Some people have tried to figure out the GOP's dislike of Bill and Hillary Clinton for the past 25 years. Some think its because they were supposedly on the other side of the culture war as Ronald Reagan, Dan Quayle, and George W. Bush. Others think its because the social conservative types thought Clinton's allegations of philandering were evil and thus him sinful, or that Hillary is too "domineering" for a First Lady, let alone a woman. Maybe a land deal, or more recently, an email server here, a Gowdy Show over there, what have you.
The real reason though, lays in simple electoral college math and maps.
Take a look at this map, guys:
You'd never guess; these states were not always blue!
Color Code (how the colored states voted from 1968-1988):
Deep Red: 6 out of 6 contests
Lighter Red: 5 out of 6 contests
Orange: 4 out of 6 contests
States weird colored in red? I thought so. Thats because every single damn one of them (except New Hampshire and New Mexico) have voted Democrat 6 out of the last 6 elections from 1992 onward. Even New Hampshire and New Mexico have voted 5 out of 6 times Democratic!! That's right; ultra Democratic electoral college strongholds like California, New Jersey, Vermont (!! home state of Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders), and Illinois, home state of President Obama used to be perfectly Republican voting states in the two decades before the Clintons came along.
By today's electoral college count, the states mentioned above add up to 161 electoral college votes. Had George HW Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain or Mitt Romney had those electoral votes in 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012, they'd have won.
You have the few states Dukakis won in 1988:

To Dukakis' credit, he did greatly close the gap Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter in 1980, and McGovern gave to the GOP. All the states he won except Iowa and West Virginia have gone Dem 7 for 7 of the last elections, with Iowa 6 for 7 and WV 3 for 7. But Dukakis lost and lost because of stances which turned off the suburban voters that the GOP had no clue would be lost forever a few short years later...
Anyway, take the booty Dukakis did get to the first map in the diary, add them together, and ladies and gentlemen, I give you the beautiful electoral college Blue Wall:

The Bill and Hillary Clinton Blue Wall
Color Code (How the states have voted from 1992-present)
Deep Blue: 6 out of 6 contests
Turquoise: 5 out of 6 contests
Light Blue: West Virginia (not part of the wall but could be with Hillary having the right running mate)
THERE is the reason the GOP hates Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton! All those states (except WV) together already add up to 257 electoral votes. Add a few swing states, and voila! The GOP has a much steeper hill to climb than 13 electoral votes.
Compare the GOP's record in the last 6 elections:

Color Code:
Dark Red: 6 out of 6 contests
Orange: 5 out of 6 contests
(note: nearly all of the dark red states have a much longer GOP history but we're talking about 1992-onward)
Now that is a fall from grace! Thats 158 electoral votes in all the states they've won at least 5 times in the last 6 cycles. Back in 1988, they thought they had an electoral college "lock." From the look of the first map and the last map, added together, yea I could see why. But the first map is their lost Reaganite glory.
They can come up with all the excuses they want, especially the notorious Perot-myth (which has been discredited and debunked to the hilt, also recently by Rachel Maddow a few weeks back), but Bill and Hillary Clinton ended the spectre of one-party rule in America, and brought about an age in which Democratic candidates for President won more votes than Republican candidates five out of 6 times; that was the record the Democratic Party had 23 years ago today (which was September 1992, and Clinton was still owning Bush Sr. in the polls while Perot was out of the race) I think the far-left also dislikes Clinton because he moved right on welfare reform and the death penalty; but we all know why he did that and I'm here to trash the GOP.
Clinton also did for the Democratic Party 1992 what Nixon did for the Republican Party in 1968. In 1968, Nixon got working class whites to vote against their economic interests in the name of social issues, and brought the south to the GOP permanently. In 1992, Bill Clinton got wealthy suburbanites to vote against their economic interests in the name of being against the far-right social platform Pat Buchanan and Dan Quayle were pushing and got the northeast and west coast to vote Dem permanently. Nonetheless, Nixon worked within the New Deal paradigm and got America ready for the true believer, Reagan. Clinton worked within the Reagan Revolution paradigm and got America ready for Obama. Both 1968 and 1992 races had third party candidates who got accused of "spoiling," altho both times it was a mere excuse and self-delusion.
Now we know why the Republicans hate the Clintons. Its not a moral, patriotic, or even much an ideological thing as it is an electoral college thing. Don't let outrage over a bunch of emails, or Gowdy's show fool you.
Let's also be thankful to Bill and Hillary Clinton for saving our Presidential prospects in 1992. Bill's first election was one with little parallel in recent history with regards to impact. It was a realigning election to which every Democrat who has won since owes a debt, whoever wins the 2016 nod, and every Democrat who didn't win still ought to thank for keeping their losses from being landslide losses in the molds of George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis. Kerry and Gore were not very media savvy at all as Obama and Clinton were, but were very gaffe prone. Yet they came within an inch of stopping W.
However, the big lesson should be this: we must work to keep our electoral college advantage. The GOP thought they didn't have to do that in 1992, and Pat Buchanan and Dan Quayle moved them far to the right (anyone remember Murphy Brown or the Culture Wars?), which helped send our party the suburban voters who liked Reagan's economic ideas and "sonny optimism" but not the GOP's social conservatism. Hence why for 2016, we must avoid the temptation to veer from the course of winning (relative) centrism.
I do think we can expand the map in 2016. While some are skeptical of the ability of Hillary to win some of the states Bill won that Gore, Kerry, and Obama didn't, I beg to differ.Polls have shown that Hillary is way more competitive than Gore, Kerry, and Obama in states like WV, AR, KY. (you can use the pulldown on the site). Missouri did almost go Obama in 2008. Louisiana went Bill in 1996 52-37-(remainder). Arizona has also been talked about as a swing state, and Bill won it in 1996 (exit polls from that year in AZ also debunk any doubts about that). Even if she doesn't win those states, being more competitive there will bait the GOP to spend time and money, and that's a good thing.
(PS) One thing worth pointing out; some people have said: "clearly Montana and Colorado in 1992 had to be a fluke other than Perot", but remember, Dukakis lost them by less than 8% when the incumbent Republicans had high approvals in the White House. Its very possible for them to lose that kind of state when Bush Sr. had sub 40% approvals when election 1992 came around. Montana was close again in 1996 as was Colorado. (both states were statistical ties both times) Even in elections where incumbent Presidents win by a bigger margin than last time, some states may change, as occurred in 1956 when Ike increased his national margin vs. Stevenson, tho a few states switched but the map remained largely the same. And some states are flukes, NC and IN in 2008 even without 3rd parties.