Voice For Liberty

Tag: Paij Rutschman

  • Schodorf poll indicates three-way tie in Kansas fourth Congressional district

    Today the campaign of Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf released a poll that shows her in a three-way tie with Wichita businessmen Wink Hartman and Mike Pompeo in the race for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas.

    The candidates and their campaign websites are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Latham engineer Paij Rutschman, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf.

    In answering a telephone question “If the election for congress were today, would you be voting for Jean Schodorf, Jim Anderson, Mike Pompeo, or Wink Hartman?” with the names rotated, Schodorf’s survey shows Hartman in the lead with 19 percent, Schodorf with 18 percent, Pompeo with 16 percent, Anderson at nine percent, and 39 percent undecided.

    As with all polls produced on behalf of a candidate, we need to remember that surveys produced and released by campaigns are just that, and the results would probably not be released by a campaign if the results did not portray the candidate favorably. Without knowledge of the questions being asked, there is always the possibility that a survey is a “push poll,” meaning an instrument designed to influence participants and produce a desired result.

    The Schodorf campaign released the text of the question asked, but other questions asked — or statements made — before the reported question can influence the response.

    The difference between the Schodorf campaign poll and an independent effort conducted last week can be seen in two places: First, Schodorf — in her campaign’s results — is in a statistical tie with Hartman and Pompeo, and the number of undecided voters in Schodorf’s poll is much higher than in the SurveyUSA poll from last week. In that poll, undecided voters were nine percent of the total. That’s less than one-fourth of the undecided voters found in the Schodorf poll.

    Kansas fourth Congressional district poll resultsKansas fourth Congressional district poll results

  • Kansas fourth district candidates on spending and deficit reduction

    In a June 22nd forum of candidates for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas sponsored by the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce, candidates were asked about their plans to reduce the federal deficit and national debt.

    The candidates and their campaign websites are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Latham engineer Paij Rutschman, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf.

    A question by moderator Steve McIntosh recited the current large debt and deficit figures, noted that Medicare and Social Security are headed down an unsustainable path, and said that Americans are worried about the negative effects of letting the Bush tax cuts expire. What is your plan for reducing the deficit and debt, while keeping taxes low enough to allow for economic growth?

    Answering first, Rutschman said we need to look at our government agencies and make sure they are operating effectively and efficiently. She said we should start balancing the federal budget. She told the audience that we should look at Social Security and Medicare to see where we can start reducing these programs, and develop a long-term plan for handling the upcoming retiring generation.

    Next, Schodorf said she had a plan for national economic development and growth, saying first that we need a balanced budget amendment. She said that the bipartisan commission on deficit reduction is really just a paper tiger, and what we really need are experts in different fields to work together to recommend how to reduce the deficit. She said the federal government needs to reduce its spending, recommending a 5% across-the-board cut if possible. She said we need to keep the Bush tax cuts in place.

    Anderson told the audience that we need to reduce the size of government, starting with an overhaul of the tax system by replacing their current income tax with the FairTax. The fair tax, he said, is the best way to generate revenue for limited government, noting that the current tax code is the source of many of our problems. States should take care of their own needs, he added, and we should eliminate the system of earmark spending. He also said we need to look at each federal program, and if it is not constitutional, it should be eliminated.

    Hartman said we need to get control of our government, and that one way to get started immediately would be a balanced budget amendment. He also believes in the FairTax. He said that 41 cents of every dollar government spends is borrowed and must be repaid at some time. The Bush tax cuts should be continued, he said, as they worked well once. He said he is also concerned about estate taxes, especially their impact on family farms. He said that a larger federal government has never — and will never — create jobs.

    Pompeo said that growing the economy, creating a tax base that is broader and larger, is the first way that we can reduce the deficit. The second way is to reduce spending. He told the audience he supports eliminating earmarks, but noted that earmarks are a relatively small part of the budget. Entitlements, he said, are the real problem, and that we should start by repealing the recently enacted healthcare entitlement. On Social Security, Pompeo said he supports a plan developed by Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan. For people 55 years of age and over, there would be no impact, he said, but benefits for younger people would be reduced, adding that the promised benefits may really be a false promise. On the federal Department of Education, Pompeo said it is incomprehensible to him that send a dollar to Washington, only to get $.64 back along with instructions on how to run our schools. He also said we should reduce capital gains taxes by at least 50%, to create an incentive for capital.

