You *could *just say you were wrong, you know. It’s okay, really it is.
How was I wrong? She went from dominant leads against all comers to a statistical tie against Republicans and Sanders went from a no-chance to a competitor. She’s taking him seriously enough that she has now called him sexist twice.
All in all she dropped about 20 points. That’s a pretty steep fall.
How much do candidates with massive leads a year before the primaries usually fall?
Here’s why I think you’re wrong: she was always destined to come down to some degree since her favorables were so high a few years ago – that high was just unsustainable once she started campaigning for a party nomination. The focus on Benghazi and emails may have brought her down a little more than it would have otherwise, but she never got significantly below 80% or so with Democrats, and maintained a significant lead for the nomination over Sanders.
Characterizing the drop in general favorability from high (mid 60s) to middling (mid 40s), once campaigning starts, and a drop in party favorability from stratospheric (~90, IIRC) to extremely high (~80), as “free-fall” or “death spiral”, was just wishful thinking and hyperbole.
As Nate Silver has said, her chances at the nomination have been very good since the beginning, and still are. General election polling, especially nationally, is meaningless this early – we won’t have any decent idea what her chances at the general are truly until we have several swing state polls between two clear candidates to look at.
Well, the last Democrat to be virtually coronated from the start of a campaign was Al Gore, and despite a few stumbles he won every primary against Bill Bradley, a candidate with far more stature than Bernie Sanders.
Clinton should have at minimum done as well as Gore given her lack of serious opposition. It’s pretty clear now that she will probably not do as well, and will actually face a fight.
Bradley was not nearly as popular as Sanders, at least by my memory. Plus, Clinton is not a sitting vice president under 60. And Hillary may still do just as well in the primary.
But none of that answers my question. It’s also an odd comparison as of course Al Gore was going to win the nomination. And you are comparing Clinton’s polling to Gore’s primary wins. I asked how much you think a massive front runner can be expected to drop once an actual campaign is underway for a while.
Clinton makes a funny Freudian slip, vowing to defend the rights of former Presidents to not have to declare their criminal history:
LOL! 
I guess she’d know better than most of us…
Also, from here (WH2000: Democrats), in late 1999 Gore was only leading nationwide polling 53 to 32 (that’s just one poll, but the others are similar are worse for Gore).
Note that the national average for Hillary v. Sanders is 56 to 32.
I’m having a hard time seeing how much better Gore was doing at this stage than Hillary is… :dubious:
The Clintons are once again expressing displeasure with the campaign:
While not a Marco Rubio moment, it does show that a campaign is not actually “run” by the candidate in any meaningful sense. But on the other hand, this is the second time the Clinton campaign has had the exact same problems. At one point do they start to wonder if the problem isn’t the candidate?