Red, White, and Bloopers: 2016 Presidential Candidate Logos

The presidential election is more than a year away, but it’s already covered daily in the media. Every time I turn on the radio it seems as if a new candidate just announced their run for office. To calm your fears, let me be clear—this is not a blog about politics. This is a blog about the brands and identity each new candidate is shaping as they try to win favor in the eyes of voters across the nation.

The job of a political logo designer must be a thankless task. From what I can gather, all but two candidates came in to their meetings with the direction, ‘I want to communicate my patriotism through the color palette…but use bold typography to keep it memorable…and don’t forget to sprinkle in Americana iconography to make me likeable.’ There is nothing interesting or innovative in this approach—or memorable for that matter. If Rick Santorum hadn’t managed to strike your fancy by now—his logo certainly isn’t going to win him any points.

And what is Rick Perry trying to communicate with his mark? Still the same generic creative direction to the designer, but instead his end result was the lovechild of the Texas Rangers and the Philadelphia Phillies. I guess a nod to America’s dwindling past-time? 

I hear what you are saying—these people are supposed to be running on their ideals, beliefs, and vision for the country. Yeah, yeah—but I’m not going to put a stupid-looking bumper sticker on my car no matter how much I like what you have to say. At some point candidates need to acknowledge the role strong graphic design plays in our culture—and how appealing to that need can help make their message more shareable.

We are a visual society and these candidates are communicating their brand through their logomarks. Through campaign signage, bumper stickers, t-shirts, and other gear—these nominees are hoping that we will help them spread their message. Their brand needs to perform the ultimate goal of all companies, everywhere—it needs to move voters to action so they will associate with and identify as their supporters over the multitude of competing brands (or candidates) in the crowded consideration set.

Take Jeb Bush’s memorable logo. His campaign was announced last week and that announcement received some serious press—and his logo managed to steal a little of his thunder. It may be horrible in many people’s eyes, but it is memorable. It’s also the most enthusiastic candidate logo—and in this red state, we like enthusiasm. Look no further than the Boise Public Library’s brand identity and signage.

Jeb’s vintage-feeling typeface may hearken to a time when things were simpler. But surprisingly enough, his last name is missing from the mark—something that he may be trying to distance himself from. Unfortunately, it is also what distinguishes him (for good or for bad) amongst his competition. Side note: interestingly enough, all of our ‘political dynasty’ candidates have excluded their last names from their campaign logos.

Hillary Clinton’s mark is different and stands away from the pack. These designers weren’t constrained by the cuffs of tried-and-true campaign logo design; they were challenged to come up with something different. I would imagine they were asked to speak to her views on key issues and asked to develop iconography that is interesting rather than trite. While some candidates are brave enough to drop their first OR last name—Hillary discarded everything except for her initial. That’s confidence—and that confidence is communicated through her interesting, evolving, and relevant use of brand identity.