WHY POLLS ARE A LOAD OF CRAP aka an insightful analysis of the New Hampshire primary (NOT)

"In the end there may be no smoking gun. Those polls may have been accurate, but done in by a superior get-out-the-vote effort, or by very late deciders whose motivations may or may not ever be known. They may have been inaccurate because of bad modeling, compromised sampling, or simply an overabundance of enthusiasm for Obama on the heels of his Iowa victory that led his would-be supporters to overstate their propensity to turn out. (A function, perhaps, of youth.)" - columnist on ABC.com (and head of ABC News' polling), Jan. 8, 2008 referring to how Hillary Clinton could beat Barack Obama when the polls had shown him going in with a double-digit lead

So the New Hampshire primary has come and gone, and - shocking! - Hillary Clinton isn't dead in the presidential race after all. Why, if you listen to all the big-media pundits, the story is that she's the "comeback kid" just like Bill was - even though she'd only lost one damn state, the ONLY state to vote before - Iowa.

And Mike Huckabee lost in another shocking! twist on the GOP side, revealing that just about every other primary election season in our nation's HISTORY, just because he won the first state doesn't mean he wins them all.

I'm a political junkie, almost as much as I am a movie addict and a tabloid whore. But this year, when the election is so very important (as EVERY candidate is telling us, especially when they just won) I've come to realize that the big media (meaning networks, CNN, New York Times, Fox News, etc.) treat the politicians in the presidential race with the same breathless, pointless, gossipy style as they treat Hollywood gossip. Each! individual! state! just HAS to be the most important one ever! and the shocking! fact that voters in New Hampshire might think differently than those in Iowa never seems to cross the media moguls' minds.

So Barack wins one state and suddenly he's our first black president. Hillary cries her way to a victory in New Hampshire and suddenly she's our first woman president. Huckabee praises Jesus enough to win over evangelicals in Iowa, and then scares all the secular New Hamprshire voters into the arms of John McCain.

What the pollsters don't take into account are these things:

Polls are crap. Unless you ask the SAME 508 people how they feel about candidates throughout the polling seson, you'll always have differences in the results because it's always a different group of 508 people being asked. They might have had different opinions all along - meaning, if you seek out a different group each time, OF COURSE they'll have different answers, but there's no way of knowing how EACH group really changed their opinion from week to week. Ask the SAME group how they feel each time or don't bother at all.

Why on earth do the media think that people in Iowa or New Hampshire influence ANYONE to do ANYTHING? It's merely a stupid tradition that they get to go first, but seriously, these two states should have no grater importance than anyplace else. What other decision do we ever rely on these states to make for us? I've been to 41 states, but I've never been to New Hampshire and I only set foot in Iowa because i had to and it was on the way to someplace i DID give a damn about.

So now what? The only thing that's clear is that nobody wants Fred Thompson to be their president. He's only gotten like 2 percent in each state so far. I knew that he'd do bad from the beginning because he looks like death warmed over. I mean, the President has to REPRESENT, right? And do we really want a bald wrinkled guy with a drawling Southern accent to be the one doing that?

All i gotta say about that is i'm predicting a "very special" episode of "Law and Order" any day now in which Thompson' s character is magically back on the case again.