What the article forgot to mention was that Clinton also won with a plurality in 1996. 2010’s senate elections seem analog to 1994. 2012’s election’s analog seems to be 1980’s analog. We all know what happened both times ;).
>>What the article forgot to mention was that Clinton also won with a plurality in 1996. <<
Actually, the 2nd paragraph states exactly that: “In 1996, he was again elected with a mere plurality (49%) of the vote.”
It could be with the right candidate. We had soon-to-be-President Reagan running then. If another Dole or McCain (or any of the other clowns in the class of 2008 primaries) is put up, it won't be.