NON-US PRESIDENTIAL political slogan. Effectiveness of Political Slogan

2-page short essay, tell me about a particular NON-US PRESIDENTIAL political slogan that you think has captured our lesson and embraced selling a candidate like a product. When was it used? For who? What do you think it conveyed? Did it work, and why?
For this week's assignment;
Think about what we discussed when it comes to making the US Presidency "work" by combining the metaphorical buying power of the voting public and the desire to craft and sell a product from political parties and campaigns.
TODAY'S LESSON
The idea of the President as a popular and electable "leader" is through two elements; The power and right of voting, and the power of the political party system.
In this particular case, we want to know how multiple elements (the single parts of government we've been discussing) work in tandem to support each other. Some of these combinations are of two different ones, and some can be three. For a Presidency to be what it is today, we need two;
VOTING - We've discussed the electoral college and the debate about keeping it VS the popular vote. Regardless, the idea of citizenship conveying an inalienable right, a power to select leadership, gives a lot of power to a populace. The power to elect, to pick, rather than be told what's ultimately good for us without even the illusion of choice, is a very powerful one (which brings us to the history of voter suppression in the US, another lesson for another week), so the way we use it must be with the full knowledge that the "product" (a leader) we're putting our money and trust into, metaphorically and literally, should deserve it.
This means that, since the inception of political parties that actively try to "sell" their stances and policies to voters versus the other party, leaders who can be elected are treated as products to sell, with implications and branding, with slogans and merchandise (promotional), all of it aimed at working to capture the power of that vote. A president who can't be seen as a slogan or an abstract concept, a "brand" as it were, ultimately doesn't get as much of the vote and therefore can't be seen as truly representing the US as that brand model/spokesperson.
Look through history as Presidents we've ultimately treated as such;
George Washington; War hero and a natural leader
Donald Trump; Reactionary and also populist
Barack Obama; Young idealism and the promise of a "golden age"
Franklin Roosevelt; Recovery and reinvention of the US
George W. Bush; Homespun familiarity and comfort in troubling times.
Bill Clinton; Popular charisma and acceptance of youth culture
John Kennedy; The promise of an American "royal family".
Every single one of these particular presidencies is/has been one that has a large pop culture presence, creating arguably-clear "brands" that together with the power of the vote, create arguably-memorable presidencies (even if the first one is cheating because Washington was, technically, the first president).
The views we've been given of these presidents are one-half of the "formula," as it were, of creating and maintaining a president. Think about how many other elected officials are voted for regularly, and how many of them do their jobs daily, besides the US President. Can you name any off the top of your head? How many? However, to maintain the idea of the power of the vote and the populist concept behind democracy, we use the idea of "selling" a leader (more accurately leasing one) to the American public who then use their power to determine if it's a good investment. That's where political parties come in as the crafters of that brand and that message.
The charm and charisma of Barack Obama wasn't an organic thing, but the capturing of a movement that was fostered into something more. The same goes for Roosevelt, for Bill Clinton, for Donald Trump. It's the balance of the elements of a good sold to the voting public and the voting public deciding on the value of the bill of goods.
What do you guys think? Are these accurate "billings" of presidents to the electing public, and does this combination make sense?