As in a lot of businesses, playing a hunch sometimes helps in journalism. This summer, I had a hunch that gas prices would follow a pattern they showed in election year 2006.

I thought, "I'll bet, 4-to-5, that gas is at $3.30 by Election Day."

Sure enough, the 2006 pattern holds.

Another lucky thing about journalism is, if I want to make a grandiose wager and effectively "bet" a lot of people that something will happen that's at first glance improbable, I can sometimes do it, even though I only rarely will write a column.

That is, I had the ability to put my gas-price hunch-bet in print, in an "analysis"-type piece on the front page, above the fold, in the Aug. 6 issue of the Folsom Telegraph. The headline was, "Gas prices to plummet?"

The idea was that this election year, as they did in 2006, gas prices would spike to a record high in early August as campaigns swung into high gear -- then, as time lapsed toward Election Day in November, they would begin to drop, drop in earnest and then keep dropping. In 2006, the high was $3.03 a gallon, followed by a drop by Election Day of around 23 percent, to $2.20 a gallon.

The same thing has happened in election year 2008, as well -- right on the money -- a drop from $4.50 so far to $3.39, 20 percent with only 9 cents to go before Election Day, for a perfectly matching drop of 23 percent.

In 2006, in addition to a crucial Congressional election where everyone knew control of Congress stood a chance of shifting, there was state Prop. 87, which would have taxed each barrel of oil drilled in California to fund alternative-energy research projects. The proposition was soundly ahead with voters in early summer 2006, but as Big Oil put out “mis-information” about Prop. 87 -- guaranteeing that the pump-price drop would disappear if 87 won -- the lead disappeared. With prices steadily falling as Election Day approached, voters defeated Prop. 87.

This year, firm control of Congress has a chance to go to the Democrats. I stand by my prediction -- $3.30 gas by Election Day, with an upward spike (that's right, just like 2006) shortly to follow.

The August analysis piece drew a letter from accountant Terry Ann Crumpley of Rescue who said, "No analysis whatsoever" was in my piece. What she meant was, no analysis of the kind that she, or her friends, would have done was in the piece. Many, many Americans still cling to a quasi-religious doctrine of "supply-and-demand." Ideology and doctrine is all that it is, I suggest. Crumpley asserts it's impossible for the gasoline market to be manipulated. I believe recent events around several "markets," each of them proven to have been manipulated, show she's wrong. If you know Crumpley, I invite you to tell her I said so. Effectively, and courageously enough to be sure, she took my bet, so, as one gambler to another, "Read-'em-and-weep," Terry Ann.

Roger Phelps is a reporter for The Telegraph. He may be reached at rogerp@goldcountrymedia.com or leave a comment.