Candidates traditional media and social media presence

Here are the 10 town board candidates ranked according to traditional media and social media presence, with weight given to some non-traditional yardsticks (number of FB followers, and especially increasing number of FB followers over the course of the campaign).  My overall criticism is that no candidate took advantage of any "breaking news" in the past month to state what they would do or how they might approach it.  They all just seemed content to not stand out from any of the other candidates.  None of them took any proactive approach to jumping in with their opinion on, for example, "Here's what I think about workforce housing, and how to speak to those neighborhoods feeling threatened."  Ken Zornes worked a few current topics into his posts, but mostly just to boost clubs he belongs to, or earn brownie points with the voters.  At least two of these candidates claim on Facebook they have been out campaigning door to door.  If so, none of them made it to my neighborhood (even literature left on the doorknob is something).  Last time out, CDIV had the absolute most convincing website, and he and Paul Fishman had buttons and stickers galore, which helped them get close but no cigar.  So does any of this mean anything?  We shall see.

Part campaign, part branding strategy

1.  Art Messal
Website:  Yes, more of a landing page
FB presence:  Yes
Separate FB trustee site:  Yes (endorsements section blank)
Followers/likes: 133/135
Last update:  March 30
Removes negative comments:  Routinely (or detractors self-edit)
Library campaign literature:  Yes
Advertised in either paper:  Not to my knowledge
Letters from supporters in either paper:  Yes, but only one or two
Comment:  Art does this as part of his job, also has an instagram presence.  We'll see if any of the flash earns votes from the critical over-50 bloc.

2.  Michelle Hiland
Website:  Yes, by far the best design of the 10 candidates
FB presence:  Yes
Separate FB trustee site:  Yes (endorsements section blank)
Followers/likes:  72/76
Last update:  March 30
Removes negative comments:  Haven't seen any negative comments
Library campaign literature:  Yes
Advertised in either paper:  Not to my knowledge
Letters from supporters in either paper:  Yes, but only one or two
Comment:  Great visuals, instagram presence, last tweet 2015.  Again, will professional effort and internet savvy translate to votes?

3.  Ken Zornes
Website:  No
FB presence:  Yes
Separate FB trustee site:  Yes (endorsements section present but appears not to have been updated after initial entries)
Followers/likes:  114/119
Last update:  April 2
Removes negative comments:  Haven't seen any negative comments
Library campaign literature:  Yes
Advertised in either paper:  Yes, heavily
Letters from supporters in either paper:  Yes, heavily
Comment:  Runs a campaign the old fashioned way, quietly gathering support from important voting blocs, not saying or doing anything to offend, although some posts reek of brown-nosing.  Will it be enough to stick a landing among the top three?

4.  Carlie Speedlin Bangs
Website:  Yes (Weebly), including blog entries
FB presence:  Yes
Separate FB trustee site:  No
Followers/likes:  NA (# friends kept private)
Last update:  March 28
Removes negative comments:  Haven't seen any negative comments
Library campaign literature:  Yes
Letters from supporters in either paper:  Yes, initially, plus earned the endorsement of an outgoing trustee.
Comment:  Started out with guns blazing and plenty of energy, website blog last updated February 20.

5.  Ward Nelson
Website:  No
FB presence:  Yes
Separate FB trustee site:  Yes (no endorsements section)
Followers/likes:  142/140
Last update:  March 28
Removes negative comment:  No, but says there are more appropriate venues for discussing criticism/concerns
Library campaign literature:  Yes
Advertised in either paper:  Yes
Letters from supporters in either paper:  Yes, and promoted these effectively
Comment:  Spent less money than a first time candidate.  Has done nothing thus far as far as missteps to lose this election.  Not one of my top 3 or even top 5, but you have to acknowledge capability.

6.  Dave Shirk
Website:  No
FB presence:  Yes
Separate FB trustee site:  Yes
Followers/likes:  27/27
Last update:  March 16
Removes negative comments:  Haven't seen any negative comments
Library campaign literature:  No
Advertised in either paper:  Maybe?  If so, not consistently.
Letters from supporters in either paper:  1(?)
Comment:  Appears to have given up active campaigning about two weeks ago.  Should really have had a bigger internet footprint if broadband is indeed one of the major planks in his campaign platform.

7.  Marie Cenac
Website:  No
FB presence:  Yes
Separate FB trustee site:  No
Followers/likes: NA (497 friends)
Last update:  March 30
Removes negative comments:  Haven't seen any negative comments
Library campaign literature:  No
Advertised in either paper:  Yes, although not extensively
Letters from supporters in either paper:  Yes, spaced out enough to be memorable
Comment:  Some "Vote for Marie" signs have appeared on my side of town, but in vary strange locations that won't be seen unless they are part of a treasure hunt

8.  Barbara MacAlpine
Website:  Yes (Weebly)
FB presence:  Yes
Separate FB trustee site:  Yes (no endorsements section)
Followers/likes:  31/31
Last update:  March 22
Removes negative comments:  Haven't seen any negative comments
Library campaign literature:  Yes
Advertised in either newspaper:  Heavily, including online edition
Letters from supporters in either paper:  One or two
Comment:  Tries hard, spends way more than necessary (I'm sure the Trail-Gazette loves her), just needed help/advice early on fixing a sub-optimal website

9.  Robert Holcomb
Website:  No
FB presence:  Yes
Separate FB trustee site:  No
Followers/likes:  NA (# friends kept private)
Last FB post:  February 7
Removes negative comments:  Haven't seen any negative comments
Library campaign literature:  Yes
Advertised in either newspaper:  Yes, barely
Letters from supporters in either paper:  One, from someone who lives out of town [sic]
Comment:  Knows how to run a bare-bones campaign in Estes Park, doing just enough to save money but still get his name out there.  Essentially clueless regarding modern technology, instead relies exclusively on joining clubs and pressing flesh and going after the over-50 vote.

10.  J. Scott Webermeier
Website:  No
FB presence:  Yes
Separate FB trustee site:  No
Followers/likes:  NA (321 friends)
Last FB update:  November 2017
Removes negatives comments:  Haven't seen any negative comments
Library campaign literature:  No
Advertised in either newspaper:  Yes, less than barely
Letters from supporters in either paper:  Perhaps one, at most two
Comment:  If I could jump over #10 and assign #11, it would be a more appropriate ranking.  Scott taking one of the three seats would certainly validate his "who gives a shi*" campaign approach, which involved mostly not doing any campaigning or spending any money or time on advertising or making appearances beyond the bare minimum, appearing bored.  You either take him or leave him, and he's been around long enough, and is familiar enough to most long-timers, to potentially gain their votes without expending any effort.