    Analysis

    Schodorf’s concern for spending and taxes must be balanced against her record in the Kansas Senate, which is a very liberal voting record. She voted for the big-spending budget this year, and voted to raise the statewide sales tax by one cent per dollar.

    The FairTax, which many of these candidates support, is probably a better tax system than the system currently in place, but it does not address the issue of spending. According to FairTax.org, “Bottom line is that the 23% rate works it replaces the revenue generated by the repealed taxes, and maintains the real value of federal spending.” In other words, the FairTax is calibrated to provide the same revenue to government. For those looking to reduce the amount government takes in taxes — no matter what form — and to reduce government spending, the FairTax is not the solution.

    The idea of eliminating federal programs that are not constitutional is also appealing to limited government advocates. The reality, however, is that every spending program that’s in place — with the exception of newly-passed legislation that hasn’t yet been challenged in the courts — has passed constitutional muster. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, after all.

    Hartman’s concern for federal estate taxes is well-placed, especially, as he noted, in Kansas, where many families’ assets are in the form of land and other agriculture assets.

    Pompeo, as he has in other forums, said he supports the Paul Ryan plan, known as the Roadmap for America’s Future. This is a specific set of proposals promoted by Ryan, the ranking member of the House Budget Committee and a rising star among conservatives. The plan goes farther than Pompeo did regarding taxes on capital gains, recommending eliminating the tax on capital gains entirely.

  • Kansas fourth district Congressional campaign finance reports released

    Campaign finance reports just released by candidates seeking the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas show one candidate largely self-financing a massive spending program, and allegations of another candidate being dependent on financing by PACs and lobbyists are not supported by facts.

    The candidates for this nomination and their campaign websites are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Latham engineer Paij Rutschman, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf.

    Here are the figures reported for the second quarter, the months of April, May, and June, 2010. Anderson’s report was not available as of late Thursday night.

                         Hartman  Pompeo  Rutschman  Schodorf
Contributions         16,062  279,317       80    20,900
Loans to campaign  1,056,600            30,000     7,000
Expenditures         928,385  267,413   24,464    27,712
Cash balance         179,292  444,515    5,616    17,105

    Notes:

    First, Hartman spent a lot of money, almost 3.5 times as much as the second-largest spender. My analysis of the campaign’s spending shows $739,110 spent on television advertising for the three months of the second quarter.

    Nearly all of Hartman’s expenditures were financed by loans made by the candidate to the campaign. Of the $928,385 spent, only $16,062 (1.7 percent) was paid for by contributions.

    Rutschman’s campaign reported a $30,000 loan to the campaign from the candidate.

    Earlier this year a great deal of attention was paid to an April 20th fundraiser held in Washington DC on behalf of Mike Pompeo (Big D.C. names host Pompeo fundraiser, May 16, 2010 Wichita Eagle). Analysis of his contributions shows that for the second quarter, which covers the time period of this event, Pompeo received $15,000 in contributions from sources the FEC considers to be political action committees (PACs). This is about five percent of his contributions for the quarter.

    There are a handful of contributions from individuals in the Washington DC area, totaling about $7,900, according my analysis. These people may or may not be lobbyists.

    In an analysis of first quarter contributions from OpenSecrets.org, Pompeo’s contributions from PACs was three percent of his total contributions for that quarter.

    These numbers are important because Pompeo’s opponents — both in the Eagle article and in their campaign advertising — raise the issue of a candidate being a “Washington insider” with extensive ties to PACs and lobbyists.

  • Kansas fourth district Congressional poll released, surprises within

    KWCH Television in Wichita and SurveyUSA have released a poll of candidates seeking the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas. The poll, conducted July 11th through 13th, shows Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo maintaining a narrow lead over his chief rival, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman.

    The support for both of the top two candidates, however, declined as Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf and Wichita businessman Jim Anderson picked up support.

    The poll shows Pompeo at 32 percent, Hartman at 31 percent, Schodorf with 16 percent, and Anderson moving up to garner nine percent of the vote. Latham engineer Paij Rutschman registered one percent in her first appearance in a SurveyUSA poll.

    Undecided voters were nine percent.

    In analyzing the results, SurveyUSA noted that Schodorf has doubled her support over the past three weeks among women and self-described moderate voters. Further, “Today, Schodorf leads among moderates and among the relatively small number of GOP primary voters who oppose the tea party movement, and has effectively tied the front-runners among seniors, pro-choice voters, and those voters who do not own guns. Any outcome remains possible.”

