Now what do baseball and politics have in common? In both of them organizations that have a lot of money have an inherent advantage over those that do not. A political organization that can outspend its competitors by 2.5 to 1 has an advantage. Likewise a baseball team that can outspend its main competitor by 2.5 to 1 has an advantage.
In 2007 the Boston Red Sox had a payroll of $143,026,214 while the Cleveland Indians had a payroll of 61,673,267, according to a report from KFAN radio. This means that for every dollar Boston spent of payroll Cleveland was spending approximately 43 cents. Unless the team executives spending the money are complete morons, which Boston's are not, this gives Boston a tremendous advantage in assembling a team.
If you look at the report referred to above, you will find that of the four teams that made the 2007 American League playoffs, three of them ranked 1,2,3 in money spent on payrolls. The exception was, of course, the Cleveland Indians. It shouldn't come as any surprise that teams that can go out on the free agency market and purchase good players have an advantage over those that cannot.
Likewise, if you look at the front-runners for the Democratic nomination all three of the leaders have raised more money than the candidates who trail them. Candidates who can go out and purchase advertising time and spend money to build an organization have an advantage over those who cannot.
Given free agency in baseball and the lack of any effective fundraising limits and/or expenditure limits in political campaigns, this state of affairs can be expected to continue.