Frankly, I don't know if that makes it better or worse.  I think it certainly makes him more likely to win.

And no, so sorry, but I don't have a Twitter handle. Quite honestly, I've got enough on my plate right now. In fact, I hardly ever read Twitter, and then only if someone forwards to me a particular thread.

The only way I even knew about BTD's activities on Twitter was when Jeralyn posted a link to it the other day. I read some of his thread, but I soon got tired of wading through all the snark, sniper fire, taunts and insults. It's like an online pie fight, and if you're not logged in, you can't participate. And what sort of fun is a vicarious pie fight?

So, from what admittedly little I've seen, Twitter appears quite conducive to those persons who are partial to flamethrowing, rather than engaging in actual debate. In other words, it's absolutely perfect for the DNC / RNC / Beltway media crowd, and anyone else who likes to fling poo.

I'm fully cognizant of the fact that a lot of people use Twitter and follow its various feeds and threads, and it's certainly an easy and convenient way to post a link to an article or blog post, especially if you're on the go and using your iPhone and other mobile devices.

Personally, I eschew the internet when I'm out of the office or away from home. My elder daughter, who's in IT, calls me a dinosaur, which I admit hurts a little -- but yeah, I plead guilty to being "old-fashioned." I only started texting a couple of years ago, and grudgingly at that. I use my cellphone for calls, email and text. That's it.

Even Facebook, I've really no patience personally for it. And heaven forbid if ever I did develop an affinity for Twitter, because the quick repartee and putdowns are such that I'd likely log on and then never leave -- "Huh? 'HRC emails?' U moron, go sell R/W crazy someplace else!"

In a political campaign, my especialité has long been district / precinct organizing for GOTV (Get Out the Vote) efforts, which basically involves a lot of grunt work - phone banking, community meetings, neighborhood canvassing, etc. So I'll leave the Twitter and SnapChat and other social media, etc., for others to engage younger voters.

But you're generally not going to reach most older adults that way, and those tend to be the most reliable voters. And further, having and maintaining a good ground game can go a long way to negate whatever advantages an opposing campaign might have in money, media advertising, and internet.

If I can identify a given swing district and get canvassing teams to cover it door-to-door three times, we're highly likely to carry that district in the ensuing election. If it's a high-rise community such as Waikiki -- even though it's a tourist / hotel district, it does have 40,000 permanent residents -- which precludes direct door-to-door, we'll do targeted mailings, run phone banks and host community events.

So yeah, it's old-fashioned, but it also works. Never, ever underestimate the power of the ground game and personal contact in a campaign. People do tend to appreciate the effort, and it pays off in lots of votes.