DCCC internal shows Marshall up by 12

A Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee internal poll shows Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) leading Austin Scott, his Republican challenger.

  • Jim Marshall: 48%
  • Austin Scott: 36%

I’m skeptical for a couple of reasons. The crosstabs and the wording of the questions are not available, only the outcome of the poll. We don’t know the methodology used or how questions were phrased. And, it’s a Republican year and this district is always more competitive in a mid-term election. Even when it was a Democratic year in 2006, Marshall only won by 1,752 votes over Mac Collins.

This race will be a close and a fun one to watch.


  1. polisavvy says:

    The National Journal today identified Marshall as one of the 60 most vulnerable democrats in Congress. http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/po_20100921_7396.php Besides that, Marshall has never beaten an opponent in an mid-term election year by any where near 12 points. That’s what makes this poll so laughable. The DCCC is apparently not listening to the voters this year. In mid-term election years he always has tighter races. There is no way he is ahead of a Republican by 12 points this year of all years. Nice try guys!

    • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

      It’s a poll. You didn’t actually expect it to be accurate did you?

      Anyway, it seems like every election the Republicans have found the ONE candidate who can unseat Marshall; and predictably fall short. I wonder if this is one of those elections. Seems like it.

      • polisavvy says:

        Think back, Loyalty. I have said repeatedly that I don’t vote based on polls; however, sometimes poll results don’t make any sense. This is one such poll, in my opinion.

  2. RuralDem says:


    I’ve heard a lot of people throw out the claim about the district being competitive in the midterms as a way to signal Marshall’s supposed weakness.

    It is quite deceiving. Why?

    The districts were quite different in 2002 and 2006.

    In fact, if you do a side by side comparison, Marshall did better in most, if not in all, of the counties that were in the district in both 2002 and 2006. In fact, he won quite a few counties in 2006 that he lost in 2002.

    Here’s a 2002 > 2006 comparison between the counties in the district. I’m just listing who won each county.

    Baldwin – Marshall > Marshall (Part of district removed)
    Bibb – Marshall > Marshall
    Bleckley – Clay > Collins (Marshall closed gap considerably)
    Dodge – Clay > Marshall
    Houston – Clay > Collins
    Jones – Clay > Marshall
    Laurens – Clay > Marshall
    Monroe – Clay > Collins
    Pulaski – Clay > Marshall
    Twiggs – Marshall > Marshall
    Wilcox – Marshall > Marshall
    Wilkinson – Marshall > Marshall



    There’s a link to the 2002 page and 2006 page.

  3. 2006 was not a Democratic wave year in Georgia. Nor a Republican wave. Until the PSC runoff, not a single incumbent of either party running for statewide office or the congress or the legislature lost their seat.

    Not one. Marshall was running in a new district to him against a quasi incumbent and national Republicans and shady rightwing IE groups spent thousands of dollars against him. I believe he had more Gross Ratings Points of combined negative television against him in the Macon TV market than any other Democratic candidate running for Congress that year.

    And he still won.

    • polisavvy says:

      But, that was then and this is now. Things have changed significantly on a national level that will have to have some type of negative impact on Marshall (i.e. stimulus, just the name Pelosi raises peoples’ blood pressure, etc). We’ll just have to wait and see. Will be a very interesting race to watch unfold.

  4. Insider Mike says:

    Jason, your logic is backwards.

    GA-8 always goes GOP in Presidential races. Wouldn’t that indicate an elevated number of Republican voters?

  5. Baker says:

    Since we’re talking about GA-8 in general, what’s up with Austin Scott’s vote on remittances? What is morally wrong about trying to tax immigrants in this manner if they are not able to be taxed in the normal fashion? I’ve said it before that if we could make sure that illegal immigrants were paying proportionally into the system, a lot of the anger about the issue would fall away. I believe remittances would be a good way to do that.

