While the campaign of Attorney General Martha Coakley used Twitter (and actually posted more Tweets), they were far less likely to be interactive. Instead, Twitter was used to promote press releases and media hits. Brown, on the other hand, used replies and other tools to actually engage voters online. It led to far more Twitter followers and far more voters who felt they were being engaged in conversation vs. being talked at. The campaign’s Twitter following was also key to spreading the buzz of the campaign nationally.

Notice that the losing campaign relied on canned non-interactive partisan content. In this old-fashioned approach, voters are folks to be talked AT, not conversed with. Maybe Scott Brown was far enough behind and running a small enough operation that they were willing to undertake an approach that would sound risky to a frontrunner.

The lesson to me is that the internet offers politicians the kind of real-time feedback loop that delivering speeches doesn’t. Coakley never honed a solid simple core message because she stayed inside the echo chamber.

Brown did hone a simple effective message. How? Real-time feedback. Smart politicians should take heed from this bit.

And the revelatory captcha? “the chicest”

I appreciate why you’re doing this, since this isn’t your main effort and all. But how about for your next few round-up posts you try this:

1. Write them in the same style as you have been doing.
2. Then when you re-read the post for sense, pick the one that you think is the strongest and most interesting, and break that out into a separate post.

Basically, the more you build your reputation (or brand) with regulars, the more click-throughs you’ll get. Interesting posts that lead to a conversation are a good way to build your brand, if radical democrats can stomach evil marketing jargon. LOL.

My $.02 is that the bit above about the 2 warring independent NY groups sounds most intriguing.