Published: February 23, 2008 11:17 pm            

Gamblers know what pundits don’t

“The stars might lie but the numbers never do.”

— Mary Chapin-Carpenter



Political consultants have an irritating habit. They say that “we” won a particular election, but that “the candidate” lost.

Taking credit for another’s victory and not for defeat seems to prepare consultants for the step. Being a political pundit.

Many consultants make the switch to television punditry. Some don’t cut their previous ties. Commentator Bill Bennett gives “impartial” advice on CNN while giving campaign donations to John McCain.

I don’t want to pick on Bennett. His political ties are easy to trace. Many “independent” observers work both sides of the street.

Giving advice while helping campaigns might explain why pundits are having such a bad year.

With advances in polling and technology, predictions should be accurate. Instead, pundits keep screwing up them up.

According to the Washington based “experts,” Hillary Clinton was going to win Iowa and Obama would breeze to victory in New Hampshire. They were wrong.

Beltway-biased observers ignored Republicans such as McCain and Huckabee. Rudy and Romney were more their type.

The business world has a simpler way to predict outcomes. They see how a company’s stock is performing in the markets.

People buying stocks have an accurate idea of a company’s future and they have their money riding on it.

Now we can have money riding on political campaigns. There are online services that allow you to bet on the outcome.

Although they call it “futures trading,” I call it betting. I grew up around gamblers and futures trading is gambling in its purest form.

No matter what the title, the political campaign futures market is fascinating.

It the best way to gauge the future outcome campaigns. The gamblers have a better record than the pundits do.

I check www.intrade.com on a daily basis. It is a Web site based in Ireland that allows you to wager (buy futures contracts) on political campaigns and a host of other events.

I can see a campaign’s momentum by where the bets are going. It is more accurate than public polls.

Spin, emotion and being a hit at a Washington dinner party are taken out of the process.

I haven’t tried to open an Intrade account. I am afraid to. I won’t buy a lottery ticket or play a slot machine. Those are sucker bets.

Betting on political campaigns is another matter. That is a battle of wits.

I missed a chance for Mike Huckabee to make me rich.

I was on Huckabee last summer, when Washington pundits were laughing him off. I had read his book about how he lost 100 pounds. I saw he could connect with people in a unique way.

While the pundits were touting Rudolph Guiliani, I could have made a fortune on Huckabee. If I bought in the summer and sold after the Huck won in Iowa, I would have made enough to buy a new Total Gym.

In fact, I would have made enough to pay Chuck Norris to come to my house and show me how to use it.

As the campaigns roll forward, I am going to keep watching the futures market. The political pundit “stars” might lie, but the gambling numbers never do.

Don McNay is the author of “Son of a Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What to Do When You Win the Lottery.” You can write to him at don@donmcnay.com or read his award-winning column at www.donmcnay.com.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.