Forget about the election. The issues, the stances, whatever the results and changes to this country that may or may not have occurred dependent on whoever won — forget about all that for a second. Take a close look at each candidate’s words. That is, their fonts.

And there are literally thousands of different typefaces. A typeface is distinct from a font, and while that distinction has changed over time (with computers and digitization) for the purposes of this article, we’ll just go with typefaces as the catch-all for “a set of characters that share common design features” (thanks, Wikipedia).

Both Romney and Obama purchased their fonts from the same type foundry in New York, Hoefler & Frere-Jones. In 2008, the Obama campaign widely employed a typeface called “Gotham” — a typeface that, according to creator Tobias Frere-Jones, “inherited an honest tone that’s assertive but never imposing, friendly but never folksy, confident but never aloof.” You’d want those words to describe you anytime, but certainly when no one knows your name. Obama’s Gotham, a sans-serif typeface (i.e. a typeface without extensions at the end of the strokes, so no “feet,” for example) went up against McCain’s more traditional use of a serif (a typeface with extensions, such as the one this article is written in) typeface called “Optima.” In the end, of course, the election went to Obama, and though one can objectively say very little about the effects of one font over the other, the little memory exercise hopefully suggests that Obama’s image really was defined quite well and gave him something of an edge.

This year, the images were less striking, maybe less dramatic. For the most part, Obama kept his image the same, reusing Gotham. But for his main logo, the Obama team revised the image, incorporating what’s known as a “slab-serif” typeface. His new logo, according to graphic designer Michael Beirut, in an article from The Atlantic, is “meant to be kind of forceful and brawny and athletic and strong-looking … it looks a little more traditional on one hand, but … really kind of strong and confident on the other.” The Obama team is playing defense with their typeface choices, with a goal-line stand of a typeface, instead of the striking, sophisticated pass-play typeface of four years ago. One cannot repeatedly introduce one’s self and the Obama team knows that.

On Romney’s side of the field, perhaps he’s not trying for the long-ball the same way Obama did in ’08 — and maybe that’s said something about him. The flowing stroke that forms the “R” resembles toothpaste. According to Beirut, combining a symbol like that with other letters in hopes to form a complete name (and, of course, a message) “is like a mortal sin to do.” You might have even heard others point out that the remaining “OMNEY” makes for a pretty swift anagram of “MONEY.”

A new study out of the University of Illinois has found that participants who read “an overtly political argument … in a challenging font” were less politicized about the message than those given the passage in a more easily-read typeface. Candidates should learn from this and keep their typefaces clear. With a logo like Romney’s, some supporters might be looking too hard, perhaps confused — an impression that the Romney camp would find undesirable.

While this sort of research is young, no one denies that images are critical — even down to the appearance of words themselves. That is, in typefaces and logos. All seek to create or enhance identity and become something larger than themselves. If it’s the details that count, typefaces may prove to be worth their price in the whole package of “image.”