The Art of War advises that most wars are won or lost before the first battle is fought.
This is certainly true of Presidential primaries. By January 19, 2004, before the first vote is cast in the Iowa caucuses, the Democratic party, will have, if not a winner, at the very least, a long list of losers. Polls, pundits, and campaign contributors will have sealed the fate of at least five and maybe more of the Democratic primary contenders before the voting has begun.
Indeed, the modern political poll and the campaign finance disclosure system has probably permanently reduced the importance of the actual votes in Iowa and New Hampshire. Before modern polling, Iowa and New Hampshire told us which candidates were viable and which were not, before the next round of primaries began. Many people stayed out of the campaign contribution game until these indicators could show if the money was well spent.
Now, polls give us a much more comprehensive view of the viability of the candidates. We can say, for example, that a Kerry is washed up if he doesn't perform in NH and Iowa, while an Edwards or Clark may have a shot if results are good in SC as they are likely to be.
The cycle is vicious. Poor polls lead to poor funding. Poor funding lead to poor polls. Poor polls and funding lead to poor media coverage. Poor media coverage leads to poor polls and funding.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Polls make the primary more national. Undecideds, who are frequently uniformed as well, have little influence. Multiple rounds of polling call extra attention to front runners so that they can be evaluated. Lieberman and Kerry has seen their numbers fall in the face of the examination that has come from strong poll showings. Dean has seen his fortunes rise as the press and pundits and chattering classes have had a chance to get to know him better.
Polls also bring a much larger proportion of the public into the decision making. They give the general public (or more accurately, likely primary goers), a say in a process they were previously shut out of, as candidates dropped out before they even got to vote.
One of the remarkable things about the California recall election is how quickly the field was thinned without a formal primary process. If the public had simply be handed an election booklet on the day candidate applications were closed, the results might very well have been spread among many candidates. As it was, the vast majority of the vote went to just three people out of scores of people on the ballot, and an informal "multi-round" process took place as second tier candidates on the left and the right, seeing from polls and media coverage that they were simply acting as spoilers, dropped out.
The polls have almost created a sort of "election by jury" system, mostly enforced by those of us who make campaign contributions and the press.
The pre-election phase is thus important. Of course, all the polls flow almost exclusively from what people hear about candidates in the press. To that extent that "democratic" nature of polling is illusory. But, this isn't entirely bad either. It allows those of us in the chattering classes, like the blogosphere, to make ideas matter. It is in this pre-election phase that candidates have to present ideas to people who really care about ideas. Those whose ideas and sales pitch don't cut it, collapse. Those whose ideas and packaging for those ideas excite us, thrive.