Yes and no. The average term of error on polls this far out is 10.3%, but that's heavily skewed by 1964, 1980 and 1992 which all had wrongness margins of 25%+. These all stemmed from very unusual circumstances which didn't actually have anything to do with the campaigns themselves (i.e., the month after Kennedy's death, over 70% of Americans said they'd vote Democrat which obviously wasn't going to endure, Perot's surprise entrance in 1992 as a viable third-party totally changed the terms of the race, and Carter had the Iran hostage crisis). If you exclude those 3, then the average term of error on polls this far out is 6.3% (and the margin of error almost always flows *away* from the incumbent party, there are almost never surprises *in favour* of incumbent parties). In other words, while we can't put an exact figure on it, we can say that if this election's polling conforms to prior election's polling, and there are no external upsets that stem from outside the campaigns themselves, it is more likely than not Clinton would lose Iowa to Rubio.
That's bad.
Like, this is not me being smug or anything. This is me now becoming genuinely worried. I didn't think Clinton could actually lose, so having a bit of jokes about Clinton/Sanders stuff is ultimately okay because they're both better than Republicans. However, these figures are really bad; it is genuinely becoming possible Clinton actually could lose the Presidency.
