Why does Hillary Clinton tend to under-perform expectations?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Because exceptations are always high for her?

[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.

[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.