Malcolm Gladwell writes a fun story in this week’s New Yorker about successful strategies for underdogs:

David’s victory over Goliath, in the Biblical account, is held to be an anomaly. It was not. Davids win all the time. The political scientist Ivan Arreguín-Toft recently looked at every war fought in the past two hundred years between strong and weak combatants. The Goliaths, he found, won in 71.5 per cent of the cases. That is a remarkable fact.

The piece credibly argues that underdogs can substitute effort for skill by playing within the literal rules rather than social norms, and stretching out the playing field as much as possible rather than attacking the opponent head-on.

Gladwell focuses on basketball and war, but I think you could also apply the theory to explain Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. The key strategy of Obama’s primary campaign was to focus on racking up delegates – rather than actual victories. They ignored the establishment’s and media’s preoccupation with big primaries (where Clinton held natural advantages), and instead focused on small caucuses, where smaller investments could lead to bigger delegate wins. And rather than try to lock up the nomination with a series of quick and early wins (as Clinton tried and failed to do), Obama’s strategy was to stretch out the campaign as long as possible.

The theory is also encouraging for Republicans, many of whom see a long and uphill road back to power against a more powerful and better organized Democratic Party. But as Gladwell reminds us, the only thing standing between underdogs and victory is hard work and innovative thinking.

UPDATE: Taylor Griffin penned a really smart post expanding on my final thought that’s worth the click. (6:12 PM)