At 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Election Day, I checked the sportsbook odds in Las Vegas and via the offshore bookmakers to see the odds as of that moment on the Presidential election. John Kerry was a two-to-one favorite. You can look it up. People who have lived in the sports world as I have, bettors in particular, have a feel for what I am about to say about this: these people are extremely scientific in their assessments. These people understand which information to trust and which indicators to consult in determining where to place a dividing line to influence bets, and they are not in the business of being completely wrong. Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election. And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.
Then it melts away into a KarlRoveBushWarHitlerRumsfeldStalinOil type rant which I need not reproduce here.
So Kerry was a 2-1 favorite, eh? Vegas line? Interesting stuff. Lets take a look.
Before the meat, an appetizer. Lampley had no links in his article. He just says "look it up". Well, Jim, as a blogger, that is supposed to be YOUR JOB. YOU are supposed to provide evidence to back your thesis up. And Vegas does not allow election odds (I just can't get the grammar in the first sentence - did he check the odds in Vegas or consult someone through Vegas to an international site!!??) But I digress.
Here are some odds that I "looked up" from just before election day.
At Tradesports.com, Dublin based, Bush had a 58% chance of winning, Kerry 42%.
At UK Betting the odds were Bush 8/15, Kerry 11/8.
And this article lists many sites - ALL OF WHICH HAD BUSH the odds on favorite.
By the way, the exit polling Lampley mentions was proven to have truly sucked bigtime. Yea Jim, these people sure do "understand which information to trust".
So the whole premise for the article is totally and factually wrong and nothing else he writes makes any sense after I "looked it up". Hmm.
Of course, the bigger picture here is that there are actually people out there like Lampley that still can't get over the fact that John Kerry lost.
In Lampley's defense he may not have even written this terrible article. I have theorized for some time now that most on the Huffington Post are not even writing, rather some lackey writes the garbage and affixes a famous persons name to it. But thanks to Arianna Huffington and all the rest for tons of future blogging material.