2016 Presidential Campaign Logos (Updated!)

Posted inLogo Design Examples & Advice
Thumbnail for 2016 Presidential Campaign Logos (Updated!)

… And they’re off!

Candidates are making their announcements and will soon seek to win the hearts and minds of Americans with their words, actions … and logos.

As the candidates continue to pile on, we’ll archive the logos here, from contenders both large and indie. (The pessimist might say that elections can be bought by the wealthy; so too can good design.)

Faves? Hits? Misses? What would Paul Rand think of Rand Paul’s mark? Let us know in the comments.

And for Print’s look at campaign design and the evolution of the presidential logo, click here.

Update! We asked our friends over at Siegel+Gale if they would be interested in providing some commentary on a few of the logos. They weigh in below.

More updates! A slew of new logos have been added. They appear immediately below.


The type is lackluster and the symbol is simple but feels pretty generic. Kind of odd that he has created a new American flag with his initial. Is he running for emperor?—Mike Preston, Associate Creative Director, New York

From the logo, Kasich seems a young, serious, but dynamic candidate with a clear mind.—Chris Liu, Senior Designer, Shanghai


I see a thin, tall British-style young professor image, yet some highlight personality is missing on him, like a bit of humor. He is stylish outside but seems a little bit messy inside his mind.—Chris Liu

The Pataki logo is an attempt at creating a modern identity—a welcome trend in response to Obama’s groundbreaking 2008 campaign logo. Unfortunately, the Pataki logo comprises too many disparate parts (upper and lower case, flag icon, tagline, three colors) and lacks unity—suggesting things falling apart rather than coming together.—Bret Hansen, Creative Director, NYC

Generic colors, typography, and flag motif say little about Pataki or his campaign.—Mike Tyson, Senior Designer, New York

Feels unrefined. Odd typography seems more appropriate for a tech startup. The flag icon crammed after “For President” seems like an afterthought. The icon is also kind of an odd simplification of the flag. Is it a 3-fingered hand?—Mike Preston

See also …

See also …

I get a total “ordinary guy” image from this logo, nothing impressive at all.—Chris Liu

The Walker campaign logo aims for simplicity and almost hits the mark. The uppercase sans-serif is a good move—strong, clear, simple—but the integration of letter (‘E’) and flag is clunky. The concept is there. It could be made stronger by simplifying the flag icon and refining the typography.—Bret Hansen

Walker and Pataki’s logo could effectively be swapped and no one would notice. Flag, color, and typography all lack any defining characteristics. If there is a particular criticism to be made against this logo it is the compromised legibility due to the forced inclusion of the flag in the wordmark. Combining an image into a letter or word is such a deceptively simple task. Many attempt it yet few actually look graceful.—Mike Tyson

Interesting idea. I like how everything fits nicely into one line. The flag “E” could be refined more to improve legibility—I could see people reading this as “WALK FLAG-R-16.”—Mike Preston


A guy just copied the most ordinary style and mind [for] himself… Just feel sorry for him.—Chris Liu

The Santorum logo is easy to read but says nothing about the candidate. The eagle illustration seems trite.—Bret Hansen

Santorum’s logo begins to have more personality with the bold blue holding shape and the non-justified, capitalized type. Yet like the others, it will quickly disappear into the annals of campaign logos due to its unoriginal motif and color scheme.—Mike Tyson

I feel like the eagle stands out from the rest. I like the simplicity of just the name with the eagle but the illustration of the eagle is a little clunky. The typography is also a little cluttered. “Rick” seems randomly placed atop of “Santorum”.—Mike Preston


This candidate must be a clear-mind[ed] candidate [judging] from [the] design, yet he just needs some attitude.—Chris Liu

Simple, clear, modern, the Christie campaign logo exemplifies the new era in political identities (after Obama ’08). The tag line does a lot of the work, however. I would love to see if the straight-talking theme could be symbolized visually.—Bret Hansen

Bold (like Christie) yet forgettable (unlike Christie).—Mike Tyson

I appreciate the simplicity of just being a purely typographic approach but if you are going to do this, the type has to have the strength to stand on it’s own. Things like letter spacing and typeface choice become even more important when it’s all you have—and neither of these feel
very resolver here. Also the tagline I S G E T T I N G L O S T.
—Mike Preston


Malley seems [to be] a low-key and smart candidate [based] on his logo design.—Chris Liu

