Conservatives today are a-Twitter over the recent video of Congressman Bob Etheridge berating and possibly battering an interviewer.  To summarize, Etheridge is stopped on the street by a cameraman and interviewer, who ask him if he supports Obama's agenda.  Etheridge quickly becomes irritated, and repeatedly asks "who are you?"  Things take a turn for the worse when Etheridge apparently swipes at one of the interviewers, grabs his arm and refuses to let go, and then cuffs him by the neck and turns him to the camera.

Etheridge has since issued the following apology:

I have seen the video posted on several blogs. I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina, I have always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect. No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become, this does not justify a poor response. I have and I will always work to promote a civil public discourse.

So how vulnerable does this make Etheridge?  We at RealClearPolitics currently have the race rated as Likely Democrat.   The district itself, a mish-mash of precincts including parts of metro Fayetteville and Raleigh, isn't as hospitable to Republicans as it looks to be at the Presidential level (R+2).  At the state and local level it is quite a bit more Democratic (much like PA-12).  In 2008 -- a good Democratic year overall -- Democrats carried the district up and down the ticket.  On average, Democrats ran about five points above their statewide average here.  The only race Republicans came close to carrying in this district was the Ag Commissioner race; the other races were won by Democrats by double digits.

Etheridge is also doing well in the fundraising race.  According the the FEC he has over $1 million cash on hand; his opponent, Renee Ellmers, has $5,462.  In addition, Ellmers isn't exactly a typical high-quality candidate:  She's a nurse and county Chamber of Commerce President.

But there are some countervailing pressures on Etheridge.  Ellmers will almost certainly improve her fundraising based upon this viral video, and may be able to put together a more competitive race.

More to the point, Etheridge has generally thrived in the district by compiling a centrist voting record.  This has placed him more in line with the state Democrats, who perform well in the district, than with the national Democrats, whose track record is more problematic.

This time around, however, Etheridge has generally voted the national Democratic line.  He voted for the stimulus package, for "cap and trade" legislation, and for the healthcare bill (which one pollster found only 37% of Etheridge's constituents favored and 53% opposed).  This was probably prompted in part by the weakness of his opponent.  But if the cash flows into Ellmers' coffers, this could prove to be a miscalculation on Etheridge's part.

The district's fundamentals and Etheridge's fundraising advantage still give him a significant advantage in the fall.  But now there is a pretty clear scenario to see how he loses.  This really was somewhere in between "safe" and "likely" Democrat before; it is now probably somewhere between "likely" and "leans" Democrat.  Hopefully we'll get some polling soon to better sort this out; if not, we'll have some updated financial information in about a month.

UPDATE:  Just to be clear (and judging from e-mails, I wasn't), I in no way meant to disparage nursing, or give any opinion as to whether Ellmers would be a good *representative*.  Congress is filled with one-time amateur candidates who are good representatives, and experienced candidates who are bad representatives.  My comments are solely confined to her abilities as a candidate.  Some type of experience with elected office has a statistically significant relationship with success in a race.  This is because these candidates tend to have connections for fundraising, and are trained to avoid foot-in-mouth disease.  Previous electoral experience of some type is definitely one of the factors we use when evaluating whether a candidate has a chance of *winning*, not whether he or she will be a good representative.  Of course there are exceptions to this, and it is only one of many factors.

--------------------------------------------
Follow the RCP Blog on Twitter.
Become a fan of RCP on Facebook.
--------------------------------------------