Why does Hillary Clinton tend to under-perform expectations?

[Beet]

Hillary's performance in General Elections has always been solid. She solidly won (Atlas says 55.27 to 43.01, which is over 12 points) what was supposed to be a competitive race in 2000, in a state that didn't have two Democrats in the Senate consistently until 1998. In 2006, she won a crushing 36-point victory, carrying all but four counties in conservative upstate.

[PresidentTRUMP]

Because she is not a likable person, simple as that. Also, most people who are independents and don't lean hard left can tell almost everything she says about the poor and helping the less fortunate is complete BS.

Most neutral people know and understand she is bought and owned by the big banks and wall street, its just as simple as that.

Simply people don't like her, lucky for her tho, people dislike Trump more.

[°Leprechaun]

She isn't performing as well as expected, because people are feeling the bern.
He does better in general election polls than her. He is better on the issues.
She is winning because Sanders has poor name recognition and, as usual, people
tend not to vote in primaries, waiting instead for the general election.

If there were a higher turnout, I think maybe Sanders would be more viable.

Let's all keep hope alive and hope that she continues to under-perform and Sanders can win in a landslide against Trump; not a prediction, just a hope.

[dax00]

Because the average likely voter is a few years younger, this election cycle, than he has been for a long time. Pollsters don't know how to poll without an establishment bubble lens.

[Gustaf]

1.5 datapoints isn't really a tendency.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hillary's performance in General Elections has always been solid. She solidly won (Atlas says 55.27 to 43.01, which is over 12 points) what was supposed to be a competitive race in 2000, in a state that didn't have two Democrats in the Senate consistently until 1998. In 2006, she won a crushing 36-point victory, carrying all but four counties in conservative upstate.

How on earth is that relevant?

Hillary faced only two general elections (both on the state level) in her entire career and only one as a non-incumbent, which was 16 years ago. It's not that her GE's record is poor, she hardly got one in the first place. You can't make any indication from a single example, that was 2000 Senate election. We can talk primaries, but not GE.

[henster]

Hillary's performance in General Elections has always been solid. She solidly won (Atlas says 55.27 to 43.01, which is over 12 points) what was supposed to be a competitive race in 2000, in a state that didn't have two Democrats in the Senate consistently until 1998. In 2006, she won a crushing 36-point victory, carrying all but four counties in conservative upstate.

The 12 point victory doesn't look all too impressive when Gore won the state by 25 points. It would be impressive if it were a midterm and not a Presidential year in an open seat.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Hillary's performance in General Elections has always been solid. She solidly won (Atlas says 55.27 to 43.01, which is over 12 points) what was supposed to be a competitive race in 2000, in a state that didn't have two Democrats in the Senate consistently until 1998. In 2006, she won a crushing 36-point victory, carrying all but four counties in conservative upstate.

The 12 point victory doesn't look all too impressive when Gore won the state by 25 points. It would be impressive if it were a midterm and not a Presidential year in an open seat.

Well, it is impressive if you accept Berniebots' narrative that she is a two-faced conserva-Dem bitch that nobody likes.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hillary's performance in General Elections has always been solid. She solidly won (Atlas says 55.27 to 43.01, which is over 12 points) what was supposed to be a competitive race in 2000, in a state that didn't have two Democrats in the Senate consistently until 1998. In 2006, she won a crushing 36-point victory, carrying all but four counties in conservative upstate.

The 12 point victory doesn't look all too impressive when Gore won the state by 25 points. It would be impressive if it were a midterm and not a Presidential year in an open seat.

Well, it is impressive if you accept Berniebots' narrative that she is a two-faced conserva-Dem bitch that nobody likes.

Can you make a single post without inserting your "BERNIEBOTS HURR DURR RAH RAH" narrative?

Thank you.

[Lyin' Steve]

NY 2000 was supposed to be a barnburner if Giuliani ran, he was a superstar on both sides even before 9/11 because he annihilated NY's crime rate.  Lazio wasn't supposed to be as strong, the NY press played the match up to sell ads.  The two were tied after Lazio initially took the nomination but Clinton held a 5-10 point lead most of the rest of the campaign.  The main issue was that Hillary was seen as a carpetbagger, and she effectively defused that by spending 18 hours a day relentlessly campaigning throughout New York.  Hillary was a fairly controversial pick for the seat so it's fair to say she performed at or above her expectations.

2006 was a blowout, non-competitive, but she wasted $30MM running up the score to try to make herself look more popular than she was.

Looking back at 2008 it's honestly surprising how close she managed to make it given how big of a superstar Obama was and how disliked Hillary was even then.

I wouldn't even say she's underperforming expectations now; despite young voters unanimously being for Bernie and the media advocating his candidacy and tearing apart Hillary's, and despite Bernie's thoroughly unrealistic Santa Claus campaign and relentless attacks on Hillary, she's managed to do well in every close contest except Michigan.  Iowa and Nevada were toss-ups and she won them both, Super Tuesday she won all her states and several of Bernie's states, and of course two weeks ago she won Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri, which were all expected to be close.  And she's dramatically outperformed expectations in the south.

[andrew_c]

Because she's often painted as inevitable even when it's not the case.

[Suburbia]

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.

True. McCall and Andrew Cuomo was in a racial bind, like the year before, in 2001, Mark Green, the public advocate, and Fernando Ferrer, the Bronx Borough President at the time for N.Y.C. mayor.

[Boston Bread]

People take early polls too seriously. Leads based on name recognition usually shrink closer to election day.

[DemPGH]

Because I think people realize she is a fountain of talking points, and if you've listened to her, it really sounds that way. She doesn't sound real to me, at least not like I might have expected. And that Obama's lofty rhetoric and intentions have failed to pan out surely weighs on her. I don't care about the '90s. I was in high school then, and those were different times. Assuming I am still a Democrat on 4.26, I will likely vote Bernie at this point. Or write in Trump, lol.

[Averroës Nix]

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.

Lazio was not a strong candidate. The race was treated as competitive because it looked as though it would be when Giuliani was campaigning as the likely Republican nominee. Following his (very much unexpected) withdrawal, the Republicans decided to try their best even with a much weaker statewide candidate; the election was too important and too high-profile to openly concede, even with slim odds of victory. National coverage mostly bought into this, but local coverage was more grounded in reality.

Statewide conditions were much stronger for Republicans in 2000, but in terms of statewide candidates Lazio was about as formidable as Rob Astorino (if Astorino had a lot more money, which Lazio only had because he was an eleventh-hour replacement candidate in a contest that had already reviewed substantial and nationwide hype).

[○∙◄☻¥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.

Lazio was not a strong candidate. The race was treated as competitive because it looked as though it would be when Giuliani was campaigning as the likely Republican nominee. Following his (very much unexpected) withdrawal, the Republicans decided to try their best even with a much weaker statewide candidate; the election was too important and too high-profile to openly concede, even with slim odds of victory. National coverage mostly bought into this, but local coverage was more grounded in reality.

Statewide conditions were much stronger for Republicans in 2000, but in terms of statewide candidates Lazio was about as formidable as Rob Astorino (if Astorino had a lot more money, which Lazio only had because he was an eleventh-hour replacement candidate in a contest that had already reviewed substantial and nationwide hype).

Lazio's whole campaign seemed to mostly consist of him saying "I'm running against Hillary Clinton".  And he made that debate blunder that I'm sure hurt him a fair amount.