As we have spread from the Stone Age of just knowing a few dozen people to the current situation where billions are accesible via the internet it has become more and more common to categorize people/ It's a necessity in spite of what the PC'ers (hey there we go) may say

The area I'm interested in is appellation profiling. The more I reflect on the election the more I see that S Harper had the best name. The electorate thought that meant he would be clever and adroit when in fact he represents the meaning "artful, bent, crafty, cunning, deceitful, designing, feather legs, ornery, salty, shady, shrewd, slick, slippery, sly, smart, snake, two-faced, underhand, unethical, unscrupulous, wil" as they are now discovering.

In contrast Duceppe conjures up being duped, and Layton would be late-on reacting - not what you want from a PM. I, of course have a neutral name - good for second place only. It is only in hindsight we can tell what would work for instance my predecessor got the sympathy vote not just for his lack of looks but also his idiot surname

The same theory could apply to country names. One of the most reviled countries, Haiti, is currently in the news for more bad reasons. Our GG hardly did much for her homeland by escaping at the first opportunity but with its low cost of living and beautiful climate and beaches it has much going for it

So why does it fail. Simply the name. Change it to Lovey and you'ld have West End and Broadway stars flocking there followed by papparazi, gawkers etc.. All of a sudden the Bahamas would be old news

Just a thought