As widely reported, Republicans have taken an “unprecedented” 10-point lead in the generic congressional ballot. With President Obama’s approval rating upside down and Congressional Democrats job rating taking a plunge, their message of a “Summer of Recovery” has failed. One only has to look at Gallup’s consumer spending charts (below) and the consumer confidence index to see why the Democrat message has fallen flat.
by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist, Gallup
PRINCETON, NJ — Americans’ self-reported spending in stores, restaurants, gas stations, and online averaged $61 per day during the week ending Aug. 29. So far, August and back-to-school 2010 spending trends appear no better than those of August 2009.
The forecasts are based on a program designed to evaluate current polling and demographic data, and to compare these present-day conditions to outcomes in United States Senate races over the past six election cycles.
The Democratic majority is in increasing jeopardy in the Senate, according to the latest FiveThirtyEight forecasting model. The Democrats now have an approximately 20 percent chance of losing 10 or more seats in the Senate, according to the model, which would cost them control of the chamber unless Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, who is running for the Senate as an independent, both wins his race and decides to caucus with them.
In addition, there is an 11 percent chance that Democrats will lose a total of nine seats, which would leave them with 50 votes, making them vulnerable to a defection to the Republican Party by a centrist like Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut or Ben Nelson of Nebraska. On average, over the model’s 100,000 simulation runs, the Democrats are projected to lose a net of six and a half Senate seats, which would leave them with 52 or 53 senators. (Even though the G.O.P. primary in Alaska remains too close to call, that outcome is unlikely to alter the model.)
The forecasts are based on a program designed to evaluate current polling and demographic data, and to compare these present-day conditions to outcomes in United States Senate races over the past six election cycles. For instance, in recent cycles, a Senate candidate with a 7-point lead in the polls 10 weeks before the election won about 80 percent of the time, and a candidate with a 12-point lead won about 95 percent of the time. Although the model, which correctly predicted the outcome of all 35 Senate elections in 2008, is not quite this cut-and-dried, it is this recent track record that forms the backbone of its projections.
Of late, the source of the Democrats’ problems has not necessarily been in high-profile Senate races where the Republicans have nominated inexperienced but headline-grabbing candidates, like Sharron Angle in Nevada and Rand Paul in Kentucky (although the model regards both Ms. Angle and Mr. Paul as slight favorites). Instead, it has been in traditional swing states like Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The last time the Democratic nominee in Ohio, Lee Fisher, held the lead in any state poll, for example, was in June. Representative Joe Sestak, the Democratic nominee in Pennsylvania, has not led any poll there since May, and Robin Carnahan of Missouri has not held a lead since January. The Democratic nominee in New Hampshire, Representative Paul W. Hodes, has not led in any of 17 public polls in New Hampshire against his likely Republican opponent, Kelly Ayotte.
The Democratic candidate lags by single digits in each of these states, and victories there remain entirely possible (perhaps especially so in New Hampshire, where the Republicans have yet to hold their primary). But, at a time when they need to be drawing closer to their opponents as the clock ticks toward Nov. 2, these Democrats instead find themselves falling somewhat further behind. We are now close enough to Election Day that a deficit of as few as 5 percentage points may be difficult to overcome, especially in races where relatively few undecided voters remain.
Particularly vexing to the Democrats might be their standing in Missouri and Ohio, where the Republican incumbents — Christopher S. Bond and George V. Voinovich — are retiring and identifiable members of the G.O.P.’s establishment have been nominated to replace them: Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the former Republican Minority Whip, and in Ohio, Rob Portman, the former congressman who served as trade representative and budget director in the Bush administration. And so far, the Democrats’ strategy of Bush-bashing does not seem to be resonating in these states. Mr. Fisher has only about a 20 percent chance of prevailing in Ohio, according to the model, and Mrs. Carnahan – once considered a strong nominee – has about a 1-in-10 chance of doing so in Missouri.
At a superficial level, states like Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio might seem of least concern to Democrats, since the races there are for seats now held by retiring Republicans. But the Democrats need to keep some of these races in play to preserve a reasonably level playing field, especially since they appear to be almost certain to lose several seats they now hold. Foremost among these are North Dakota, where the popular Republican governor, John Hoeven, should romp to victory in a seat being vacated by Byron L. Dorgan, and Arkansas, where Senator Blanche Lincoln’s deficit in the polls exceeds 20 points (no recent Senate candidate, incumbent or challenger, has come back from such a significant margin so late in the race). Indiana, where Evan Bayh is retiring, is also more than 95 percent likely to flip to Republicans, according to the model. The outcome in Delaware, where there has been little polling, is more uncertain, but the model has established  Representative Michael N. Castle, the Republican nominee, as a 90 percent favorite.
