Great article on the use of technology in the Brown campaign - that is really worth reading

[karynnj]

He really did use the same types of outreach that Obama did (and dean and Kerry before him) even in the very short primary/general election campaign. It is also clear that things like Twitter actually did help with networking. It was interesting to read of their use of Google ads near their many headquarters to get volunteers to do GOTV - while we were all reading that they were paying people to do this - and that Coakley would have the Democratic GOTV.

Reading this versus a candidate who didn't poll and really did not seem to like to campaign, it is clear that people taking this as an indication of a shift to the right are wrong. The contrast is pretty stunning, but it might have been there even against a Democrat who campaign at a more typical rate, but who did not campaign as if he/she could lose.

What it likely suggests is that we are moving ever more towards people wanting a candidate to personally communicate to them in a way that requires them to do nothing or very little. This likely WILL catch incumbents, who think what they did in the past is adequate IF they face candidates who can project a nice personality and who aggressively reach out to say they are with them. (This would not have let him win versus a Kerry or Kennedy, but both of them really did reach out to people.)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/02/05/urnidgns852573C400693880002576C1007132D3.DTL

[Mass]

1. I would be wary to hold conclusions from this very special election.

Certainly, Brown used technology a lot, so much in fact that my 17 year old son was fed up seeing Scott Brown's ads on his computer when he was playing games on line. Too much may be too much.

But these technological tools are only useful if you have something to sell, and Brown, sadly, had something to sell, partly because of the candidate, partly because of the party, both national and local. A nice personality is not enough. You need a message, and a message that understands what people want. I sat there in front of my TV wondering who were the idiots who insisted campaigning for universal healthcare in MA? Certainly, technology can help people run, but I think that sometimes, some people make too much of it (I thought the same thing of Dean's campaign -- useful but not enough -- and Obama's --useful, but it would not have been enough--).

Also, trying to get conclusions from the Brown-Coakley campaign, as sfgate does, is ignoring one important fact: one candidate campaigned, the other did not. He would probably have won just campaigning on the ground, because she assumed she was the incumbent, which she was not, and she did not benefit of any of the advantages of incumbency (pork, seniority), while she had all the disadvantages of a member of the party in power in MA. Lastly, the campaign was a little more than one month. And, finally, Brown ran in the primary virtually unopposed, and was able to run for the general since September.

So, I am always doubtful when I read articles about how technology is useful. Certainly it is useful, but it is hardly what made the difference here. And not that many people except young people twitter.

Interestingly, it may be worthwhile noting that Brown invested a lot in direct mail as well and did not rely on tech messages. So, if the message of this article is that a candidate need to communicate, it seems fairly obvious, if the message is that technology can be useful, sure, but honestly, the article is overkill.

[karynnj]

2. Great points - and I concede

especially on needing a message to communicate and needing to campaign.