A politics person and a design person analyze the 2020 Democratic logos
There are a lot of people running for president right now. That means there are a lot of presidential logos floating around. So, we’ve brought together a dynamic duo of Sam Reece. a sophomore majoring in political science and American Studies, and Ally Thomasson, a sophomore majoring in graphic design and Spanish, to analyze six logos, some of the best and some of the worst. We’ve used each campaign store’s basic logo t-shirt to get the best representation of their logo, without any extra slogans or icons.
Amy Klobuchar
Sam: This logo says nothing to me about her platform - I’m not getting then “centrist, reasonable person in the room” vibe she’s been going for on the campaign trail.
Ally: If you had told me that this was a presidential campaign logo without any background or context, I would have laughed. To me, this design lacks cohesion, and is riddled with design mistakes. I also agree with you in that it does very little to communicate a platform.
Sam: This is one of many logos this run around that includes “For America,” and as a slogan it gives a voter very little to latch on to. This is no “Stronger Together,” though perhaps she’s running against the partisan chaos of the Trump years.
Ally: If this logo were to communicate any aspect of “Stronger Together,” it would need to be a more unified design in terms of font and overall appearance. Mixing a serif and sans serif font and THEN throwing an italicized version in as well is very… confusing. It isn’t visually balanced and feels like it could tip over and fall off the shirt. The colors are also just painful. Cool color scheme works traditionally, but this is quite possibly a demonstration of the worst possible combination. It doesn’t read well from far away and, again, says nothing about her or her message.
Julián Castro
Sam: The thing that hits you when you see Julián’s logo is the accent on the “á.” He’s running as the Hispanic former mayor of San Antonio, and he’s the only candidate so far with a real immigration reform proposal. If anything, his logo is driving home his message about a new, diverse Texas-style multicultural America.
Ally: Julián Castro’s logo is truly the most visually pleasing logo of the bunch. Perhaps because I like it so much I am willing to believe there is more intention in the design than there is. Regardless, in this logo there are some design choices that feel like clear indications of platform and a subtle stab at the Trump campaign, as well. Trump’s logo is framed by a similar box, but what we see here is the accent of Julián breaking the box, breaking the wall. I believe it clearly represents his anti-wall platform and shows him breaking through it with his cultural background.
Sam: It might be a subtle jab at Beto, too. Beto, after all, has a Hispanic-sounding name and is running from a similar Texas base (there’s been a lot of talk about the two competing for donors), but he’s from an Irish background (Beto’s logo doesn’t include his last name, O’Rourke). In emphasizing his place as one of the first major Hispanic candidates with his name, Julián is calling himself “authentic” in a way that maybe Beto isn’t.
Ally: You make a really good point about Julián setting himself up to be the “true” hispanic/minority candidate with the very strong emphasis on the accent mark. An additional design decision that I think helps to push this visual is the dark shirt. Looking back at many of the past logos of the 2000’s, a blue background with white and/or red font was very popular, and this feels like a very modern interpretation of this pattern. To me, it roots him in having a very presidential logo. This is important in what I consider one of the most innovative campaign seasons in terms of design because it adds a degree of seriousness.
John Hickenlooper
Sam: So, is this “Purple Mountains Majesties?” He’s from Colorado, and I guess the mountains say ‘western.’ He’s got a very laid-back, sleeves-rolled-up, geeky thing going on, and he was the governor who oversaw marijuana legalization (while personally opposing it). Other than that I get nothing from this logo. At least it spells his name out for us. I’ve heard people at live events having trouble knowing exactly how to spell it.
Ally: I have to agree that this logo neglects to inform the public of any true platform, however, I will say that it does demonstrate incredible design continuity from his 2010 campaign for Governor with color scheme and mountain and star imagery. Consistency in political design adds strength and recognition to a campaign, which I can appreciate, but I will admit that the ambiguity of this logo detracts from that a bit. It works in terms of his campaigns in Colorado, but does it work as a logo for a presidential run?
Sam: I don’t think it does. A lot of candidates are running from the midwest or northeast this year, and Hickenlooper is one of a few Western candidates. I don’t know that the “Western” thing is something voters are looking for this year (Harris is really the ‘California’ candidate and she’s not running on Amber Waves of Grain). Hickenlooper could have emphasized a lot of other things in his logo, and it is sort of puzzling that he picked this one.
