-
Website
http://capitolfax.com/ -
Original page
http://capitolfax.com/2006/07/11/um-phil/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
wordslinger
96 comments · 42 points
-
Rich Miller
147 comments · 56 points
-
LoopLady
16 comments · 6 points
-
theoriginallynns
16 comments · 2 points
-
dupage dan
28 comments · 2 points
-
-
Popular Threads
He will still win by 20.
But still, its very bad.
Everyone has to start somewhere
Guess they are too busy winning elections.
Noticed the TomCross&TheSockPuppets blog got out last week.
And they were once the big heroes.
Way to keep up the tradition Phil
Zinga wins by a hare!!!
I saw last night that facebook and myspace are going to allow politicians to have sites and then users can add them as friends. that can result in lots of exposure. I heard on the radio this morning that myspace recently passed both yahoo and google in the number of pageloads.
For an example of how the web and bloggers influence races, just look at how that Kos guy has spurred the Lieberman challenge in Connecticut.
People that think the web can't help a campaign have failed to utilize it properly.
The first thing people will do when they hear the name of a candidate is punch them into google and look at their site. If their site looks bad, it will negatively reflect on that candidate. Guaranteed.
http://www.cookcountydems.com/
Under "events" the only listing is a November 2005 Madigan event.
Of course, if your name is not Stroger, Hynes, Lipinski, Beavers, or Daley, then the party does not have much use for you anyway.
This race is all about cash. Phil must be spending all of his money advertising and fundraising (in no particular order) because he has four major media markets to worry about: Quads, Quincy, St. Louis and Springfield/Decatur. One week on St. Louis TV will kill him if he's running low on cash. But hiring inexperienced people who don't know how to bargain with the DCCC and Minority Leader Pelosi and Minority Whip Hoyer is not a smart move for a guy who's running against a candidate who has the support of the RNC and the NRCC. This is a golden opportunity for the GOP to pick up a long-awaited open seat.
statehouse shark: Phil should be busy raising money, but he's not the one doing the site. Someone else should be busy doing that.
Robbie: never work for free. It's never worth it. I promise. But you are right, if he's paying someone, whatever he is paying is too much for the product.
Skeeter: Winning by 20 and winning by doing things well are different. Don't be so pragmatic.
Scott: Thanks for letting us in on the secret, but refer to my first point.
Doubtful: Flash-powered? Hmmm ... there is ONE small piece of Flash on the home page of Andrea's site. Do you see Flash anywhere else? That's like saying your car is washer-fluid driven. Incorporating some Flash into a site is not a big deal, although I do agree that truly Flash-driven sites are annoying.
Craig: He's been in this thing long enough to have more online than he does right now. Although I agree it's a start ... I would have started elsewhere. I mean the blue text in the small boxes can hardly even be read over the striped background. Just poor design work. Period.
Real Illinoisan: You may be partly correct. A website is a small piece of the campaign puzzle. But the importance is growing and will be. And it's the same as I feel about signage at churches, stores, and the like ... it's often the first impression I get of someone or something, and there's something to be said for having an excellent first impression ... or at least a good one ... or at the very least not a horrible one.
And finally ... one of the uses for a site should be to help build support in terms of people and cash. WHile at least his site offers that ... once you click on one of those links there is no navigation back to the site ... errr ... I mean the "page". That's called an "orphan page" ... Website Design 101 from 1997.
Back to Rich's point ... which has been mine as well. Those who want this guy to win better hope he does EVERYTHING else better than his website. If the website is any indication, I'd get out while the getting's good.
statehouse shark: Phil should be busy raising money, but he's not the one doing the site. Someone else should be busy doing that.
Robbie: never work for free. It's never worth it. I promise. But you are right, if he's paying someone, whatever he is paying is too much for the product.
Skeeter: Winning by 20 and winning by doing things well are different. Don't be so pragmatic.
Scott: Thanks for letting us in on the secret, but refer to my first point.
Doubtful: Flash-powered? Hmmm ... there is ONE small piece of Flash on the home page of Andrea's site. Do you see Flash anywhere else? That's like saying your car is washer-fluid driven. Incorporating some Flash into a site is not a big deal, although I do agree that truly Flash-driven sites are annoying.
Craig: He's been in this thing long enough to have more online than he does right now. Although I agree it's a start ... I would have started elsewhere. I mean the blue text in the small boxes can hardly even be read over the striped background. Just poor design work. Period.
Real Illinoisan: You may be partly correct. A website is a small piece of the campaign puzzle. But the importance is growing and will be. And it's the same as I feel about signage at churches, stores, and the like ... it's often the first impression I get of someone or something, and there's something to be said for having an excellent first impression ... or at least a good one ... or at the very least not a horrible one.
And finally ... one of the uses for a site should be to help build support in terms of people and cash. WHile at least his site offers that ... once you click on one of those links there is no navigation back to the site ... errr ... I mean the "page". That's called an "orphan page" ... Website Design 101 from 1997.
Back to Rich's point ... which has been mine as well. Those who want this guy to win better hope he does EVERYTHING else better than his website. If the website is any indication, I'd get out while the getting's good.
I did notice that their web person put up an UNDER CONSTRUCTION note now ... but it says "Subscribe for Updates when we Launch our Site" ... to me that means when they launch the site you can then subscribe for updates, but I think they met you can sign up for updates to be notified of the site's launch. Oh well ... you can't ask for too much I guess.