The Hill poll shows Democrats about to lose the South
posted at 10:39 am on October 27, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
In their latest look at House races around the country, The Hill sees the South slipping away from Democrats in a big way. Veterans like John Spratt in South Carolina, Allen Boyd in Florida, and Jim Marshall in Georgia face almost certain defeat, according to the new polling. With the big dogs dropping, the freshmen don’t have much of a chance, either:
Nowhere are Democrats more clearly threatened with heavy defeat than in the South.
Nov. 2 looks set to reverse a trend of recent elections that suggested the blue party might claw its way back in states dominated for a generation by the GOP. …
Democrats hold 59 Southern House seats and could lose a dozen of them — helping Republicans toward the net gain of 39 they need for control of the House. …
Reps. John Spratt (D-S.C.), Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), Chet Edwards (D-Texas) and Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) — with 70 years of congressional service between them — trail by double digits, according to The Hill’s poll. Spratt is down by 10 points; Boyd trails by 12, as does Edwards and Marshall is behind by 13.
Throughout the four weeks of The Hill’s polling, the Southern tsunami has been building, and it hasn’t been confined to long-term incumbents, even though incumbency is a negative among likely voters.
The polling, released this morning by The Hill, looks devastating in the aggregate. Although Republicans only win a 46/42 advantage on the generic ballot in these races, they also have a much higher favorability rating, too. Democrats get a +1, 46/45, with a -3 among independents, 43/46. Republicans have a +16, 48/32, with a +14 among independents, 47/33. In Texas’s 17th CD, where Chet Edwards faces defeat by 13 points, the GOP has a 56/31 favorability rating.
One by-now familiar piece of baggage: Barack Obama. The man who once claimed to Democrats that the difference between 1994 and 2010 is “you’ve got me” was right in one respect; he’s definitely having an impact on the midterms, just not the one he presumed. Obama’s approval rating in the aggregate among these districts is 41/56, and a stunning 37/61 among independent voters. Even among women, Obama has only a 45/53 rating.
Let’s take a look at some of the specific races in this latest pass, and peek under the hood at the numbers:
- FL-02: Incumbent Allen Boyd has a 34/54 favorability rating, 28/60 among independents. His opponent, Steve Southerland, has already hit 50% to Boyd’s 38%, and based on his numbers, Boyd isn’t going much higher than that.
- CO-03: John Salazar is in big trouble here, down four to Scott Tipton, 43/47. He’s hit nearly the peak of his favorability in western Colorado (46/48), where fellow Democrat John Hickenlooper described voters as “backwards thinking.” He’s the brother of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose boss gets a 43/55 job approval rating from likely voters.
- GA-08: Jim Marshall actually has a slightly favorable rating at 45/40, but he’s trailing Austin Scott anyway, 37/50, and by 22 points among independents, 30/52. He’s losing both men and women by double digits.
- IN-09: Baron Hill has a 2-point lead in this race but hasn’t hit the 50% mark yet, 46/44. Independents are breaking hard for Todd Young, 49/32, and Young leads among men, 48/43. The sample here was D+3 in a district with a Cook rating of R+6, though, so Hill is probably doing much worse than this, especially with Obama’s 45/53 approval rating.
- ND at large: Surprisingly, this poll shows Earl Pomeroy leading by a point with an R+10 sample. Almost everyone else has Pomeroy trailing badly. We’ll see in a week, but I’d call this one an outlier.
- PA-11: Lou Barletta leads Democratic incumbent Paul Kanjorski by five, 48/43 despite a D+25 advantage in the sample. (Cook has this as a D+4 district.)
- SC-05: John Spratt once claimed that a party that couldn’t produce a budget had no right to govern. His constituents are taking his advice. The powerful chair of the Budget Committee is down ten to Mick Mulvaney, 39/49, and down 23 points among indepedents, 31/54. Obama’s 44/55 approval rating isn’t helping
- SD at large: Incumbent Stephanie Herseth Sandlin leads by three but only gets 45% of the vote. Kristi Noem is within range of unseating the heretofore popular Herseth Sandlin, whose favorability (56/38) reflects the degree of difficulty Noem will have. Obama’s 37/59 approval rating should help.
- TX-17: Edwards is down 13 points in a district that already tilts Republican anyway. Obama has a 32/66 approval rating here. This one is so obvious that even the Democrats stopped spending money here.
Update: Had Spratt in the wrong Carolina in the first paragraph; now fixed.
