NY voter also voted for Trump.

NY Republican voters voted for Trump. Clinton won two general elections for the Senate.

Californians voted for Arnold, hardly an indicator of competence or character.

Your point being...

Do you really need me to explain it to you.

Yes. Start with the original assertion I responded to...

Giantaxe wrote " NY voters know her best, and they overwhelmingly voted for her twice. "

Is that supposed to mean anything? If so surely the by the same logic it would apply to Arnold also. Unless of course you think Anold did an outstanding job as Governor. You do know he was governor of California do you?

Sigh. The claim I responded to was that her unpopularity was "More like to do with her style of campaigning and the lack of any charisma whatsoever". I pointed out that in the two general elections she has actually run and campaigned in she won overwhelmingly despite this purported unpopularity. So unless Schwarzenegger was similarly unpopular when he won the Gray Davis Recall election and when he was subsequently reelected, he's irrelevant to the point.

I also see you selectively quoted me to leave out the rather critical start of my sentence, namely, " Really, as far as campaigning goes, ...". See that word "campaigning" in there?

Hillary's problem is that the millenials don't like her. it's not a question of age and generation disconnect. Their support for 74 year old Bernie proves that. It's more a case of her representing the establishment and business as usual mob. The whole message in this campaign from both Bernie and Trump is that the establishment sucks

I don't think you can extrapolate the voters from NY to apply to the country as a whole. Hillary replaced a popular Democrat senator and ran against weak Republicans. Using your argument, based on Bernie Sanders's election record in VT he would win the Presidency by a YUUGE landslide.

Oh, and in the latest CNN poll when asked if Hillary Clinton was honest and trustworthy, 64% said no. The same %age as Donald Trump. That ain't good.

Yes, I'd agree about Clinton's elections in NYS. I know plenty of registered republicans who voted for her then, and will vote for her in the presidential election too. But that's probably just a rural New York thing.

He wasn't, and he went to great lengths to note that he wasn't.

His point is that Clinton is more effective at campaigning in general elections than her critics are willing to acknowledge.

If you're not going to extrapolate then what's the relevance to now?

I don't think just pointing to the fact that she won shows that. Did she win because of her effectiveness or in spite of it?

She has proven to be an effective fundraiser and she was able to win over Republican-dominated parts of the state in 2006 that she didn't win in 2000 and that would vote for GOP presidential candidates in 2008 and 2012. She isn't as ham-fisted as you would like to believe.

But how much of that is down to the GOP fielding a weak candidate and also Clinton's massive spending?

Also, I'm not saying she is ham-fisted, but the evidence from Presidential primaries isn't good. I'm not sure how relevant either are to a Presidential general.