    These results are not surprising, as all along Schodorf, with her moderate positions, has set herself apart from the three male candidates, who are all self-described conservatives.

    The truly surprising — I think we can safely say shocking — results were on the Democratic party side of this contest. Raj Goyle, whose campaign is expected to report a campaign fund balance of some $1.2 million when reports are filed later today, has fallen behind Robert Tillman. SurveyUSA reports Tillman polling 40 percent, while Goyle registers 36 percent. 24 percent are undecided.

    In the same poll three weeks ago, Goyle led Tillman by 42 percent to 32 percent.

    In the Democratic poll, SurveyUSA warns that this is “movement which may or may not be statistically significant.” But the fact that Tillman has been registering such a high percentage of support and is now in the lead must be a huge blow to the Goyle campaign.

    These results are trouble for Democrats nationally, too. Goyle is one of 26 candidates showcased by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in its “Red to Blue” initiative.

    Goyle started television advertising within the past week. Tillman, on the other hand, recently passed out business cards promoting his campaign, not having even the traditional glossy “palm card” for campaign literature. As of today no website for Tillman can be found, although I have noticed yard signs for his campaign.

    Kansas fourth Congressional district poll resultsKansas fourth Congressional district poll results

    Update: A Wichita Eagle profile of Tillman is at Tillman running for Congress to support President Obama’s policies. A profile of Goyle is at Goyle pushes bipartisan solutions.

  • Kansas fourth district poll shows Pompeo lead, Hartman drop

    A new poll of candidates seeking the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas shows Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo maintaining a lead over his chief rival, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman.

    The poll, produced by Oklahoma City consulting firm Cole Hargrave Snodgrass & Associates on behalf of the Pompeo campaign and conducted July 6th through 8th, shows Pompeo leading Hartman 27 percent to 21 percent.

    While other recent polling has shown Pompeo’s support increasing, this poll is the first that shows a decline in Hartman’s support. That decline, according to the Pompeo poll, has taken place since the end of May, when the campaign had a previous survey conducted.

    These results are largely compatible with polls conducted by SurveyUSA, an independent agency not connected with any campaigns. These polls showed Pompeo increasing his numbers rapidly after starting in a near-tie with Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf and Kansas Senator Dick Kelsey, who has since withdrawn from the race for family reasons.

    Conducted near the end of June, the SurveyUSA poll showed Pompeo and Hartman in a statistical tie, with numbers far above the other candidates. A June poll released by the Schodorf campaign showed Pompeo and Hartman in the lead, but with a larger number of undecided voters than other polls showed.

    As with all such polls, we need to remember that polls produced and released by campaigns are just that, and the results would probably not be released by a campaign if the results did not portray the candidate favorably.

    Kansas fourth Congressional district poll resultsKansas fourth Congressional district poll results

    The candidates for this nomination and their campaign websites are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Latham engineer Paij Rutschman, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf.

  • The Hartman clean campaign pledge: Pompeo response

    In the contest for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman has run many advertisements making an issue of a clean campaign pledge. He’s signed it, and says that leading rival Mike Pompeo won’t sign it.

    I asked Rodger Woods, manager of the Pompeo campaign, why his candidate didn’t sign the pledge. Woods mentioned two reasons.

    First, Woods said that the meaning of the word “clean” is subjective. He said that Pompeo has committed to running a truthful campaign, the meaning of which is not subjective, noting that “truth” and “factual” do not appear in the Hartman pledge.

    Second, Woods said that the purpose of primary elections is the find the best candidate. The tone of Hartman’s pledge, he said, is that Republicans are best served by not bringing up certain sets of issues.

    Woods said that Pompeo has been committed from the start to being truthful, and he is satisfied that the campaign is fulfilling that commitment. A recent Pompeo press release stated “To date, no Mike Pompeo ad has mentioned any opponent. All Pompeo advertising has been built around Mike Pompeo’s positive record and the issues facing voters.” By my observation, this appears to be true.

    Woods didn’t say this, but sometimes these clean campaign pledges are used to neutralize or deflect negative information that is about to be revealed. In this case, Hartman promoted his pledge shortly before issues of his controversial Florida residency and Florida voting were made public. (Hartman’s Florida voting was first reported in my story Hartman, candidate for Congress from Kansas, recently voted in Florida.) If a rival candidate were to mention inconvenient facts, it allows the other campaign to make allegations of dirty campaigning.