    • From Austin Scott’s website http://www.scottforga.com :

      Illegal immigration has become an economic and national security problem in the United States. Our borders are not adequately secured, and our existing laws are not enforced. Austin believes that we should secure our borders, enforce our existing immigration laws, and remove those illegal immigrants who are in the United States unlawfully. He does not support amnesty programs. When the federal government fails to enforce its own immigration laws, Austin believes that states are entitled to enable local law enforcement to enforce federal law by identifying and removing criminal illegal aliens, just as Arizona has done. Austin is strongly opposed to the current lawsuit which the Obama Administration has brought against the state of Arizona. Austin does believe that legal immigrants who follow the proper procedures for citizenship should be welcomed into this country.

      Austin also voted for what was the toughest illegal immigrant law in the nation at that time, so it’s not the issue. The problem was the law itself. It exempted certain institutions from the law and forced others to enforce the law. Do you really want the clerk at Wal-Mart or the guy at Western Union determining if a piece of paper is a real Green Card or if a document is a legal visa? It’s a path to a lawsuit that Georgia would lose.

      If Jim Marshall had done his job at the federal level, then we wouldn’t even have to have this discussion. Marshall attacks Austin Scott for failing to vote for a bill when the job should have been handled at Jim Marshall’s level. Where are the anti-illegal alien bills Marshall sponsored or co-sponsored?

      Jim Marshall: Redefining the term Nancy Boy every day

      • polisavvy says:

        To answer your question, Ken, Marshall has done absolutely NOTHING relative to any anti-illegal immigration bills. Absolutely nothing. To be quite frank, I have been looking at the bills he either sponsored or co-sponsored and haven’t seen a whole lot outside of renaming roads, a post office dedication, making sure the Lincoln-Obama Bible is on display at the Capitol, and, oh yeah, let’s not forget that he voted for spend over a trillion dollars of money we, as a country, don’t have. You remember that, right? The trillion that’s supposed to stimulate our economy. So far, it’s been a HUGE success (said with great sarcasm). 😉

          • polisavvy says:

            Thanks Chris for your site. I stand corrected. Has it ever gotten anywhere, though? I guess that’s the burning question. According to what I’ve read, Marshall introduced it on February 13, 2009, and, to date, it’s never gotten passed “Referred to Committee” status. Don’t you find it odd that with the House controlled by the Democrats that they couldn’t find a way to actually do something constructive with a bill that could actually help with the illegal immigration problem? Why not? Is this Bush’s fault, too? And don’t worry, I’ll continue my searches.

            • kyleinatl says:

              If the Speaker doesn’t like it, the bill doesn’t get beyond committee, nor will it necessarily be heard in said committee no matter what party introduced it…come on, that’s politics 101 right there.

    • Baker says:

      That’s very good, congratulations to Mr. Scott for a strong history on immigration, but is this
      “Do you really want the clerk at Wal-Mart or the guy at Western Union determining if a piece of paper is a real Green Card or if a document is a legal visa? ” the only reason to not support a remittance tax? If it is, then there are already a million other taxes/ laws like that, why is this different? Couldn’t you make it a blanket law on all remittances? Is that too much? Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not trying to “get” Austin Scott on not being tough enough but I was surprised that he voted against that tax.

      • There is another reason: Based on prior lawsuits, it would appear that the Equal Protection Clause would prevent illegal aliens for being treated differently than citizens or legal immigrants. This would make that tax unConstitutional.

        Sorry, but the Constitution is not a buffet line.

      • Oh yes, making a blanket law would impede business in Georgia. Not all foreign wire transfers involve individuals and I, personally, think any additional government interference in the movement of capital is wrong and bad for the economy.

        The correct answer is to enforce the federal laws and supporting Constitutional state laws that protect our borders and enable the removal of illegal immigrants.

  6. slyram says:

    Ron: The D Trip would have hell to pay if they sent money to a member who sidestepped the legislative fire while those who took the heat on rough votes are in real battles. Marshall is his own guy on this one. “Democrat” on those hourly T.V. ads would help the team but noooo.

    As Katt Williams would say, when was the last time you saw him on a unity stage with other “Ds”…how about never.

Comments are closed.