Less clear are the Republicans’ prospects in California, Washington and Wisconsin, traditional blue states where incumbent Democrats are running for re-election. Although Barbara Boxer’s approval ratings in California have turned negative in many polls, the same ratings have remained decent for Patty Murray in Washington and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. The forecast model in Wisconsin is somewhat skeptical of Republican chances there, particularly against Mr. Feingold, an idiosyncratic senator who has broken from his party’s position on many issues. It is these states – along with Illinois, where voters seem unwilling to commit to either the Democratic nominee, Alexi Giannoulias, or the Republican, Mark Kirk – that may determine whether Republicans indeed have a chance of taking over the Senate.
In one sense, the Republicans’ math remains quite daunting. There are 29 Senate contests in which the Republicans have at least a 5 percent chance of winning, according to the forecast: Republicans would need to win at least 28 of these in order to head into the 112th Congress with an outright majority. They must not only sweep essentially all of the Democratic-held seats, but also successfully defend all or almost all of their own. And in some of those, like Florida, Kentucky and perhaps North Carolina, Republicans remain quite vulnerable. Their chances would improve, of course, if they are able to put in play a state like Connecticut, which falls just below that 5 percent threshold but where the Democratic nominee, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, has sacrificed some of a once-formidable lead.
At the same time, the outcomes in individual Senate races are not uncorrelated: if Republicans tend to overachieve in some states, they will probably also overachieve in others. Certainly, if Democrats were to have another month as bad as the one they endured in August – one characterized by poor economic news and ethics scandals – the possibilities for a Senate takeover would rise further. But the reverse could also be true. It is not out of the question that the polling could shift back toward the Democrats: many voters do not begin paying attention in earnest to Congressional campaigns until after Labor Day, and the parties’ messaging strategies have yet to solidify. The Democrats retain long-shot chances – about 3 percent – of actually gaining one or more Senate seats and restoring a 60-seat majority.
It could also be that the polling somewhat overstates the degree of danger that Democrats face. Many of their poorer results, for example, come from polling companies like Rasmussen Reports that use automated scripts to conduct their surveys, rather than live operators, and which often poll in a blitzkrieg fashion, with all of their polling completed within a few hours. Although FiveThirtyEight has not found these “robo polls” to be less accurate than live-operator ones in recent elections, they are generally associated with lower response rates, and they may not be getting a representative sample of voters on the phone.
Nevertheless, the forecast model is carefully calibrated to account for these contingencies. No one pollster is allowed to dominate the ratings, for instance, no matter how widely or indiscriminately it polls, and pollsters whose surveys consistently lean toward one party have their results adjusted to bring them back toward the norm. The model is also careful about determining the extent to which the outcomes in different states are correlated with each other, and in estimating the degree of uncertainty associated with its forecasts.
A fuller description of the methodology behind the forecast model can be found on the methodology page; we also expect to convey certain facets of the model in more detail in coming posts. In the meantime, we invite readers to explore the interactive displays that contain the model’s forecasts not just under current conditions but also at semimonthly intervals dating to Feb. 1. For the time being, we expect that our Republican readers will take more pleasure in doing so than our Democratic ones.
Pundits are laughing at Biden’s latest quote about the upcoming election, but I think we should pay more attention to the idea behind it:
The reports of the death of the Democratic Party have been greatly exaggerated. The day after the election there will be a Democratic majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate. If it wasn’t illegal, I would make book on it.
Gallup points out that Republicans are much more enthusiastic, hold a 3-point lead on the generic ballot, and the Presidential approval rating is below 50%, all indicative of double-digit loses for Democrats in November.
While Biden may be overstating the Democrats’ strength, it is important that Republicans realize that this election is not yet “in the bag.” Voters are clearly upset with Obama and Democrats, but recent polling suggests (pdf) that voters hold a very negative opinion of the Republican Party - worse than what they think about the Democratic Party.
