This week, the former speechwriter for former Gov. Jim Hodges – and current associate with Qorvis Communications -- Wyeth Ruthven, came up with an analysis of Twitter use in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial campaigns, as well as the special election for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.
No matter your political stripe, it’s possible to take some lessons from what he put together. One main takeaway is to look at everything Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds did, and do the opposite.
According to the analysis, the Deeds campaign had three separate Twitter accounts – one for the candidate (@CreighDeeds), one for attacks on Republican nominee Bob McDonnell and connections with rural voters (@DeedsCountry) and one attacking McDonnell’s thesis and controversy surrounding it (@BobsThesis). Needless to say, doing a three-pronged Twitter strategy is not a good idea.
Ruthven makes the point: “Campaigns should resist the temptation to create a new Twitter account for each issue or micro-campaign that they are running. Multiple accounts breed message dilution. Staff should limit their own tweeting on campaign topics. Recurring issues and themes can be highlighted by creating appropriate hashtags on a unified Twitter feed.”
And while it’s great to hear that Deeds is such a big fan of groups like the Drive-By Truckers and The Band, having your candidate for governor tweet about how he’s listening to the bands while on the road, as opposed to thoughts on topical issues, is not a good idea, either. According to the study, over a three-month period, Deeds tweeted about music 39 times, and talked about his transportation plan – a major issue in Virginia -- once.
As I’ve said before, the Internet is a tool of a wider effort. Scott Brown’s campaign in Massachusetts seemed to understand this. There was a period between the end of the primaries and when the general election campaign began in earnest. Shortly after the primaries, the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, went dark on ads and on Twitter. Brown did not. While continuing his free and paid media blitz, his campaign also kept it up on Twitter. In the first month of the general election campaign, he out-tweeted Coakley by about two-to-one.
It’s worth pointing out here that Brown had 15,827 followers, as opposed to Coakley’s 4,361. He also happened to tweet more unique news, “calls to action,” and “self-promotion.” Again, here’s why Twitter can be an effective tool. A “call to action,” as defined in the analysis, consists of requests for donations, volunteers, voter registration and get-out-the-vote. A campaign isn’t meant to be on Twitter to be your pal, it is supposed to be organizing to win. Brown did that.
If you want your tactics on the Internet to be effective, don’t play around with Twitter like it’s a toy. Sure, it might be fun to think that a few people would like to see the personal side of your candidate, but that isn’t going to convince them to help you stuff envelopes, knock on doors, write letters to the editor or contribute.