    Facts, even unpleasant, need to be aired during primary election campaigns, I believe. Better for both parties to deal with them then rather than during the general election contest.

    While Pompeo did not sign the pledge, that shouldn’t stop Hartman from living up to its standards, if he chooses to. But recently Hartman started running a television advertisement that lives up to all the worst expectations of negative campaigning.

    It uses — as is standard practice in negative attack ads — unflattering images of the opponent. After quoting a leftist Kansas blog when it declared “Pompeo has thrown the first ugly punch,” the announcer states “No big surprise. Pompeo worked in Washington DC as a lawyer before moving to Kansas.”

    The fact is that Pompeo worked in Washington for three years after graduating from law school. While Hartman’s ad is factually correct, this is the type of attempt at a backhanded compliment that most people would agree violates a plank of Hartman’s clean campaign pledge: “2. Treat Republican opponents with respect by focusing campaign advertisements on our own campaign’s vision for Kansas; this includes not mentioning fellow Republicans negatively in television or radio commercials.”

    Hartman’s ad continues with the announcer stating “And the Pompeo record on jobs? He took Kansas jobs to Mexico. That’s right: took Kansas jobs to Mexico.”

    Pompeo has stated that when the company he managed, Thayer Aerospace, opened a facility in Mexico, the Mexican plant was a condition of a contract with a customer. The Mexico jobs were new jobs, not jobs previously held by Kansans that were transferred to Mexico.

    The ad concludes with “Mike Pompeo: just another Washington insider we can’t trust.” While there is no specific definition of “Washington insider,” at least one of Pompeo’s policy positions and his past action is in direct opposition to what “insiders” want: term limits.

    In a speech to the Wichita Pachyderm Club last November, Pompeo told of his efforts, working pro bono, in favor of an effort in Arkansas of that state placing its federal office holders under term limits. I also reported “On term limits, Pompeo said he would like to see a constitutional amendment for term limits, but he would not make a personal pledge to limit his own service.”

    Along with most of the other candidates in this contest — including Hartman — Pompeo opposes earmarks, another favorite Washington “insider” perk.

    Hartman’s ad, besides going against the spirit and letter of his clean campaign pledge, also starts to drag the fourth district campaign down into the type of negative campaign that voters say they dislike. The other candidates besides Hartman and Pompeo in the race have not raised enough campaign funds to do any television or other widespread advertising.

    The candidates and their campaign websites are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Latham engineer Paij Rutschman, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf.

  • Schodorf poll shows closer Kansas fourth district contest

    Last week’s poll concerning the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas showed Mike Pompeo making big gains to slightly overtake Wink Hartman, with Jean Schodorf and Jim Anderson far behind. A striking feature of that survey was the low number of undecided voters, just eight percent.

    Now Schodorf has released a poll with results that, while producing the same ordering of candidates, show a closer race between the top three candidates, with a much larger number of undecided voters. The results, along with the SurveyUSA results from last week, are as follows:

                Schodorf Poll    SurveyUSA
Pompeo          20%              39%
Hartman         19%              37%
Schodorf        14%               9%
Anderson         2%               6%
Not sure        45%               8%

    Schodorf’s poll was conducted on June 18 and 19, while the SurveyUSA study announced last week was conducted from June 21 through 23.

    SurveyUSA included 609 respondents who SurveyUSA determined to be likely voters in the August primary election. Its 95 percent certainty interval is 4.1 percent. The Schodorf effort, according to the press release, consisted of 400 personal interviews conducted with a 95% level of confidence. No interval was given for that confidence level.

    Jayhawk Consulting Services conducted the poll for the Schodorf campaign.

    The SurveyUSA poll starts with a Random Digit Dialed (RDD) sample provided by a third party. Respondents are then asked questions to determine if they are likely primary voters. In an email response from candidate Schodorf, she said that her poll included only voters who voted in two of the last three primary elections. This information can be determined from publicly-available voter records.

    The press release for the Schodorf campaign poll criticizes the methodology SurveyUSA uses in its polls. According to Jim Yonally, president of the polling firm: “We use well-educated adults, who are experienced callers. We talk to people one on one to get a better feel for what they are thinking. It’s my understanding the media poll uses a recorded voice to ask questions.”

    SurveyUSA feels that its automated response polls are accurate and publishes a report card of its results compared to other polling firms. An interview with Jay Leve, SurveyUSA CEO, provides more insight into SurveyUSA and its methods. He would not comment on this specific poll and the criticisms leveled by Schodorf’s pollster.

