Did Good Design Help Obama's Elections?

aberrant85 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Everything that the Democrats did was better than what the GOP did.

Who's in the White House right now?

Case closed.

WCH said:

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.

Click to expand...

Believers usually do.

No, Obama truly had a lot of people won over in 2008 thinking about "change", etc. People, even a lot of Conservatives, were excited to see him in office. In 2012 GOP incompetence helped him win again. Neither had to do with campaign artwork, but if that's what conservatives need to tell themselves it will be better next election cycle, by all means keep telling yourself that.

American said:

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.

Click to expand...

it is discussed some in here, but Romney allowed Obama to define who he was, and never managed to over come that. That is, Obama managed to portray Romney as an out of touch rich guy who had no idea the issues facing normal people. Romney never countered that, and it was a big deal. 2012 Fox News Exit Poll | Politics | Fox News About 1 in 5 people picked "cares about people like me" as the top quality for president(note the highest and category got was 29 %), and of those 81 % voted for Obama, 18 % for Romney.

Redress said:

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

Click to expand...

If they're done based on the race of the candidate, of course they are.

WCH said:

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

Click to expand...

So, lets delve further. Let me first reiterate that I am not an Obama fan.

Which of these do you think re-elected Obama:

1) Obamacare (with the assumption that it wouldn't affect the plans or the doctors) which obviously had to cost more to include the pre-existing conditions.

2) The pocketbook. Where people who got government checks for any reason, welfare, SNAP, SS or Medicare felt safer that Obama would continue their programs.

3) The "equality" issue. If you're foreign born, gay, black or any other minority group you felt safer

4) The other guy looks worse theory. Romney seemed very detatched ($350M will do that to a guy) and his "spending cuts" consisted of NPR and giving himself a huge tax cut.

I'm personally skeptical that people voted their HC plan (#1) as being significant (at the time). I think it was a blend of #3 and #4. But I'm open to discussing this if we can actually discuss it and not have another Obama-bashing session.

I couldn't bring myself to vote for either candidate so I voted 3rd party.

That was the most revolting election yet. I've always geard lies and exaggerations but never as much or as venomous as the 2012 election.

aberrant85 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Every piece of the equation is important but more than anything else in my opinion Obama won especially in 2012 because he did a better job at convincing most voters that he was in their corner, on their side, standing up for them with believability. Romney did a better job at appealing to people who already were never going to vote for Obama anyway regardless of the issues. Those people also happen to be fewer in number, meanwhile convincing the majority that he was in the corner of the wealthy, the same folks who move jobs out of America to the third word and cut jobs and compensation in order in increase the profits of shareholders but was more than willing to make some pandering speeches that contradicted the core of the rest of his campaign for anyone willing to listen.

Cephus said:

If they're done based on the race of the candidate, of course they are.

Click to expand...

I don't know which is funnier, that you don't know the difference between racist and racial, or that you are so ignorant of the fact that get out the vote campaigns are part of every presidential campaign, done by both sides to get those likely to vote for them to the polls.

That you are crying racist at nothing just makes it complete.

. . . unless the Republicans can create some kind of economic golden age that is accessible by all Americans, regardless of race, age, region, or gender, their party is finished. Since they can't do that, their party is finished.

specklebang said:

So, lets delve further. Let me first reiterate that I am not an Obama fan.

Which of these do you think re-elected Obama:

1) Obamacare (with the assumption that it wouldn't affect the plans or the doctors) which obviously had to cost more to include the pre-existing conditions.

2) The pocketbook. Where people who got government checks for any reason, welfare, SNAP, SS or Medicare felt safer that Obama would continue their programs.

3) The "equality" issue. If you're foreign born, gay, black or any other minority group you felt safer

4) The other guy looks worse theory. Romney seemed very detatched ($350M will do that to a guy) and his "spending cuts" consisted of NPR and giving himself a huge tax cut.

I'm personally skeptical that people voted their HC plan (#1) as being significant (at the time). I think it was a blend of #3 and #4. But I'm open to discussing this if we can actually discuss it and not have another Obama-bashing session.

I couldn't bring myself to vote for either candidate so I voted 3rd party.

That was the most revolting election yet. I've always heard lies and exaggerations but never as much or as venomous as the 2012 election.

Click to expand...

Most likely OC and people wanting [or needing] to get and keep the FedGov bennies.

Also, lots of people stayed home compared to 2008.

WCH said:

Most likely OC and people wanting [or needing] to get and keep the FedGov bennies.

Also, lots of people stayed home compared to 2008.

Click to expand...

So, are you saying that medical insurance was so strongly desired (albeit not well understood) that an unpopular President was re-elected because people wanted OC?

