Five Design Leaders on the Evolution of the Female Presidential Candidate

Few arenas showcase the complexities of branding quite like a political campaign, where every detail — from visual choices to policy priorities — feeds into public perception and resonates differently with each voter demographic. As a designer and brand strategist, I’m fascinated by the ways brand, identity, and social issues intersect in the world of politics. In our new Identity Politics column, Susan Milligan explored the contrasting approaches of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris in navigating gender and identity in their campaigns. With Clinton and Harris offering such distinct political brands, we’re witnessing a shift in how female candidates (perhaps candidates, in general) present themselves in the political spotlight.

For deeper insight into this evolution, I turned to some of the branding industry’s most prominent voices to explore how gender and identity are shaping political branding today. These design leaders shared their take on everything from the challenges of timing to the balance between visual consistency and policy focus to the future of branding for women in politics.

Our lineup includes Jessica Walsh, founder of the creative agency &Walsh (top left), Jolene Delisle, founder and head of brand creative at The Working Assembly (top middle), Holly Willis, founder of Magic Camp (top right), Ruth Bernstein, CEO of Yard NYC (bottom left), and Jaime Robinson, founder and CCO of JOAN (bottom right).

We asked, and, wow, they delivered! Their responses have been condensed and lightly edited for length and clarity.

How does the increasing alignment between political candidates and personal brand strategies, especially in the cases of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, reflect a shift in how voters perceive leadership qualities?

Jessica Walsh: The way political candidates are now using personal branding is a lot like how companies build their brands to connect with customers. Candidates like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris are doing more than just talking about policies—they’re creating a narrative around who they are, their values, and their image to really connect with voters on a personal level. It’s similar to how brands tell a story to make you care about their product.

Jaime Robinson: Personal brand has always been huge for presidential candidates. Who can forget the Camelot visions of JFK and Jackie Kennedy?  The old Hollywood glamor of Ronald Reagan? Bill Clinton’s “cool guy prez” saxophone and sunglasses moment? 

What we’re seeing today that IS exceptional is that the personal brands of presidential candidates are being absorbed by their audiences as part of their OWN brands and identities….  who in turn reflect their own versions of the brand… which in turn influences the candidate’s brand, and so forth.

Donald Trump has become more blustery and right-wing as his audience paints him that way.  Kamala Harris has become more BRAT with each passing meme. And their fans – because that’s what they are, fans, not constituents  – become even more entrenched in the brand narratives that the candidates are spinning and reflecting back.

Ultimately, it’s showbiz, where Brand reigns supreme.

Jaime Robinson

Jolene Delisle: Personal branding is more important than ever, and as we see in almost every industry, it bleeds into your professional reputation as well. Especially as women, it has the power to shape the narrative, good or bad.

Holly Willis: The alignment of personal branding with political strategy speaks to a broader evolution in how voters perceive leadership. Today, candidates are expected to resonate not only through policies but also through personal narratives and cultural fluency.

One trend we’re seeing, particularly from millennials and Gen Z, is an expectation for leaders to be culturally aware and socially attuned. For many in these generations, cultural literacy in a candidate signals empathy and adaptability, qualities seen as essential in navigating today’s rapid social shifts. Harris has engaged with this expectation by leaning into modern cultural references—such as “brat summer” or her appearance on Call Her Daddy—to connect with younger audiences. On the other hand, Donald Trump’s appearances on podcasts like Theo Von’s reflect an appeal to a younger, more skeptical demographic, reinforcing his base while broadening his reach.

This approach raises an important question: if candidates are not engaged with the cultural zeitgeist, does that make them less attuned to future generations’ needs? For political leaders, balancing generational appeal is no small feat. In contrast to brands that target Gen Z for long-term loyalty, political campaigns must manage the tension between Gen Z’s social influence and the reliable voting power of older generations.

Leadership perception is increasingly shaped by empathy, cultural understanding, and relatability. As candidates integrate personal narratives within broader sociopolitical contexts, it underscores a shift toward leadership that prioritizes genuine connections with diverse communities, moving beyond policy alone.

