Scott on shaky ground?

Who would have thought this race would even be a blip on the radar?:

“Emergency Funds Needed for Rep. David Scott,” blared the subject line of the Oct. 21 e-mail about Georgia’s 13th district race.

It’s a strange juxtaposition in a national environment that strongly favors the Democrats and a Democratic Congressman who represents a district that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) won in the 2004 White House election with more than 60 percent of the vote.

But publicly and privately, Democrats are trying to focus attention on the Atlanta-area Congressional district.
[…]
According to new Democratic polling for Scott’s campaign, Obama is winning the district 56 percent to 35 percent. But in the Congressional ballot test, the Congressman is only ahead narrowly, 43 percent to 38 percent, over physician Deborah Honeycutt (R). The poll was conducted Oct. 13-14 by Cooper and Secrest Associates.

I still think Honeycutt has almost no chance of winning this seat, but the decline is Scott’s numbers are significant considering his margin of victory in 2006.

17 comments

  1. What district are they polling? The early vote in the 13th district is running >65% African American. Obama only at 56%? Don’t they know that Mark Taylor got 58% of the vote here against Sonny Perdue?

  2. Andre Walker says:

    I might add that this poll was taken before the Scott campaign stepped up their game against Honeycutt, hitting her on radio, t.v. and in the mail.

    Those numbers have definitely changed.

  3. slyram says:

    http://www.democratsforgoodgoverment.com/voteDavidScottOut.htm

    Andre: I am sorry for saying Honeycutt is smoking hot on your blog (again, with all due respect to her hubby).

    I am down here in south Georgia so what is happening in that race is not my business but the gloves are coming off and I will turn my head to avoid witnessing the coming ugliness. Personally, Scott and Honeycutt seem like good people to me but something is up with the Democrats for Good Government group that has Rep. Scott upset.

    The group hits Scott pretty hard; swiftboat-style. Scott says the group is cloaked Republicans.

    One thing is clear: other Republicans must have caught wind of this funky deal and are heading in the other direction. Since the Congressional Black Caucus came to Scott’s aid with the quickness, I am starting to think the CBC is not slamming Jim Marshall because they realized that they need that seat and Blue Dogs must have flexible and conservative.

    It is reality and a shame that people assume that all Blacks will vote the Dem party line but it is clear that the GOP thinks the same thing.

    Mrs. Honeycutt as a moderate Republican would have been interesting. That group must be third-party because she is too classy to get down like that.

  4. Georgiamike says:

    Sly, Dems for Good Government consists of one member – David Knox. Mr. Knox was Honeycutt’s webmaster. His firm, DKintermedia.com was paid by Honeycutt back in June. It was discovered that 25,ooo flyers were ordered from a print firm under Democrats for Good Government and sent to the Honeycutt home address. An FEC expenditure matching the exact costs of that printing is on the Honeycutt filing for October. Even more interesting is that volunteers with Honeycutt t-shirts were handing out Democrats for Good Government flyers in Clayton County two weekends ago. Maybe they should just create a 527 and disclose the financial relationship.

  5. slyram says:

    The Monday morning quarterbacking after this election season will include talk about some good GOP candidates who got mismanaged by agents of a consulting profession who emphasized getting cash to bombarded T.V. spots rather than good old shoe leather and people meeting.

    Like Hillary’s people not preparing an operation after Super Tuesday (she did not deserve that), these handlers did not craft a plan to get those new voters for their candidates—if never cross they minds that Black voters could be moderates and conservatives. When you hit the ground from Washington with your fancy operation, get a range of locals to learn the lay of the land.

    Yes Bill, Democrats should be for good government; Honeycutt likely has plenty of actual Democrat supports like Rep. Bishop has low-key Republican support.

  6. slyram says:

    I have been think about the Scott v. Honeycutt race and I starting to think that an African American in the GOP might be good for the Obama White House–should he win.

    There’s a post on my blog if anyone wants to debate the matter.

    Personally, I like Scott’s Farm Bill work.

  7. Doug Deal says:

    slyram,

    Blacks in the GOP in general would be great for the country as well as for blacks.

    Being monolithically behind one party, no matter what, is a recipe for irrelevance? If that 12% was up for grabs every election, or if even only a quarter was up for grabs, the number of black candidates elected would skyrocket, but also issue that are important to blacks would be the priority of both parties.

