[knarf]

Yes and no

In and of themselves ... yes, they ARE meaningless

But after listening just one time to a "debate", you get an idea of who or what that candidate IS within your mind of reasoning and THAT will be the standard by which you will judge a "poll"

So ... if I see a "poll" that says hillary is leading all candidates, D AND R ... I can (and do) judge that "poll" (look at the source) and forevermore refuse to recognize it as legitimate

In THAT sense ... polls DO help in forming opinions

[samtheman]

Polls aren’t any more or less meaningless than blogs.

[RC one]

Polls are only meaningless when you aren’t doing well in them.

[LS]

Beware: the more Trump dominates the polls the “less important” they will become according to the drive bys. Polls are only “meaningful” if they show RINOs or liberals ahead.

[Demiurge2]

“Presidential debates” are an incredibly useless, unserious form of entertainment, even moreso over a year before the election. If a candidate would publicly pledge to not take part in any candidate debates, he or she would likely gain an immediate 10-point jump in the polls (hey Donald, are you listening?)

[lifeofgrace]

Oh my! It seems that some Freepers have jumped to a conclusion: that I oppose polls for choosing who's in the debates because I wish to exclude certain candidates the support.

Not true. Not true.

I support Americans being able to directly decide without having the in-between of some organization judging WHICH polls to use and which not to use, and what gets averaged etc.

Polls are important for a lot of reasons but national polls used to select candidates months away from most of the primaries is a bad idea, regardless of who ends up in the debates and who doesn't.