The party line here is that national primary polls don't matter; that only individual state polls matter, because states hold their own individual votes to apportion their own slates of delegates.
But is this correct?
But my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that those individual slates of delegates are apportioned proportionately within each state, to the extent that delegates aren't superdelegates. So if Dean wins New Hampshire with 40% of the vote, then he gets 40% of New Hampshire's delegates, but if Clark places second with 30% of the vote, then he gets 30% of New Hampshire's delegates. It's not like in the electoral college, where only one candidate comes away with all of a state's electoral votes (except Maine and Nebraska, which split by congressional district).
It's nice to win a state, because that can translate into momentum going into other states. And if you win every state outright, then there's not much your opponents can do to come back from behind, at least without all those superdelegates going against the will of the people. But if it's not a series of winner-takes-all elections, then national polls matter insofar as the final apportionment of delegates will break down percentagewise generally according to the national poll (barring bandwagoning and dropouts).
So who's right: me or Kos?