For a while, I’ve been bashing Hillary’s 2000 win in New York, which her campaign thinks proves she is a strong candidate who can win over moderate Republicans, etc. As I showed, however, she actually only did did about as well as Chuck Schumer did in 1998 — an average Democratic performance in a Democratic-leaning state.

In response to questions from the New York Times about her potential effect on down-ballot races, the Clinton campaign trotted out a new lame bit of evidence from New York:

Advisers to Mrs. Clinton, who has long sought to parry concerns within her party that she is too polarizing, dispute the idea that she could hinder Democratic candidates in Republican districts. They note that New York Democrats gained a net of four House seats in her two Senate elections and that she campaigned actively for House contenders in both.

However, the “net of four House seats” actually means the Democrats dropped a seat in 2000 before picking up three in 2006. All three 2006 pickups came in relatively balanced districts (Kerry drew 47% of the vote in the 19th, 44% in the 20th, and 47% in the 24th). Also, the gains in 2006 were fueled by a national Democratic wave during a campaign in which Hillary did not face a credible Republican challenger. It’s not at all clear that these results would extrapolate to more unfavorable terrain in other parts of the country during a hotly contested presidential race.