Maybe it’s just me, but when we were looking at the different styles of political ads, I couldn't really tell the difference between a “good” or “bad” campaign poster. I felt like I was looking at a slideshow of posters that were all variations of the same thing. Same color schemes (red, white, and blue…shocker), same format, same look. I’m not sure why the look of these posters would sway a person’s vote to a particular candidate.

Mackiewicz says, “There are no good and bad typefaces; there are appropriate and inappropriate typefaces.” Now I understand why these posters contain a clear (appropriate) typeface. A campaign ad using Old English type or something like that would look out of place. But beyond those obvious differences, I don’t know what makes a font work well.  Take the above posters for Obama and Romney. Sure, there are stylistic differences but to me, that doesn't make one better than the other. All I notice is that they are different.

Mackiewicz also goes on to say, “…distinguishing between serif and sans serif typefaces is crucial, since failing to do so may affect how well a document meets readers’ expectations.” That is a very dramatic understanding of typefaces. I enjoy the enthusiasm Mackiewicz has for the subject but I don’t want to go overboard on analysis of font. Yes, there are instances where that may be true, but is that the case in these campaign posters? I see Romney decided to go with a serif font, but if he hadn't would we possibly be talking about President Mitt? I hope he’s not kicking himself over that one.