Does focusing on personal identity as part of a candidate’s brand strengthen or dilute their political message, and how can candidates ensure their brand resonates without alienating key voter demographics?

Walsh: Yes! Focusing on personal identity as part of a candidate’s brand can strengthen their message by making them more relatable and authentic to voters. However, it can also dilute the focus on their policies if not handled carefully as they need to integrate their personal story and brand in a way that complements their political platform rather than overwhelming it.

Jaime Robinson: Kamala’s converse and meme-ified social presence signals she’s for a younger, more progressive future. And Donald Trump, shutting down his town hall after four questions and then swaying awkwardly to a 1990s Andrea Bocelli ballad, says he’s content looking backwards.

Delisle: We are in unprecedented times where running for political office is like running in some ways in a popularity contest, and it has less to do with the political objectives and policy and more with how people “feel about someone.”

It’s alienating to me as a voter because these are public service jobs, and the fact that most of the commentary online and on television is about someone’s likability is really sad.

Jolene Delisle

Willis: The integration of personal identity into political branding has become a more sophisticated exercise, reflecting a shift in both strategy and voter expectations. Modern candidates face the challenge of weaving their identity into their campaigns in ways that resonate authentically, yet don’t overshadow the substance of their policies. This balancing act is increasingly crucial as younger generations, especially Gen Z and Millennials, value leaders who are socially and culturally engaged while also addressing issues with depth and relevance.

In recent years, political figures have embraced subtler forms of identity politics—where their personal stories, values, and cultural touchpoints are integrated naturally into their campaigns rather than positioned as the primary focus. This approach allows candidates to embody key aspects of their identity in ways that enhance relatability without detracting from the core message.

This evolution underscores a strategic shift: instead of directly emphasizing aspects of identity like gender or ethnicity, candidates increasingly use cultural moments and platforms to convey these elements implicitly.

Holly Willis

This approach reflects a larger trend where identity becomes a part of the fabric of a candidate’s brand without dominating it, allowing for a broader, more inclusive reach. By engaging with diverse media channels, like podcasts that resonate with distinct demographics or tapping into trending topics, candidates can address different voter needs without isolating any particular group. It is also reflective of a deeper understanding that leadership is not solely about direct representation. It’s about showing an awareness of and alignment with the broader cultural landscape.

For future candidates, the challenge will be finding ways to make personal identity resonate across various voter demographics. To achieve this, candidates can look at how consumer brands blend authenticity with relevance — using personal stories to establish a connection, but grounding that connection in the shared values of their audience.

Harris’s campaign appears to subtly embody modern feminism without directly emphasizing gender, unlike Clinton’s more explicit feminist branding. How does this reflect the changing role of identity politics in shaping brand strategy, and how might this influence the future branding of female candidates?

Walsh: Kamala Harris’s subtle embrace of modern feminism, without directly emphasizing gender, reflects a shift in how identity politics shape political branding. Unlike Hillary Clinton’s more explicit feminist messaging, Harris integrates her identity in a way that feels natural and resonates with a diverse yet increasingly scrutinizing voter base. This approach signals a new trend for female candidates, where they can highlight their identity without making it the focal point of their campaign, allowing them to appeal to a broader audience. By focusing on qualifications and policy, while still embracing their personal story, candidates can balance the celebration of diversity with the need to connect on issues that matter to a wide range of voters.

Robinson: It’s smart that Harris isn’t playing on gender, and also a sign of the times. Hillary Clinton was running during a cultural moment where gender identity and struggles were front-page headlines. They were the big news.

That moment has passed, and it would seem outdated if Kamala Harris leaned on being a woman. In fact, today, Harris has a better chance of getting elected if she doesn’t go into gender identity. She knows she needs to dial up a more relevant aspect of her personal demographics  – that she’s younger than her opponent by 20 years, with a spirit to match.  She’s leaning into the memes, the BRAT, the inside jokes. She is signaling that she’s for the future, not for the past.

When she wins, we’ll celebrate that she’s a woman. Not a second before that.

