Skip to main content

Presidential hopefuls love WordPress

WordPressAs you may know, we love WordPress and use it for the core of every site we build. We have our reasons for using it, but I thought it’d be interesting to take a look at the websites for some of the presidential hopefuls from both parties to see what technologies were behind them. We looked at 17 Republican candidates and five Democratic candidates (all listed at the bottom of this post). Of the 22 websites we looked at, 12 were using WordPress — 55%! Of the remaining 10, no single platform was used by more than one candidate.

(side note: I was unable to determine the software behind some of the sites. See the table below and leave a comment if you can help fill in some holes.)

Of those that are on WordPress, only three were running the latest version (4.3), but the rest were either on 4.2.4 or else had the version number well-hidden.

The websites are remarkably similar — all are mobile responsive, and all feature a huge hero image (or background video) on the home page, with an immediate call-to-action to either sign up for their newsletter or donate money. They also all (except for Lincoln Chafee) feature a “Paid for by” box at the bottom which is completely transparent with a border around it. Not bad, per se, but interesting that they all used the exact same format for that information.


All in all, the sites are pretty solid, though there were a few minor miscues. For example, most of them were not tracking demographic information in Google Analtyics. You can debate the value of that information for some sites, but for a candidate it seems that it would be invaluable.

Some other issues I saw:

  • Chris Christie has auto-playing audio on his home page, which is a huge no-no.
  • Marco Rubio had my browser prompt me to “show notifications” from his site; I don’t think so.
  • Three of the candidates had the cheesy “designed by” links in their footers (which we’ve hated for years).
  • Lindsey Graham hasn’t set a “favicon”. Minor mishap, but sloppy.



We also ran each site through the Google PageSpeed Insights tool to gauge how well-optimized the sites are and how quickly they load. All in all, they were pitiful. You can see the rightmost column on the table below for details.

The table below lists our findings alphabetically by first name. Please leave a comment below if you have other data you’d like for us to add, and note that any politically-motivated comments will be removed — there are plenty of other places to share those opinions online.

[table id=1 /]

Share this:

Mickey Mellen

Co-Founder and Technical Director

View Mickey's Profile

More from Our Blog

Making the Most Out of Your Website’s About Page

While every website we build at GreenMellen is custom, there are a handful of pages that should be on all websites. This list includes a…

Read More
people sitting around a table with their computers

Digital Marketing Scams: How to Spot and Avoid Them Online

In an era dominated by technology and connectivity, we have access to everything we want and need right in our hands. The internet plays a…

Read More

AI Policies: What Are They and Does Your Small Business Need One?

It’s no secret or surprise that artificial intelligence (AI) has taken the world by storm recently. The business world and even small businesses are not…

Read More


    • Good call, Mitchell. I could tell he was using HubSpot, but didn’t consider that his entire site might be on there. As far as I can tell, you’re correct. That said, he’s still one of them that isn’t collection demographics/interests in Google Analytics. Why oh why?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *