Someone explain this to me (AOL article on new poll)

I came on line this morning to see an article on my AOL homepage(They call it their "Welcome Page.") It says that a new CNN poll has Bush up by 8%. They further go on to report that Kerry has seemed to have lost his debate "boost."
This is what I would like to have explained to me. First Kerry, in a whole slew of major polls has him winning all the debates. A majority if not all of them by some embarrassingly lopsided numbers. I mean numbers like 80% for Kerry to 12% for Bush.
Now given the fact that Bush and Cheney lost all their debates. I mean Bush is 0 for 3 in every meaningful poll. Factor in that seniors and the disabled are very worried about Bush as they already are looking at a 17% increase in their Medicare premium(myself included). In addition organized labor has already made their opposition to Bush known months ago with Bush's reprehensible overtime take away. Factor in also that millions of women are against Bush for his position both on equality in the workplace as well as control over their own bodies. Factor in also that the world at large despise Bush. Throw in the fact that people continue to die in Iraq with the Bush administration having no long range plan other than "stay the course." You have reserve and guard members slow to show up if not showing up at all along with outright insubordination in Iraq by US troops. Having said all this and I am only paraphrasing. How is it Bush losing so badly in his Debates AND (the biggest "AND" of all)The entire race has had Bush and Kerry at a dead heat. How is it now on a Monday morning Bush for the first time in the entire race suddenly has broken into an 8 percentage point lead?
How is it the only reputable pollster (Zogby) does not jive with these other polls.
Could it be that Bush being so worried about Nov.2 simply had "his" media minions just "declared" him ahead? I could more easily believe a one or two point lead but to suddenly brake an 8 point lead? To me it smells like so much unrefrigerated fish.
I think there is a real possibility of not only a Kerry victory but even a significant Kerry victory and, as I just suggested, Bush simply skipped unbiased polling and just placed himself in the lead. I believe he is also capable or manufacturing his own polls numbers.
I would love to have this mystery explained to me. Any comments folks?

NEVER believe anything on AOL.

Next question!

If Kerry gets elected, it will be bad news for big business, and AOL definately ranks up there with Big Business. Why? No more tax breaks for companies hiring off shore! I'll bet AOL uses some outsourcing to India (or other English-colonized countries) to both update and post websites, as well as for customer service functions. Why hire here when you can go abroad and pay 1/4 of the salary with cheaper and less perks?

The machine controls polls. They try to influence people's behaviors with polls. They want to discourage democrats by instilling a "what's the use?" attitude.

In 1964, there was a poll published in a national magazine that someone asked Malcolm X about. The poll said that 82% of black people in America were satisfied with the rate of progress made by the Civil Rights movement. Malcolm chuckled, and then said, "Sir, you can not find 82 black people in America who are satisfied." So much for polls.

So chew on that thought for a moment.

But more to the point, consider that polls are meaningless conjectures of numbers, a survey of hundreds or sometimes very few thousands meant to extrapolate the opinions of millions. I can't imagine a poll that would be both performable in a timely, cost-efficient fashion and yet that doesn't realisticly have a maximum margin of error of 20%.

"Corporate polls are bullshit! Corporate polls are bullshit! President Kerry! President Kerry!"

I like that. Thanks very much. You made my day.

They were using the Gallup poll of "Likely Voters" which CNN is also talking about on a regular basis. Bush leads in that poll 52-44, but among registered voters that number drops to 49-46 (within the MoE). I haven't seen the breakdown of this poll, but Gallup has regularly been overpolling Republicans - in 2000 43% of voters were Democrats, 38% were Republicans: a +5 margin for D's. Gallup has been routinely switching that around, polling between 5 and 9 percent more Republicans than Dems. This has skewed their results and essentially made the Gallup poll useless as a meaningful tool. CNN/USA Today et al continue to use the poll, however. I believe Zogby's numbers are more accurate - he doesn't blindly follow the "likely voters" model that others use, which is important because this election is going to be turned by the people who have never voted before. In order to qualify as a "likely voter" you have to have voted in a previous election. Even if you say "I am going to vote" Gallup will not count you. Zogby uses non-traditional methods.

For a look at how the polls differ on a state-by-state basis (the only one that matters), Gallup has Bush leading 308-221 with Colorado tied. Zogby has Kerry leading 289-222 with Florida tied.