As the presidential campaign began earlier this year, the fear among some political observers was that the American people would be faced next year with a grim choice between two political dynasties: the Clintons and the Bushes. Theoretically a matchup between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush may still take place in 2016. Indeed, Hillary Clinton still leads the national polls among Democrats and Jeb Bush has raised the most money of all the Republicans, so long as you don’t count Donald Trump’s checks that are written to himself. But as the summer comes to an end, the assumptions that were the foundation of the inevitable Clinton-Bush matchup are now exploded. Hillary’s email scandal, lackluster campaign and defensive encounters with the press encouraged a remarkable left-wing insurgency led by Bernie Sanders. They’ve also made it all but certain that Vice President Joe Biden will enter the race against her, perhaps with the tacit or open backing of President Obama. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush continued to lag far behind Trump and seems outmatched in exchanges with his populist foe. Yet as different as their problems may be, they may more in common than they or most of us ever thought. Both are starting to realize that the last thing many voters on both sides of the aisle want is a battle between two fading political dynasties.

Let’s concede that Bush is in far worse shape than Clinton. His problem isn’t just that his standing in the polls, both national and in the early voting states, is an utter disaster. Bush got into the race early to intimidate would-be rivals like Mitt Romney into dropping out. But he is not only trailing far behind Trump, he also now faces the real possibility of being eclipsed as the moderate non-Trump by John Kasich while others have tapped into other constituencies that Bush seems incapable of addressing. Yet as bad as that news may be, even worse is the realization that his performance as a candidate has been abysmal. Bush could have shrugged off a low-energy performance at the first debate had it been out of character. Yet it was very much in character with his poor showing on the campaign trail. Monday’s disaster at the border with Mexico in which he tried to get right with Hispanics only to offend Asians with his talk about their anchor babies is just the latest example of his poor choice of words. Like his various and often ill-considered answers to questions about his brother’s decision to invade Iraq, this incident was typical Jeb. He was, at one and the same time, wonkish, long winded, and off message. Not surprisingly that has led to reports that his formidable fundraising machine is starting to lose steam.

Nobody with $100 million in the bank, a famous name, as well as a good record should be written off in August, but at the moment it’s hard to see how he digs himself out of this hole. That’s especially true when you consider that he has been the consistent loser in exchanges with Trump even if he’s almost always in the right and the Donald in the wrong on the issues. If there’s going to be an establishment non-Trump who emerges from the scrum of GOP candidates to knock off the current frontrunner, his name isn’t likely to be Bush. Indeed, barring a complete turnaround on his part, he’s set up to go into history alongside Phil Gramm (1996) and John Connally (1980) as the best-funded busts in the history of presidential elections.

Hillary’s problems are not so dire at the moment. She still seems to be laboring under the delusion that her email problems are an annoyance concocted by her old bugaboo, the “vast right wing conspiracy” and will soon fade away. Nor does she seem particularly worried about Sanders leading her in New Hampshire and drawing big crowds around the country. But if she isn’t worried at the thought of Biden getting into the race with what is increasingly sounding like the imprimatur of the White House, she’s not thinking straight.

It’s true that the good feelings about Biden among Democratic voters may decline once the Clinton machine starts to attack. But though he is a gaffe-machine whose two previous attempts at presidential runs were utterly disastrous, his authenticity and happy warrior personality provides a tremendous contrast with Clinton. If Democrats perceive that he is running for a third Obama term as opposed to another one for the Clintons, Hillary will be in the fight of her life. And if the real idol of the left — Elizabeth Warren — is seen as also backing Biden, Hillary’s “inevitable” coronation in 2016 may prove to be as illusory as her similar can’t-lose candidacy in 2008.

The problem for both Bush and Clinton is not just that a lot of Americans are tired of their names or the problems associated with them — Iraq for the Bushes and scandals for the Clintons. To the great surprise of the establishments of both major parties, this time voters want something genuinely new to get excited about. Republicans and Democrats may not agree on much, but they all hanker after someone who can channel their anger and frustration. Right now, that means Trump and Sanders. But any candidate, even a quintessential Washington veteran like Biden who can tap into their need for a touch of populist rhetoric, is going to do better than the tired and tepid approaches offered by Bush and Clinton.

The problems the supposed inevitable nominees are dealing with are more than two cases of bad timing and unexpected opponents. Bush and Clinton are failing more because of their lousy performances than the genius of their opponents. That gives both hope that they can turn things around once the obvious rust that both are showing on the campaign trail wears off. It’s still possible that even Bush can pick himself up from the floor and emerge as the most realistic alternative to Trump. But don’t bet on it. Whatever else may happen in an already wacky and unpredictable presidential campaign, it’s already clear that America doesn’t want another Bush-Clinton election.