With the 2016 presidential election right around the corner, the candidates are using visuals to characterize themselves and appeal to the American people.
But how effective have their attempts been and what messages are their visuals actually portraying?
I'm picking their logos apart in today's post and casting my vote on the strongest, most accurate design.
Quirky, friendly, but resembles toothpaste
This campaign logo for Bernie Sanders has the most character.
The font used here is a hybrid between a serif and a sans serif; a mix of both traditional and modern. The swoop and star hint at the American flag, but the swoosh strongly resembles toothpaste.
And the use of his first name only is an intentional choice to appear friendly and personable.
Traditional, awkward, and confusing
The traditional serif font is a good choice for Ted Cruz’s campaign logo.
The stars and stripes are patriotic, but the flame is awkward upon first glance and can be misinterpreted as a teardrop - not the right message.
Cruz’s logo isn’t the strongest, but his campaign slogans and branding, like “TrusTed,” are more memorable and catchy.
Symmetrical, unoriginal, but appropriate
Trump’s logo may not be the most distinctive or original, but it’s appropriate.
The bold, modern sans serif differs fromthe serif of his business logo, but the sturdiness and weight of the font was an intentional choice appear stable and strong.
The logo highlights his last familiar last name and the tagline includes a promise and call-to-action.
Balanced, memorable, but forcing excitement
Jeb’s short name comes in handy for his logo, and it’s no surprise that his recognizable last name wasn’t included.
The traditional serif font hints at his conservative background, which works well, but the exclamation point isn’t fitting with Jeb’s character and forces excitement upon the viewer.
However, the logo has great balance and sizes well.
Simple, sizable, but not fitting
Hillary’s campaign logo is simple but it doesn’t have any character.
Aside from the colors, there aren’t any hints that this logo is for a political campaign. The sans serif “H” is modern but vaguely resembles a hospital symbol.
And while the arrow represents forward movement, the right red arrow hints at conservatism.
Appropriate type treatment, confusing concept
The font and type treatment of Rubio’s campaign logo is effective. By choosing a modern sans serif in all lowercase, the logo reflects a youthful candidate.
However, while the silhouette of the United States is patriotic, the concept is strange. Why is it placed over the “i” and what does that mean?
The concept is confusing and seems like a last resort.
Simple but slightly offensive
John Kasich took a simple, abstract approach to his campaign logo by incorporating the first letter of his last name and the stripes of the American flag.
But the concept is slightly offensive and off-putting. Instead of incorporating the stars and stripes like some of the others, he replaced the stars with a representation of himself, the “K.”
Honestly, I was a bit disappointed with the candidates' logos this election season, especially after the role President Obama's brand played in the 2008 and 2012 elections.
However, if I had to vote on best campaign logo of the bunch, I would have to go with Bernie Sanders.
Yes, the swoosh looks like toothpaste and the star above the "i" is too small, but the unoriginality of Trump's logo, confusion of Cruz's logo, exclamation mark of Bush's logo, hospital reference of Hillary's logo, lack of concept in Rubio's logo, and strange concept of Kasich's logo were worse offenses, in my book.
So I would love to know: Based on design alone, which logo gets your vote?