If you ask any Democrat old enough to remember the 90s, they’ll tell you: Bill Clinton was a rock star. The booming economy, the welfare reform, the scandals that were way more sexy than the texts the NSA read under President Obama’s tenure… it was all a dream.

They love to hype the Clinton era.

But perhaps their love of the larger-than-life Bill has clouded their vision regarding the Clinton women. Despite two brutal losses for Hillary –one in 2008, to Obama, and one in 2016, to Donald Trump– liberal elites have already focused their efforts on promoting Clinton’s 37-year-old daughter, Chelsea, as the left’s next rising star

Countless publications have attempted to shine the spotlight on Chelsea with adoring headlines and “will she or won’t she run for office” teasers.

But it all seems very ignorant of reality.

The problem with Chelsea is the same one Democrats faced with Hillary. She’s unapproachable and scripted, unnatural in a crowd, and seemingly condescending to the camera. Anyone not previously employed by the Obama or Clinton administrations can see it. They can smell it. And they’ve made it clear (twice now) that they don’t like it.

We all watched Hillary fall to a more likable character in the 2008 primary and witnessed her loss to an, arguably, less likable character in the 2016 general. Those times should’ve sent a message to the party –and the media pushing that party– that the light they saw in Hillary did not shine as bright to the average American. With Chelsea, though, it’s like those Hillary supporters see a new opportunity to do it all over again.

The admiration (and delusion) surrounding the Clinton heiress is already reaching embarrassing levels, as evidenced by this Politico article that describes Chelsea’s evolving online persona as something worthy of witnessing.

“Chelsea Clinton has discovered something new since Inauguration Day: a spicy, sarcastic online personality…” they say. The tweet that defines this online personality? This one, that takes aim at President Trump and counselor Kellyanne Conway:

It’s not a bad tweet. (I write political tweets for a living so that’s an expert opinion for you.) But is it a “spicy” tweet? Is it particularly “bold”? I think not. And I think most Americans would say the same. On its own, the tweet stands just fine, but labeled with these unfitting adjectives, it becomes less and less likable. Kind of like Hillary and Chelsea.

This insistence on pushing a “young, hip, relatable” narrative despite the reality of a cold and distant persona, whose most likable quality is a relation to Bill, has proven to have disastrous results for the Democrats in the past. It didn’t work out this November and it seems unlikely to work in future Novembers.

Maybe it’s time to give someone new a try.

I’ve heard a song before that said something like “it’s better to have loved and lost than never loved at all.” Perhaps Democrats can find comfort in those meaningful lyrics as they search for a star who has more to offer the average American than the establishment elites.

Corinne Clark is a digital communications consultant with Vertical Strategies in Washington, DC. Follow her on Twitter @CorinneC.