Players (like me) rated around 2000 are surprisingly bad

When I started playing chess seriously about 2 years ago, getting a 2000 rating on chess.com was like a holy grail. I hit 2000 about a month ago, and am near it now again after a dry spell. Yet my chess and that of my opponents, who are also around 2000, is surprisingly bad. For instance:

-This morning, I was winning a game, then I dropped a bishop with zero compensation. Then I checkmated my opponent and won, but only after I missed the mate in one on my previous move. 

-A game yesterday, my opponent left his queen en prise. For two moves. I didn't see it. 

-Another game, I was up a pawn and then my opponent blundered a knight. Later I played a poor king move that would have allowed a perpetual. 

-A few days ago, I self-checkmated in a rook on rook ending where I was up two pawns. 

And so on. 

The point is, even at around 2000, simple tactical mistakes by one side, the other, or both, are responsible for the majority of the outcomes. 

At least you dont get abuse as beginner! ( Imagine you were 1200)!!

That is the only benefits.

In Blitz? Time pressure always plays a significant role in games. Rapid games and above have significantly fewer blunders and anyone above 2000 in there are really good players who rarely miss a tactic. Reminder, blitz isn't the end all be all for chess ratings, classical shows your skill much better. (But for me I'm impatient so I also play blitz)

I am pretty sure than 95% or more of 2000+ blitz players will get 2000 + rapid rating easily.

In my experience in about 5 years ago,  my friend, 1400 rapid,  asked my suggestion via skype while he was playing online and after about 20-30 games, his account reached to 2000 easily. 

In other words, 2000 rapid here is somewhat around 1850 blitz strength.

This is due to the time, many blitz players play 3 min, therefore the extra 7 or so minutes to decide moves relieves pressure and allows for the player to play more rational and brilliant moves.