Wouldn't it be nice to know who wins the race to the White House in November this year? In this series I'll assess the possible scenarios.
Part 1 - Enablers and disablers of change
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Don't change a winning team. And so on. The majority of humans tend to shun change until change becomes inevitable.
The US Constitution says you can only be president twice, so Barack is on his way out. Change is inevitable.
The biggest unanswered question is whether the change this year will be limited to the person or alter the political course as well.
If you're happy with the way Democrats have been running the country, you're likely to vote Hillary. If you're unhappy, you're likely to vote Donald.
This much seems pretty obvious. What if you're somewhat unhappy with Hillary, but not to the extent that you're ready to vote Donald? What if you're a little in favour of changing the Clinton-Barack course, but not to the point where you'd endorse the Bush-Donald way?
In a bipartisan setup, no political course is really new in that it's pretty much the same course as that followed 4-8-12 years ago. A bold leap into the future is, at the same time, a retreat into the past. Developed democracies go round and round, like cats chasing their tail.
This is where the presidential race gets both confusing and exciting.
T.b.c.
