The worst design of 2016 was also the most effective — Diana Budds, Fast Company
Why Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again hat, was a wildly successful design, despite being reviled by gatekeepers of good-taste design.
The “undesigned” hat represented this everyman sensibility, while Hillary [Clinton]’s high-design branding — which was disciplined, systematic, and well-executed — embodied the establishment narrative that Trump railed against and that Middle America felt had failed them. “The DIY nature of the hat embodies the wares of a ‘self-made man’ and intentionally distances itself from well-established and unassailable high-design brand systems of Hillary and Obama,” Young says. “Tasteful design becomes suspect… The trucker cap is as American as apple pie and baseball.”
This reminds me of the story that the most “tasteful” office spaces are less productive. When given a clean-looking office cubicle, people fill it with garden gnomes.
I don’t agree with the article’s premise that this challenges the idea of design thinking. Surely it means that Hillary Clinton’s designers simply didn’t do a good enough job at it (because nice typefaces ≠ design thinking).
But this does provide a challenge to the received wisdom of what good design is, and whether tasteful design is desirable.
Ms. Trump’s use of personal email has been expected to be among the topics Democrats will address when they take control of the House next year.
Welcome to our Election Update for Thursday, Sept. 13! The biggest update: We now have a Senate forecast to go with our House forecast! The “Classic” version of the Senate forecast currently gives Democrats a 1 in 3 chance of flipping the upper chamber. Meanwhile, the “Classic” version of our House forecast hasn’t really changed much since yesterday: Democrats still have a 5 in 6 chance of winning control. Across thousands of simulations, Democrats’ average gain was 39 seats.
The Justice Department’s inspector general released a long-awaited report on Thursday on the F.B.I. investigation of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election.
The findings could be both good and bad for President Trump.
On today’s episode:
• Matt Apuzzo, who covers national security for The New York Times.
• The Justice Department’s inspector general painted a harsh portrait of the F.B.I. during the 2016 presidential election, describing James B. Comey, the former director, as “insubordinate,” but finding no bias in his decision to clear Hillary Clinton.
• The report gives President Trump an opening, but it also undercuts his narrative.
• Democrats saw the document as proof that the F.B.I. had wronged Mrs. Clinton, but it also brought new worries.
• The report is more than 500 pages long. Our reporters break it down.
Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, on Donald Trump and his recent op-ed endorsing Hillary Clinton.
First let’s start with the fact that I’m a big Mike Morell fan! If you want to know about world politics and know more about not only the big picture but the minutiae, and learn it from someone who can not only lay out an argument succinctly but with great depth, there is no better tutor than Morell. A former deputy director and a former acting director of the CIA, Mike Morell is about as good as it gets in understanding foreign policy. Morell is great at laying out simple facts and figures relating to incredibly complex and nuanced events and exploring a range of potential options, and then, only if asked, will provide any personal opinion on a subject. I love the fact that he appears frequently on Charlie Rose which is about as good as it gets in the interview game. Listening to their discussions will make you a better citizen, not only of America, but of the world.
Last week I was floored that Morell, a lifelong non-partisan due in great part to his decades long government service, broke ranks to endorse Hillary Clinton in an influential op-ed piece in the New York Times. I suspect (completely a gut reaction on my part) that despite not having registered with a political party, Morell leans more to the right and would generally vote Republican. Despite this, he laid out a scathing argument why Donald Trump should not be the next president. He was my foreign policy hero to begin with, but now I’ve got to build the pedestal even higher. I’m glad that despite the sacrifices he had to make to present such an argument, that he stood up firmly for what he believes is right for the country.
If you haven’t read his piece from Friday, I highly recommend it. If you prefer a video version with more discussion and elaboration, then last night’s Charlie Rose was fantastic.
Even better, if you want a scintillating and engaging primer on world politics, jump back into Rose’s extensive archives and watch all of Charlie Rose’s past interviews with Morell.