“GOP concerned Ryan could cost party House and Senate seats” – The Hill, August 13
And they should be.
From House Majority PAC’s inception, it was clear that the Ryan budget could be the key to Democrats taking back the House majority.
After all, the Romney-Ryan plan is a very clear statement on the principles of today’s Republican party: cut taxes for big corporations and wealthy, slash investments in education and infrastructure, end Medicare as we know it, and do it all under the auspices of deficit reduction – despite the fact that the budget plan actually increases the deficit over the next ten years!
House Majority PAC is eager to make this election about these Republican priorities. The selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate will make it easier and more effective for Democrats to do so.
In fact, we’ve already won House races by focusing on these core values. In an upstate New York special election last year, in a Republican district, House Majority PAC helped Democrat Kathy Hochul win by explaining to voters the radical elements of the Ryan budget that her Republican opponent embraced.
In district after district, Republicans’ support of the Ryan budget is routinely one of the most persuasive arguments against that candidate.
Voters understand the need to reign in spending and get the budget deficit under control, but they do not support a Republican House majority that attempts to do it on the backs of seniors, families and the middle class while asking nothing of the most fortunate among us.
This is a message that resonates from coast to coast. Here are just a few examples.
CA-52: Republican Brian Bilbray v. Democrat Scott Peters
Poll conducted by GBA Research, July 11 -15, 2012
Congressman Bilbray’s vote for the Ryan budget was one of the most persuasive arguments against him. Thirty-one percent of voters found it “very concerning.”
Even more importantly, with the voters who matter most, the Ryan budget message is a much more effective message than the Republican message against Obamacare.
|Percentage who found the Ryan budget “very concerning”||Percentage who found Obamacare “very concerning”|
|Swing voters (voters who change their mind in the course of the survey)||42%||20%|
NY-18: Republican Nan Hayworth v. Democrat Sean Maloney
Poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, July 25-29, 2012
The Ryan budget is an incredibly persuasive argument against Republican Congresswoman Nan Hayworth. Fifty-one percent of the respondents said they would be “much less likely” to vote for Hayworth based on her support of the Ryan budget.
As in CA-52, the disparity is even greater with independents and targeted voters.
|Percentage who were much less likely to vote for Hayworth based on the Ryan budget||Percentage who were much less likely to vote for Maloney based on Obamacare|
|Swing voters (voters who change their mind in the course of the survey)||65%||45%
FL-18: Republican Allen West v. Democrat Patrick Murphy
Poll conducted by Garin Hart Yang, June 25-28, 2012
The Ryan budget was the top-testing negative in FL-18, a critical Democratic pickup opportunity.
Fifty-seven percent of voters said they had “major concerns” when they heard the following statement:
West voted for a budget plan that that would slash Medicare spending and cripple the economy. John McCain’s economic adviser has even admitted that the Republican plan would result in one point seven million fewer jobs over the next two years. Moreover, it would turn Medicare into a voucher program, bring back the donut-hole in which seniors pay more for prescription drugs, and make older Americans pay an additional six thousand four hundred dollars a year for their health care.
Furthermore, 61 percent of undecided voters and 58 percent of independent voters said they had “major concerns” about West’s support for the Ryan budget.