Galloping Through Hypocrisy: What Horse Racing Teaches Us About Politics

Is there perhaps a metaphor for politics to be found on the racetrack? The connection is not at first obvious. Racing is honest and straightforward. Fast horses win. The political landscape, whatever else you want to say about it, is not so simple.

What’s real and what is believed often do not align. Certainly, the best candidate does not always win the race. Yet despite these differences, there are fruitful lessons to be learned by comparing horse racing and political pursuit. The importance of public perception. The value of persistence. The untapped potential of the underdog.

Public Perception Matters A Lot

The difference between what is real and what people think can easily get blurred. We see this, of course, play out in social encounters. Certainly, it is present in the way people vote. But how do thoughts shape events? In racing, public perception influences a lot of the experience.

 For one thing, it plays an enormous role in how the odds are formatted. Yes, bookmakers consider the horse’s physical condition and the animal’s previous performances when they are making their odds. That said, what the public thinks of a horse will often have a big impact on how it is presented in the books.

It’s actually through this that discerning bettors can identify opportunities. Where hype exceeds reality, there is often the chance to spot upset potential and cash in big.

To that end, if you are trying to refine your betting strategy on a platform like Twinspires, you can begin by looking for potential mismatches. Are there clear spots where public sentiment is overly influencing the odds?

You’ll often encounter this early in the season before people have had the chance to see the horse’s performance.

In politics, the way an event is perceived is infinitely more important than what has actually happened. Increasingly, it seems that politicians don’t have to do much of anything—as long as they are willing to say loudly and with assertiveness that they’ve achieved what they set out to do.

This perception-reality gap has widened with modern media. Unfortunately, it is a factor that can create a very frustrating and often stagnant political environment. It’s hard, after all, to promote change in a setting where talk is placed at so much greater a value than action.

As a voter you might consider viewing the question of why a candidate is popular through a critical lens. What is it they are saying that seems to resonate so strongly with the voting body? 

Is this promise that they are making something that can actually be effectively carried out? Here’s the unfortunate thing though: An underrated horse can win a race. An underrated politician probably won’t. When it comes to counting votes there’s no “well they seem like a good person” curve.

Underdog Potential

We see it often in racing. Upsets. Horses that weren’t supposed to win, but do. This, because races are simply hard to forecast. They last, on average, maybe two minutes or so. In that short a time, almost anything can happen.

Upsets are a little less common in politics but they have been happening with greater frequency in recent years. AOC is one example. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated a powerful Democratic incumbent by connecting with voters through grassroots organizing and a message that resonated with her district’s concerns.

Donald Trump is another. Ten years into the Trump era it’s easy to forget that he was a sideshow during the earliest stages of his first campaign. A reality TV star with a habit of making unfiltered statements.

AOC and Trump have next to nothing in common save this–both reflect the power of the underdog. Like an underrated racehorse, they show that even unlikely winners are possible. Their success demonstrates how conventional wisdom can be overturned when conditions are right.

In politics, the current trend seems to be toward candidates with at least the perceived potential to produce change. Voters increasingly respond to those who position themselves outside traditional power structures. In horses, the equation is at least more straightforward. Run fast.

The Limits of Metaphor

Ultimately, weary voters can only wish that politics were as straightforward as racing. At the end of the Kentucky Derby, you might be displeased with the outcome—particularly if you were on the losing side of a bet. 

You can’t—except maybe in the very rare circumstances where cheating is suspected—say that the results were unfair. Certainly, the winner of that race will not send you spiraling into a state of existential dread or lead to fights with your uncle come Thanksgiving.

The same cannot be said of politics. Yes, racing and the political landscape exist in an increasingly comparable landscape of volatility and unpredictability. If that’s a good thing remains to be seen.