![\"20110907-091309.jpg\"](\"http:\/\/www.mediarhetoric.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/09\/20110907-091309.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
As you can see, Perry’s campaign team kept Tweeting through the entire debate. Michele Bachman’s team did well, as did an occasional tweet from Ron Paul’s campaign.<\/p>\n
How does Tweeting Help During a Debate<\/strong><\/p>\n First, and foremost, Tweeting during a campaign can help a candidate answer the question for the audience. Sometimes under pressure the candidate is scrambling for words. The team such as Perry’s can help dispel any rumors or misrepresentations by other candidates. Tweeting also allowed the audience to take part in the debate. These comments can really gauge the public opinion in real time. When has THIS ever happened? The American citizen can partake in the debate as well and give our own commentary. Who needs television political pundits when you have the Twitterverse and a hash tag? I hope the candidates are looking over the hashtag #reagandebate.<\/p>\n Here’s a sample of #reagandebate:<\/p>\n Remember when audience opinion during a Presidential debate consisted of yelling at our televisions? \u00a0Tonight was different. \u00a0I was sitting in front of the television with my iPad on my lap tweeting and engaging with others about the debate. Never has politics felt so satisfying to watch. I could discuss with reporters, with the candidates, and with others watching. A candidate’s campaign team needs to do the same while the debate is on. \u00a0The campaign should be engaging the audience. A social media team is a necessity. Retweet positive tweets and tweet to help dispel poor remarks and opponent remarks.<\/p>\n Newt Gingrich had some really great points. He wasn’t trying too hard–well, that’s what I liked about it at least. In fact, I think he was vying for a Vice President position tonight. BUT, his campaign should be tweeting for him to reiterate his important talking points. Also, what about Jon Huntsman’s team. I saw absolutely no tweets from his campaign, especially when he should be vying for a front runner spot. \u00a0I did see some Facebook activity for Huntsman, but Facebook is not going to be shared with as many people. I do believe both are necessary, but I believe Twitter holds more reach for a message. Truthfully, I think Huntsman is where Newt is–vying for a Vice President position.<\/p>\n As for who won, I’m going to leave that up to the news media. Depending if the program slants more conservative or more liberal, all opinions on who won will be different. \u00a0I do know that Mitt Romney and Rick Perry were both center stage and received plenty of air time. Speaking of Romney, \u00a0I did not see one Mitt Romney tweet during the debate. I did notice some Facebook activity.<\/p>\n It’s still up in the air to see if social media activity during a debate helps or hurts a candidate. I know I would have enjoyed more tweets from the candidates. It was nice to occasionally look at links from @PerryTruthTeam.<\/p>\n Campaign Web sites: Perry vs. Romney<\/strong><\/p>\n As for Campaign Web sites, I took a look at both Perry’s and Romney’s campaign. I am calling a winner for tonight’s social media debate, which is Rick Perry. I was surprised to see the Twitter feed on the front page of his web site tonight and Romney, well, he didn’t publicize the debate well at all. I call Rick Perry the winner of taking advantage of the social media rhetorical situation.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a>