Jaime Robinson

Bernstein: Kamala running for President as a woman isn’t seen by the American public as such a big deal because Hilary already did it. Hillary comes from a different generation. Her feminism was defined by needing to play in a man’s world. She had to play by men’s rules and ‘man up.’ She broke the glass ceiling in her run for President. Her feminism was about fighting for women’s rights and the need to show a woman could do a man’s job.

Kamala comes to a Presidential race by not having to play the same game that Hillary did.  She embodies another generation – GenX vs Boomer. She understands that to win as a brand, she needs to be defined relative to her competition. Being a woman is irrelevant. Her brand is “not Trump.” And her age is more important than her gender – it’s what also separates her from Trump and Biden.

Running on one’s identity now – and in the future – is not enough. Voters today are not choosing a candidate based on gender alone.

Ruth Bernstein

This is a different race. This is a changing of a generation. These are the moments when choice can’t be defined by identity. This is a race that is bigger than that.

Willis: Kamala Harris’s campaign underscores a shift in how gender is integrated into political branding. Where Clinton’s explicit feminist messaging highlighted her role as a groundbreaking figure for women, Harris embodies a more subdued form of feminism. She integrates her identity into her platform in a way that feels authentic and organic rather than overt. This approach allows Harris to resonate with voters who value diversity and representation without risking the perception of identity politics overwhelming her platform.

This progression mirrors the changing cultural landscape, where diversity is increasingly celebrated but must be balanced with a broader message that appeals across demographics. As diversity becomes a more central expectation, female candidates may have more freedom to weave their identity into their political brands subtly. They can express modern feminism not as a standalone brand pillar, but as one of many facets that make up a well-rounded candidate. This more nuanced approach could help future female candidates navigate an increasingly scrutinized political arena by resonating with voters who see their identities as a natural part of their brand narrative, rather than its primary focus.

Clinton’s pantsuits became a symbol of her campaign, often diverting attention away from policy discussions, while Harris’s fashion choices seem to escape such scrutiny. How crucial is it for candidates’ brands to balance consistency in their visual identity with the need to focus on substantive policy?

Walsh: In political branding it’s all about balancing consistency in visual identity while keeping the focus on substantive policy. Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits became an iconic symbol, but that could distract from more important policy discussions. While visual branding creates a recognizable and cohesive image, there’s a risk when it becomes the story rather than supporting it. Kamala Harris, on the other hand, has managed to maintain a strong visual identity without her fashion choices becoming the center of attention, allowing her policies and leadership to take the spotlight.

Robinson: Visual identity is everything and these candidates know that. Picture Trump –  what is he wearing? Not a leather jacket or some True Religion bootcut jeans. He’ll be in a dark suit with a red tie or golf whites and a MAGA hat. Picture Kamala Harris. She’s in a blazer and skinny jeans and Converse, or she’s in a modern designer suit.

These are brand moments—sartorial choices that are picked because of the policies the candidates are endorsing, not despite them. Donald Trump is projecting the image of the rough businessman cutting taxes for the rich. Kamala Harris is the image of the cool aunt who is gonna kick someone’s ass for taking away your reproductive rights.

But the good news? These branding elements are really not the focus.

We’re not talking about the clothing choices, unlike Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits, which is a great thing. A lot has happened since 2016, and we don’t have time for that shit.

Jaime Robinson

Bernstein: For most candidates, it is important to build a visual identity that is inclusive and contrasts with that of your opponent. Obama had one of the strongest visual identities of any modern politician. It let him own the idea of ‘Hope and Progress.’ While that is not substantive policy, it provided a platform for him to put forward ideas that lived up to that visual promise such as healthcare for all.

Delisle: I think millennial voters were much more into political branding – I think in the time of Obama and his Shepard Fairey prints, it was much more about visual identity shaping the campaign. Now because things have shifted so much away from printed collateral, the visual identity piece to me seems less important in this election. Obviously, with MAGA, they had a very strong visual thread that was helpful for them in the last election and likely this one, too, but I think it’s smart that the Harris campaign isn’t putting as much significance on her logo or graphic elements and putting much more effort on social media like video and UGC.

