I can’t find it now, but I read a study at one point about the diminishing returns of high-payroll baseball teams that decided to spend even more money. It was a convincing case that past a certain point, you were going to get very little bang for your buck, that you wouldn’t really see any more wins for that final splurge or two. I wonder, if this is true, if it applies to politics as well. I know the DNC fears that Mitt Romney will have more money to spend than President Obama (and he most certainly will), but since they’ll both be running “high-payroll teams,” since they’ll both be funded very well, will this disparity really be the difference? It’s not like one will be outspending the other 2 to 1 let alone 10 to 1. I suppose a quarter or a half of a percent can be a big deal in a close election, but I’m curious if everyone is really just fretting about what amounts to overkill.•