So recently Martha Coakley was the runaway favorite for the Democratic nomination for Massachusetts Governor, she won the nomination, then lost the General Election to Charlie Baker, a Republican. The Parallels to Clinton are pretty obvious if you look at the core of both their campaigns.
1) Both were overwhelming favorites, but by many were perceived as too moderate and as a result had a Jewish liberal firebrand ran to their left.
2) Both ran on vague principles and hoped their frontrunner status would hold up as long as they didn't say anything too stupid.
3) Believing that saying they are a women will get women to vote for them (Martha Coakley won women by about 1/2 the margin Deval Patrick did)
4) Both candidates were seen as uncharismatic and cold
polls from the 2014 governors race mirror Clintons standing now, mid-upper 50s in the Democratic primary far out, and up larger in the General than Clinton is now, but that could be because of Massachusetts partisan lean.
Coakley should be a cautionary tale on how Clinton should not act if she wishes to win, but so far, she hasn't taken any lessons. She has to be like Warren or Collins, or Women who win, run on Ideas and people will vote for you, run on gender, and people won't, not even women.