Democratic Party
Positive  32%
Neutral 22%
Negative 44%
Republican Party
Positive 24%
Neutral 28%
Negative 46%
This means that voters aren’t going to be casting a vote for Republican candidates because they like the GOP. Actually, swing and Independent voters will have to hold their nose to vote for a Republican. The fact is that the GOP has done little to positively re-brand the Republican Party in a way that makes it attractive. This makes our candidates just as vulnerable as the Democrats. And we shouldn’t forget that no matter how many seats we win (or lose).
While many pundits think that the takeover of the US House is eminent, I am a bit more cautious. We are seeing a lot of data that shows Republicans competitive in Dem-held seats. But, with voters as upset with Republicans, we can’t take anything for granted. We still have to run a superior race. The seats that we are out-campaigned in, we will no doubt lose.
The 2008 Presidential Election saw an influx in the number of Millennial voters (voters born after 1982) getting involved in politics and voting at the polls. But how much of this will transfer into this year’s Midterm Elections, and how exactly will these voters decide which candidates and issues they want to support on the ballot. Analyzing the voting patterns of millennial voters has always been a specialty of mine—I conducted several papers and theses on the topic while in college. But further research demonstrates that these voters are constantly evolving, and it is important for campaigns to know how these voters think politically to win over their support now and in the future.
Internet killed the video star
Robert Putnam wrote in his book Bowling Alonethat Americans were living in a “weak ties” nation, where they were becoming isolated from their communities and apathetic towards politics. The last few years has brought a resurgence of a “strong ties” nation among millennial voters, however, largely as a result of the growth of the Internet and social networking. Facebook, MySpace and other similar websites have connected people, especially the younger generations, in an unprecedented fashion that IMs, telephones and emails could never achieve. Most campaigns have picked up on this, and have created Facebook profiles for them to disseminate information to the voters and create a community of volunteers to rely upon for grassroots efforts. The Pew Research Center reported in its February 2010 study on millennials that one in three (32%) have posted a message of some type on a social network in the past 24 hours and more than half (56%) have sent an email during that same timeframe. These numbers only further the case that the Internet is the best tool for reaching out to Millennial voters and will continue to be so as time passes, as the study found that the older voters got, the less likely they were to use the Internet and social networking sites.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Millennial voters tend to be much more socially liberal than older voters. Just over half (52%) of them are pro-choice and 50% support gay marriage according to the same Pew study. The number of millennials who are pro-choice, however, is only slightly higher than that of older adults, as 48% of people between the ages of 30 and 64 are pro-choice.MIllennials are more liberal with respect to their support for gay marriage, as only 43% of Generation X-ers (ages 30-49) and 32% of Baby Boomers (ages 50-64) support gay marriage. A possible explanation for the fact that millennials are more open to gay marriage is that two-thirds (65%)of them say they have at least one friend or family member who is gay. Millennials are also much less religious overall, as only 37% of them actively participate in religious activities (including daily prayer) and one in three (31%) consider themselves to be unaffiliated with any religion.
It’s the economy, stupid
Overall, millennial voters tend to vote Democratic in general elections. The Pew study found that 51% plan to vote for the Democratic Congressional candidate in their district in November while only 37% plan to vote Republican. The number of who identify themselves as Republican/Lean Republican has also risen since 2007 from 30% to 35%, while the number of who identify themselves as Democrats/Lean Democrat has dropped by the same amount. Yet these voters are trending Republican, as only one in three (33%) planned to vote Republican in 2006.
A large part of this can be attributed to their preference for fiscal conservatism and the current state of the economy. In a study conducted by USA Todayin October of 2008, 50% of all Millennial voters said that the most important issue in deciding who to vote for that November was the economic crisis, and four in ten (39%) were most worried about the rise in unemployment. WRS polling over the past year has found that this is still true, as nearly all of our federal and statewide polls have demonstrated that this is the most important issue to them as well. This also explains to some degree why made up the largest chuck of “Paulites”—supporters of Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul in 2008 and potentially in 2012. Paul, and subsequently his son Rand—who is the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Kentucky this year—made a name for himself as being a libertarian Republican who advocates for a smaller government and less government regulation of the financial markets. They are also the most likely (44%) out of all generations to believe that the private businesses make a fair amount of profits and are not too powerful, further proving their capitalistic nature.
So what really matters to millennial voters?
