Did Good Design Help Obama's Elections?

[aberrant85]

Based solely on good graphic design, I think Obama was able to market himself better than his competitors in 2008 and 2012, and may have helped his elections. Graphic designers understand that good design can go a long way.

Do you think design was relevant in electing Barack Obama twice?

 

[specklebang]

No, I think Obama is a master of bull**** and clever as a cat when it comes to being elected. Plus, I think McCain and Romney were poor, not competitive choices. I happen to hold McCain in high regard, Romney, not so much.

The trouble is that politics and ability and truths are unrelated. Look at the Carter election if you doubt me. He was a goof but he ran (or someone did) a brilliant campaign against a weaker competitor.

I'm an advocate of Meritocracy which is almost diametrically opposite of Democracy.

But graphics? Ummmm. Not really.

 

[Perotista]

View attachment 67156197

View attachment 67156196

View attachment 67156200

View attachment 67156198

Based solely on good graphic design, I think Obama was able to market himself better than his competitors in 2008 and 2012, and may have helped his elections. Graphic designers understand that good design can go a long way.

Do you think design was relevant in electing Barack Obama twice?

I think in 2008 the American people were just tired of Republican Rule and first expressed it in 2006 when they voted the Democrats back in control of congress. I feel 2008 was one of those years no matter who the GOP ran, it would be in defeat. In 2012, Romney was just the wrong candidate to unseat a very vulnerable sitting present. Romney couldn't overcome the trust factor. Signs and graphics had nothing to do with it.

 

[WCH]

No, I think Obama is a master of bull**** and clever as a cat when it comes to being elected. Plus, I think McCain and Romney were poor, not competitive choices. I happen to hold McCain in high regard, Romney, not so much.

The trouble is that politics and ability and truths are unrelated. Look at the Carter election if you doubt me. He was a goof but he ran (or someone did) a brilliant campaign against a weaker competitor.

I'm an advocate of Meritocracy which is almost diametrically opposite of Democracy.

But graphics? Ummmm. Not really.

If anyone votes for any candidate based on their graphics...they're stupid as a stick.

Indeed, most who vote for Obama fell for numerous lies.

 

[X Factor]

I don't even notice the graphics. They all kinda look the same to me.

 

[specklebang]

If anyone votes for any candidate based on their graphics...they're stupid as a stick.

Indeed, most who vote for Obama fell for numerous lies.

Yes, politics has become a lie-filled, negative procedure. It only takes one lie to make a "liar" and both parties have told outrageous lies so trying to pick the "least liar" is very difficult.

 

[soot]

Indeed, most who vote for Obama fell for numerous lies.

So did most who voted for McCain and/or Romney.

The fact that they lost doesn't change the fact that they're blatant liars.

And to stay on topic ETA:

And yes, I do suspect that some voters cast their vote on the basis of something as stupid as logo design.

 

[Redress]

Not in any significant way I don't think. Demographics and a good campaign by Obama vs a poor one by Romney where the ones that really mattered.

 

[Perotista]

Not in any significant way I don't think. Demographics and a good campaign by Obama vs a poor one by Romney where the ones that really mattered.

I agree.

 

[Cephus]

The only thing that got him elected in 2008 was the fact that he was black. Graphic design had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

 

[Redress]

I agree.

Romney learned a painful lesson in why you cannot let the other guy define you before you define yourself.

 

[Hatuey]

The only thing that got him elected in 2008 was the fact that he was black. Graphic design had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

It took 10 posts people. We can all go home now. Thread's done.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

No, both McCain and Romney did not come across with a clear message that appealed the their base. Had the Repubs turned out in the same numbers as 2008, Romney would have won...

 

[Perotista]

View attachment 67156197

View attachment 67156196

View attachment 67156200

View attachment 67156198

Based solely on good graphic design, I think Obama was able to market himself better than his competitors in 2008 and 2012, and may have helped his elections. Graphic designers understand that good design can go a long way.

Do you think design was relevant in electing Barack Obama twice?

Going back and looking at the signs, I decided I like McCain's better. The other 3 are kind of lame. I vote for the McCain sign.

 

[Cephus]

It took 10 posts people. We can all go home now. Thread's done.

It's the reality of the situation, Obama's administration ran on a very racist platform, trying to get out the black and minority vote so they could say they voted for the first black President. That very fact caused a lot of other problems in the same election, such as Prop 8's passage in California. Obama's strategy was directly responsible.

