Call it comfy jeans politics, but the prospect of a Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, (Clinton?) run stemming back to 1981 (counting Bush Sr.'s tenure as Ronald Reagan's VP) does not alarm Pennsylvania voters.
Luckily for Hillary Clinton, dynasties are just fine in the Keystone State, where political offices are often passed through generations of the same family. Clinton's name recognition is not a liability, but a durable asset. Pennsylvanians like tried and true candidates. Example? Former Governor Robert Casey Sr. ran for office three times, before he won.
While Pennsylvania Democrats may not warm up quickly to the new kid on the block, do you think Americans in general have dynasty fatigue? Perhaps Clinton should be judged solely as an individual, and not part of a Clinton dynasty. But that argument seems shaky since she invokes her husband's presidency so often.
Does it weaken democracy if the presidency remains with the same two families? Or, are Americans comfortable with ruling families they know so well?