Pundit accountability

I absolutely hate the word wonk--I think in part because it is so ill-defined that anyone can adopt it as a moniker without actually meaning anything (to wit, calling Paul Ryan a numbers wonk--which, as far as I can tell, means that he can count... or not).  Nevertheless, I usually appreciate (which is not to say 'agree with') Ezra Klein, author of Wonk Blog over at the Washington Post.  One of his posts yesterday piqued my interest with a title that included the words pundit and accountability.  Holding pundits accountable is important because, in part, we expect the pundits to hold the politicians accountable.  Nevertheless, after reading Klein's post, I was rather disappointed.  The blog post was not at all about accountability, but about gambling.  Many pundits have made predictions in the last days and weeks based on poll numbers (I've already mentioned Nate Silver and Ari Fleischer in previous posts).  I particularly like Nate Silver, not because I agree with him, but because he is a gambler and not a pundit--you know what you are getting with him.  But the suggestion that the pundit's function is to predict (and in some cases wager, viz., Silver and Joe Scarborough) the outcome of an election is not only wrong headed, it lets the pundits off the hook.  If keeping them accountable is simply a matter of winners and losers (the pundits, that is, not the candidates), then I see no place for pundits in the political process at all.  I am reminded of the bar which introduces gambling machines.  Those sorts of bars become sad and dessicated--no longer are they places for social interaction, but instead are where those who no longer have anything to offer society are put out to pasture.