Hillary's supposed to have said whilst awaiting the 2008 result "they just don't like me in Iowa". She was beaten into third by John Edwards. Think of it like this, 71% of those who caucused in 2008 failed to support her. Now there are examples of beaten candidates going onto to decisive victories second time round, but they were incumbent Presidents (you might however be able argue that she represents the administration still and should get some rub off?).
The only candidate in the sample who stood twice as a candidate (not an incumbent) is John Edwards, who pretty well replicated his 2004 result in 2008 (32% down to 30%). Its probably misleading though as the dynamics in the field size then and now are very different
Bill Clinton basically sat out in 1992. It isn't necessarily natural territory for her.
Bernie hasn't got anything like the depth of funding she's got. He relies on 'Labor Unions' and she draws from the likes of Citycorp (about 10 times the war chest). Bernie has sunk a lot into the early states
I believe I'm correct in saying however, that Hillary's vote in 2008 would have been enough to win previous caucuses, but she lost because Obama was able to reach out and energise a whole new bloc. The story in 2008 was that of participation. If Bernie is eclipsing Obama then it's a proxy indicator of something. America hasn't really had a candidate like Bernie for .... well, I don't know, Hubert Humphrey?. He has a novelty value, but are his 'supporters' curious attendees wishing to learn more, or are they genuine American Corbynites?
I just sense there is a mood in America not to award Hillary the White House. She's perhaps craved it a little bit too much for to long. You stay in politics for so long and you inevitably end up alienating and upsetting people. You almost have to. It's unavoidable. She's been centre stage for nearly quarter of a century. I suspect there is an optimum time where by you are considered to have enough experience and a track record, before you become encumbered by baggage.