I'm not saying you're wrong but I would have guessed it was a combination of 2,3 and 4 more so. For me personally, it was #4. If I had been in Romney's shoes, I would have donated $200M to some well loved charity right before I threw my hat in the ring. I'm sure I could have gotten by on $150M and it would have made him seem more like he gave a ****. Also, offering himself a tax cut didn't seem very empathetic.

Well, I hope we have better choices in the future. If OC actually works out (I'm skeptical because it seems to be the usual punishment of the middle class - the poor get subsidies and the rich don't care what it costs) then the Democrats might just keep the WH. But if the GOP goes hard core Conservative, they won't have a shot (IMHO).

A always, I disclose that OC doesn't affect me (I'm 70) and though Medicare has gotten cuts that will impair quick access, I'm able to go to cash doctors if I need to. But I really do give a care about those working folks who make too much for subsidy and not enough to be free of economic burden.

Lets face it. Obama is a great salesman and he sold himself very well. If he focused on management the way he does on speechifying, he might have been a better President.

Cephus said:

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.

Click to expand...

Two other black candidates ran for POTUS in 2008, a former Member of Congress and a former UN Ambassador. If being black was the ONLY reason Obama won in 2008, why did he win and not them?

PS: There was also one Hispanic candidate, if it was just a minority thing and Hispanics surpass blacks in population. He lost too.
PPS: In 2004 two blacks ran for POUTS, one a United States Senator. Both lost.
PPPS: In 2012 yet another black ran for POTUS to unseat Presiden Obama. While leading in the GOP primary in the polls he was labeled "flavor of the week" by a top GOP leader. Lost too.

Smeagol said:

Two other black candidates ran for POTUS in 2008, a former Member of Congress and a former UN Ambassador. If being black was the ONLY reason Obama won in 2008, why did he win and not them?

Click to expand...

Because nobody outside of the Democrats and Republicans has any real chance in hell of getting elected in this country?

Cephus said:

Because nobody outside of the Democrats and Republicans has any real chance in hell of getting elected in this country?

Click to expand...

So, being black wasn't the ONLY reason Obama got elected, it was because:

1. He's black
2. He's a member of one of the two major political parties?

Okay, that's progress. Slight problem however. In the 2008 campaign, another black guy, career diplomat Alan Keyes ran as Republican party candidate. However because he did so poorly, he eventually switched to a third party but initially he ran as a major party primary candidate. Black guy - major party candidate - less than 3% of the vote in the party's primary.

I'm sure you're also aware there have been quite a few other black candidates who WERE in fact also members of the Democrat and Republican parties who for president in other election cycles and being black PLUS an major party member didn't get them elected.

-1888 Frederick Douglass- Republican
-1968 Channing E. Phillips- Democrat
-1972 Shirley Chisholm- Democrat
-1972 Walter Fauntroy- Democrat
-1976 Walter Fauntroy- Democrat
-1976 Barbara Jordan- Democrat
-1984 Jesse Jackson- Democrat
-1986 Jesse Jackson- Democrat
-1992 Douglas Wilder- Democrat
-1996 Alan Keyes- Republican
-1996 Isabell Masters- Republican
-2000 Alan Keyes- Republican
-2004 Carol Moseley Braun- Democrat
-2004 Al Sharpton- Democrat
-2008 Alan Keyes- Republican
-2012 Herman Cain- Republican

So, there have been twelve blacks who have run for President of the United States who were also major party candidates (some ran more than once so I only counted them once,) five of whom as recently as the 2004 election cycle, four with impressive public service credentials. Just looking at the ones since 2004:

- Two United States Senators
- A Fortune 500 CEO and member of the Federal Reserve
- A Harvard Ph.D graduate and foreign service diplomat including having served as a US Ambassador and an Assistant Secretary of State.

All black, all members of major political parties, only Barack Obama elected. Any idea why just Obama got elected when others were also black and major party members?

aberrant85 said:

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?

Click to expand...

I don't think the logo itself was the reason for his getting elected, but it helped, I suppose. But MARKETING him, Obama, helped a lot, I'm sure. That's probably true for ALL candidates who win elections.

specklebang said:

So, lets delve further. Let me first reiterate that I am not an Obama fan.

Which of these do you think re-elected Obama:

1) Obamacare (with the assumption that it wouldn't affect the plans or the doctors) which obviously had to cost more to include the pre-existing conditions.

2) The pocketbook. Where people who got government checks for any reason, welfare, SNAP, SS or Medicare felt safer that Obama would continue their programs.

3) The "equality" issue. If you're foreign born, gay, black or any other minority group you felt safer

4) The other guy looks worse theory. Romney seemed very detatched ($350M will do that to a guy) and his "spending cuts" consisted of NPR and giving himself a huge tax cut.

I'm personally skeptical that people voted their HC plan (#1) as being significant (at the time). I think it was a blend of #3 and #4. But I'm open to discussing this if we can actually discuss it and not have another Obama-bashing session.

