It must be observed: every GOP Presidential ticket since 1976 had either a Bush or a Dole on it.
Jeb Bush has done a very good job as governor- even moderate Democrats here accept that. In his second inaugural address, he said that he plans to measure his success by the number of empty state office buildings around Florida.
The dynasty issues is a concern. Yes, FDR was elected 4 times. His last two races however weren't exactly landslides, and the election of 1944 was surpisingly close (becuase most voters were choosing between Truman and Dewey). Of course the dynasty issues would be mooted if Hillary ran as the dems would have the same problem. Jeb would have a lot more to show for 8 years in Tallahassee than Hillary would have for 8 years in the Senate.
What in boils down to in my mind is that a Governor (or perhaps a mayor of a large city) of a major state would make a better president that a Senator. A Governor has many administrative duties which he has to perform well, while a Senator only has to make sure that his foot is not in his mouth and that he gets some face time. IMHO.
He won with 55% of the vote and 85% of the electoral votes in 1940, and with 53% of the vote and 81% of the electoral votes in 1944. Not too shabby and landslides in anyones dictionary.
A democracy isn't supposed to have a hereditary governing family. Be that clinton, roosevelt or even bush -- as much as jeb might be a good president.
At least Chelsea doesn't seem interested in politics, so the clinton dynasty won't go beyond the current generation.