In contrast, the worst bumper sticker is by the floundering campaign of John McCain. According to Newsweek, McCain's logo uses "an Optima font that many designers dislike because it's a hybrid for people who can't decide between a serif or sans serif." Even worse, "[i]t's wishy-washy, neither contemporary nor traditional." As if that's not all bad enough, "it's overtly militaristic and "[th]ere's no subtlety."
Finally, there's Mitt Romney's "careless and half-baked" framing boxes, "the bumper sticker of someone who's not going to win."
Funny stuff, but does any of this matter? How many of you can remember Tim Kaine's bumper sticker, or Bob McDonnell's, or Bill Bolling's? In general, do bumper stickers make a difference? Candidates certainly spend a lot of time and money on them, so one would hope they do.
Historically-USA: In this time when every little community has to have their own euro-style sticker (round, white background, black letters), the "W '04" sticker of the same type was very creative and original.
Historically-VA: In years past candidates had all types of colors and stuff on their bumperstickers, but the John Dalton for Governor sticker in 1977 was great. It had several rows of autmunal colors inside the "D" which made it very distinctive and original.
Worst, all time-VA-in 1981 a gentleman ran for the a house of delegates in or around Richmond. the Bumper sticker had a brown background, with tan letters that were spelled as if they were made with a rope...a very long rope...and as a result in CURSIVE writing! Very difficult to read, remember, or do anything a sticker like that is supposed to do.