Except the best developers get to choose who they work for, and are 10x more productive (without costing 10x as much).
Here's the thing. Romney had way more money than Obama. He probably could have spent more of it on IT (enough to have a good system) and still outspend Obama 2:1 on other aspects of the campaign. I personally don't think the Democratic advantage on IT is sustainable.
Sure. I'm sure Romney had his pick of libertarian programmers in the valley who wanted low tax rates.
If he had bothered to recruit them, maybe. Instead, he outsourced to a low bidder.
Yeah. I was impressed that the Obama campaign decided to bring staff in house. That'd never been done before.
I think the article is point out though that it's not about the money, the problem for the GOP is that most of the people they need to do the modelling, the statistics, the analysis, would not work for the Republican campaign even if you paid them.
Just because it is most of them doesn't make it all of them. As Piaw pointed out there is a libertarian streak running through the valley too. A Gary Johnson or Ron Paul could have easily recruited some decent talent. But libertarians aren't very happy with the GOP these days.
Obama had more spending money than Romney. Just because he is rich doesn't mean his campaign was.
AgreedRon Paul's electronic campaign would have been amazing if he was the candidate I'm sure, lots of support for him in tech geek circles. But once you side with the anti-science people you're doomed.
Add a comment...