Paul Schreiber blogs about the tech behind the websites of presidential candidates. "So, you want to run a country. Can you hire someone who can run a website? ...Here's how the (declared) candidates' sites fare." There's a table comparing 4 candidates' sites based on HTTPS, URL permutations, IPv6, SSL rating, and other related qualities. Schreiber mentions that he will "update this as more candidates declare or sites change."
From the blog comments
HillaryClinton.com was using IIS (and no https) until Sunday morning, when they switched over.
What's wrong with WordPress?
What isn't wrong with wordpress? I can crack any wordpress 6 ways to Sunday, it's written in PHP (and so are all of its themes and plugins) and the coding is atrocious. The developers are asshats and don't like it when you tell them they're wrong. They have a huge case of "not invented here" syndrome and so they remain bug ridden and insecure as fuck -- Typical of nearly any PHP project. The same goes for phpBB, et. al.
> don't like it when you tell them they're wrong.
Because everybody else just loves that!
hey, I think you just broke the fourth wall there. That was very much out of your character compared to your regular posting personality.