For a long time I've thought about the name blandness of presidential candidates. We have no imagination, and the simpler the name, the seemingly more electable the person is... the same can be said for repetition or family connections: See John Quincy Adams, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Al Gore, George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton.
Whether there are one, two, or three syllables in a candidate's name, it is generally the Republican candidate who holds the edge. Republicans with one syllable are 7-6 in elections while Democrats are just 2-4. Two syllable candidates are 10-7 as Republicans and 11-14 as Democrats, while three syllable candidates are 4-2 when running as Republicans and just 7-7 as Democrats.
There has been just one candidate since the establishment of these two parties whose name contained more than three syllables: Eisenhower who swept both the 1952 and 1956 elections as, you guessed it, a Republican--though he was a bit like Colin Powell in that he was actively recruited by both parties.
So what does this teach us about the 2008 election? Well, if you believe in these kinds of things--and I don't--you'll note that we have a two syllable Republican (McCain) up against a three syllable Democrat (Obama). McCain's name has been in the public arena much longer than has Obama's which bodes well for Republicans (Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes) who do not elect upstarts or fresh faces (term use depends on your preference), while the Democrats have a history of plucking up the unknowns (Carter, Clinton). Both of our 2008 candidates' names seemingly pass the roll-off-the-tongue test, but give the edge to McCain for the familiarity of his name... people have known McCains, but few have a friend named Obama.
We would like our presidential elections to be concluded on ideas, but they are often decided over psychological issues or a good sound bite. In 1844, voters found it preferable to have a so-called coward in office (Polk) than a drunkard (Clay). Hoover's "a chicken in every pot" line was a more accessible message for 1928 voters than was the Prohibition stance of Alfred Smith, who voters feared would turn the nation into Roman Catholics--you remember how this misnomer was finally overcome in 1960 with Kennedy. Ford had lost so much in-party support in 1976 that his entire platform was designed by the ranks of his competitor for the party nod (Reagan), this allowed Carter to get in on the backs of labor and the south, despite his awkward Playboy interview about "the desires of his heart."
And that's one to grow on...
perhaps random, but interesting nontheless. Do you have a research asst.?
Posted by: Wendy Melchior | August 06, 2008 at 01:11 PM
Oh, and I do not think "Barack Obama" falls into the name blandness category. I'm not endorsing necessarily, I am just pointing out his name's inherent uniqueness in the usually stale political arena. John, George, Bill, BARACK. Would we declare that a pro or con?
btw - Jimmy just bought it for the articles.
Posted by: Wendy Melchior | August 06, 2008 at 01:15 PM
I hope to some day have many research assistants running around... for now, they are all learning to read Seuss. I like doing it myself, but c'mon people, I'm a busy man!
As I said, it was totally random. I didn't even have a point to make and the beginning didn't lead to the ending... so yes, Barack does not fit the comment at the beginning. Actually as a name game only, McCain and Obama are very refreshing choices compared to the last 20 years of elections. I think the endearing reflection here is--who are people really going to vote for when they're alone in the ballot box?
Polls can be misleading. The candidate who best overcomes his stigmas (Bush III v. First Black President/Name sounds Muslim) and who best presents a clear message will win. It will be very tight. It's "the chicken in every pot" philosophy, the "It's the economy, stupid" line, or the "I Like Ike" branding statement that will overcome a close race... regardless if the line is true or not.
For this race, I haven't heard "it" (swift boat) yet, and sometimes you don't know what "it" is until after the fact...
Posted by: johnvano | August 06, 2008 at 05:32 PM