By Amanda Biundo (VP of Creative & Marketing)
Before a voter reads a word or listens to a sentence, they have already formed a judgment. It happens in the blink of an eye, and research shows people form first impressions in as little as 50 milliseconds. That happens long before they consciously register what they are looking at.
Most voters meet your campaign through a glance: a mail piece in the kitchen stack, a yard sign they pass on the way to work, or a boosted graphic in the middle of doomscrolling. In that moment, they decide whether what they are seeing feels serious, credible, modern, or worth a second look.
Campaigns spend months adjusting stump speeches and refining policy language, but voters are already making subconscious assessments based entirely on the design. In those first few milliseconds, people are answering questions a campaign never hears directly. Does this candidate look professional? Do they feel authentic? Do I trust what I am seeing?
Good design buys you attention. Bad design loses it instantly. In a political environment where voters are overwhelmed with information, that blink-fast first impression is not a minor detail. It is the difference between being taken seriously and being dismissed before your message even starts.
Design in politics is not decoration. It is the first layer of communication. Voters process your visuals and your message simultaneously, and design can either strengthen or weaken your message. When a campaign launches with a clear visual identity, everything else begins to feel more cohesive, and it gives the impression of a serious, well-organized operation. Donors notice. Reporters notice. Voters notice.
The opposite is just as true. A design with mismatched colors, five competing fonts, an awkward photo crop, and no hierarchy appears off. The average person may not be familiar with the technical aspects of bad design, but they certainly recognize it when they see it.
That is the real purpose of political design. It sends signals. Good design quietly communicates that the candidate is competent, the operation is disciplined, the message is clear, and the campaign is prepared for the work ahead. Poor design suggests the opposite. Even if voters cannot tell you precisely what feels wrong, they still feel it.
I examine the details that most people never consciously notice: the kerning, the tone of the photography, the color choices, the spacing, the font pairings, and the hierarchy of the layout. All of those small decisions come together to create one immediate impression: this candidate is serious, credible, and worth your attention.
Good design does not win a race on its own. It is one part of a complete campaign plan. It supports the work your messaging, field, digital, press, and GOTV are already doing. When your visuals reinforce clarity instead of fighting it, everything else becomes more effective. Many of the problems that get in the way are easy to avoid.
Inconsistency is one of the biggest ones. A logo appears one way on a sign, another on mail, and completely different on social media. Colors get changed. Fonts multiply. Photos do not feel connected to each other or to the story. Instead of strengthening the message, the visuals start distracting from it.
Clutter is another frequent issue. Too many elements competing for attention leaves voters unsure where to look. It is a fast track to getting tossed in the recycling bin. I have seen layouts where everything is competing for attention at the same volume. When everything shouts, nothing gets heard.
There is also the template problem. A campaign finds a quick layout online, inserts a headshot, and calls it good enough. However, the design does not feel rooted in the story of the campaign. It reads as generic, which is another way of saying forgettable.
Even as new tools enter the space, the fundamentals remain unchanged. When anyone can produce content with a prompt, the difference-maker isn’t volume; it is the human element. It has never been easier to deliver volume, but volume alone is not what moves voters. Authenticity is.
AI can help support certain aspects of the creative process, but it cannot evoke the emotions that voters respond to. It cannot understand your district, your tone, or why your message needs to land a certain way. It can generate options, but it cannot decide which one feels real, relatable, or reflective of the campaign you are building.
That is why discipline matters even more now. When everyone can create something quickly, the campaigns that stand out are the ones that still create with intention. They are the ones whose visuals feel unmistakably human, grounded, and connected to their community. AI can make things faster, but it cannot make them meaningful. That part still requires human judgment.
You do not need an endless budget to avoid these problems. What you need is a clear visual identity and a team that knows how to work within your resources. When the foundation is strong, every dollar you spend is amplified.
A good design team will help you create something that aligns with your message, goals, and budget. The goal is not to overwhelm you with options or unnecessary extras. It is to build tools that make your campaign look credible, consistent, and prepared for the work ahead. When those tools are in place, everything becomes easier. Mail looks sharper, digital feels more polished, and your message is clearer to the people you need to reach. To make that work, you need to trust your design team and their expertise. They are uniquely qualified to amplify your communications, solve problems, and shape how voters see your campaign. When there is clear guidance and mutual trust, the end product is always its strongest.
If you are preparing materials for 2026 or refining what you already have, we are always here to help you think through what is working and what minor adjustments could make a meaningful difference. Good design does not need to be complicated. It just needs to be intentional.
To see a small sampling of some of our favorite designs we’ve created, click here.