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
O’bama actually lost the college graduate vote in 2012.
Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2013 at 4:43 PM
Fixed.
Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2013 at 4:44 PM
You’re not being mocked (and not asked to die, btw) because you don’t know what skeet shooting is. You’re being mocked because you didn’t know what skeet shooting is and proceeded to make an ass of yourself anyway.
IOW, you are proud of your ignorance.
Tomblvd on May 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM
You sure posted like you knew, Cliff Clavin.
If your mother had of taken it on the chin that night you wouldn’t be here to torture us with your silliness.
arnold ziffel on May 18, 2013 at 5:13 PM
Nonpartisan, it’s obvious that you often don’t know what you’re talking about.
What confuses us is why you make claims as if you did.
That tells us that you really are never sure about what you do and don’t know. Your inexperience is glaring.
blink on May 18, 2013 at 5:24 PM
Nonpartisan’s last post was at 9:10 this morning until “it” posted again at 4:23, and yet “it” was responded to all day.
Come on people, giving her too much attention.
Barred on May 18, 2013 at 5:27 PM
really? REALLY?
cuz I wrote this
now, if you’re familiar with English context, you’d realize that the phrase ‘from my understanding’ leaves room for the speaker to be wrong and is explicitly stating that it is not a fact
nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 5:28 PM
Me no familar mit de Englis. Butt could you tell me Harvard story more again?
arnold ziffel on May 18, 2013 at 5:44 PM
I’m pretty sure that most skeet shooters are in a enviable economic bracket.
Cindy Munford on May 18, 2013 at 5:48 PM
there’s no story. Went to Harvard Law, got my JD, didn’t take the bar, never practiced. end of story.
nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 5:49 PM
Yes, because only a “bumblehick” could have cursory knowledge of firearms or shooting sports.
Maybe you should stop listening to the mentally-edfective old fool Obunghole picked as his VP and STFU about things you know nothing about. Imbecile.
Walter Sobchak on May 18, 2013 at 6:01 PM
Please go read the Texas law. My goodness you’re dense.
Google doesn’t even know what the f uck you’re saying . Do you?
Using such words does not excuse you from your idiocy.
CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:02 PM
You never took the bar because you don’t know sh!t about the law and never could have passed, and you never practiced because nobody would hire you to represent them in traffic court.
Walter Sobchak on May 18, 2013 at 6:03 PM
Harvard politely asks that you cease and desist with your lie. Something about sullying their brand.
CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:05 PM
A. Why did you waste your parents’ money on a Harvard Law degree if you weren’t going to take the bar or practice law?
B. You don’t even understand simple legal concepts like the parameters of self-defense. Nobody believes your story about being a law grad from *any* school, T14 or not.
Good Solid B-Plus on May 18, 2013 at 6:05 PM
High school is in doubt.
CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:07 PM
In unrelated news: White House posts photographic evidence that Obama is a bumblehick.
The Schaef on May 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM
If you had even the remotest notion of your own stupidity, you’d die of embarrassment.
Wendya on May 18, 2013 at 6:14 PM
What it demonstrates is that you don’t know what you are talking about and, more importantly, too lazy to spend a minute or two on google to educate yourself before making an ass of yourself.
I also find it highly enlightening that the only response you have to any post is one that has nothing to do with your alleged specialty, law.
Why are you afraid to answer all the legal questions?
Tomblvd on May 18, 2013 at 6:18 PM
Unicorn? Homosexual? Man? Black man?
CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:19 PM
That was a twofer. nonpartisaned is the gift that keeps on giving.
CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:21 PM
Having nonpartisan answer legal questions would be as funny as bayam commenting on economic and finance issues.
blink on May 18, 2013 at 6:23 PM
And ANY type of scientific issues.
blink on May 18, 2013 at 6:24 PM
My comment really wasn’t to nonpartisan.
My comment was really a warning to anyone that is tempted to comment on something that they don’t understand.
blink on May 18, 2013 at 6:26 PM
why does everyone feed the troll ……
yeah I made a comment too … but enough is enough ….
we should ignore it … maybe it will go away …
at the very least the level of comments will go up.
conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 6:27 PM
CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:28 PM
1 perp was wounded, the other two got away.
Too bad it wasn’t a 3 body bag night.