Here at WRS we use a proprietary tool called the “Values Centered Issue Analysis” (or VCIA for short) that helps us have a better idea of the motivations and thought process of voters as they consider the most important issues to them in the upcoming elections. Looking specifically at the responses of voters 18-34 from studies conducted in a variety of Congressional Districts throughout the United States, we discovered that the economy and unemployment is still the largest concern to them and what they would like to see fixed first. Millennial voters want to see the economy improve because they are worried about their friends (and in some cases, themselves) who are unemployed and struggling to make ends meet, and how this is having a negative impact on their communities. They would like to see the economy improve so that they can have better financial futures as they start their families and enter middle-age. Millennial voters are also very concerned with the fact that they believe the Federal Government has failed them in recent years, and helped contribute to the current economic situation. Again this impacts their communities and thus, in their minds, having a government that works for them will not only improve the economy but restore prosperity to the country both in their minds and in the minds of the rest of the world.
What to say to Millennial Voters this Fall
Winning over Millennial voters in the polls is possible if campaigns focus on a few different things. First, the more a campaign connects with millennial voters through the Internet, the more likely they are to turn these voters into both supporters and volunteers. One note of caution is that they should not push a large focus on fundraising with these voters—considering the economic state of the country and the high numbers of unemployment among, the last thing a Millennial voter wants to hear from a candidate is “Would you be willing to donate to my campaign?” Republican candidates should also target the younger voter with a message about improving the economy and working to decrease the unemployment rate nationwide, as that is by far their biggest concern and the issue that will likely make or break their support for you in November. Reminding these voters that you would like to see the economy improve will also help them become more optimistic about their own individual lives and the lives of their families, friends and communities. And if all these steps are followed, the millennial vote should be winnable by the GOP in November.
Gallup tracking of 2010 midterm congressional election voting preferences shows 47% of registered voters saying they would vote for the Republican candidate and 44% for the Democratic candidate if the election were held today. Though down slightly from last week’s seven-percentage-point Republican lead, the GOP has held an advantage each of the past four weeks, the first time either party has done so this year.
Even in two of the strongest Republican years — 1994 and 2002 — Democrats led or were tied in the final pre-election poll among registered voters. Republicans, however, led in those polls once turnout was factored in using Gallup’s likely voter model, which correctly forecasted that more voters would cast ballots for Republican than Democratic candidates. (Gallup will begin to provide likely voter estimates for the 2010 vote in October.)
Republicans usually make gains in their share of the vote after the likely voter model is applied, and generally hold an advantage in actual voter turnout in midterm elections, so a Republican advantage among all registered voters is an ominous sign for the Democrats’ prospects.
There are signs voter turnout in 2010 is not likely to go against historical patterns, with 46% of Republicans and 23% of Democrats saying they are “very enthusiastic” about voting this year. Republicans have led in reported enthusiasm throughout the year, and the current figures are tied for the largest enthusiasm gap by party this year.
Republicans’ relatively stronger showing on the generic ballot throughout August is due in part to Republican gains in party affiliation and a slightly higher level of support for Republican candidates among independent voters, as detailed in last week’s update.
In addition, though party loyalty in terms of voting is high on both sides, in August there are signs of slight but notable changes. So far this month, 96% of Republican registered voters say they would vote for the Republican candidate, exceeding Republicans’ party loyalty for any prior month. At the same time, the percentage of Democratic registered voters preferring the Democratic candidate — 91% — matches the monthly low for either party to date.
Bottom Line
Gallup’s generic ballot for Congress, which has been an accurate predictor of the national vote for the U.S. House in past midterm elections, continues to suggest 2010 will be a good year for the Republicans. The consistent Republican advantages among all registered voters in recent weeks are unusual from a historical perspective. Though a swing in the Democratic Party’s favor cannot be ruled out, voting patterns observed in the generic ballot in a given midterm election year generally hold throughout that year
As I argued on MSNBC this past weekend, the recent Time Poll (August 16-17, 2010, n=1,002 adults) clearly demonstrates that the issue Americans have with the “ground zero” Mosque has nothing to do with fear, or hate. Instead, Americans that oppose the building believe that we should have greater respect and reverence for that hollowed ground.