    As it currently stands, neither Democrats (who have the votes anyway) nor Republicans (who cannot get the votes no matter what) have any incentive to do anything real for blacks in the country.

  8. rugby fan says:

    “Being monolithically behind one party, no matter what, is a recipe for irrelevance? If that 12% was up for grabs every election, or if even only a quarter was up for grabs, the number of black candidates elected would skyrocket, but also issue that are important to blacks would be the priority of both parties.”

    But that is simply not how the American political process works.

    When you have large groups of people voting monotonically for a party, that party makes it a point to have their interests at the forefront of their platforms and work. Would Democrats make sure everything is union-made if unions didn’t fund them heavily, vote overwhelmingly for them, and campaign for them (to keep it on topic: would Democrats really push as hard for Affirmative Action and other social programs if African Americans didn’t vote for them as heavily. Also, much of what the “black community” would likely be at odds with Republican philosophy, why would the GOP adopt that cause)? Would Republicans genuinely care about the “Religious Right” if the RR wasn’t responsible for victories in 2004 and now seem to dominate the GOP base?

    The number of candidates running is not dependent on what percentage of a demographic votes for a party. Take women for example. They aren’t a lock for the Democrats or Republicans yet they are a tiny fraction of the number of elected officials.

  9. Doug Deal says:

    of course that is how it works Rugby. In the 40 years that the Democrats have supposedly took up the cause of blacks from the Republicans who actually did something, what have they accomplished. Paying lip services and doing nothing of substance is not the same thing as acting in one’s interest.

  10. rugby fan says:

    But that doesn’t actually make any sense for any of your points.

    If the Democrats haven’t done anything substantial then why would African-Americans stay with them for 40 years? Are you implying that Democrats are master con artists capable of deceiving an entire race of people? If that is the case, why not use that skill to deceive the entire population and win every election? How is that not pure partisan tripe if that is what you are suggesting? Or are you saying that a certain race of people thinks monotonically or is more easily deceived?

    It is fair enough to say that Democrats haven’t done anything (I guess because you don’t approve of social spending which is fine, but doesn’t validate your claim), but that is not true. Democrats initiated the programs that led to blacks and others being able to be on an equal playing field.

    Maybe in recent years that has changed, but that could also be because radical changes aren’t needed so it’s much harder to measure changes.

    Now, perhaps, rather than focus on what Democrats may or may not have done, why not focus on concrete policies that Republicans have proposed let’s say, in the past 10 years, that could directly benefit black people.

    Sure you can tout maxims like “teach a man to fish…” &c. However, what has directly occurred from Republican policies that has benefited African-Americans? What has improved inner city schools, or helped eradicate poverty &c.

    Because it is one thing to say Democrats haven’t done anything, but it is radically different to say the Republicans have.

  11. Doug Deal says:

    rugby,

    Democrats are master con artists capable of deceiving an entire race of people?

    I agree with your sentiment here.

    Seriously, my second post has somehow disappeared. In it I said that we might actually agree on something, as we seem to be talking about two different things.

    I mean monolithic behavior toward a party, as opposed to issues. If you vote monolithically for a party, you will be ignored, because it does not matter who you support. If you vote on the issues, either side or either candidate can adopt that issue, and they would eagerly in order to gain an advantage.

    Right now, I do not think any side really tries to do anything for the black community. Both sides turn a deaf ear and seem to prefer the status quo (the Democrats because they benefit, the Republicans because they refuse to work for anything that does not get instant results).

  12. rugby fan says:

    “Seriously, my second post has somehow disappeared. In it I said that we might actually agree on something, as we seem to be talking about two different things.”

    Bull**** Doug, we have far to much fun sparring here for you to want to agree on anything.

    Here is a test:

    It is 8:30ish PM now. It is dark outside.

    Agree or disagree?

  13. Doug Deal says:

    Both.

    I hope you realize that I do give you a hard time, but it is only because I think that there is hope.

    I hope that if you are right and Obama wins he truly does well for our country. I hope that the possible 60 seats that the Democrats might get in the Senate do not allow them to do the hidden list of way over the top crazy stuff that many of them would love to do.

    Too much about politics is “getting” the other side, and that is the main reason why it is dangerous for one or the other to have complete control of the government. Politicians are pretty much, top to bottom, the worst among us, not the best. Why would anyone want any of them, left or right, to have absolute control over us?

Comments are closed.