[LINK] Obama election technology. (It's too quiet.)

Bernard Robertson-Dunn brd at iimetro.com.au
Tue Nov 20 10:42:14 AEDT 2012

On 20/11/2012 9:55 AM, Jim Birch wrote:
> Campaigns, however, even Howard Dean's famous 2004 Internet-enabled run at
> the Democratic nomination, did not hire a bunch of technologists. Though
> they hired a couple, like Clay Johnson, they bought technology from outside
> consultants. For 2012, Slaby wanted to change all that. He wanted dozens of
> engineers in-house, and he got them.
> The real innovation in 2012 is that we had world-class technologists inside
> a campaign," Slaby told me. "The traditional technology stuff inside
> campaigns had not been at the same level." And yet the technologists, no
> matter how good they were, brought a different worldview, set of
> personalities, and expectations."

Having looked at both side's use of technology I've come to the 
conclusion that the difference was not the technology itself but the 
approach to, and the use of, technology.

The Democrats took a longer term view of their systems. They developed 
early, then analysed, tested and adjusted their applications. They made 
mistakes, they discovered things in the data and they modified their 
And they got it right.

The Republicans, on the other hand, "knew" what they were doing was 
right. Their approach was based upon belief, not upon consistency with 
the real world. When it came to turning on their untested applications, 
everything feel in a heap. A bit like their whole campaign and their 
philosophy - they "knew" they were right.
But they got it wrong.

Belief without evidence is a wondrous thing. Unfortunately, reality 
abhors stupidity.

You can always tell a politician from the far right, you just can't tell 
them much.



Bernard Robertson-Dunn
Sydney Australia
email: brd at iimetro.com.au
web:   www.drbrd.com
web:   www.problemsfirst.com

More information about the Link mailing list