    The Republican Party candidates and their campaign websites are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Latham engineer Paij Rutschman, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf.

  • Earmarks and Kansas elections

    The topic of earmarks is playing a role in contest for the Republican Party nomination for United States Senate from Kansas between Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran.

    The United States Office of Management and Budget provides one definition of earmarks: “Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.”

    What is the difference between earmark spending and “regular” government spending? Speaking on the floor of the House in March 2009, Ron Paul, the libertarian member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas and Republican presidential candidate in 2008, made these remarks:

    In reality what we need are more earmarks. Just think of the 350 billion dollars that we recently appropriated and gave to the Treasury Department. Now everybody is running around and saying, “We don’t know where the money went, we just gave it to them in a lump sum.” We should have earmarked everything. It should have been designated where the money is going. So instead of too many earmarks we don’t have enough earmarks. Transparency is the only way we can get to the bottom of this and if you make everything earmarked it would be much better.

    This is a key distinguishing characteristic of earmark spending: legislators, rather than agencies like the Treasury Department, decide how and where the money is spent.

    According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, earmarks are estimated to cost $11 billion in the current fiscal year (2010), which is down from $15 billion the year before. The Washington newspaper The Hill warns, however, that some of this decrease is due to a change in classification of some spending.

    While some view earmarks and their elimination as a defining issue, we must remember that the level of earmark spending is relatively small compared to the entire federal budget. The 2010 budget calls for spending $3.55 trillion, so earmarks account for 0.3 percent of this amount. Considering discretionary spending only — and earmarks are discretionary — earmarks are 0.8 percent of $1.368 trillion planned discretionary spending.

    This is not to say that this spending is not harmful and should not be eliminated.

    Paul — accurately self-described as “America’s leading voice for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies” — defends his insertion of earmarks into appropriations bills. In an article titled Earmarks Don’t Add Up, Paul explained why:

    The total level of spending is determined by the Congressional leadership and the appropriators before any Member has a chance to offer any amendments. Members’ requests are simply recommendations to allocate parts of that spending for certain items in that members’ district or state. If funds are not designated, they revert to non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats in the executive branch. In other words, when a designation request makes it into the budget, it subtracts funds out of what is available to the executive branch and bureaucrats in various departments, and targets it for projects that the people and their representatives request in their districts. If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere. To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny.

    A spokesman for House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, was quoted in The Hill article as saying “Earmarks represent less than 1 percent of the federal budget, and they don’t add a dime to it — they are simply a way for Congress to direct funding that would otherwise be directed by administration officials.”

    So here we have both liberal and conservative legislators defending the system.

    It goes without saying that we need to reform this process. Currently, it allows members to say that since the money’s going to be spent somewhere, let’s spend it in my district. The motivation of members is that since their districts are taxed to send the money to Washington, they need to fight to get their districts’ fair share back — and some more, for good measure. This used to be one of the measures of success of a Congressman.

    But the rise of federal spending and indebtedness has been one of the primary motivating factors of the tea party movement, and earmarks are a favorite target of conservative ire and anger.

    So how do the two veteran Kansas Congressmen rank on earmarks and “pork” spending? The Club for Growth compiles a scorecard called the RePORK Card. This measures votes on “68 anti-pork amendments” in the 2009 Congress. Club Executive Director David Keating writes “The RePORK Card will help taxpayers measure the dedication of their representatives to changing the culture of corruption that surrounds pork-barrel spending.”

    For 2009, Moran scored 96 percent, voting against 65 of the 68 measures. Tiahrt scored 29 percent, voting against 20 of the 68.

    In the previous year for this project (2007), the two representatives’ scores were much closer: Moran scored four percent, while Tiahrt scored zero percent.

    According to analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, Tiahrt was responsible for 13 “solo” earmarks in the 2010 budget, totaling $5,550,000 in spending. Moran was close behind with eight earmarks with a total value of $5,150,000. Solo earmarks are defined as “The total of earmarks on which only that member’s name appears.”

    Considering solo earmarks and earmarks with other members, Tiahrt notched spending of $63,400,000, with Moran at $18,600,000. These earmarks are defined as “The total of earmarks on which that member’s name appears, either by itself or with other members. TCS does not split an earmark.”

    In a recent forum of candidates for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas sponsored by the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce, candidates were asked about earmarks.

