On Tuesday, droves of Wisconsinites will hit the polls and vote in one of the most important elections in our lifetime. Millions upon millions of dollars have been spent on TV, radio and print -- and even a smattering has been spent online.
But, just like in the last election, the local candidates you can vote for in the Milwaukee area have all but ignored their Web presences. Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama, obviously, took their sites very seriously. But in congressional and state assembly races, well, 1996 called and it wants its Web sites back.
Just like we did on the eve of the 2006 election, here is an objective, non-partisan look at the Web sites of the candidates for contested offices nationally and in the Milwaukee area. The candidates are listed in alphabetical order, not by party affiliation or site grade.
President:
John McCain (R)
John McCain's Web site opens up with a search engine-unfriendly splash page comprised of video, big buttons and graphics. Once you get to the real homepage, you'll notice large fonts, lots of buttons that look like ads, a fair amount of clip art -- in icons and stock photography -- and a spacey blue background.
Stripped down and straightforward, it's easy to see that McCain is targeting an older demographic that "doesn't do the Facebook." There's a call to action in the right column to "start earning points," but clicking on that doesn't explain what that means.
Graphically, the site keeps McCain and Sarah Palin together in the masthead, though the two images were clearly Photoshopped together.
In terms of usability, clicking on the "donate" button takes you to a separate Web site. The tiny search engine delivers clunky and weird results. The McCain blog appears to be authored not by McCain, but by his staffers. The Spanish language version of the site is much more streamlined and sophisticated-looking, but plays a video upon launch in English (but with Spanish subtitles).
The site would get a higher grade, if it wasn't coming from a candidate with such deep pockets. Grade: B
Barack Obama (D)
Obama's site, too, opens with a splash page, leading to a sleek index page. Icons and imagery are totally unified and custom-illustrated for the site, though it loads more slowly because of all the graphic files.
Obama and Biden are also shown together (but Photoshopped), and are similarly lit and positioned to make them look larger than life.
Obama's site makes use of all the Web 2.0 features you'd expect in 2008: mobile, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr, Digg and more. It offers a customized homepage, called "MyBO," which isn't the best abbreviation. The site also geotargets, presenting a Wisconsin specific message to us.
The eCommerce donate tool stays on Obama's site, but erases all navigation. Similarly, the Spanish version looks consistent with the English version, albeit with a stripped down and different nav bar. Similar to the McCain blog, Obama's is written by staffers. Unlike McCain's site, Obama's doesn't feature an obvious search engine. A little too graphically intensive, Obama's site is very good. Grade: A-
State Senate:
Alberta Darling (R)
Darling's homepage is loud and bright and uses a striped background that might send some users into a seizure. Her eCommerce is run through PayPal, which is incredibly amateur. The photos in the free Javascript rotator are at least in focus, though the buttons and header look like they were created by a high school student. Stylistically, the body copy jumps between fonts, and every page is clearly statically created. Darling uses metatags, but misspells Menomonee Falls. Bad design aside, like Wasserman, she gets her points across through a bio and issues page. Grade: C-
Sheldon Wasserman (D)
At first glance, Wasserman's site looks completely homemade. From the blurry, cut-out photo of him in front of the state capital building to the similarly blurry logo and tag line, there's not a lot of polish on this site that uses cheesy fade outs and drop shadows. Not only is the site devoid of metatags, its source code indicated that it was created using a bargain-basement, $49 tool called Coffee Cup. The donate tool is a secure system called ActBlue, which calls itself, "The online clearinghouse for Democratic action." Wasserman has a small blog section with a few posts. His event calendar is the functional, but basic Google Calendar app. The site isn't much to look at, but contains a bio and legislative record. Grade: D+
Marge Krupp (D)
Krupp's site isn't visually unattractive, though it doesn't balance the three columns well for a static site. The header is just a bit out of focus, designed by someone who doesn't know the finer points of Photoshop. It's lacking metatags, and the eCommerce tool uses ActBlue (like Wasserman's site). Krupp's "blog" is just a few news releases. Her event calendar doesn't have anything listed beyond June. The multimedia page shows one shaky and untitled video. Grade: D+
Paul Ryan (R)
Ryan's site looks very much like a template one can purchase, then populate with some custom info. It's green and gray and text-heavy, but at least includes an RSS feed. Its donate tool is powered by an external site, yourpatriot.com. Like Krupp's site, Ryan's is completely devoid of metatags, while the logo is small and jammed in the upper right corner. Generic and somewhat cold, the site looks vaguely professional but not very inspiring. Grade: C-
U.S. Representative District 4
Michael D. LaForest (I)
Apparently, it won't matter that Moore's Web site is atrocious (see below), since LaForest doesn't even have a Web site; he has a single Web page. And a free, geocities one at that. Obviously, this guy doesn't stand a chance, but you have to like this sentiment: "My Info: If you feel inclined to give money to my campaign, I ask that you please give to your local library instead." Maybe less is more, but LaForest doesn't even deserve a grade. If we must ... Grade: Incomplete.
Gwen Moore (D)
Moore's homepage has enough HTML errors that borders and boxes are broken all over the place. And apparently, she hasn't touched it in two years. It actually reads: "Thank you for visiting my virtual campaign headquarters and web-site (sic). What an exciting year 2006 has been thus far!" The "newsroom" section includes one story from 2005. This site would've been bad in 2006. In 2008, it's terrible. Grade: F
U.S. Representative District 5
Robert R. Raymond (I)
If Raymond has a Web site, we can't find it. Grade: Incomplete.
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R)
Sensenbrenner's site is pretty awful, but since he's more or less running unopposed, maybe it doesn't matter. From amateur graphics, to a Paypal donation system, to an empty event calendar, it's obvious this candidate is completely mailing it in. His biography is seven short bullet points. You'd think almost 30 years in the House of Representatives would merit more than the words "US Congressman 1979-Present," but why spend the money if you can't lose, right? Grade: D-
