A couple of folks wrote to say I was being slightly unfair to the Zogby poll since, after all, it's a caucus vote not a popular vote. The rules are different. For example, once a candidate is adjudged non-viable, meaning he has under 15% of the vote in a given caucus, his supporters can move on to someone else. This is all true but it still doesn't change the fact that the polls, whatever they were estimating, did not gauge how well Kerry and Edwards would do, nor how poorly Dean and Gephardt would fare.
I actually do not believe polls are entirely worthless. I just think we take them way too seriously and are too quick to forget the big "misses." We're now paying an undeserved amount of attention to how the candidates look to be faring in New Hampshire…as estimated by the same people who were so far off in Iowa. If Clark's numbers start going up, everyone will say, "He's gaining support," whereas it could just be that his support is steady or even declining…but the poll is disconnected from that reality. These things need more Warning Labels on them.