Actually, what the link leads to is some pretty brilliant analysis of the psychological intent vs. psychological effect of those logos: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/2016-campaign-logos-review-n485196 For every one of the major candidates' logos, there is a short video clip with a succint analysis by a man named Sagi Haviv, who is a partner at the brand identity firm Chermayeff & Geismar & Haviv and an instructor at the School of Visual Arts. He says some pretty sanguine stuff about all of the logos. Now, considering how we are all literally bombarded with advertising day in and day out, companies all over the place are looking for ways to make the best impression in the shortest amount of time, be it with a logo or a jingle or a saying that sticks firmly in the minds of the buyers. And it's not really that different with presidential candidates. And these things are suppose to go pretty deep into the psyche of the viewer. That's why so much time and money is spent on advertising R&D in the first place. I found his analyses of both Cruz's and Paul's logos to be most enriching. He also hit on a point about Sander's logo that I find most interesting. He is full of praise for the evolution that has occured within Carson's logo and I think his analysis is spot-on in this case. He has a strong criticism of one part of Cruz's logo which, after I thought about it for a while, made sense. He makes a statement of "WHY" about this Cruz logo and if you take the time to listen to that statement, that alone could make for some interesting and thoughtful discussion among us. Sagi contrasts Fiorina's logo with Trump's and makes a statement that I think goes to the core of all campaign decisions: do you do or say something that reinforces your personality, or do you do or say something that complements (adds another dimension) your personality as a candidate? I also think he was hardest on Huckabee's logo but even then, he found something very positive as well. There is also an element that he sorely missed concerning the word "hope". Let's see if some others here catch it and know what I mean by this. He also sees a major proportion problem with Rubio's logo and was harsh about it, but perhaps very, very right about it as well. The Trump analysis is at the end, again, an outstanding analysis ("it does the trick"). He finds Hillary's logo to be perfect. I don't know if I agree with him about that, but since she kept it so unbelievably simple, it also seems to be doing the trick. My suggestion is that the members of PF take a little time and play through each clip and when you do it, take off your partisan hat and just watch and listen as if you have no vested interest in the upcoming presidential election at all. That's how I did it. Just watch and listen and be open to visualize for yourself what the man says. Sometime next year, when I get a free day, I may take the time to compare the current set of presidential logos with logos out of the past and I think we will all see that there has been a literal revolution in the type of electoral "advertising" that presidential candidates engage in. Now, does a perfect logo guarantee a win or perhaps a really bad logo guarantee a loss? Of course not. But all of these small pieces of the puzzle add up to a "Gestalt" in the mind's eye of the voter. I do think that all of this has a net effect, indeed. I created this thread because this stuff is also part and parcel of elections and right now is actually a good time to digest this material, before we are bombarded with primary voting statistics and co. I hope that this OP has been edifying for all to read and please, go to the link and watch all of the clips. That is the only way to get the entire effect. -Stat Derideo_Te mertex perotista - I thought this would be of especially great interest to you three fine members of PF.
Fascinating, especially since we have so many this time around. Got to wonder if logos actually make a difference in the final outcome. Perhaps in a close race but I can't see anyone choosing a lesser candidate simply because they have a nicer logo than a better one.
Indeed. As I wrote at the end of the OP, this is just one of many details that come together to form a certain Gestalt.
Too bad the T-chump supporters don't know what "great" means. He's going to make America "great" again.....like it was when doofus Bush was POTUS.....meaning "tanked". How short memories they must have.
