Deleted

[Canis]

Deleted

[Seattle]

A lot can be contributed to the rural realignment - much the same as seen across the country.
However, it doesn't really explain her (relative) poor results in Thurston, Pierce, Snohomish(!), or Kitsap counties.

[UncleSam]

Her opponent was actually a really strong candidate - she aired ads talking about her nonpartisan views in downtown Seattle and her bio in the local ‘voter’s guide’ was way stronger than Cantwell’s, which had some pretty awful answers in it (such as saying she liked hiking in local parks in response to the question about community service).

Additionally, Cantwell was widely viewed as the reason that there weren’t any debates. She knew that she could skate to an unimpressive but comfortable win by doing as little as possible to offend people and she was right. Can’t fault her for running a campaign with no chance for error - her job was to win re-election and there was never any doubt she would. Relative performance isn’t really a big deal - it doesn’t indicate a shift right in Washington in general or at the federal level long term, I don’t think.

[Hydera]

Perhaps lack of name recognition.  Also i feel like she was much less 'authentic' compared to Murray to the voters.

[MAINEiac4434]

Maria Cantwell is honestly kind of a weak candidate. She was just kind of a tech lady who lost her House race in 1994, had the field cleared for her in 2000 and faced no strong Republican opposition since.

[henster]

She had one of the best performances of either her or Murray in 2012 even winning Yakima, outrunning Obama by a couple points. She's like Gary Peters, an invisible non-offensive pol why they do so well is somewhat a mystery but eventually they underperform.

[Jeppe]

Susan Hutchison seemed like a stronger-than-average GOP opponent and Cantwell just didn't seem too interested in running a serious campaign, given that her reelection seemed assured.

[LeRaposa]

Combination of rural realignment and the fact that she was facing a better opponent than she did six years earlier.

[Ye We Can]

She won by 17 instead of 20, who cares

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

She won by 17 instead of 20, who cares

[KaiserDave]

She won by 17 instead of 20, who cares

[President Johnson]

For some reasons, several senate incumbents who won reelection underperformed their 2012 numbers (excluding Manchin and Feinstein for other reasons): Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Cruz (strong challange), Barrosso, Bernard, Menendez, Whitehouse and Stabbenow.

[Calthrina950]

For some reasons, several senate incumbents who won reelection underperformed their 2012 numbers (excluding Manchin and Feinstein for other reasons): Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Cruz (strong challange), Barrosso, Bernard, Menendez, Whitehouse and Stabbenow.

I made a thread about this a few months ago, and I believe that polarization is the major reason why these Senators underperformed. It may also help to explain why certain other Senators (i.e. Hirono, Cardin, Kaine) did better this year than in 2012. Hirono and Cardin in particular, registered sharp increases (of ~9 percentage points each), over how they did then. Hirono went up from 62% to 71%, and Cardin from 56% to 65%.