Campaign logos

Politics & Elections
1

I’ve always had a secret interest in campaign logos. Almost like a graphic haiku, they can poetically distill a candidate’s whole campaign into a single bumper sticker or website header.

I think 2008 had two of the strongest logos of quite some time: take a look. The Obama “O” is perhaps the best logo that I have seen, though I am biased. The visual that brings to mind a sun rising, a sense of motion (presumably forward), and creating a reference to the candidate’s name – that’s a lot of stuff to pack in to one visual. It was so interesting, it actually created a good bit of buzz.

McCain’s logo was not as strong, but it certainly had an interesting background. The font was specifically chosen to recall the Vietnam Memorial (though one critic said it is also frequently used on dentists’ offices, too). I think the star also reflects his military service, and by extension, his leadership and resolution, while both the typeface and the line seem to imply moderation and balance. It is fairly interesting.

Turning to 2012, it looks like Obama is sticking with the iconic “O”. It is a great logo, but is it still fitting with how his campaign is developing this year? 2008 was all about hopey changey, and that logo was a grand slam in that regard. 2012 seems to be shaping up to be about making Obama more assertive – some people think his whole campaign is going to be running against Congress (and oh yeah whomever the GOP nominates). I’m not sure the “O,” as clever as it is, delivers the same punch.

And what about the Republican candidates’ logos?

First thing’s first: Rick Santorum has got the worst logo I think I have ever seen. The way the “o” in his name is fading from view could be a subtle jab at Obama going away… but then why is an eagle superimposed on it? Plus, the stupid disappearing “o” makes his name look like a bumper sticker for “SANT RUM.” I think that’s the rotgut liquor imported from the wrong side of Grenada: no thank you.

I think Cain had the best logo of the bunch. It doesn’t say very much beyond the torch recalling the Statue of Liberty, but it is an attractive and bold image.

I’m puzzled by Romney’s image. The triple-stylized “R” just makes me scratch my head… what is that all about? I note that it is displayed in red, white and blue other places, but I just don’t get it. It is also puzzling to me why the “MN” are connected, as are the “EY”. It all looks so imbalanced and chaotic while attempting to portray firmness… and frankly, with the “R” and the “o” hanging out there by themselves, I think my subconcious is trying to make me read the logo as three seagulls on the left and the misspelled word “MONEY” on the right. It’s a logo that doesn’t seem as actively bad as Santorum’s, but I just don’t get it. Once he seals the deal on the nomination, this needs a reboot.

So, what do the candidates’ logos say to you? Who has the best, who has the worst? Have you seen any other good political logos for other races this year?

2

Agree Obama’s “O” is the best political logo ever. With four lines, it manages to evoke a sunrise over a cornfield and the American flag and the Candidates name. Graphic design students will still be seeing it as an example in textbooks in 100 years.

The most unintentionally funny one I’ve seen in recent years is Tom Vilsacks weird, authoritarian looking “V”. Honorable mention goes to Alan Keyes, who put a prominent pair of keys on his logo. Not stylized or anything, just a picture of a pair of keys.

Huntsman’s looks like he just whipped it up in six minutes on his Laptop.

I think the weird bird-sillouette on Romney’s is supposed to recall the bird image on his '08 slogan. But I agree it just looks cryptic.

3

In case anyone else needs help here:

Herman Cain

Santorum
Romney

4

Obama’s to me looks bland, bland, bland.

Romney is obviously draping himself, literally, in the Red, White, and Blue. That’s not a triple “R”. R-R-Romney! Unless he is going for the stutter vote…

Maybe I’m just not into logos, but none of them do a thing for me.

5

Huh? What? Is there one person in ten thousand who recognize the relationship between two fonts?

Times Roman was good enough for Jesus, and its good enough for me. As for Arian, well, we all know who preferred Arian, now don’t we?

6

I think the significance is that the same reasons why that font was chosen for the memorial also apply to why it was chosen for McCain. Plus, the whole homage thing reflects in the best sense this artistic principle.

Also, if you click either the “take a look” or the “2012” link in the OP, you are directed to a site that has the logos of presidential candidates going back to 1960.