The best way to lower the crime rate is exterminate those committing the crimes.
leereyno on May 18, 2013 at 6:29 PM
Guilty as charged. Asking a lot there mr. tarheel. You want quantity or quality? ;)
arnold ziffel on May 18, 2013 at 6:42 PM
While we are on the subject of guns did you know Bill Maher owns two?
Wigglesworth on May 18, 2013 at 6:44 PM
nonpartisan,
Never took the bar? Oh Lordy, did you break your mama’s heart? I can’t imagine investing all the time and money and not taking the bar. Even if you had become disillusioned with law and decided never to practice, didn’t you want the satisfaction of knowing you could have?
Or maybe your ego is healthier than most and doesn’t need that kind of validation. I just find it astonishing!
Nana on May 18, 2013 at 6:45 PM
I find it astonishing that the Troll can spell “law”.
kingsjester on May 18, 2013 at 6:46 PM
Mahrer: “Twelve home invasions in my neighborhood in the past year.” Really Bill, Is your neighborhood all of Los Angeles County?
arnold ziffel on May 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM
I will take quality … however the owners of the blog probably want quantity
because of ad revenue ….
conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 6:50 PM
LOL
conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 6:51 PM
Irrelevant. They already had shown that they were armed. This no longer becomes “burglary” as you quaintly put it. This just ONE of the crimes they committed.
They were armed. They threatened. The homeowner believed that the home invaders (not just burglars) had means and were a clear and present danger. Justified in any reasonable person’s mind.
But then, Liberals aren’t reasonable. We know that based on the past few years as we’ve attempted to engage them. They spout, insult and run away.
ProfShadow on May 18, 2013 at 7:02 PM
Hey guys, be nice! You are arguing with Obambutt’s replacement for Holder as the next AG. He/she/it is perfectly qualified for the position, based on the qualifications of Obambutt and HOLDER. NP has the same qualifications as Obambutt. NP would probably be a great improvement.
Old Country Boy on May 18, 2013 at 7:06 PM
You’re sorry you’re not a small town in Pennsylvania?
http://www.ejpix.com/photos/location-details.php?location_id=13918862&location=bumblehick-pennsylvania&lat=40.98734&long=-75.13883
OK, fair enough. I’ve always been sort of put out that I’m not Cape Canaveral, FL.
clear ether
eon
eon on May 18, 2013 at 8:10 PM
Are you incapable of understanding the hypothetical that I posed or do you think changing the subject will absolve you of your ignorance?
Read my hypothetical again, idjit.
Resist We Much on May 18, 2013 at 8:34 PM
I’m sorry to feed the troll, but I got here late. Must I suffer because I’m old?
You spent a hundred thousand dollars for nothing? Are you one of the “top one-percent”? Or did you “borrow” the money? If so, are you planning on trying to pay it back?
I doubt it. You sound like the classic lib, who is taught that the world will rape you and only GovernmentMan can save you.
I have the feeling you get your learned helplessness from hippy parents.
Or maybe just cold, unfeeling parents. I don’t know which, but a healthy dose of testosterone would do you wonders. Call and see if Obamacare will cover any problems men have (assuming that word applies to you.)
Squiggy on May 18, 2013 at 8:35 PM
OK folkz stand back, I’ve had a stiff martini and am preparing another…I believe I am Nonpartisan’s intellectual equal, let me at him/her/it…..
JFKY on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 PM
It would be interesting to know what Nonpartisan’s undergraduate degree was. Womyn’s studies? Black Studies? Organizing fluff? Of course, like that of her mentor and hero Obambutt, it is not really any of our business. We already know that Nonpartisan is more qualified than Obamabutt and Holder.
Old Country Boy on May 18, 2013 at 9:04 PM
What was going on in your mind when you thought that a gun, an inanimate object, could distinguish whether one was shooting skeet or something else? Serious question.
anuts on May 18, 2013 at 9:06 PM
CW on May 18, 2013 at 9:24 PM
I attended Harvard, passed all the classes but did not get my degree…and the Harvard Definition of “Bumblehick” is:
A Mouf-breathin’, sister-lovin’ Gun-fondlin’ Christianist G*D-bag….
Now most of you hayseed hickz haven’t been to Harvard so it’s understandable that our hi-falutin’ language may be a bit puzzling. It’s just best you leave the hard thin’in to us Harvard boyz/girlz, ‘Kay?
JFKY on May 18, 2013 at 9:32 PM
You need to bang your head repeatedly against a brick wall to be his intellectual equal.
