This is a VERY credible poll. They hit the election smack on in 2000. Frankly, given when it was taken (Tues & Wed) I'm absolutely shocked Bush wasn't behind 4 or 5.
I don't understand why you Republicans are always saying "with all the Bad news Bush should be behind 4 or 5, blah blah blah ... it shows how strong he is and how weak Dems are blah blah blah ... "
Don't you get that incumbents are incredibly hard to beat?
If it wasn't for Perot in '92 Bush Sr. would have only lossed by 3 or 4 points despite having approval ratings in the thirties.
If it wasn't for Anderson in '80 Carter would have only lossed by 6ish (even though Anderson was a Republican he definitely hurt Carter more, the Rs were unified around the glorious Reagan, and Carter looked bad for not wanting to debate Anderson ...)
Ford despite the low approval still only lost by a few points.
Hoover was stomped because of the 20+% unemployment.
Taft very well could have won if not for TR.
Cleveland-Harrison round two was close. And Harrison may very well have won if not for the third party candidates
Cleveland-Harrison round one, well Cleveland lost but won the popular vote.
In summary with the exception of Hoover, incumbents don't get beat hard unless there is a strong third party.
So things will have to go very badly for weeks on end for Kerry to start leading big in polls that are not prone to wild swings, and fox is not prone to wild swings.