General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumspnwmom
(109,009 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)In another thread!
pnwmom
(109,009 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)BANKSY, during a Warhol/Leary channeling, and it would represent a, clear and obvious, rightwing cypher on DU!
pnwmom
(109,009 posts)Because Wikileaks owns arrows, and the color red, and anything pointed to the right.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6497049
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Democrats in general? The Left eg, yes, I know the Left isn't exactly welcome in the Dem Party except at election time these days. But they are part of the Dem Party still.
This leftie isn't impressed with Dems moving to the Right. We have a Right party, we need an opposition party. And I'm not all that interested in being bi-partisan with a Party that is so far to the right they are frightening.
pnwmom
(109,009 posts)www.ontheissues.org
DU isn't representative of Democrats in general. I agree she is more conservative than the typical DUer.
Did you read Paul Krugman's recent article about her?
cali
(114,904 posts)who gives a shit?
brooklynite
(94,792 posts)Do you have the slightest bit of evidence that anyone outside of some bloggers care a bit?
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)That people here think they represent the party.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)BainsBane
(53,093 posts)It's what people on the internet who care more about labels than issues see. People who threaten not to vote Democratic if they don't get their way are not "traditional Democrats."
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Despite how much they may try to make it difficult for me to support them.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)It's a travesty.
Meanwhile, people around the country need jobs, healthcare, and don't want the GOP to strip away their rights to vote, marriage, and control over their own bodies. But you go right on worrying about logos.
It's like you all try to make yourselves politically irrelevant, and guess what? It succeeds. No one cares.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Aside from a way to depict their name on yard signs/buttons, I was trying to remember when "logos" became de rigeur. I suppose it has to do with all the electronic communication we use nowadays.
Obama had the "O" thing, but I can't think of individual logos for previous election years...
I guess this has a sort of logo, but as part of his whole name, like for a yard sign. His primary competitors didn't have logos, as far as I could find.
No logo:
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Obama had the first logo that I'm aware of, though there were certainly catch-phrases and slogans long before him.
But now everyone probably has to have a logo. Like flag pins: once someone does it, everyone does
It's disappointing to me because marketing isn't exactly something that inspires trust, even if the product/candidate is honest. The whole point of "branding" is to create an involuntary emotional connection to the brand, not the details of the brand.
Thanks to Citizens United, I expect it to get much, much worse
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)A mascot, with a corporate circle D logo. I imagine the R's will have to change from using a mascot to using a corporate logo as well, I am surprise they were not the first to do it actually.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Repubs are bound to come up with something. If Romney's "toothpaste R" and the sign Rubio released today, we can take comfort in knowing their design teams suck too
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)Obama took it to new levels, one of the most magnificent media campaigns in history. Even if Clinton wins I don't think it will be nearly as popular and ground breaking. I mean, filling the Mile High Stadium? I do not see Hillary Clinton pulling that off. I'd be shocked.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It's a different mood now, though I'm not sure what that mood is yet.
Terra Alta
(5,158 posts)It's just a logo for crying out loud. I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)It's going to be a LOOONG year and a half, if this much fuss is made over a logo.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)But don't let that stop you for beating this non issue into the ground!
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Is that all you have?
William769
(55,148 posts)Am I still on Democratic Underground?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Somewhere, there are a group of people with some really good smoke, laughing their butts off ... playing the "who's gonna buy the outrage" game.
(You take as big a hit as you can ... hold it ... then, as you blow it out, you type the most outrageous thing that your smoke aided mind can come up with, that people might be outraged by. You win when the media does a panel discussion on your outrageous outrage.)
William769
(55,148 posts)The stuff they got now?
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)and this
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)That's kinda genius.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)If you can't and don't use social media effectively, you're kinda screwed in this day and age. I think her time as SoS gave her an incite into the importance of social media (Arab Spring). I think I recall that the State Dept. contacted Twitter to make sure the Egyptian feeds stayed alive so we could get real news out of there.
Hillary Clinton Campaign Kicks Off With Social Media Blitz, Outreach To 2008 Alumni
WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton's campaign advisers topped off her presidential announcement rollout Sunday with a conference call for alumni of her 2008 campaign.
"We can't take anything for granted, and we're going to have to fight really hard for every single vote. ... We fully expect this to be a competitive primary," said Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager.
Clinton announced her 2016 presidential bid Sunday using a low-key approach that contrasted with the big rallies of the Republican entrants so far, Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
She made her long-anticipated bid official with a tweet and video message Sunday afternoon.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/12/hillary-clinton-2016_n_7051670.html
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)that if you point the arrow the other direction and use that logo for social media, it looks like the arrow is "running away" from what the message is.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,169 posts)it could actually mean "I'm with stupid"
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)mcar
(42,403 posts)You don't speak for "traditional" democrats, just yourself.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)There's no there, there.
This logopalooza is getting silly.
mcar
(42,403 posts)One day in and DU is wallowing in sexism and right-wing talking points because a woman is running for president.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)This is beyond ridiculous.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)onenote
(42,782 posts)You're mistaken
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)It's more effective to work against the "ideas" not the posters.
Unless you've got nothing but an ad hominem... facing an absence of something thoughtful...then by all means go with attacking the poster.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)why some people are viscerally turned off by Hiillary's logo.
A lot of folks don't like the logo. Instead of accusing them of being malicious, wouldn't it be better to try to understand why so many people are clearly turned off by the logo?
NanceGreggs
(27,820 posts)Why is it necessary to "understand" people who don't like a logo, and why they are freaking out about it?
Perhaps DU needs a "Poor Misunderstood Folks Turned-Off by a Logo" group, so that this burning issue can be discussed more fully.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)BainsBane
(53,093 posts)Paper Roses
(7,475 posts)I am a Hillary supporter. I also believe that things like Logo's should bring pleasant thoughts.
This logo is -hard-. It is not warm and fuzzy. I know this sounds silly but things like this need to bring positive thoughts. Maybe not kittens or babies, just things that make us comfortable.
This old timer feels that the logo, which will appear everywhere, need to be less rigid.
My thoughts only.
procon
(15,805 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)BainsBane
(53,093 posts)Clinton truly is all powerful.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)but when I saw it for the first time, I cracked up!
There was the H on the blue pyramids with the red arrow
pointing to the right like a street sign. I thought that HRC
must have chosen this with subconscious honesty.
A forward arrow shows diagonally into the future, and
if the arrow had been green on a purple background, it
could have been a good symbol.
As I said, it does not make any difference whatshowever.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)how many are there?
Kingofalldems
(38,496 posts)BTW, if you are standing behind the logo,or wearing a pin with the logo, the arrow points to the left.
pnwmom
(109,009 posts)RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)Why? Because English is read left to right. Separate the H/arrow from the rest of the slogan and it's open to all kinds of faulty and fanciful interpretation. The entire slogan is: the H/arrow points to "Hillary for America". It isn't all that complicated.
matt819
(10,749 posts)Can we just stop the logo nonsense? It's childish and meaningless.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)The HRC supporters are going to back her until she shivs them, and then they'll keep right on backing her because they will never be able to admit they were wrong.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)besides trying to defeat her?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)and she will win in a walk.
840high
(17,196 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Zero ***** were given.
rainmaker21
(52 posts)It also is reminiscent of a hospital sign meaning we need medical aid and has a red arrow which subliminally means Republican heading right. Not a smart choice for a logo.Should of gone Blue and refreshing looking if she wants to hold the left.