And the Winner of the Dem Logo Bracket Is …
Print has been acquired by an independent group of collaborators—Deb Aldrich, Laura Des Enfants, Jessica Deseo, Andrew Gibbs, Steven Heller and Debbie Millman—and soon enough, we’ll be back in full force with an all-new look, all-new content and a fresh outlook for the future.
The battle was fierce this primary season. In our Democrat candidate logo bracket, there were decisive defeats. There were upsets. There were, admittedly, contenders we were surprised to see advance at all. There were … bright green logos?
The skirmishes have been fought and a victor has emerged in our 12-candidate single-elimination contest.
But first, a recap of the results that brought us to this point.
Round 1 Tulsi Gabbard: 54%. Tom Steyer: 46%. Mike Bloomberg: 55%. John Delaney: 45%. Deval Patrick: 70%. Amy Klobuchar 30%. Andrew Yang: 65%. Michael Bennet: 35%.
Round 2 Joe Biden: 79.2%. Tulsi Gabbard: 20.8% Mike Bloomberg: 53.9%. Pete Buttigieg: 46.1%. Bernie Sanders: 51%. Andrew Yang: 49%. Elizabeth Warren: 56.7%. Deval Patrick: 43.3%.
Round 3 Joe Biden: 86.1%. Mike Bloomberg: 13.9%. Elizabeth Warren: 62.2%. Bernie Sanders: 37.8%.
Ultimately, we were left with two final contenders:
As voters made their picks over the past week, Print diligently lingered outside public libraries and churches nationwide to conduct a series of exit polls.
Here’s a sampling of what the Biden logo supporters said:
“It’s an aggressively normal logo, which I would usually hate, but I think its conventionalness conveys exactly who Joe Biden is and who he is trying to be: a steady return to normalcy.”
“The American flag in the logo is very smart and subtle.”
“It is more technically complex than Warren’s.”
“The flag in the ‘E’ is effective and represents Joe’s patriotism well.”
“More interesting design composition. Warren’s is just a string of letters. I don’t really see it as much of a logo design.”
“Biden’s logo is beautifully balanced and timeless.”
“This logo has a highly marketable branded appearance as it is impactful, memorable and clean.”
“[It’s] specific to the occasion, with an American theme (Warren’s could be for anything).”
And here’s a sampling of what the Warren logo supporters said:
“Black, underlined, name-only makes a bold statement—she is not just another candidate, doesn’t need campaign shtick.”
“It’s simple, but eye-catching and aesthetically pleasing.”
“Clean, concise and not the normal jingoistic color scheme. It feels [like the black was] deliberately chosen to set her apart.”
“Simple: Biden’s ‘E’ is trying too hard.”
“It’s not trying to be cute and clever in a bid to cash in on residual good vibes from the Obama rising sun.”
“I like how straightforward the treatment for Warren is. It’s putting up no fronts, it is what it is, which feels like a great message.”
“The Warren logo is strong. I like the Biden logo but I’m not sure the ‘E’ has a point. I might be red/blue fatigued as well.”
“A logo that fits the candidate. Black and white, no nonsense, not warm, fuzzy or optimistic. The logo of a candidate who wants to tear Trump a new one.”
So: Who won? America’s Graphic Design Choice Is:
*Builds tinfoil shelter around computer to ward off election interference*
Congrats to the Elizabeth Warren for President graphic design team for claiming 65.3% of the final vote. Print has reached out to the crew for a Q&A about the logo, and will follow up before too long.
In the meantime, we also polled voters on what they wish they would see in candidate logos at large—and the results might just offer some clues for the next wave of presidential designers.
“No more numbers/years in the logos! We get it: election year, hooray.”
“More diversity in font and style.”
“I think they should take more chances with their color palettes and not feel beholden to the red, white and blue. I really enjoyed what Mayor Pete’s campaign presented this election season and think more candidates should take that approach.” (Ed. note: See here.)
“I wish the logos would look like the candidates hired a top-flight designer. So many look like they did them themselves.”
“Not the pro-USA stuff that everybody has and knows, but the actual thing that makes the candidate different from the other candidates.”
“Actual design, not just pandering.”
“Some new ideas/clean and beautiful typography. Make a variable type logo, I dare you. Use a color other than red, white and blue, I dare you.”
“More diverse candidates with more diverse names and spellings to result in more diverse logos.”
“Literally anything interesting—illustration, line work, any shape outside of a rectangle.”
“Intersectional color options. Or: Representative LGBTQ+, women/minority logo involvement.”
“The ability to alter the design for specific states and constituencies.”
“Would be interesting to come up with an icon system that could be paired with each candidate’s personal font choice that defines one or two of their main platform issues. You would get a better idea of where each candidate’s passions lie and it would put more weight on their perspectives rather than their appearance.”
“Strength. Confidence over cleverness.”
“Less cute. Fewer gimcracks.”
“Whatever is not on a MAGA hat.”