The margins are narrow enough, and the sample small enough, and each election cycle dissimilar enough, that I don't think there is much statistical significance to be had out there.
That said, rate candidate quality for each POTUS nominee, and where one party has an edge over the other, assign a headwind or tailwind to that, and maybe aside from the small sample size, that might bring some order to the randomness. It was probably pretty even in 2000 and 2004, with the candidates being mediocre (Dubya, Gore and Kerry), then Obama had a fairly sizable edge over the gunslinger impulsive McCain and the then Ken Doll like patrician Mittens, and then there were two about equally bad candidates in 2016, and in 2020 also two subpar candidates, but by this point, Trump had moved on to near horrifically bad, while Biden was more of just the benign null set.
I yearn for the good old days of GHWB and Bill Clinton. Where have all the flowers gone?
Agreed with the last part at least. But Hillary was not "equally bad" as Trump, not even as just a candidate. Comey killed her and the electorate failed her. There was no universe in which she should have lost that election, she was the most qualified candidate in history.
There is no way she was more qualified than LBJ or Nixon and frankly Reagan’s resume was more impressive for president given being Governor of a large state that was Lean R at most for 8 years is more directly related to the job of president than senator or even sec of state.
Calling her the most qualified candidate in history is lol worthy and an example of liberal media bias
