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...