Kingfisher on May 18, 2013 at 9:34 PM
Well said, sir. I wonder how many children he could have fed with the money that was used to get his education…that…he…admits…he’ll…never…use.
Kingfisher on May 18, 2013 at 9:38 PM
My guess is that nonpartisan obtained his/her/its degrees by sleeping with the professors.
Kingfisher on May 18, 2013 at 9:40 PM
Why we even need a castle doctrine law is beyond me. Proof we have sunk far into the abyss.
JellyToast on May 18, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Dood/Doodette that’s what the ~150cc of Vodka was supposed to do….
I don’t know what Vermouth does to a person but I can attest to 147cc of Vodka.
JFKY on May 18, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Really drunken sinner that I am, I still see the need for society to provide legal limits to the use of force by citizens, or agents of the State, for that matter.
Sure locked in my closet I can use a firearm, but not locked in my closet, someone around my garage, may I shoot..chasing them down the street?
Legal doctrines are good, they provide guidelines for action.
JFKY on May 18, 2013 at 9:52 PM
That would be the very moment that I feel either I or someone on my my property (family, friends, guests, whatever) is threatened.
Othniel on May 19, 2013 at 12:02 AM
.
That is sooo reminiscent of the sorry-assed song lyrics at the beginning of the movie ‘Aladdin‘.
.
If a desperate “father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family” … can’t find valid handouts in this country, he’s not looking hard enough.
If a desperate “father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family” … is too proud to ask for valid handouts, … and NOT too proud to steal … then he’s unworthy of his family, and his own very existence.
.
Let’s have a reply to that … libfree’
listens2glenn on May 19, 2013 at 12:39 AM
.
…… Or nonpartisan, or any other “lib-troll” who believes they’re equal to the intellectual challenge.
listens2glenn on May 19, 2013 at 12:46 AM
This is the funniest story I read all week!
By the way trolls, keep it up with the stupid comments … hilarious!
I love the one about how a man, with children no less, needs to burglarize a house using a gun. Brilliant!
Has it ever occur to them that burglars that carry guns are armed robbers by definition?
Perhaps the burglars should take classes at Harvard to learn how to be a dumber class of
criminals“desperate men with families to feed”?kregg on May 19, 2013 at 6:42 AM
it doesn’t state who fired first though, if the homeowner fired first, the burglar could technically claim self-defense for return fire.
nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM
Check this out, BC. If an armed person is in your home and you are both wielding some fire arm, there is no requirement to allow them, first shot. There are no Marquess of Queensberry rules that apply to gunfire exchanges. More often than not, he or she who fires first, wins.
I do not believe you went to any law school, let alone Harvard Law. As someone above stated, it just doesn’t make sense to spend that kind if money and then abandon the career.
smoothsailing on May 19, 2013 at 7:04 AM
Well Cindy, we learned a new word today. “Bumblehicks” = Landed European Aristocracy.
Huh …?
Jaibones on May 19, 2013 at 7:07 AM
soundingboard on May 19, 2013 at 10:02 AM
Is that you, Barak?
No wonder you don’t know what’s going on in your own administration …spending too much time on HotAir…
Of course, that is irrelevant…
ProfShadow on May 19, 2013 at 12:31 PM
there, fixed it….
May 19, 2013 12:00 PM Central Time….
APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 19, 2013 at 1:01 PM
nonparts gets paid for derailing threads, it gets same pay as the lawn illegals at the big homes of the google bosses….
and it votes as told too
APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 19, 2013 at 1:05 PM
..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit!
The War Planner on May 19, 2013 at 2:44 PM
The invaders had already committed assault by this time. Battery is physical contact, assault is the threat of violence. The homeowner, threatened at gunpoint, forced into a closet… had already been assaulted, even if they didn’t physically touch or fire at him. Being assaulted, in his home, by invaders, qualifies for lethal resistance.
And if your assertion was viable, law enforcement would be rendered completely incapable of responding to any form of robbery or violence since the criminals could always claim assault by officers responding with force or even capturing them. The burden of the law starts with those instigating the conflict, assuming that the responders do not respond with a wildly different level of response. Since these invaders had firearms, firearms would be an appropriate level of response.
Do you know what you just taught me on this thread?
…that a single “101 Introduction to Law” class taken by a Computer Science major at a public college in Ohio is more valuable than a law degree from Harvard. Thank you… You made my day!
dominigan on May 19, 2013 at 6:28 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3