MILWAUKEE -- In my last post, I wrote that while I believe Rudolph Giuliani to be the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton looked all but dead in the Democratic race. This was the day before the New Hampshire primaries and all of the polls had Barack Obama up by at least double digits. Fast forward one day, Hillary Clinton wins New Hampshire and the race is wide open.

What amazes me the most is not that Clinton won (after all, she has a huge war chest at her disposal, she has name recognition and a famous husband) but that the polls were so wrong. This is not quite a Dewey defeats Truman moment, but it is close nonetheless. I did not see one poll that had Clinton within 5 statistical points of Obama, much less winning the primary. What is interesting to note is that the polls were right about Obama. The average percentage of votes Obama was predicted to win in New Hampshire (I saw this on CNN) was 36.9 percent, and he ended up winning 37 percent. What was amazing is the turnout of Clinton voters. She ended up winning 39 percent of the vote, meaning more people came to vote than was expected.

The moral of the story is -- never trust the polls. They poll a percentage of voters, not everyone, and while they are normally more reliable then this, they are often wrong. Until a candidate concedes defeat, nothing is definitive, and there is no point in speculating on who won and by how much. I think there is a culture in this country to have to constantly know where people stand against one another, be it the hundred greatest rock stars of all time, or in this case a political poll. Here is a revolutionary concept. Why not debate the policies of these politicians and leave polls for more important things, such as the top 25 college basketball teams?