Electoral college v. popular vote

What is going on with these presidential elections in the last 30 years?   I spent some time researching it a bit, and offer some thoughts upon what has been happening.  My conclusion is that issues matter more than mass movements because of the electoral college.

Elections since 1988

Year:  Remarks
1988: Reagan's third term, Bush wins 40 states.  In 1984, Reagan wins all states except Minnesota, which is a Great lake state.
1992: Bush defeated, Perot plus Bush vote would have won.  Great lake states desert GOP.  Mass of voters DID NOT vote for Bill Clinton, but it did not matter in the electoral college, where it matters.
1996: Clinton hangs on, again Perot vote could have won for Dole
2000: Bush wins electoral vote, loses popular vote.  Dems hold Great lake states.
2004: Bush hangs on, 9-11 issue weighs.  Bush's popularity was still high at this time.
2008: Obama wins as first black president, huge spike in votes cast.  Mass voter appeal appears.
2012: Obama wins again easily, by a smaller margin however
2016: Trump wins, but loses popular vote.  Hillary gets as many votes as Obama, but loses Great lake states.  Mass voter appeal loses to electoral college.

Impression is that the map doesn't change easily.  Patterns stick, but then change suddenly for some reason.  What was the reason in 1992?  What was the change in 2000?  Finally, what was the change in 2016?

The reason in 1992 may have been issues.  A slow economy and large budget deficit played to Perot.  Perot also talked about trade issues, but the trade deficit wasn't all that big in 1992.  War in Iraq may have played a role.  The slow economy may have lost the Great lake states to the Democrats.

 In 2000, Bush won back a lot of voters for the GOP.  Was it because of impeachment?  He didn't win the popular vote, however.  Note that the Great Lakes remain Democrat territory.

In 2016, Trump wins a few more votes than Romney, Clinton holds the Dem votes, but somehow loses anyway.  This is where the electoral college comes into play.  The Great Lakes desert  the Dems for the first time in nearly 28 years.  Even Minnesota is competitive.

In summary, Trump wins because he gets the electoral vote, which is what matters legally.  Hillary plays the mass voters angle, but it is a loser in the electoral college.  She got as many votes as Obama did four years earlier.  Something changed.

After losing twice this way in the last five elections, the Democrats are making an issue out of the Constitution itself.   Plus, there these allegations about Russian interference.  But how does alleged Russian interference figure into Hillary losing in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania?  Playing up to a bogey man may harvest a lot of votes, but it doesn't change the issues.  It doesn't win the states that push the electoral vote to a majority.

Trump made an economic pitch that may have worked in these states.  His policies as president may be solidifying his support thus far gained, and so the Democrats may have a problem winning back these states.  A bogey man strategy doesn't change the fact that a lot of these people must have been dissatisfied with the status quo.  The status quo is a loser for the Dems.

The 2016 election may have been like the 1992 election on the basis of issues mattering in the outcome.  In 1992, Clinton didn't get the most votes, but he got them where they mattered.  Same for Trump in 2016.  The mass of voters didn't vote for Bill Clinton in 1992, nor Trump in 2016.  It didn't matter.

The Russian controversy isn't likely to change the issues any.  Democrats are trying to win with that controversy, but it didn't win for them in 2016, so why would it win in 2020?