O’Malley’s uppercase, italic word mark and simple color palette feels fresh, and I like the speech bubble implied by the broken cyan frame. The mark suggests political action and a strong voice.—Bret Hansen

O’Malley’s mark is refreshingly simple and probably one of my favorites (but this doesn’t say much). The logo retains distinction by only showcasing his last name, set in italic typography and bound by a bizarre holding shape. The lack of tired visual tropes also helps to set this logo apart.—Mike Tyson

A little over-simplistic to the point where I’m not quite sure what I am looking at. Is it a text box? A broken rectangle?—Mike Preston


From its design, I don’t know where this guy [came] from, but [it] definitely is not for a president[ial] candidate.—Chris Liu

Awful.—Bret Hansen

Somehow the man who has more money than any of the other candidates has the cheapest, most rudimentary logo. It looks like the start-up screen for a Sega Genesis game.—Mike Tyson

This feels dated and ill considered. Just kind of feels typed out with minimal effort, not very presidential and doesn’t feel inspirational at all.—Mike Preston


The design gives a team or a sport associate agency feeling to me, instead of a [person’s] image.—Chris Liu

The Perry campaign logo is simple in its overall form (a circle) but complicated in its details. I like its optimism.—Bret Hansen

Although the circular logo was a nice attempt at differentiation, I can’t see it without thinking about a baseball team.—Mike Tyson

There’s so much going on inside that P, it’s hard to distinguish what it is. It could be so much simpler.—Mike Preston


A strong and dynamic athlete image, a great spirit for a president[ial] candidate.—Chris Liu

With a name like Bush, Jeb’s team had to come up with a way to minimize the dynastic association. Constraints spur innovation—and the Jeb! mark is proof. It’s simple, succinct, optimistic and active. The logo (if nothing else) gets my vote!—Bret Hansen

Different, and thoughtfully distancing from his somewhat toxic last name, but it feels amateurish and simplistic—not simple.—Mike Tyson

I like the strategy of this direction. Own “Jeb” as a unique name and let that speak for itself. I even like the exclamation idea to give it some energy however, the execution just seems a little too “cutesy”. That big circular exclamation point is a little over the top. Seems more like a logo for a teen magazine than a presidential candidate.—Mike Preston



I would just walk away from this logo and its candidate, for it shows an arrogant old-school America military guy image.—Chris Liu

The forced flag motif inside the J makes it feel awkward, unbalanced, and complicated. Overall the logo makes Jindal feel approachable but it doesn’t tell me a thing about the man, nor give me a reason to approach him.—Mike Tyson

The most patriotic candy cane.—Mike Preston


It seems they want to talk about “Vision,” but I see only “Cinema.”—Chris Liu

The Graham identity is a throwback. It lazily draws from the past.—Bret Hansen

Forgettable, unenthusiastic, and staid.—Mike Tyson

This seems like it was pulled from a generic presidential logo template. The wedge shapes at the top seem like meaningless graphic filler. Is the tagline “Lindsey Graham: Bringing Together the Wedges of America”?—Mike Preston


A sports team leader you might [have] seen before when you were in high school.—Chris Liu

Webb’s identity is simple and concise. The parts fit together nicely—varied categories of information (name, date, tagline) are appropriately differentiated and nicely unified.—Bret Hansen

Although the obvious intention was a bold and assertive logo, the result is a clunky wordmark and tagline that feels weighted down. The star is also much too small for the thickness of the type and disappears, particularly contrasted against the heavy quotation mark.—Mike Tyson

Interesting color choice. It does stand out because it isn’t red white and blue but why is it orange?—Mike Preston


Young, polished and well-educated. I’ll vote for this woman for its smart design.—Chris Liu

The Carly identity is aesthetically very nice—it’s presidential, even. It suggests a sophisticated outlook.—Bret Hansen

The tracked out typography feels light and elegant and is a welcome departure from the other candidates. The star as the crossbar in the “A”, however, brings the logo back down to the banality and sameness of the competition. This is a perfect example of the dangers of overworking a logo. It would have felt more distinctive without that overwrought detail.—Mike Tyson

It is most simple of the bunch. I think it could be strong and effective if used the right way, but because there is nothing really unique or interesting about it, it could borderline as boring or bland.—Mike Preston


Seems this guy [is] trying to be different, just in a bit [of a chaotic] way.—Chris Liu

