Well at least it'll mix things up to have a third family in the mix. Just having it go alternating rounds of Bushes and Clintons would get boring pretty fast
it would also be extraordinarily difficult given that there are no other contenders in the families. I mean, there is Chelsea, and that's it. And on the Bush's side, well, Jeb!'s ship has long since sailed.
Political dynasties are older then the Kennedys. Older then the Roosevelts. I don't know why people keep arguing it's magically new shit.
So Politico published two articles on
Clinton and
Trump, respectively, examining their paths to victory. In a nuthsell, they argue Trump's path to victory is relatively narrow and focuses on flipping currently blue states in the Rust Belt, while Clinton's is much wider and will focus on defending Democratic territory. If Clinton can hold currently blue areas, she only needs one swing state to win. Alternately, since Clinton seems to be winning swing states by a fair margin (bearing in mind polling hasn't really kicked off yet), she could afford to lose a few blue states if she sweeps the swing states.
One thing that is worth noting is that Trump is considered to be running a very poor ground game, and is betting on personal charm (he argued to Politico that what won Obama his races was not Obama's solid ground-game, but his personal appeal). Clinton is instead running a traditional campaign, and will probably try to recreate what worked in the Obama campaign. In addition, Trump will probably not have as many of the resources on the ground that another republican campaign would, since he isn't working with the RNC currently, while Clinton obviously is working with the DNC.
What do you guys think? Do you agree? Are the campaigns trying to do the right thing? Are Trump's campaign's faults going to sink him?