Political Moneyball
During Rob Neyer’s conversation with Michael Lewis at Powell’s last year, Lewis lamented the fact that tons of people, especially in business, completely missed the point of his book Moneyball. It wasn’t about finding fat catchers or paying less to get more results. It was about something much more esoteric. It was about understanding your goals and finding the most productive means to achieving them, whether the crowd agreed with you or not.
Much has been made this election cycle about my man Obama and his army of fundraisers. Guys like me who are giving $25/month. “It’s Moneyball!”, they cry. Far from it. In fact, when Obama declared he was giving up matching funds for his campaign, Republicans were quick to point out that something like 70% of Obama’s money came from contributors who’ve given over $250, or some such number. The implication being that he’s getting money from the rich. Well, guess what? Last month I gave my tenth $25 donation to Obama. That puts me in that select group. Am I rich? Ummm…no.
Back to my point. This is what political Moneyball looks like. It’s simple yet powerful. And could change the debate in this country.
[Former tobacco lobbyist Ted] Trimpa cited the example of Barack Obama: an attractive candidate, solid on gay rights, and viscerally exciting to donors. It feels good to write him a check. An analysis of Obama’s 2004 Senate race, which he won by nearly fifty points, had determined that gays contributed more than $500,000. “The temptation is always to swoon for the popular candidate,” Trimpa told me, “but a fraction of that money, directed at the right state and local races, could have flipped a few chambers. ‘Just because he’s cute’ isn’t a strategy.”
Together, Gill and Trimpa decided to eschew national races in favor of state and local ones, which could be influenced in large batches and for much less money. Most antigay measures, they discovered, originate in state legislatures. Operating at that level gave them a chance to “punish the wicked,” as Gill puts it—to snuff out rising politicians who were building their careers on antigay policies, before they could achieve national influence.
See? Way more influence for much less money. And it pays dividends down the road by keeping the righties from gaining any influence and running for higher office. Fascinating.