I couldn't bring myself to vote for either candidate so I voted 3rd party.

That was the most revolting election yet. I've always geard lies and exaggerations but never as much or as venomous as the 2012 election.

Click to expand...

The Democratic Party is a big tent party, so it naturally has more minorities than the Republican Party. That party also has more young people than the Repubican Party. ALL people vote for their own self interests, including old, fat white Republican men, whether they're mega wealthy or gun totin' lurking in the forests wackos.

I think that people LIKED his policies, the way he handled himself during his first term (having to deal with the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression), and liked him personally, as well as his character.

ALSO, Romney just wasn't a good candidate. He had so many issues. Yet, he was doing well for a while, since Republicans always vote their party, no matter who he is. Democrats are more selective, I think, and don't ALWAYS show up to vote for their party candidate.

I thought the 2012 election was fascinating and exciting. Including the primaries. The Republican lineup was strange and entertaining (remember "9-9-9"? and Perry not remembering his key position of eliminating three agencies that he couldn't remember?) The first Obama-Romney debate where Obama just stood there? The 47% comments by Romney? The etch-a-sketch comment by his campaign manager?

As a political junkie, I thoroughly enjoyed the 2012 election. Obama won fair and square, for all the normal reasons that Presidents win re-election. Plus, most Presidents win re-election, anyway. His people also know how to run a sharp, tight campaign, and know how to excite his supporters. One example was that in one state (Iowa? I forget) Romney had a handful of supporters walking door to door. While Obama's campaign had THOUSANDS....and they didn't just walk door to door. This is an electronic age, now. Social media was critical.

Obama had something to say. Romney had something to say. More people liked what Obama had to say.

aberrant85 said:

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?

Click to expand...

In 2008, I think that the excitement about electing the first black president and re-branding America around the world was overwhelming and caught a lot of us up in it. Also, McCain choosing Palin was the final nail in the coffin.

In 2012, the perfume had worn off for most people concerned about issues and the economy and all was left was superficiality...so yes, maybe in that election.

aberrant85 said:

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?

Click to expand...

I voted for Romney [and McCain], but I never did like the similarity Romney's design had to Aquafresh toothpaste.

JumpinJack said:

The Democratic Party is a big tent party, so it naturally has more minorities than the Republican Party. That party also has more young people than the Repubican Party. ALL people vote for their own self interests, including old, fat white Republican men, whether they're mega wealthy or gun totin' lurking in the forests wackos.

I think that people LIKED his policies, the way he handled himself during his first term (having to deal with the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression), and liked him personally, as well as his character.

ALSO, Romney just wasn't a good candidate. He had so many issues. Yet, he was doing well for a while, since Republicans always vote their party, no matter who he is. Democrats are more selective, I think, and don't ALWAYS show up to vote for their party candidate.

I thought the 2012 election was fascinating and exciting. Including the primaries. The Republican lineup was strange and entertaining (remember "9-9-9"? and Perry not remembering his key position of eliminating three agencies that he couldn't remember?) The first Obama-Romney debate where Obama just stood there? The 47% comments by Romney? The etch-a-sketch comment by his campaign manager?

As a political junkie, I thoroughly enjoyed the 2012 election. Obama won fair and square, for all the normal reasons that Presidents win re-election. Plus, most Presidents win re-election, anyway. His people also know how to run a sharp, tight campaign, and know how to excite his supporters. One example was that in one state (Iowa? I forget) Romney had a handful of supporters walking door to door. While Obama's campaign had THOUSANDS....and they didn't just walk door to door. This is an electronic age, now. Social media was critical.

Obama had something to say. Romney had something to say. More people liked what Obama had to say.

Click to expand...

Excellent analysis. Obama didn't look all that great but the GOP candidates destroyed each other with millions upon millions of dollars in negative ads calling each other names. By the time they chose a candidate, none of them looked good and Obama automatically got the D nomination so he didn't have his own party attacking him non-stop.

Add to that Romney's obliviousness (if you are going to build an elevator for your car don't do it while running for office) and (don't propose a tax cut that will save you millions while trying to get the vote of people who actually have to make a car payment). So, yes, Obama won handily despite the already apparent (to me anyway) inability to be a good manager.

But since he was elected (without my vote), I wish him the best and I find the level of attacks on him to be disconcerting. The Kenya routine alone cost millions of votes. We're not ALL "low information voters" and I want him to do a good job since I'm stuck with him for 3 more years.

Porchev said:

I voted for Romney [and McCain], but I never did like the similarity Romney's design had to Aquafresh toothpaste.

Click to expand...

Here's a recent example of bad design. Ever hear of tangents? I know the pic is kinda blurry, but the way the dot in the first "i" brushes up against the bottom of Virginia is very distracting and sloppy. It was a close race too, I wonder if it put McAuliffe over the edge