The next four years

[rarnom]

In 96, Clinton got 50% of the vote. While 50% is most decidedly < 51% You also have to look at the fact that the next closest number was 41%. That's a 9% overall greater vote, compared to Bush's 3% increase. Even in 92, when clinton got 43.2% of the vote, Bush only received 37.7%. Still a 4-5% lead! In the end, Bush's lead in the popular vote may have been a record amount (I finally found the necessary info and Kerry and Bush overcame Reagan's 84 election result of 54 million), however, the margin of victory is still small. Bush won by < 4million votes. In Both Elections, Clinton won by over 5 million votes (and over 8 million in 96). You're only right if you look at the raw numbers, however if you compare that to the other numbers in those elections, then you get something that Bush still hasn't achieved.

If you want to get into Electoral votes. In 96, Clinton got 70.4% and in 92, Clinton got 68.7%. Both are above and Beyond Bush's numbers.

source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html

One important thing to factor in was Ross Perot's effect on everything. Many of us Republicans hate Perot for the same reason Democrats hate Nader and Perot had a MUCH larger impact on things in both '92 and '96. You can never know who Perot voters would have voted for, but you can't deny that Clinton was helped quite a bit by Perot's presence on the ballot.

And Clinton did not get 50% of the vote in '96. He got 49.2%. Sure it is close but it isn't 50%. My source is the newspaper on my lap.