This isn’t the first time that protests have broken out about religious encroachment into a sacred area:
Jewish protests against Christian symbols were increasing in 1998, and there was a new demand that the Catholic Church in the former SS administration building at Birkenau (Auschwitz) be removed because it is not appropriate at the place where over a million Jews perished in the gas chambers.
The Time Poll indicates that 61% “oppose the building of the Muslim community center and mosque near where the World Trade Center stood.” This is the number referenced by numerous pundits and journalists for the past several days. But, if any had bothered to look at the rest of the survey, they would see this:
What if the [muslim] religious group proposed building a community center and place of worship two blocks from your home? Would you favor or oppose it…?
Favor       55%
Oppose   34%
Unsure    10%
The data above helps us connect the dots to the true motivation of opposition of the “ground zero” Mosque. Overall, most of the people opposing the mosque believe that the area should be shown greater respect, but generally have no problem with the same complex being built elsewhere - including two blocks from their own home.
The unusual Washington State primary is actually one of the best pre-general election polls available. With all of the candidates placed on one ballot and voters having only one choice per office, the primary results are often a strong predictor for the upcoming November election. The 2010 mid-term is now just eleven weeks away.
Â
Â
Sen. Patty Murray (D) easily won the Democratic nomination last night, but will likely finish with under 50% of the total vote. With the state’s mail election system that allows ballots to be post-marked on Election Day, it takes several days, if not a full week, to complete the count. With about 59% of the vote tabulated, and only half of huge King County reporting, Murray attracted 46% of the total vote. King County, which houses the Seattle metropolitan area, is heavily Democratic so Murray’s total could rise by a point or so.
Â
Republican former gubernatorial nominee and businessman Dino Rossi won the GOP nomination getting 34% in what is often termed the “jungle” primary. Ex-professional football player Clint Didier was second in the GOP column with 12%. Total turnout, thus far in the counting, shows approximately 475,000 Republican votes and 460,000 Democratic. This will likely change substantially when all of King County reports. Still, only breaking even in primary turnout in a state the Democrats dominate could mean that the Senate race and at least two congressional races will be highly competitive in the general election.
Â
Turning to the US House, all incumbents broke the 50% mark with the exception of 2nd district Rep. Rick Larsen and 8th district incumbent Dave Reichert. In the open 3rd district (Rep. Brian Baird retiring), former state House Majority Leader Denny Heck (D) placed first with 32%, followed closely by Republican state Rep. Jaime Herrera’s 27%. The total 3rd district turnout count, at this tabulation point, shows the Republicans attracting over 63,000 cumulative votes to the Democrats’ 53,000. Sixty-nine percent of the precincts have been counted in this race. WA-3 is a marginal seat, so this open district will be hotly contested in November.
Â
The surprise of the night was in the 2nd district. Rep. Larsen, originally elected in 2000, will clearly face his toughest re-election contest as he scored only 43% of the vote with 69% counted. The Republican nominee will be Snohomish County Commissioner and former state Rep. John Koster who notched 41% of the vote. Koster was Larsen’s first congressional opponent when the 2nd district was last open and held the Congressman to a 50-46% victory in that year. Though this current campaign has attracted little in the way of national attention, the closeness of the jungle primary suggests that WA-2 will rapidly move up the national target lists. So far, turnout favors the Democrats by about 7,000 votes.
Â
Closer to Seattle, GOP Rep. Reichert, always in a tough race in this marginal seat, scored 48% of the vote last night but easily outdistanced his Democratic opponent Suzan DelBene’s 26%. Total Republican turnout exceeded the Democrats’ by about 18,000 participants with just over half the precincts tabulated.
Â
Wyoming also held a primary election last night. The Republicans featured a tight three-way gubernatorial race that could be headed to a recount. Former US Attorney Matt Mead appears to have won the GOP nomination attracting 29% of the vote to state Auditor Rita Meyer’s 28% and former state Agriculture Department director Ron Micheli scoring 26%. Colin Simpson, the state House Speaker and son of former Sen. Alan Simpson, managed only 16%. It is likely that Mead will hold onto the nomination and be elected Governor in November. Republicans swamped Democrats in terms of turnout. More than 105,000 people voted in the GOP primary versus just 14,000 who chose the Democratic ballot. Former state Democratic Party chair Leslie Petersen was an easy winner last night, but the general election is not expected to be competitive. Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal is term-limited and was ineligible to seek a third term.
