yes, but historically after two terms, the white house generally changes party. it might not have been a gimme, but it was certainly a high probability. and i think if kasich or rubio were the candidate they'd have won. but then again, i thought jon huntsman could have won when he ran in 2012. the "base" rejected him because he was appointed ambassador to china by obama. i bet utah is wishing he had won.
I think not necessarily.
The White House shouldn't have changed hands in 2000. Gore got the most votes, and Jeb rigged Florida.
I look more in terms of larger majorities.
Republicans held the majority nationally between 1860-1932, only losing the white house for 16 of those 72 years, and even then under odd circumstances, such as the only non-consecutive terms for a president and a major schism in the GOP in 1912. Republican Urban power in the North held political dominance.
The Democrats held sway from 1932 to 1968, only losing the Presidency for 8 years in that period. And the Republicans had to essentially nominate a War Hero who admitted the Democrats were right on most of the big issues. The combination of Northern working folks and Southern conservatives gave them a winning coalition.
From 1968 to 1992, The Republicans held the WH for all but four years. Nixon's ability to peel off Southerners and working class whites by playing on their religious, sexual and racial fears paid off up until the point where minorities became enough of the electorate to counter that.
since 1992, The GOP has not won 50% of a presidential vote except for one time when they had everything going for them and they STILL only barely made it.
Now, yes, Hillary is an awful candidate and maybe a more charismatic character could have done better than Trump, but she still has built in advantages that the GOP has yet to overcome.