    (The candidates and their campaign websites are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Latham engineer Paij Rutschman, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf.)

    Rutschman said representatives want to do things that are in the interest of their states, but we should not pass earmarks that are detrimental to the nation.

    Schodorf said that the appropriation process should be transparent, but that we need to cut spending today.

    Anderson said that he is against earmarks, saying that the process provides for corruption of the political process. He would support legislation outlawing the process.

    Hartman said he is totally against earmarks, noting that many people think that earmarks are good when they “make your grass turn green,” but a “bridge to nowhere” is different. He seconded Anderson’s concern about corruption.

    Pompeo said he is against earmarks, saying that if “safe roads make good sense, we in Kansas can figure out how to fund them.” He agreed with concerns about corruption.

  • Kansas fourth district Congressional poll shows big change, surprise

    Updated and expanded since last night’s story.

    A just-released poll shows that the race for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas has changed dramatically since the last poll in February.

    The February poll showed Wichita businessman Wink Hartman with a large lead over Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf, and Kansas Senator Dick Kelsey, who has since withdrawn due to family health problems. Wichita businessman Jim Anderson was further behind.

    Now Pompeo has edged Hartman slightly, polling 39 percent to Hartman’s 37 percent. These two candidates have separated themselves from the rest of the field and are in a virtual tie, as the margin separating the two is well within the poll’s margin of sampling error of 4.1 percent.

    The poll indicates that only eight percent of voters are undecided, a low number compared to other Kansas polls. In a poll conducted at the same time for the Kansas first district Republican nomination, 16 percent are undecided. In a May poll for the Kansas Republican Party nomination for United States Senate, 15 percent were undecided.

    This low number of undecided voters is not good news for the Anderson and Schodorf campaigns, as both have a lot of ground to make up in a short time to catch the two leaders. The primary election is August 3rd, with advance ballots starting to be mailed on July 14th. The deadline for registering to vote or changing party affiliation is July 19th.

    Some interesting results from the pool include these observations:

    For voters self-identified as “conservative,” Pompeo leads Hartman 41 percent to 40 percent. For “liberal” voters it was Pompeo over Hartman by 33 percent to 20 percent. Schodorf, who is set off from the other candidates by her moderate voting record and positions, could garner only 18 percent of these self-identified liberal voters. 20 percent were undecided.

    Among women, Schodorf increases her vote from nine percent to 11 percent. In this category, Hartman leads Pompeo 37 percent to 35 percent.

    For voters who have a favorable opinion of the tea party movement, Pompeo outpolled Hartman 42 percent to 39 percent. Anderson, who has described himself as the tea party candidate, trailed with seven percent.

    Pompeo edged Hartman among pro-life voters and gun owners by three and four percentage points respectively.

    A question this poll can’t answer is whether Pompeo’s upward trajectory is likely to continue. The Hartman campaign started advertising on television early, which surely contributed to his lead in the February poll. By the time of that poll, it was estimated by one source that he had spent over $200,000 on television advertising.

    The Pompeo campaign has not lacked for money. Campaign finance reports for March 31 showed that it had raised $606,274 and had $432,611 on hand. (At that time the Hartman campaign had spent $307,871.) If the Pompeo campaign’s strategy was to conserve funds and wait until closer to the election to start television advertising, the strategy appears to be working.

    It has been thought that the best chance for a Schodorf victory was for her to take advantage of the two characteristics that separate her from the other candidates — her gender and her moderate or liberal positions. (The recent entry of Paij Rutschman in the race provides another alternative for voters wanting to vote for a female candidate, but Rutschman polled only one percent.)

    But with Schodorf barely increasing her total among woman voters, and trailing both Hartman and Pompeo among self-described liberal voters, it appears that this strategy is not working.

    A surprise in this poll is on the Democratic side. In this contest Raj Goyle has been presumed to be the sure victor, as his campaign has raised, by now, surely over one million dollars and is receiving national attention. His opponent, Robert Tillman (no website can be found), is running for office for the first time. He hadn’t filed any campaign finance reports as of the end of March, presumably because he had raised little or no money.

    But the poll shows Goyle with only 42 percent of the vote, and Tillman with 32 percent. 26 percent are undecided. This is an unexpectedly close result.

    The candidates for the Republican Party nomination (and their campaign websites) are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Latham engineer Paij Rutschman, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf.

    Kansas fourth Congressional district poll results