Here's how we should be thinking about 2016.
Instead of an ongoing chorus of "OMG! Hillary, yes, yes, yes!" and its counterchorus, "OMG! Hillary, no, no, no!" and the various verses in between, we should be thinking carefully of what we want as a party, and for the country, going forward.
We should be assessing social programs, foreign commitments, tax policy, infrastructure needs, research funding, and a host of other things, and asking ourselves, "What do we really want here?" And then we should be looking at potential candidates, questioning them, and figuring out which ones are most likely to do what we want and need in these areas. And this should be with a firm understanding in place that no one candidate will ever be perfect.
The best-case scenario is a competitive primary season in which all of these items get discussed and all the candidates make thoughtful cases for their particular positions of all these areas. In the end, in this best-case scenario, we'd end up with a strong candidate who wins the general election.
Alas, it's never quite like this. People fixate early on for and against various candidates, and the candidates themselves rarely give a coherent explanation of how they see these issues, how they would try to fix things or govern once in office.
Here's another hugely important thing that no one here seems to be thinking about: it is very common after 8 years of one President, for the country as a whole to want to see a President from the other party. I've also seen it at the level of Governor. So what's to say that overall Democratic President Fatigue might simply lead to the Republican being elected, no matter who the nominees are?
If the general election comes down to Bush v Clinton, my guess is that the ultimate outcome will depend more on which family is the more despised of the two overall, not the specific merits of the individual candidates.
= new reply since forum marked as read