There’s a lot going on in Huckabee’s visual identity. The color palette seems random—black, orange, red. (Aren’t those Germany’s colors?) The graphic below the word mark seems derivative of Bank Of America’s flag/field symbol. The stars evoke pixie dust (a la Disney) rather than the United States flag. All these competing elements suggests that a clear value proposition is missing from the campaign.—Bret Hansen

The black, gold and red color scheme is a very exciting combination of colors from a presidential candidate. Perhaps the black is too dominant but the departure from the norm makes this logo very quickly stand out among the others.—Mike Tyson

This one is rough. Bank of America + Verizon + Magic Stars = President. The entire thing feels like a dense mess and it makes me sad.—Mike Preston


Hillary’s was chosen for its radical simplicity. Face it, this mark will never be lost in the noise. It’s a brave mark and, if anything, one that communicates (deliberately) the candidate it represents.—Johnny Lim, Creative Director, New York


I don’t mind Rand Paul’s torch (the open space between R and A is more bothersome to me), even though many may not understand the Libertarian significance of the torch originating from the negative space between the A and N. Seems like a gimmick to me. I can picture the designers talking to each other as they discovered it.—Matthias Mencke, Group Creative Director, LA

Rand Paul’s was also chosen for its boldness and simplicity. The torch may not be the most elegantly drawn rendition, but the symmetry and directness are pleasing.—Johnny Lim

I like the boldness of Rand’s typography. It’s kind of badass because it is just his first name, but the torch feels forced. I also think that the boldness of it looks like a logo from a faceless, inhuman conglomerate. So although it is visually refreshing, it isn’t really conveying the right message.—Mike Tyson

Rand Paul’s logo is by no means the best logo I have ever seen. It’s a decent concept poorly executed. But it’s bold, simple, and the most confident. —Mike Preston


Chafee’s design coupled with the words “fresh ideas” is a visual oxymoron.—Kevin Grady, Global Head of Design and Communication, New York

You have to love the fun irony in the phrase “Fresh ideas for America” in the least fresh way possible. There is such an utter lack of passion or inspiration. The logo is bland, expected, and meaningless. It looks like a logo for a truck stop restaurant in Alabama that you wouldn’t stop at.—Mike Preston



Marco Rubio’s new logo looks friendly and optimistic, so it’s a marked departure from the rest of the Republican pack. It’s disruptive in that way.—Kevin Grady

Marco Rubio’s is bland and uninspired. The only thing it has going for it is that you can read it.—Mike Preston

Rubio using an illustration of the U.S. as the tittle of the “i” is just not appealing. America is neither little or tiny. I’d like to think the United
States deserves a better representation than at the top of the letter i.
—Lana Roulhac, Design Director, London



I prefer Rubio’s old mark as it has a direct, clear, no-nonsense approach. The new version represents a poor choice of typefaces and the use of the U.S. silhouette is simply distracting, especially at reduced sizes, and it doesn’t account for Alaska or Hawaii. —Johnny Lim


While a pretty terrible logo, it’s interesting that Jill Stein uses different colors than red, white and blue.—Matthias Mencke


Mark Everson’s logo looks like it could be a menu for a coffee shop in Portland.—Mike Tyson


Andrews’ move to emphasize SKIP with the color red is funny. It winds up reading “SKIP Andrews for president.” That’s probably not what he wants voters to do.—Kevin Grady

Why would I want to vote for a president who puts the same level of effort into his logo as he would sending a misspelled text message? He might as well have included emojis in it.—Mike Preston


Skip Andrews, Brian Russell, Mark Everson and Dale Christensen are all in need of storytelling help and a serious session in Brand 101.—Lana Roulhac

Screen Shot 2015-04-16 at 7.09.36 PM
Screen Shot 2015-04-16 at 7.14.18 PM
scrigna 2016 logo 2

Closing thoughts:

Looking at election campaigns in other countries, it always strikes me as odd how little the campaign logos reflect the personality of each candidate.—Matthias Mencke

Coming from another country, what strikes me the most is how little progression there is in design for political logos. The current logos are no different than what Reagan or Bill Clinton did years ago. The choice of typefaces and clichés remain the same. It’s a shame that no one progressed from what was done for Obama in 2008, which was to create a symbol than could stand on its own.—Ricardo Beltran, Senior Designer, New York

For our look at Politics in Print over the years, grab a copy of Print’s 75th anniversary issue.