Like Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama has presided over an economic recovery. In 2010, the yearly average unemployment rate peaked at 9.6% eerily, almost the exact same average figure that Reagan faced during his second year); today, its been brought down to around 5%.
If such an economic climate persists, it seems probable that Clinton will benefit from voters' goodwill. If historical precedent is anything to go by, plenty of people will be happy to reward the incumbent party with another spell in the White House.
Just as Bush did in 1988, Clinton is bidding to follow a two-term president who has amassed a significant legacy, both with regards to policy and in reshaping his partys electoral coalition.Similarly, Clinton is already portraying herself as the protector of Obamas legacy, notably at a recent Democratic debate where she championed the current presidents accomplishments on health care, financial reform and relations with Iran. Should Obamas numbers begin to tick upwards during 2016, as Reagans did during 1988, expect to hear more of this from Clinton.
By most standards, Bush senior and Hillary Clinton remain by far two of the most qualified people to be serious contenders for the presidency in modern political history. By 1988, Bush had been a congressman, senator, ambassador to the UN, director of the CIA and, of course, vice-president. While not quite matching that extraordinary CV, Clinton is hardly lacking in the experience column, having been a near co-governor and co-president in both her stints as first lady of Arkansas and then the United States, as well as senator and secretary of state in her own right.
History, as they say, doesnt repeat itself, but often rhymes. Despite the fact that, unlike each of their predecessors, both Bush and Clinton have been known to campaign in prose rather than poetry, it now seems more than likely that between them, they will complete a neat stanza in presidential politics.