Considering his high approval ratings, why did Clinton fail to capture the popular vote in 1996?

[Obama24]

I understand the fact that a good chunk of Americans were not enthusiastic about either choice in 1992, but by 1996, Clinton had a pretty solid record, there was no major scandal dogging his Presidency yet, the economy was robust, and his approval ratings were consistently high.

Why didn't he break 50% or above in the popular vote - was Perot solely to blame here?

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Considering Clinton was 49% even with Perot in the race, I would say yes Clinton definitely would have gotten to 50.1% with him out...probably even higher. In fact, I think Clinton's share of the two-party vote almost exactly matched his approval rating at the time (which was high, but not as high as it would be for most of his second term).

[kyc0705]

Clinton underperformed the polls by several points. I would guess low turnout was also a major factor. There was never a point in the election when it seemed like he was in any danger of losing, and so he had a large base of support that was not all that motivated around the margins.

[TML]

Polls during the 1996 election cycle had Clinton above 50% during many stretches of time, but they ended up having a rather terrible cycle that year: the final NPV polling average as of Election Day, as calculated (retroactively) using 538’s polling model would have been D+12.8, which turned out to be 4.3 points above the actual NPV margin of D+8.5. Likewise, the final GCB polling average would have been D+5.4, which was 5.1 points above the actual House NPV of D+0.3 (and this House polling error probably turned what was expected to be a Democratic flip of the House into a Republican hold of that chamber).

[vitoNova]

Because it was the decade of "S.F.W."

I actually never watched the movie.  I just know the white guy from Blade starred in it (another movie I never watched in its entirety, other than snippets on Canal+ and HBO)

[wnwnwn]

Low turnout and some alineate progressives.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Polls during the 1996 election cycle had Clinton above 50% during many stretches of time, but they ended up having a rather terrible cycle that year: the final NPV polling average as of Election Day, as calculated (retroactively) using 538’s polling model would have been D+12.8, which turned out to be 4.3 points above the actual NPV margin of D+8.5. Likewise, the final GCB polling average would have been D+5.4, which was 5.1 points above the actual House NPV of D+0.3 (and this House polling error probably turned what was expected to be a Democratic flip of the House into a Republican hold of that chamber).

Where can you find retroactive 538 polling data

[Republican Party Stalwart]

Others have basically already answered this, but:

1) alienated progressive/left/liberal-leaning voters

2) Perot and however many voted he may have taken away from Clinton (even if he took more votes away from Dole)

3) Low voter turnout because:

• there was no bad economy to animate voters to go to the polls over.
• Dole and his platform were not perceived by anyone to be any substantial threat to the then-good state of the economy.
• Clinton and Dole's platforms (and arguably also Perot's platform even if to a lesser extent) were all essentially the same (or at least similar enough such that the sorts of people most inclined not to vote - including disaffected anti-establishmentarian types, low-info would-be voters, and poor/lumpenprole/under-15k a year/under-50k a year would-be voters - indeed did not do so).