Very interesting article. My own opinion is that this is a biased article (note that they also quote the Gallup and CBS results, but fail to mention the handful of polls showing Bush up by somewhere in the 1-3% range). As such, the LA Times poll is still the outlier... so, I, personally, still don't buy it.
But there are a couple of good and pertinent points I think this article raises. For example, whether you're a Rep or a Dem I think you'd find it reasonable to conclude that with Bush's favorability ratings for several months tending to be net-negative in most polls, odds are, any shift in party affiliation should be towards the Dems or away from the Reps. I'm not trying to make a strong defense of the LA Times poll, as they seem WAY low on the Rep side. But consider what most polls that do weight back to party affiliation use as their weights. Then look at what the LA Times had. The typical breakdown is something like 38D/35R/27I; LA Times had 38D/24R/38I. This shows an 11% shift from R to I, using the LA Times numbers (and note they're not off on the D percentages). Is that too much of a shift? I definitely think so, yes. So, I still contend that the poll is flawed. But I could certainly conceive of a 5%-ish shift... especially the R->I shift instead of R->D or even I->D.
In short, this article and the LA Times poll still look biased and wrong to me. But there were some good points raised and the LA Times poll may not be AS BAD as it looks at first glance. Just my opinion.
