I won't go here too often because a) the horse race aspect of politics doesn't interest me much; and b) it's too freaking early.
But things that take the gloss of the fraud that is Hillary's political persona always interest me greatly, so in this case I'll bite.
Two things about Iowa: First, it's been blue three presidential elections in a row. It last went red when Bush defeated Gore in 2000. Second, it's seen lots of Hillary, so it's not like she hasn't invested any time in retail politics there. And here's what we can glean so far about the impression she's made:
In an early look at the 2016 presidential race, New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie leads former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 45 - 40 percent.
There is a large gender gap as women back Clinton 49 - 39 percent while men back Christie 51 - 30 percent. Independent voters back the Republican 44 - 35 percent.
In another matchup, Clinton gets 45 percent to 44 percent for U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. She tops U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas 48 - 41 percent and leads former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush 47 - 40 percent.
Christie would make a good president, Iowa voters say 46 - 30 percent and say the same about Clinton 53 - 42 percent. Paul gets a negative 38 - 42 percent on whether he would make a good president. Cruz, Bush and Vice President Joseph Biden all get bigger negative scores on how they would do in the Oval Office.
"New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie pulls ahead of Secretary Hillary Clinton among Iowa voters. The change from the last time Quinnipiac University polled Iowa, July 22 when they were tied 41 - 41 percent, reflects a general improvement for Republicans, almost certainly related to the controversy over 'Obamacare,'" Brown said.
Hillary led Christie 41-40 in the same poll as recently as July.
Is it anything other than a broader partisan swing caused by ObamaCare? My guess is that it's not, but there's another way to look at that too. Maybe Hillary's decent-looking numbers vis-a-vis anyone have never been anything more than a) the partisan leaning of the moment; and b) name recognition. Hillary is always touted as this formidable candidate until a campaign actually starts. When she runs against the likes of Rick Lazio in a blue state, sure, she wins. But nationwide she couldn't even top a first-term senator whose entire claim to fame consisted of one speech, in spite of all the money, all the organization and the whole aura of inevitability - however contrived it may have been.
I do think, however, it's relevant that this poll comes from a state where Hillary has already done so much campaigning. The idea of Hillary is always more appealing than the reality, and Iowans have sadly been subjected to a lot of the reality - and they're in for more and they know it.
By the way, I certainly understand that much of this site's readership is not wild about Chris Christie, and my point here is not necessarily to tout him as the nominee. I just like the thought of Hillary losing. Give me that and then I'll deal with the question of who beats her, because whoever it is, I guarantee you they will make a better president than she will.
