We will tolerate no lecturing on the topic of tolerance for ideas and discourse by tea party bullies. Sorta like the pot calling the kettle black isn’t it… In fact I thought the dig about the internet not being in the constitution was pretty funny, and we all know that many of them do actually use the internet.
I got this multiple choice answer dot vibe from the circle D brand. Maybe they are referencing the choice issue, in time for the November election. I’m interested to hear more about the shades of blue being feminine, especially as blue is generally aligned with masculinity, and dark blues with authority.
I could be totally off base here, but I recall reading somewhere that back in the late 1800’s / early 1900’s, pink was actually considered a masculine color and light blue a feminine one. If that is true, then somewhere in the last century they got switched out.
Personally I’m not wild about the colors in the new logo as I just don’t like the dynamic between the two. They don’t seem to “fit” together.
Okay, guys. The term ‘tea bagger’ is a derogatory term used to offend a group of people. I am neither a tea party member, nor a Bill Maher hater. I do not hate people who watch Bill Maher and I know they are rational people. My statement was meant to show how ridiculous it is to lump a whole group of people into preconceived notions based on prejudice, that both statements are idiotic, and that neither statement should be tolerated.
It is interesting that lecturing by ‘tea party bullies’ will not be tolerated, but there is no mention of intolerance for name-calling and disparaging terms used to describe tea party members. I would hope we could see that this is not an issue strictly relevant to tea party members, but to any group of people.
As far as the logo goes, I don’t think it’s all that bad. It’s a departure from the traditional red, white, blue of I’m used to seeing. It kind of reminds me of Target’s logo, but with less oomph. I think it relies too heavily on the ‘change’ theme, as it may only be relevant for the next 2-6 years. Unless, of course, they plan on using Obama as a central character for the foreseeable future, the way republicans use Reagan. Otherwise they might be up for another logo redo at the end of Obama’s tenure and the next Dem has a new rallying cry.
How is the view up there on the high road? 
Being subject to scrutiny is standard fare for members of groups that take extreme stances on polarizing issues, like the one in question. If you don’t like it, then stop bringing it up.
this is a political logo, politics are loaded and polarizing, design should be a little more provacative these days anyway.
Scrutiny is fine. Off-handed sarcasm is fine too. But slurs? Is that your definition of scrutiny?
It’s not the high road. It’s just one up from the gutters.
I have misgivings about such successful branding used for what I see as poor policy making (which weirdly seems to happen often throughout history, but I LOVE Gotham.
Mr. 914 - you like that labour party rose thing? That looks on par with the worst logos from my graphic design for ID class’s first project! =)
I think pink and blue still have these associations in Switzerland or something…
Lets keep it to design guys, no need for further comment on who likes to watch Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, or Bill O’Riley or whatever talking head you have in mind.
I think designing party logos would be a good 1HDC… it would be interesting to see if branding could solidify a “non-party”. I think it is interesting how almost every election is determined by the “independents” or “Moderates” yet these people, who may be the majority of folks out there, have no actual party. Could a brand mark do that?
On the color pink:
“An early pop culture example of popularizing a particular color as the new “in” thing appears in the 1957 film Funny Face, in which editor Maggie Prescott (inspired by the Vogue editor Diana Vreeland and played by Kay Thompson) extols the color pink.[citation needed]
A closer early approximation of the phrase is Vreeland’s pronouncement, quoted in 1962, that “I ADORE that pink … it’s the navy blue of India.” Vreeland meant that in India the color pink was the functional equivalent to blue in the USA, that is a common foundation or basic, much like navy blue was the base color of most ensembles in New York City.”
You would be surprised how many cultural standards and traditions barely go back 2 or 3 generations. Look at weddings. You might be surprised how many people of the “greatest generation” got married at a courthouse with a couple of friends present, with a simple gold or silver ring, a few roses, and a night at a hotel… it wasn’t until after WWII that the current “princess wedding” became the standard. There is a reason it is a princess wedding, it was previously for royalty. It tricked down to the middle class and then became the defacto standard.
From a clean, recognizable, and iconic standpoint, I am impressed how well done the republican elephant is done… I do think they need to get rid of that GOP thing. Too much like Oldsmobile. Never put old in the title of something when you want to attract and engage young people.
I’m not sure independents are looking to align themselves with a group, or a brand/mark. Wouldn’t that instantly make them not independent? The reason there are so many independents is because they realize not one singular group can be correct about everything.
The tea party logo is not so bad, although to me it looks like a soccer teams logo.
That is actually pretty bad.
I’m not sure you are right about the independents. As one, I think they don;t align with the polar extremes but see the value in selecting the best solution. It’s like strength management techniques. The idea that goes across it is an openness to ideas and not being locked into a dogma that creates black and white situations. I think that is brandable, and I think many people that are currently aligned with a party would realize they are independents.
I always liked the slogan for the UK publication “The Independent” … “Is is - are you?”
So did a lot of Europeans in the 1930’s and 1940’s; I am by no means correlating the Nazis with any political party, just pointing out a result of branding an extreme ideology, but I think you only need worry once that brand is accompanied by a uniform…
As an independent centrist I have to agree that it is brandable, but is it marketable? Critical thinking, pragmatic behavior, and rational discourse can certainly make for a more effective governing body than power grabbing slobs that use extreme points of view to sway emotions to garner votes, but extreme is what sells.
“When we start deceiving ourselves into thinking not that we want something or need something, not that it is a pragmatic necessity for us to have it, but that it is a moral imperative that we have it, then is when we join the fashionable madmen, and then is when the thin whine of hysteria is heard in the land, and then is when we are in bad trouble.” - Joan Didion
I think the Democratic logo is weak sauce, uninspired, just like US politicians these days, maybe it is right on brand however.
Wouldn’t you love to see the evolution of that logo? I can imagine pages of fresh new ideas from a team of graphic designers which was then watered down over and over again until you got a circle w/ a D in the center. It’s like when you go to a car show and are amazed at the beautiful new concept cars but you rarely see them make it to market and if they do they end up looking like a Camery.