Holly Willis: A candidate’s brand is enhanced when visual identity serves as a subtle extension of their narrative, reinforcing their platform without distracting from the policies they champion. For example, a well-coordinated wardrobe choice can be strategically symbolic, drawing connections to the communities they represent without being explicitly gendered or politicized. It’s essential to maintain this balance to ensure the conversation remains focused on their vision and substance.

Can too much focus on visual elements risk diminishing a candidate’s brand? How can they avoid this?

Robinson: I think the conversation around Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits was problematic – it made her more lovable to her core demographic, who were finally seeing themselves represented and loved her boss bitch vibes.  But the sensible pumps and pantsuits served to “other” her to her detractors, who found her power dressing off-putting for the same reasons that her core loved it. 

But today, unless that visual element is a negative or unattractive thing, it’s not a problem. Even the infamous “orange” hue of Donald Trump’s skin is just as accepted and in some camps, celebrated as part of his brand.

Willis: An overemphasis on visual elements can indeed dilute a candidate’s brand, potentially reducing their persona to superficial traits and drawing focus away from their platform. Visual identity should be a strategic tool, enhancing the message and helping convey a sense of strength, consistency, respect, and relatability, but not becoming the focal point. Political figures can avoid this pitfall by aligning visual identity closely with their core values, reinforcing it as an extension of their messaging rather than an attention-grabbing element on its own.

For candidates today, the goal should be to integrate these elements as part of a comprehensive brand that resonates with voter segments. By thoughtfully choosing elements that reflect broader narratives—such as inclusivity, relatability, and authenticity — they can create a memorable visual presence that supports, rather than overshadows, their policies. This balance is especially important in a media environment that often emphasizes imagery, where strategic visual choices can enhance a candidate’s connection with voters.

Clinton faced relentless negative media coverage, while Harris appears to have avoided similar levels of personal scrutiny. How should political candidates handle the branding impact of personal attacks? What strategies from the private sector can help create resilient brands that can withstand media controversies and misinformation?

Walsh: Political candidates can handle personal attacks by focusing on consistency, transparency, and staying true to their core message—much like successful brands in the private sector. Just as companies respond to negative press by controlling the narrative, candidates should address false claims directly, clarify their stance, and reinforce their values without letting attacks overshadow their campaign. By using crisis management strategies from the business world—such as clear communication, proactive messaging, and staying authentic—candidates can build resilience and maintain focus on their leadership and policy goals, ensuring that negative media doesn’t dominate or derail their brand.

Robinson: If you’re running for president, criticism from someone (or many someones) is part of the job description. The key is, no matter the heat, to stay true to the brand. Candidates must stay authentic, and not waver just because they ruffled some feathers. They likely also strengthened some feathers, and if they change course because of the criticism, everybody will register them as fakes. 

As with marketing brands, you can’t be everything to everybody. And the most vital thing is to be “on brand” to yourself.

Willis: One key strategy is to establish a clear, positive narrative around their identity, consistently highlighting their values and achievements. This creates a “brand foundation” that can anchor public perception, making it more challenging for opponents to erode their credibility. In the face of attacks, it’s also effective to address issues head-on when appropriate, deflecting distractions but responding thoughtfully to misinformation.

Resilience also comes from transparency and trust-building. Private-sector brands often use authenticity to connect with audiences, and candidates can similarly counteract negative coverage by being candid and accessible. Misinformation is a constant threat, and successful brands emphasize fact-based storytelling, engaging directly with audiences to set the record straight and offer a counter-narrative that reinforces their values.

Directly addressing a baseless claim not only clarifies their stance but also builds credibility with voters, showing an alignment with the facts over spin.

Holly Willis

With Kamala Harris benefitting from the cultural groundwork laid by Clinton and Shirley Chisholm, how important do you believe timing is in a candidate’s branding success?

Walsh: Timing is critical in a candidate’s branding success, and Kamala Harris’s rise is a great example. She built on the groundwork laid by figures like Clinton and Shirley Chisholm, and her campaign’s timing was key. As many grew weary of Biden’s traditional leadership, Harris brought fresh energy and hope, representing diversity and progress. The joy surrounding her candidacy was not only about her qualifications but the emotional response to seeing a leader who people were excited to get behind. Harris’s timing allowed her brand to resonate at a moment when the public craved new, dynamic representation.