 

[rocket88]

Based solely on good graphic design, I think Obama was able to market himself better than his competitors in 2008 and 2012, and may have helped his elections. Graphic designers understand that good design can go a long way.

Do you think design was relevant in electing Barack Obama twice?

Actually, I think Romney's design was quite good. Did having good design "help?" Sure, if only because bad design would have hurt.

 

[Perotista]

Romney learned a painful lesson in why you cannot let the other guy define you before you define yourself.

that and along with Romney thought he would win just because he wasn't Obama. He really IMO didn't give anyone a valid reason to vote for him outside he wasn't Obama.

 

[Hatuey]

It's the reality of the situation, Obama's administration ran on a very racist platform, trying to get out the black and minority vote so they could say they voted for the first black President.

Show us proof. Some campaign facts, data or even pamphlets would be great.

That very fact caused a lot of other problems in the same election, such as Prop 8's passage in California. Obama's strategy was directly responsible.

Only Prop 8 was passed due to a mobilization of a Mormon and Protestant groups who can hardly be called Obama voters. :shrug:

 

[Helix]

View attachment 67156197

View attachment 67156196

View attachment 67156200

View attachment 67156198

Based solely on good graphic design, I think Obama was able to market himself better than his competitors in 2008 and 2012, and may have helped his elections. Graphic designers understand that good design can go a long way.

Do you think design was relevant in electing Barack Obama twice?

maybe, but probably not. in '08, Obama was the more exciting candidate and was a good public speaker. that was enough for most people. in 2012, the republicans ran an elitist plutocrat who displayed contempt for half of the country. on top of that, he tried to sell more trickle down nonsense, and he pretended that he didn't support the very same health care delivery model that he championed and signed in his own state. people may be politically misinformed, but they can always tell when a candidate is grasping at straws or covering something up.

there's also the Weekly Reader poll factor : Weekly Reader - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this poll has picked 13 out of the last 14 winners. the kids pick the nicer, more appealing candidate independent of politics. i don't doubt that many adults do exactly the same.

 

[Redress]

that and along with Romney thought he would win just because he wasn't Obama. He really IMO didn't give anyone a valid reason to vote for him outside he wasn't Obama.

That certainly played into it. However, the number one part of any campaign is explaining why you are "one of us" and the other guy is "not one of us". So much of political rhetoric is about doing that. Look for example at two classic republican talking points, the "liberal elite" and democrats as "takers''. That is nothing more than trying to set up democrats as not one of us. Democrats counter with republicans as the party of rich white men.

What Obama did was define Romney as this rich guy who did not understand or care about about problems facing regular folks. Romney never recovered from that.

 

[Redress]

It's the reality of the situation, Obama's administration ran on a very racist platform, trying to get out the black and minority vote so they could say they voted for the first black President. That very fact caused a lot of other problems in the same election, such as Prop 8's passage in California. Obama's strategy was directly responsible.

Get put to vote campaigns are racist now? That is ****ing hilarious.

 

[Perotista]

That certainly played into it. However, the number one part of any campaign is explaining why you are "one of us" and the other guy is "not one of us". So much of political rhetoric is about doing that. Look for example at two classic republican talking points, the "liberal elite" and democrats as "takers''. That is nothing more than trying to set up democrats as not one of us. Democrats counter with republicans as the party of rich white men.

What Obama did was define Romney as this rich guy who did not understand or care about about problems facing regular folks. Romney never recovered from that.

yes, that is true. Romney had many chances to what I call introduce himself to the American voters. But I don't think he ever did. He instead concentrated on the negative attack ads when a few positive here I am, meet my family, my dog, my cat kind of thing. No, Hi I am Mitt Romney and here is where I want to lead America over the next 4 years.

 

[aberrant85]

The only thing that got him elected in 2008 was the fact that he was black.

:lamo

 

[WCH]

Yes, politics has become a lie-filled, negative procedure. It only takes one lie to make a "liar" and both parties have told outrageous lies so trying to pick the "least liar" is very difficult.

I can't argue that point. However, "You can keep your plan and your doctor" probably got Obama reelected.

 

[American]

Not in any significant way I don't think. Demographics and a good campaign by Obama vs a poor one by Romney where the ones that really mattered.

Not sure I agree Romney's campaign was poor, but his reputation as a conservative was in question by many. Also a very contentious primary race with debates, had a negative impact. Democrats had no alternative to choice from so it was difficult for the poor policy performance of Obama to have much of an effect. I think many on the right stayed home.