----Bill didn't have a chance. He never got 50% of the vote.----
That's funny, because I could swear I remember him being president for eight years.
You don't need a popular majority to be elected. That's why it's notable that Bush '04 was the first candidate to get that majority since his dad back in '88. Clinton never got a popular-vote majority, but that was completely irrelevant. He did win far more electoral votes than Bush did, either time: 370 in '92, and 379 in '96.
Which illustrates the problems the Republicans face on the electoral map. The reason Clinton won the electoral vote by such huge margins both times, was because of those solid blue states with big electoral counts. Since Democratic presidential candidates already have those big, solid blue states and their guaranteed 183 electoral votes -- and though their counts were slightly different then, Clinton won every single one of those states, both times -- they start out in an excellent position to grab a huge electoral win, assuming they're strong enough candidates (John Kerry was a horrible candidate, and look how close he came!), by nailing down the big Democrat-leaning states and only a handful of swing states. In the absence of a strong Republican candidate -- as was the case in '92 and '96 -- the Democrat leaners are almost guaranteed to fall into line, and swing states like Ohio, Florida, Arizona, and Colorado -- four states, with a combined 66 EVs -- stand an excellent chance of tipping.
The result: Huge electoral margins for the Democrats, of the size Bill Clinton got, twice. And in '92, all he needed was a weak challenger, and a strong third-party candidate to draw from that weak challenger. Right now, the GOP does not have an obvious candidate for '08, and the immigration issue could potentially split the party.
Hillary is well aware of all of this. If she benefits from the same set of circumstances that Bill did, she's in.
-Dan