Robinson: Timing – for candidate brands and brand brands – is everything. Is the world ready for what your brand has to say?

Bernstein: Kamala’s womanhood is not as important as other factors. Her age, for one, is a more important factor than her gender. With Kamala, we are seeing her flex her GenX attributes more than her femaleness. And that is relevant to the moment we are in – the age of Biden and the age of Trump and the desire for a new generation of leadership.

Willis: Timing is a critical factor. Harris, for example, is benefiting from the cultural groundwork laid by earlier trailblazers who helped shift societal perceptions of female and diverse leadership. These predecessors opened the door for a more complex, intersectional understanding of identity in politics, allowing Harris to subtly embrace her own diverse background while focusing on policy-driven messaging.

Furthermore, Me Too shifted public consciousness around gender, power, and representation, allowing the political landscape to adapt. Harris’s ability to incorporate her identity without making it a constant focal point reflects this change.

A candidate’s success depends on how aligned their brand is with the public’s evolving expectations and the cultural zeitgeist. As society increasingly values diversity and inclusion, candidates like Harris are better positioned to capitalize on this shift, embodying leadership that resonates with a multi-dimensional, multi-generational electorate. Today, aligning personal identity with policy is as important as having the right message—it’s also about delivering it at the right moment, in a way that feels timely, authentic, and relevant.

In what ways do you see candidates balancing their personal narratives with the evolving societal context during their campaigns? Take Harris’ approach to highlighting her gender, for example.

Walsh: Candidates today must align their personal stories with the shifting cultural zeitgeist, where representation and authenticity are highly valued. Kamala Harris’s nuanced approach to highlighting her gender reflects a broader trend of political figures adapting their identity strategies to align with the cultural moment. Rather than making her gender the sole focus, Harris weaves it into a larger narrative of competence, experience, and representation, allowing her to connect with diverse groups without being reduced to a singular identity.

Robinson: Harris is smart. She’s not taking the gender bait, for either the positive or the negative. Even more interestingly, nobody else really seems all that concerned with it. We’re all so entrenched in our political sides that either party could run a hippopotamus and still get votes. In fact, Moo Deng would probably crush it.

Willis: Harris’s approach illustrates a broader trend in which political figures integrate aspects of their identity into their brand strategies without necessarily making them the centerpiece. This allows candidates to connect with voters on shared values, using their identity as a touchpoint that builds relatability while focusing on policy. In today’s social climate, where identity is often deeply intertwined with political beliefs, this balanced approach enables leaders to reflect the diversity of their constituencies without alienating key voter demographics.

As societal expectations evolve, political candidates are finding ways to weave personal narratives into their campaigns subtly. They leverage cultural references, such as Harris’s allusions to trending topics like Beyoncé or Taylor Swift, to underscore their connections to various communities. This nuanced branding strategy suggests that candidates can benefit from staying attuned to cultural shifts and adopting a flexible approach that allows them to resonate across generations. At the same time, it acknowledges that while identity politics remains a powerful tool, it must be wielded thoughtfully to avoid alienating groups with different priorities.

However, aligning with cultural trends in this way carries risks. In today’s fast-paced media environment, one misstep can lead to accusations of inauthenticity or pandering, undermining the intended connection. Voters, especially younger generations, are highly attuned to authenticity and quick to call out anything that feels disingenuous. Therefore, it’s a delicate balance: candidates must lean into their personal experiences and core values to connect with cultural topics and trends genuinely, rather than opportunistically.

We are less than a week away from Election Day, Tuesday, November 5. For all of our futures, this election is critical and your voice matters. If you need any voting registration help or info finding the nearest polling booth to you, learn more here.

Campaign imagery © KamalaHarris.com and Harris campaign social feeds.

The post Five Design Leaders on the Evolution of the Female Presidential Candidate appeared first on PRINT Magazine.