Another Bush running for president!? Another Clinton running!? And now Mitt Romney is going to run again too!?
We hear your grumbling, but we have bad news for you: The fact that Bush is a Bush and Clinton is a Clinton probably makes it more likely you'll see them in the general election. And the same goes for Romney's repeat bid.
The American people, you see, aren't really that concerned about seeing the same names on the ballot over and over again. In fact, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, about six in 10 registered voters say that it makes no difference to them who the candidates' husbands, fathers or brothers are, nor that they failed to win their previous campaigns for president.
And in fact, in the primary, it's pretty hard to argue that it's not actually a net benefit for all three.
Here is how people respond to the idea of voting for another Clinton 14 years after her husband left the White House.
And here's how they react to the prospect of a third president having the last name Bush.
And finally, how they feel about having the failed 2012 GOP nominee run again.
In all three cases, most people don't care -- and especially those in the candidate's own party. But among those who say it does affect their calculus, more of their fellow partisans say it's a good thing rather than a bad thing. Hence, it helps. And that's to say nothing of the doors opened to big-dollar fundraisers and donors, top staff, etc.
For Bush and Romney, the repetition becomes more of an issue in the general election, where more see it as a reason to oppose them and support them. (Clinton's name, by contrast, is still a positive for her.)
Mostly, this is about people who weren't going to vote for them anyway (i.e. Democrats) balking. While between 20 and 24 percent of Republicans see their familiarity as a benefit, 51 percent of Democrats say the Bush name makes them less likely to back Jeb, and 39 percent say Romney's repeat run is a non-starter for them. Of course, those Democrats, in all likelihood, weren't going to vote for either Republican come November 2016.
Moderates are more likely to not want to vote for a Bush (32 percent "less likely") or a Romney (26 percent "less likely"). But even then, you have to ask how many of them were predisposed to voting against either man. And "less likely" doesn't necessarily mean "deal-breaker." It's possible that there are a fair amount of would-be GOP presidential voters who would sit out the 2016 election or decide to actually vote for Clinton, but it's not clear either.
And even then, they'd just be voting for a different political dynasty.