Certainly, there's a more logical approach to some of the political problems we face. Can't we just do the math?
Watching 60 Minutes tonight, I could not help but reflect on Bill James, his sabremetrics, the Red Sox, the Patriots, Al Gore and the political problems we face. As an LA resident, it's hard to accept the primacy of the Red Sox and Patriots (at least we have the Lakers!). I knew that Bill Belichek left no stone unturned in terms of getting information on opponents and developing his team's attack. I was surprised to learn that Bill James plays a role in the success of the Red Sox. Is it an accident that two such successful franchises share a home with MIT?
Even Al Gore has done the math when it comes to climate change. People resist it, but his math seems to check out.
Elsewhere in the political arena, we have leaders who on one side are heard to say, "So" and that we may have to have "a hundred years of war in Iraq."
Has our side done the math? Can't we? We know that all the Iraq numbers just don't add up and we surely would urge that based on this the surge has been a colossal flop. Can this be refined? Can we mathematically argue that each day we spend in Iraq only makes things worse? Can our computers be used to save lives and our declining treasury?
On the home front, we have lots of numbers demonstrating that it's over for HRC, but still she wants to fight on. Obama has now taken to saying that she can run as long as she wants (not wanting her to be able to don the poor underdog's mantle). OK, but isn't the math also against Sen. Clinton with regard to funding? Won't she fail to have enough money to be competitive in many of these primaries she wants to continue to contest?
Is Chuck Todd our political Bill James? Can he sort through the rhetoric and tell us the statistical facts?
Should we pay more attention to the numbers?