The Horse Race As a Political Metaphor

A horse race is an open, highly competitive contest between multiple rivals. It is usually conducted in a fair manner, although not always. In some cases, the winner of a horse race may not be the most deserving or capable candidate. Aside from a horse race, the term is also used to describe a tightly contested political contest or a tight election.

The horse race is often viewed as a metaphor for the political process, particularly the close nature of presidential elections in the United States. The presidential campaign of 2016 has been described as a horse race because it was so tightly contested between the Democratic and Republican candidates.

Historically, horse races were a wager between two owners for a prize money purse. A record was kept of each race by a disinterested third party, who came to be known as the keeper of the match book. These keepers consolidated match books from various tracks and eventually began to publish them, with titles such as An Historical List of All Horse-Matches Run (1729).

In recent years, scholars have begun to investigate the impact of a new form of horse race journalism known as probabilistic forecasting. This technique aggregates polling data from various sources to more precisely predict a candidate’s chances of winning, and provides far more conclusive information than traditional opinion polling. However, these methods can have serious drawbacks, such as skewing results and generating inaccurate expectations about a candidate’s chances of victory.

As the sport of horse racing has grown, so too have its controversies. Horse-racing injuries and deaths are common, as are instances of animal cruelty. In the United States, over 20,000 horses are euthanized each year because they cannot be saved. One particularly notorious incident occurred during the Kentucky Derby in 2008, when celebrated filly Eight Belles was euthanized after breaking her front ankles. In response to the growing public outcry, the charity PETA called for Congressional hearings.

Proponents of the horse race leadership selection model argue that overt competition for the top job will encourage internal leaders to pursue the most demanding positions. The board should consider whether the organization’s culture and structure are suitable for this approach, as well as adopt strategies to minimize disruption if the strategy does not work out. In addition, the board should make sure that the organization has a robust succession plan and processes in place to prepare high achievers for more demanding roles. These practices include systematically developing candidates through functional assignments and stretch opportunities, and benchmarking them against external talent to ensure they meet best-in-class standards. The company should also create a culture that rewards employees for their performance, including the ability to advance into challenging roles. Regardless of the method in which a company selects its next CEO, an overt horse race should be seen as a culmination of a robust and effective leadership development process, not as the start. It should be followed by a rigorous talent review to determine the most appropriate successor.