You get an A+ in Civics, sir. You are absolutely correct.
Zogby does that very poll. I get to look at it from time to time on my Wall Street Journal Online subscription. There's a beautiful, interactive map that allows you to go from state to state with your cursor and see the details. Only problem is that there is no way I can put that thing online. WSJ knows that. Zogby knows that. They give us these teaser polls with some nice bar and/or line graphs. Then a smart person like you comes up and asks the $50,000 question. Want to know the answer to that? Buy WSJ online, or get a subscription to Zogby online.
Pretty cool marketing technique, no?
Indeed with most states (like my own state of Virginia and your state of Massachusettes) sewn up, the election comes down to a handful of states where the election is very, very close. In fact, it has been said that the person who wins 2 out of 3 of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida will win the election.
Check out the travel plans of Kerry and Bush these days. You will see that their behavior reflects this reality.
However...
I am an engineer by training. We engineers understand the value of approximation. I was also a geochemist in a previous life. I also knew the value of approximation there.
For example, I was part of an effort that won my previous employer a massive contract with the DOE to take about 100,000 soil samples from around the United States and measure the level of 27 different elements. What helped us get the contract was pointing out that relative and not absolute accuracy was most important. After all, they wanted to know what minerals existed hundreds of feet below the earth's surface by measuring the elemental composition just a few feet below the surface. We already knew the latter would only show traces of the minerals of interest. All you really want to know is hot spots and cold spots so you know where to dig first. And it is a LOT easier (and cheaper) to do assays that have relative as opposed to absolute accuracy.
What's important about these polls is to look at the trends. For example the conventional wisdom is that the political conventions give a candidate a bit of a "bounce" in the polls. However one comedian commented that after the DNC, he saw a bigger bounce in Laura Flynn Boyle's bra.

The point was made; somehow Kerry goofed.
Similarly the conventional wisdom would be that the winner of the 3 debates would probably win the election While Kerry got a great bounce from the first debate (probably because undecideds got to know him a bit better), he was not able to translate good performances in the next two into numbers in the opinion polls. In fact just the opposite is happening. Why? Good question... I think I know why, but it's too early to tell yet and I'm probably perceived as not being objective here.
The bottom line here is that the trends - which went in Kerry's way for a bit - are starting to turn around. Why they are isn't as important as the fact that they are. Will it translate into enough electoral college votes? Who knows? But if I were a betting man...
And smarter minds than mine on the matter have commented that - just as in 2000 - either one of these candidates could win the popular vote and lose the election. And that's just the way our electoral process works. Study it enough and you'll see the advantage of such a system.
- Bill