I can’t remember exactly when polling became so significant in presidential elections.  It’s ubiquitous today, but it wasn’t always that way.  No doubt it seemed like a fine idea when the media began incorporating polls in their broadcasts, informing people of how a candidate was doing.  But there are a number of impacts on the process that is both disturbing and improper.

The point hit me hard as I would flip back and forth between Fox News and CNN, with Hannity proclaiming how the polls show McCain taking the lead as people everywhere mumbled “Ayers”.  On CNN, the polls showed Obama still on top.  The polls are now just another weapon in the fight for control of the hearts and minds of Americans, and the media is airing the candidates’ promos for free.

Polling has become part of the psychology of campaigning.  If Obama gets too far ahead, Democratic strategists fear that it will produce lower turnout since voters think he’s got it won without their vote.  If McCain gets too far behind, Republican strategists fear that voters won’t show because his loss is a done deal.  Some undecided voters want to be on the side of the winner, so maintaining a lead in the polls means winning some extra votes.  Others feel for the underdog, so being just a little behind can buy some extra votes.

Campaigns are all about psychology rather than merit.  If this wasn’t true, there would be no such thing as negative campaigning.  No person of integrity would ever seek office on the basis that he’s not as bad as the other person.  Polls are just another piece of the psychological puzzle that strategists deal with in the course of formulating their strategy. 

The networks have agreed to withhold proclaiming victors based on exit polls before the close of voting in order not to influence the outcome of the vote.  Ironically, exit polls have proven notoriously unreliable.  Yet the daily, perhaps even hourly, announcements of the latest polls remain prime fodder for newscasts and all-news channels.  Of course, the polls vary wildly according to what channel you watch, be in “fair and balanced” or fact-based.

That campaigns rely heavily on polls to ascertain whether their message is effective makes perfect sense, and seems a good use of the tool.  But that media polls are not merely about reporting on the phenomenon, but one of the factors that influence it, we would be far better off if they just kept all their polls to themselves and put people to the task of deciding who to vote for without this prong of the psychological manipulation game coming into play.

This morning, strategists explained who would win what, and the impact that would have on numerous races.  It was a somewhat technical explanation of electoral votes and states.  Why?  This does nothing to further inform the public, but merely to make it appear that the election is a forgone conclusion and inappropriately influence viewers.  Who is a ahead (at least for the moment on this channel) should be of no consequence whatsoever in the decision. 

Politics doesn’t need the media’s help to be debased.  The Rev. Wright/Anti-Obama commercial by the GOP PAC aired last night was sufficient to demonstrate how little faith the GOP has in John McCain, that it will override the judgment of the man who wants to be president.  If his own don’t respect him . . . 

If all goes well, tomorrow night we will know who wins what about the time I go to sleep.  That’s as it should be.  Today, I would appreciate it if all the pundits and pollsters would just shut up.