'Moneyball' Godfather Bill James Tackles Politics In Super PAC Age

'Moneyball' Godfather Bill James Tackles Politics In Super PAC Age is really interesting and long Huffington Post piece.

"A political candidate being dramatically outspent by his opponent has few options. He can pin his hopes on a strong debate performance, dig up dirt on the opposition, or cut a particularly buzz-worthy television ad. Or he can do what other industries, led by Major League Baseball, have done before: worship at the altar of Bill James."

""If you're outspent in a campaign, what you absolutely cannot do is start a pissing contest, pardon my French," James wrote in an email. "If you're outspent and you start talking about your opponent being corrupt and senile, you're in BIG trouble, because he's got a lot more guns than you have." Instead of going negative, he advised, a candidate should do the exact opposite. "Talk about your opponent in the nicest terms that you CAN, in order to take certain weapons away from him," James wrote. "If you're speaking well of your opponent and your opponent is savaging you, there is a chance he comes off looking like an ass and you can win the election." Beyond that, James suggested a candidate run on a platform distinct from either major party (anti-drug war, pro-gay rights). Or a candidate could obsess over an issue completely off the beaten path. As an example, he highlighted deer-related car crashes in his home state of Kansas. "No one talks about people hitting deer with their cars as a political issue, but in Kansas" it could work, he said."

I didn't know that Rick Perry ran a sabermetrics like run for governor that succeeded and then obviously he failed miserably running for president. There are a few back and forth examples and there simply isn't enough data on what works in campaigns to be sure of strategies (either old or new). But I have to agree with the end:

"When people disagree with you, what you ultimately have to do is persuade people to agree with you -- period," he added. "You can't ultimately dodge defeat by winning close elections."

Ed Kilgore disagrees:

"Given partisan polarization, the relatively low number of true “independents” and of true “undecided voters” at the moment, and the relatively even strength of the two parties, the 2012 election may well be the equivalent of a game tied in the eight inning in old Forbes Field at the height of the dead-ball era. It’s a context where a one-run strategy—or in politics, a heavy emphasis on GOTV [Get Out The Vote] and voter mobilization generally—may make perfect sense if the alternative is sacrificing the maximum “base” vote to a high-cost, high-risk effort to persuade a tiny segment of swing voters. And that’s particularly true if the number or “persuadable” swing voters is unusually low—as Alan Abramowitz has shown is the case this year—and the characteristics that “persuadable” swing voters are looking for—a clear message, a “mainstream” agenda, and resistance to the opposition’s extremism—are the same as those necessary to mobilize “the base.”"

Sure, an election every four years (or even two) is very different than a season with 162 games, but I think if every time you try to just eek out a win without persuading some then it gets harder each year. Or for Obama, by eeking out wins on policy positions without persuading those in the middle to move a little bit (or those in the public that are undecided) then you just refight the same battle over and over without gaining any support or ammunition for the next fight.