Presidents above 50% lose average of 14 House seats in midterm elections
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ — Presidents who retain majority job approval from Americans at the time of midterm elections are much less likely to see their party suffer heavy seat losses than are those with sub-50% approval ratings. Since 1946, when presidents are above 50% approval, their party loses an average of 14 seats in the U.S. House in the midterm elections, compared with an average loss of 36 seats when presidents are below that mark.
The clear implication is that the Democrats are vulnerable to losing a significant number of House seats this fall with Barack Obama’s approval rating averaging 45% during the last two full weeks of Gallup Daily tracking. The Republicans would need to gain 40 House seats to retake majority control.
On a historical basis, the Democrats under Jimmy Carter suffered the slimmest seat loss of a party whose president was below 50% approval, losing 11 seats in the 1978 midterms. More recently, Bill Clinton in 1994 and George W. Bush in 2006 saw their parties lose enough seats in the House to turn party control over to the opposition party when they had less than majority approval.
The president’s party nearly always loses seats in midterm elections, regardless of how well the president is rated by the public. Since World War II, only Clinton in 1998 and Bush in 2002 saw their parties gain seats in a midterm. Both men had approval ratings above 60% at the time of those elections. However, the parties of the other three presidents with ratings above 60% (Eisenhower in 1954, Kennedy in 1962, and Reagan in 1986) lost seats.
In general, though, the more popular a president is, the fewer seats his party loses, as presidents with approval ratings above 60% have averaged just a three-seat loss.
Bottom Line
With the Democratic Party in control of the White House and Congress, and key predictors of midterm seat change — including presidential approval, congressional approval, and national satisfaction — below average historically, the Democrats are clearly fighting an uphill battle this midterm election year.
As the midterm campaign kicks off in earnest after Labor Day, the Democratic Party will do its best to convince voters to keep it in the majority. It is unclear to what extent they will employ the president to help them make that case, though his ability to make a positive impact could be limited if his approval ratings continue to register below 50%.
It’s a sign of just how little the Democrats understand the mood of the voters that their defense against accusation like this isn’t “we would never do that, if the voters speak, they speak” but instead “don’t worry, even though we’ll probably try, we can’t get anything through the Senate.” That kind of cynical calculation sums up why voters have lost trust in this Administration in record time.
The big worries shouldn’t be cap-and-trade and card check. The big worry is that the Democrats could use a lame-duck session to pass a “deficit reduction” bill that included massive tax increases and some token spending cuts.
This would let Democrats claim that they have “heard what the American people were saying” while still driving forward their tax-and-spend agenda. And it would take some of the impetus out of Republican attempts to roll back the massive expansion of government in the next Congress because Democrats could argue that they had already addressed the deficit.
Combining this kind of bill with the Democrats plans to let the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire would be a massive, unprecedented increase in the tax burden on American families and would fundamentally transform our economy. In effect, it’s the other half of the Obama agenda that started with massive new spending programs and government expansion into new sectors of the economy.
There should be no question that the Democrats can probably get all of their Senators behind this and add at least some of the moderate Northeastern Republicans plus people like Bob Bennett in Utah who will see it as one last “good government” action where he knows better than the voters in his state what is right.
Kansas state Rep. Kevin Yoder has captured the Republican nomination in the race for retiring Rep. Dennis Moore’s (D-Kan.) congressional seat.
Yoder fought off eight other Republicans to secure the nomination with 45 percent of the vote.Â
The Associated Press called the race with nearly 98 percent of precincts reporting. Yoder won 45 percent to Patricia Lightner’s 37 percent. The rest of the GOP field was in single digits.Â
Yoder will face Democrat Stephene Moore in November — the wife of retiring Rep. Dennis Moore, who won the Democratic primary handily Tuesday. Â
Yoder is on the NRCC’s radar — he’s a “contender” in the committee’s Young Guns candidate program — and he has proven adept at raising money.
In the second quarter of the year, Yoder raised $290,000 for his race. That figure blew the other GOP contenders out of the water and observers expected Yoder to win easily Tuesday.
The race between Yoder and Moore is expected to be close this fall. The two have already engaged one another, with Yoder’s camp trying to label Moore as the incumbent given that she’s running for her husband’s seat.
The Principals at WRS have consulted to influential associations, foreign governments,
political leaders, and over 100 of the current Fortune 500 corporations.
Home
