The Time results have not been all that different from other polls until now. In July before the DNC, they had Kerry up 50-45 in a two-way RV trial heat, and after the DNC they had Kerry up 51-43 in a two-way RV trial heat. They were all conducted by SRBI. I also don't see what your post shows to discredit the polling firm.

Complete results attached to what, exactly? I can't seemt o find them.

And careful with those pluses and minuses. For some reason they create italics. That is why I avoid using them.

Three possibilities:

1. This is an outlier. 1 in 20 polls will be outside the MoE and still be wrong, and it's been a while since we had a stinker this bad. Note that this poll likely doen't include the Bush speech, which was given too late for any sizeable number of respondents to have seen it.
2. LV problems. Time isn't saying what the RV numbers were. What's their screen? They had Bush up 46-44 last week, suggesting a persistent pro-Bush bias in the LV model.
3. Kerry is DOOMED. Note to Kausfiles: yes, you can panic now. Not that anyone will be able to tell.

I'm stickin with some of 1 and 2. We'll see after the weekend what kind of bounce Bush gets.

More at the SilentWeb.

Thanks for showing us the results of multiple polls. It's good to see a spectrum of numbers.

It will be interesting to see, when the other polling firms release their memos (assuming Time won't release theirs) if the right track/wrong direction question has moved at all. I'd be hard-pressed to believe that the President's actual support is not soft, and I think you'll find evidence of that in the top lines of the other questions.

It'll be fun to watch, that's for sure.

...to the extent there's any validity in reacting to the day-by-day or even hour-by-hour blow-by-blow of a campaign, this can be viewed only as bad news.  I just hope the next few days bring us polls that show this one is an outlier.  I expect Kerry to be behind for at least a week or two, but I would like to see him within the margin of error in national trial heats and still keeping it no worse than a dead heat in all the "expected" battleground states (and by "expected" I exclude states like Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee).

He was closing pretty damn hard before that ever happened.

...it doesn't mean Bush is ahead by much, if at all.

1. Take Kerry's numbers.
2. Add Nader's numbers.
3. Add the undecided.
4. Add +2 or +3 for increased GOTV from independent left groups, plus increased motivation by the left, due to the flawed LV model.
5. Add +2 to +5 due to the temporary nature of this bounce.
6. ...and the total is more than what Bush has.

Zogby got Kerry right in NH.

New York has a partisan index of 24.5. Even if this poll is right Kerry would win New York by 12-15 points. Illinois and CA would be toss-ups, considering their partisan index rates (12 points). Bush would take Michigan and Washington by around 5 or 6 points. Your Ohio and Oregon estimates look about right though, at least in terms of margin. Also, what Perot like figure is gobbling up 8-15 points in every single state in your results?

You are basing is on partisan index levels from the 1980's. If Bush were to win by ten, here is how these states would actually look:

NY: Kerry by 15
CA: Kerry by 2
MA: Kerry by 25
RI: Kerry by 20
ME: CD-2 to Bush, CD-1 toss up
WA: OK, you ae correct here
OR: Same here
IL: Kerry by 2
MD: Kerry by 6
NJ: Kerry by 6
CT: Kerry by 7
VT: Kerry by 3
PA: Bush by 5
OH: Ok, you got this one right
MI: Bush by 5
MN: you are correct here
WI: you are correct here
IA: you are correct here

Things have changed a lot since 1988. Check out the partisan index table on the President 2004 page for more info.

But it is probably an outlier though. Just look at the other polls taken during the same time period.

New York has a +25 partisan index, and no GOP candidate has passed 35% there since 1988. It would take a 210-25 point lead nationally for NY to be too close to call.

Also, Illinois and California have exactly the same aprtisan index--12. If htis poll was accurate (which its not, since Nader is off both of those state ballots), Kerry would still be a slight favorite in both states. Either way, Illinois and California would certainly not be different from each other.

Also, Texas has a partisan index of over +22 GOP, so an eight point lead would still show Bush leading in the teens--which is what every poll out of Texas has shown.  

There is a button that allows you to directly reply to comments of others.

That's too many hypotheticals. For some (MD, NY) I would say the poll is right. For others, CA and IL, I would say the poll is wrong.

the game is over

I know you said "if", but still ... see this for my thoughts.

Where I volunteer (a newly-designated battleground state that was formerly solidly in the Bush colmn), we are signing up enormous amounts of newly registered voters for the Democratic ticket. Last week alone, the number topped 1,200 in our small- to mid-sized town (colleges are nearby). It has made me curious as to the impact of new voters (as well as voter turn-out) and how polls like these factors into consideration -- or if they do take them into consideration. I have not been able to find information on this anywhere. Could anyone here  enlighten me?

Thanks.

     I don't know how many of you have seen the news about a Time
Magazine poll putting Bush ahead of Kerry 52-41 percent.  If you
have, please do not be alarmed.  It is based on what is likely to be
a very biased sample.  It is EXTREMELY irresponsible for Time to use
the methodology it has.
Here's the gist of it: Time conducted a phone poll DURING the
Republican convention to get these results.  Well, tell me, who is
most likely to be at home during the Republican convention?  
Republicans, right?  Considering this, I would say that the results
are not very good for Bush at all.

So disregard this poll, don't lose heart, and keep fighting.  It is
unfortunate that Time, which is usually pretty reasonable, has
jeopardized its credibility with what is either a serious mistake or
a political stunt.

This post over at Daily Kos raises some questions about the methodology of this poll.  It appears Time's pollsters biased toward male respondents during the convention and pushed undecided LVs, which was not done in the earlier Time poll.  Apples to oranges?

I have a theory.

It's a crazy theory and probably false.

I think once Bill Clinton heard about the Republicans using New York as thier convention to exploit 9/11, his New York, just a few miles from his office, where he had his 1992 convention, as thier convention, he was furious.

Instead of getting mad, he got even.  Zell Miller was his keynote speaker in New York, too.  He liked the irony if he could make Zell the Republicans' keynote as well.  He knew Zell was a conservative Democrat, and, having the nickname "Zig Zag Zell", could be believable if he switched parties or otherwise acted oddly.

Bill Clinton convinced Zell Miller to take one for the team.

Zell Miller was a Democratic plant.

He gave a speech (and later interviews) that were so over the top, he did significant damage to the Republicans.

The timeline for this theory works-NYC was announced as the RNC site in January 2003, and Zell started to really shift rightward about that time.  Zell announced his intention to endorce Bush about nine months later.

Plus, he's refused to switch parties-that leads credence that he really hasn't, and is in fact actually working deep undercover for the Democrats all the time.

Crazy theory, I know.  Probably wrong.