Samira wrote:
I took that to mean "Dynasty", as in the old TV show. Opulence, obnoxious displays of wealth. You know.
What I meant was that Clinton brings another Clinton in the White House. So, if you're looking for someone fresh and new, it wouldn't be Clinton. However, Bush does the exact same thing, so it sorta cancels each other out. You can't vote against Clinton because of dynasties and vote for Bush. You would have to essentially throw that aspect away.
Romney on the other hand, hasn't won. He sort of has a dynasty of losers, but not winners, so he's free of that feeling. Unfortunately, he's more recent in the news. One of the reasons why Clinton lost in 2008 was she became old news very quickly by being in the spotlight for so long. It allowed someone fresh to woo the voters. Although Bush brings the dynasty feeling, he hasn't been in the spot light like Romney. People have the opportunity to relearn (or know for the first time) who Bush is. Romney doesn't have that option, his gaffe wheel is still in rotation.
So, if I had to take a $10,000 bet
(see what I did there), I would bet that an undecided voter (who is probably more center) would give Bush a first chance before giving Romney a third chance. So as a donor, I would stick with someone like Bush. I think they will continue to see where the polls will be once everything is in full motion before making their final decision, but at this stage, I would stick with Bush.
Edited, Jan 26th 2015 5:46am by Almalieque