in the law.

Postive:  Accompanying the general support for change in the law there is also a more cerebral discussion taking place.  People speaking of the positive impact of legalized sports betting such as increased tax revenues and control by state authorities.  This discussion is dominated by sports fans but also clearly morphs into a wider societal discussion where the general view is that legalisation is the common sense option.

Neutral:  As with Texas there is a large proportion of the neutral sentiment dominated by general discussion regarding sports gambling - tips, advice, ads etc.  Clearly, sports gambling is already established as a popular pass time.

Pennsylvania summary

Negative:  Discussions regarding the potential fall out of a change in legislation are influenced by the perceived problems experienced in other countries.  Other negative comments are driven by a pessimism and a view that the law will not change.  A failed legal challenge by the state of New Jersey is often cited as evidence.

Positive:  There are plenty of fans venting that sports betting should be legalized.  What is more interesting is a strongly held view that the argument is shifting in their favor - that the sheer appetite for sports betting is bringing it out of the shadows.  Many cite how different states are challenging the status quo such as Maryland, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and West Virginia.  They are mentioned in discussions as bowing to people pressure and reacting to a change in President to push for a change in legislation - either federally or in allowing states to decide for themselves.

Neutral:  As with Texas and Oregan the online discussion on sports gambling is normal, common and frequent.  It is far from Taboo!

---

At Impact Social we have a strong track record in analysing single issues and delivering in-depth analysis projects across a diverse range of industries, including:  

In the US:

Internet regulation, healthcare, climate change, clean energy, gambling, vaping,

drugs pricing, drug importation, gun reform, trade (NAFTA), senior care, nursing homes, tax reform

In the UK:

Housing, crime, cost of living, insurance, socio-economic groups, the nuclear industry, computer games, entertainment industries, education, retail