A Note on Signage

6 May

So, while passing by the Laman Public Library in North Little Rock on non-voting business, I couldn’t help but peruse the gamut of political campaign signs that flank the entrance into the building.  Naturally, as a political junkie, I love soaking it all in.  Volunteers from various campaigns are waving at me and being friendly, despite having no idea if I will actually vote for their candidate or if they’re even on my particular ballot for local positions; it’s early voting time, and if that one “connection” actually picks up a few votes for their candidate, it was a fruitful day.

After finishing up some passport business, I can’t help but succumb to the mood and get my vote on (more on that in coming days as BHR continues to weigh in with our last couple of endorsements and offers thoughts on last-minute efforts by the candidates).  As I come back outside, I take one last look at the row of signs, then become aggravated by some of the signs I see.  (You knew my optimistic rant had to derail somewhere, right?).

No, not just because they were for candidates I didn’t push the screen for, but because of their design.  I mean, really, how do candidates for significant offices manage to airball on this task, too?  From silly slogans, to inappropriate citations of the Bible, to completely ridiculous color and font schemes, you’re bound to see it all.

For instance, we all know red, white, and blue works for signs.  Clearly.  But we also know one party is heavily identified with being “blue” (uh, that’s the good guys for those scoring at home), while the other is traditionally “red.” Therefore, why in the world would any Democratic candidate for office choose an entirely red color scheme for his one campaign sign design?  Maybe I’m the only one who actually thinks about this sort of thing, but by choosing all red, are you trying to imply you’re an “Arkansas DINO Democrat?”  Or did you really not even consider your color choice might confuse or even offend a Democratic voter?

Ok, the cat’s out of the bag; I’m talking to YOU, Land Commissioner candidate Mike Berg:

Oh, and to be an equal opportunity hater, we have to highlight this guy and his penchant for wanting you to make damn sure he answers to more than just voters:

Of course, Holt for Senate 2.0’s scripture signage is a vast improvement from the original model, don’t ya think?

Oh, Jimmy Holt, king of so much of my fodder, where would I be without you?  Nice to see you living the principle, though; even the Duggars think you have a lot of kids.

If you’ve seen a particularly stupid sign, contact us here at the blog (signage@bluehogreport.com) so that we can highlight it to the masses.  You know the drill.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “A Note on Signage”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Yard Sign Design Rules: Democrats Blue, Republicans Red? - May 6, 2010

    […] Hog Report posted an amusing critique today of political campaign yard sign designs used in local elections.  You might not agree with […]

    Like

  2. AR-Land Comm: On Luddites, L.J., and Lagging Behind | Blue Hog Report - May 6, 2010

    […] the record, the third Democrat primary candidate, Mike Berg a/k/a the Guy With The Red Sign, has suggested some technological changes if he is elected.  However, given the design of his […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: