Why does Hillary Clinton tend to under-perform expectations?

[JRP1994]

In 2007, Clinton was widely seen as the frontrunner to clinch the Democratic nomination with relative ease. Not a runaway frontrunner, but a clear one. What happened? She got outmaneuvered, outflanked, and flat-out outdone by Barack Obama.

In 2015, Clinton was seen as a massive frontrunner to perhaps sweep all 50 states in the primary and win the general election with relative ease. While she's very likely to be the Democratic nominee this time (sorry to those feeling the Bern), she's having difficulty putting away a 75 year old self-identified socialist. He's won over 1,000 delegates and 15 states.

My question is, why does Clinton have difficulty living up to expectations in an electoral sense? Is it because people set expectations too high? Do late-deciders break against her?  Is she a poorer candidate than people credit her?

[Xing]

Because the expectations of her are extremely high. Simple as that.

[Frodo]

She isn't as natural a campaigner as either her husband or Barack Obama, leading to somewhat unfair comparisons.    

[catographer]

She isn't as popular as people think she is. To be fair however, if the candidates in this election were only from the establishment then she would be unopposed. But since Sanders is outside (even tho he's been in Congress since 1991), he is winning without competing for those endorsements and establishment support.

[IceSpear]

She didn't in NY. Lazio was supposed to make it a close race and he got crushed. She won by a huge margin in 06 too despite being "polarizing" and yadda yadda.

As for the presidential years, it's a few things. For one, Obama and Sanders (particularly Obama) were much stronger competitors than most gave them credit for, so it has as much to do with them exceeding expectations as Hillary underperforming them. The media also relentlessly goes after her and peddles faux scandals while she's on the national stage due to multiple factors (sexism, ratings, wanting a horse race, etc.) The media and politics abhors a vacuum. Sweeping all 50 states was never going to happen.

[MT Treasurer]

She didn't in NY. Lazio was supposed to make it a close race and he got crushed.

Tbh, no Republican was going to win a Senate race in NY after 1992. Not many people expected Gore to win NY 60-35 against Bush, so that had something to do with Clinton's big win as well. The media was stupid for acting as if NY-SEN was going to be a close race. It wasn't Lazio's fault.

[henster]

She still under-performed expectations though she only won 55-43 against a relatively weak challenger while Gore won NY 60-35. That was the only competitive election she has won in her entire career.

[IceSpear]

She still under-performed expectations though she only won 55-43 against a relatively weak challenger while Gore won NY 60-35. That was the only competitive election she has won in her entire career.

That's revisionist history. Lazio was pumped up as a strong challenger and the race was characterized as a barnburner that would go down to the wire.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

She still under-performed expectations though she only won 55-43 against a relatively weak challenger while Gore won NY 60-35. That was the only competitive election she has won in her entire career.

That's revisionist history. Lazio was pumped up as a strong challenger and the race was characterized as a barnburner that would go down to the wire.

Lazio was not as well known as someone like Giuliani  , and did well considering that (he only lost by 12 points to a candidate that had near maximum name recognition, in deep red NY. Lazio only did 2 points worse then three term incumbent  Al D'Amato did in 98. Also I believe it was Giuliani that was supposed to be Clintons major competitor, before he withdrew. Giuliani also lead in the polls for a time.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

She still under-performed expectations though she only won 55-43 against a relatively weak challenger while Gore won NY 60-35. That was the only competitive election she has won in her entire career.

That's revisionist history. Lazio was pumped up as a strong challenger and the race was characterized as a barnburner that would go down to the wire.

Yeah, you can argue the media was being dumb and hyping it without any real evidence it was going to be close, but from what I've read, my impression is that this was covered as though it were highly competitive.  It's still not a very impressive victory though, NY being NY

[Landslide Lyndon]

She still under-performed expectations though she only won 55-43 against a relatively weak challenger while Gore won NY 60-35. That was the only competitive election she has won in her entire career.

That's revisionist history. Lazio was pumped up as a strong challenger and the race was characterized as a barnburner that would go down to the wire.

Yeah, you can argue the media was being dumb and hyping it without any real evidence it was going to be close, but from what I've read, my impression is that this was covered as though it were highly competitive.  It's still not a very impressive victory though, NY being NY

New York reelected two years later a Republican governor in a landslide. Things have changed a lot since 2000.

[Brewer]

In the same fashion as the "she acts so entitled!!!!1!" attacks, the idea of Hillary Clinton being some sort of electoral juggernaut is nothing more than a baseless claim that many folks immediately jump to without any explanation or justification. As IceSpear alluded to, expectations have time and time again been set erroneously high for her, while the opposite is done for opponents whose various strengths are boiled down to "Hillary's so weak, look at Hillary underperforming, what a terrible candidate," etc.

[Third Party]

Most Americans just don't like the Clintons. And many Democrats clearly feel the same way as most of their compatriots, which is shown in the strength of Obama in 2008 and Sanders in 2016. Of course, Clinton hacks will never admit to it. They'll probably post a few links to some polls claiming that most Americans love the Clintons. But they're just like the polls that claimed Hillary would win Michigan by 20 points: dead wrong. Their beloved Bill only won thanks to Ross Perot splitting the conservative vote for them. And Trump will beat Hillary in November. Just wait and see.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Democrats aren't exactly enthused to vote for her.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Because exceptations are always high for her?

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Democrats aren't exactly enthused to vote for her.

Then why is she winning this race against Sanders? lol

Does that mean they are enthused? No. Many could be people that have been told that the only way to win is to vote for Hillary so that's what they are doing. Doesn't really help turnout however.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

She still under-performed expectations though she only won 55-43 against a relatively weak challenger while Gore won NY 60-35. That was the only competitive election she has won in her entire career.

That's revisionist history. Lazio was pumped up as a strong challenger and the race was characterized as a barnburner that would go down to the wire.

Yeah, you can argue the media was being dumb and hyping it without any real evidence it was going to be close, but from what I've read, my impression is that this was covered as though it were highly competitive.  It's still not a very impressive victory though, NY being NY

New York reelected two years later a Republican governor in a landslide. Things have changed a lot since 2000.

Carl McCall was a joke candidate.  The state Comptroller, but a joke candidate all the same and one who received little meaningful support from his party beyond the bare minimum.  McCall also got hit with a major scandal in mid-October 2002.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Carl McCall was a joke candidate.  The state Comptroller, but a joke candidate all the same and one who received little meaningful support from his party beyond the bare minimum.  McCall also got hit with a major scandal in mid-October 2002.

Do you want me to mention how many joke Republican candidates have beaten much stronger Democratic challengers only because of the partisan lean of their districts/states in recent years?
The point is New York wasn't as Democratic in 2000 as it is now. Having a D next to your name wasn't enough, you had to actually run a campaign.

[Ebsy]

Democrats aren't exactly enthused to vote for her.

Then why is she winning this race against Sanders? lol

Does that mean they are enthused? No. Many could be people that have been told that the only way to win is to vote for Hillary so that's what they are doing. Doesn't really help turnout however.

The only way to measure enthusiasm is whether people show up to the polls. Campaigns that rely on huge rallies have historically failed to win the nomination, and Sanders' jaunt through 2016 is no different.

[Beet]

Because nobody listens to me.

[SillyAmerican]

Democrats aren't exactly enthused to vote for her.

Slight modification (for the GE): People aren't exactly enthused to vote for her.

Clinton is a terrible candidate, with too many issues to get into.

[henster]

Carl McCall was a joke candidate.  The state Comptroller, but a joke candidate all the same and one who received little meaningful support from his party beyond the bare minimum.  McCall also got hit with a major scandal in mid-October 2002.

Do you want me to mention how many joke Republican candidates have beaten much stronger Democratic challengers only because of the partisan lean of their districts/states in recent years?
The point is New York wasn't as Democratic in 2000 as it is now. Having a D next to your name wasn't enough, you had to actually run a campaign.

Gore won the state 60-35 thats pretty comparative to Obama's performance in both 08/12, I'm just pointing out she ran behind Gore pretty significantly in an open race even despite universal name ID against a B-rate challenger.

[Young Conservative]

She's a very poor campaigner.

[SillyAmerican]

She's a very poor campaigner.

Yes, she's a poor campaigner, but more than that, she flip flops on issues and has no problem pandering to various groups.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She didn't in NY. Lazio was supposed to make it a close race and he got crushed. She won by a huge margin in 06 too despite being "polarizing" and yadda yadda.

As for the presidential years, it's a few things. For one, Obama and Sanders (particularly Obama) were much stronger competitors than most gave them credit for, so it has as much to do with them exceeding expectations as Hillary underperforming them. The media also relentlessly goes after her and peddles faux scandals while she's on the national stage due to multiple factors (sexism, ratings, wanting a horse race, etc.) The media and politics abhors a vacuum. Sweeping all 50 states was never going to happen.

In 2000, she only won by 11 while Gore won NY by 25. And it would have been closer if Lazio hadn't gotten too physically close to her in the debate. And there was no way a Democrat running statewide in New York in 2006 wasn't going to win by a decent margin.

I'm sure we can find plenty of comments that best case Bernie was going to be Bill Bradley, who still didn't win a single state.