7

I don’t like the new Obama one - it’s pale and cold. It does not make me excited or hopeful.

Romney’s - my word, why doesn’t he just put “The Rich Man’s Candidate”. “Money” just jumps right out - in two or three colors the “R” is just meaningless swoop - or down sloping hill.

Sant rum’s - I like the basic idea - sloping from top left to bottom right, eagle in the center, the use of the dark red in the upper left - right above the letters S-A-T-N …

Paul’s - crisp, understated, good slogan - hmm, I think it would work better as an incumbent’s.

Gringrich - I like the look, the wave with the upslope after the name, and the star is really nice visually. But.
“Newt”? That’s just silly; it’s embarrassing. It made sense when Rodham-Clinton did it - what else could she use? - is the man running for the Third Witch in MacBeth?

I don’t think any of these candidates really want to win.

8

I would guess that Rick Perry’s was knocked out faster. Huntsman’s bumper sticker is bland, though unobjectionable. But his mugs, hats and pins look dignified and ooze “Establishment”, which is what he’s presumably trying to convey.

Newt’s stuff is garish and in your face, also consistent with his schtick. My personal and austere tastes run more towards Huntsman’s look, but I suspect that Madison Avenue would prefer Gingrich’s, at least for a generic candidate. Visually loud images catch the eye.
In 2008, Obama’s effort was outstanding, and McCain’s was above average as well.
Over at the website, I see that bumper stickers in 1960 lacked a certain level of graphic design. In 1968, they got more creative: http://www.4president.org/ocmi1968.htm You can also see the sticker from Romney Sr’s 1968 Presidential run: “For a Better America!”

9

Simplicio already mentioned the cornfield and the flag, but yet another virtue of it is that, being round, it fits nicely onto a button or the like.

10

Romney’s looks like an add for toothpaste

11

In some versions of his logo, the image of a gaping asshole with an eagle-shaped smear of santorum really stands out.
Go on, unsee that.

12

Romney’s is odd. It reminds me of a logo for pregnancy services, or maybe the old Alfred Hitchcock profile logo.

On yard signs a candidate with a long name is at a disadvantage. The type can’t be as large, and there’s blank space top and bottom. There’s a lesser problem when a long last name is combined with a short first name, because they don’t stack well. Witness the Santorum designs.

An exception to that is when the candidate goes by a short first name, in that case “NEWT” can print large and Gingrich small or it can be omitted.

The Obama signs are the most attractive, IMO. They avoid the omnipresent RED/WHITE/BLUE Old Glory color scheme. The light blue and white is a welcome change, and the red is only a tasteful accent. It’s a lot less in-your-face.

The 1968 Romney design is strange. I’m pretty sure that the serpent with an eagle’s head is mentioned in Revelations.

13

This is what I came to post. Why would a man struggling to distance himself from an anally-themed Google bomb allow a graphic designer to put a puckery looking “O” in the middle of his name?

14

I see McCarthy was going straight for the smokers’ vote.

15

Had a quick flick through the older campaign logos and was wondering - was Carter the first (and last and possibly only) President to get elected with a campaign logo that wasn’t draped in red, white & blue? I’m not seeing any other serious contenders that strayed from the safety of those colours.

Ross Perot went with green (understandable), but I don’t get Fred Thompson’s choice of purple at all - did it have any particular significance I’m missing?

16

Red + Blue =

17

The sign contains a picture of Thompson --which is logical since he was running on his face and voice-- so it might be that the designer thought a blue face was too cold and a red face too weird.

Or maybe the designer just didn’t want to use red or blue, and the candidate was an actor and accustomed to trusting creative professionals.

FWIW, the 1968 Muskie sign was purple and orange, so purple has some precedent.

18

Oh. Mygod. Check out the logo for the British frozen foods company McCain. I know the font is totally different but the black background, the star above the name? The British logo has been around for years.

19

Perhaps Mitt Romney wants to remind voters that he comes from the money wing of the Republican party. What better way to do it than a logo which suggests R-Money. :wink:

20

I think in the Romney logo the “triple Rs” are supposed to double as people-shaped. Heads and torsos facing right (of course) like a crowd. Believing in America, and/or “OMNEY”.