Ally: I would like to like to add that for a candidate that also seems to be pushing pragmatism over idealism, this logo is rather extravagant. I think it is one of the more idealistic logos of the bunch, especially when considering the references to the hopeful tone of “America the Beautiful.” I think that this logo could have been simplified a lot, while still capitalizing on his background and history in politics. He could have kept the color scheme and mountain reference with a simple triangle and really updated his logo for a presidential platform.
Kamala Harris
Sam: Kamala Harris’s color scheme and slogan are direct references to the 1972 Shirley Chisholm campaign, and I give her a lot of props for that. Chisholm was the first black woman to run for President, and Harris is subtly and effectively evoking that. It’s something the average voter might not pick up on, but those in the know certainly will, and tying “For the People” to Harris’s name in all of her branding is a bold move meant to tie her to to that slogan in voters’ minds.
Ally: Though I see the value in connecting Harris’s campaign to Chisholm’s, I think this design falls short in terms of how it resonates with the general public. In my opinion, this design is not similar enough or known by enough people to be enough to justify what I find to be an objectively bad design. Using similar typeface, slogan, and color scheme might be enough to connect the dots for the politically minded, but to anyone unware, it just reads as bad. To me, it appears painfully similar to the word cloud posters we all made for projects in middle school.
Sam: I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. If Harris and Booker are in a tight race in the so-called “black primary,” she’s made a smart move connecting to an important (if oft forgotten) black politician, and I’m of the mind that “For the People” evokes her prosecutorial past, something that could play well in a future general election with more moderate-minded voters.
Ally: I actually agree with you that including “For the People” is great as a nod Shirley Chisholm, but that she did not need to push the connection further. This slogan is succinct and recognizable to those familiar with Chisholm’s civil rights legacy and I believe she could’ve taken more liberties in design and color scheme. To me, this is the important linking factor, and recognizing that design has changed a lot since then, but the values and ideas less so, could have been a great decision when it came to branding her campaign.
Jay Inslee
Sam: This burns my eyes.
Ally: Yes, this is potentially my least favorite logo of the campaign/ever. However, I must acknowledge that this has the most immediate read of platform. The best design is the most effective design, and though I truly dislike the look of this for many reasons, I cannot ignore that he does the best job showing the public up-front what he is passionate about.
Sam: Inslee’s logo shows something important about his campaign: I don’t think he’s running for president. His campaign a shot to move the conversation towards climate change (Inslee has recently been agitating for a climate-only debate), not to be elected. So though I find this genuinely hard to look at, I have to agree that he’s done a great job getting the message across.
Ally: Okay, BUT, the earth is an extremely communicable image. He did not need to put a gradient or several variations of blue and green to tell us it was an earth. Simplify it. Also, why red? The whole logo gives me unnecessary “Reading Rainbow” and 90’s calculator design vibes. I think it is outdated and ugly, but yes, undeniably about climate change.
Sam: Still burns my eyes.
Kirsten Gillibrand
Sam: Pink! (Not the singer, nor the underwear company - the color!) Gillibrand is running on a very Hillary Clinton platform, emphasizing her role as a #MeToo champion. She’s running as a woman, and a mother, first and foremost. The pink is a bold choice for a presidential campaign, and it gets who she is across instantly. Even without a first name in the logo (See: Amy for America) you know that Gillibrand is prioritizing women’s issues.
Ally: I have to agree that this logo is also very strong in the immediate-read category, but done in a much more elegant and simplified way (@Inslee). This is truly a campaign of color and innovation in design and the pink sends a clear message. I really appreciate that it is not over-complicated, and, like you said, shows her priorities.
Sam: There are similarities between Gillibrand and Booker in their design choices, and I think that’s interesting. Both have gone with a bright color over black and white photos on their websites. There’s something to be said for using that bright pop to convey a sense of youth and innovation, and I think they are both striving for that feel. Plus, Gillibrand just has a great website.
Ally: I wasn’t going to bring up the website, but you brought up the website… it is truly beautiful. The branding is consistent across platforms and just reads so well. I will say, her design team seems to like overlaps but applies them in a strange way. I think 2020 in the background (still pink, obviously) with Gillibrand on top and centered would be a better design choice. The tangential overlap just feels slightly off to me. I’m being a little picky here, but either way I’m still a big fan.