This sure sounds like '92 all over again.
More like '96. There are several reasons this doesn't resemble '92.
In 92 you had an incumbant GOP president who would have coasted to re-election but for several convergences that severely damaged his campaign:
1. His foolish and short-sighted compromise with the democrats in 1990 where he signed their tax increase and then took the full blame for going back on his "no new taxes" pledge.
2. The GOP primary assault by Pat Buchanan that drained resources into a defensive primary campaign.
3. The "Reform Party" campaign of Ross Perot with its singleminded goal of defeating Bush. (Every move during the campaign, the withdrawal, the re-entry, etc. was calculated to defeat Bush's re-election.)
4. The "Recession" and the media's complicity in clinton's "It's the economy, Stupid" campaign. Every economist in the world was aware of the FACT that the recession ended in March 1991 (over 18 full months before the election) and that we were in an economic recovery for over a year at the time of the election. The economy was growing, but the media continued to report as if we were in a recession.
These conditions converged on the Bush campaign from all directions and he lost a re-election bid that should have been his for the taking, making clinton the accidental president.
1996, however, was similar in that the GOP had a lack of clear leadership at the top of the party and chose to go with the lifetime achievement candidate. Dole was considered "most electable" out of the field of candidates even though he was clearly not a standard bearer for the party's agenda. If we run Guiliani or McCain because somebody thinks they poll well or are "electable", we will see a repeat of 1996.
Wait until the conservatives are forced to run a 3rd party candidate in order to have anyone to vote for. Then she won't be trailing anybody.