AFP Poll in TN-7: Grassroots Traction vs. Establishment Spending

The latest Americans for Prosperity/WTN poll, conducted by Spry Strategies, reinforces a theme that’s been consistent across every straw poll of Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District special election: Jody Barrett, Gino Bulso, Matt Van Epps, and Lee Reeves are the only Republicans showing meaningful support in a crowded field of 11 candidates.

But this poll stands out from the pack. Americans for Prosperity (AFP) poured significant resources into Reeves’ state house campaign in 2024 and helped fuel his political rise. The group is still widely perceived as an ally of Reeves, which makes his results in this survey all the more striking. If there was ever a poll Reeves expected to dominate, it was this one. Instead, he remains stuck in a four-way logjam, far from the breakout moment his spending spree was supposed to deliver.

A Deadlocked Field

According to the survey of 500 likely voters, Barrett led the initial ballot test at 10.1%, followed closely by Bulso, Reeves, and Van Epps. Nearly 57% of respondents said they were still undecided, underscoring how unsettled the race remains with early voting beginning September 17 and Election Day set for October 7.

The “forced choice” question—asking voters to pick a candidate if the election were held today—produced Reeves’ only lead in the poll, with 20.9%. Bulso came in close behind at 19%, followed by Van Epps at 15.4% and Barrett at 14.8%. While Reeves’ campaign rushed to frame that outcome as proof of his momentum, the reality is less flattering: his advantage only emerged after undecided voters were pushed to make a choice. Far from signaling enthusiasm, it suggests that Reeves’ barrage of advertising has yet to inspire organic support.

Forums Matter: Three Show Up, One Does Not

The difference may come down to visibility. Over the past two months, more than a dozen candidate forums and public events have been held across the district, offering voters repeated opportunities to hear directly from the people seeking to represent them. Jody Barrett, Gino Bulso, and Matt Van Epps have shown up at nearly every one of them. Lee Reeves has appeared at only two or three.

That absence is glaring. Barrett, Bulso, and Van Epps have been steadily building engagement by putting themselves in front of voters, fielding tough questions, and making the case for their campaigns in person. Reeves, by contrast, has leaned on glossy mailers, radio ads, and outside backing—methods that may keep consultants busy but don’t substitute for direct accountability.

The AFP poll shows the consequences: despite his superior resources, Reeves is not outperforming the candidates who simply show up.

Reeves vs. Spry vs. McLaughlin

Rather than reckon with the numbers, Reeves’ campaign lashed out. In an X post, his spokesman denounced the AFP/Spry survey as “fake,” “laughable,” and “Never Trump,” even comparing it to the Steele Dossier. Instead, the campaign pointed to its own internal numbers from John McLaughlin—billed by Reeves as “President Trump’s pollster”—to argue Reeves is actually the frontrunner.

But the credibility of that defense is shaky at best. Yes, McLaughlin has polled for Trump. But his client roster is sprawling and includes corporate heavyweights like Pfizer, Monsanto, Amazon, and Caterpillar; organizations such as the Gates Foundation, NAACP, and Club for Growth; and establishment Republicans including Sens Pat Toomey, John Hoeven and John Thune. If Spry Strategies is to be dismissed as unreliable because of supposed “Never Trump” ties, how exactly does McLaughlin’s work for Big Pharma, corporate lobbyists, and entrenched establishment Republican political insiders inspire confidence among grassroots conservatives?

Reeves’ reliance on McLaughlin illustrates the larger problem: he is trying to sell voters on branding, not substance. The pollster’s “Trump” label is trotted out as a seal of authenticity, while the fine print reveals ties to many of the same establishment and corporate interests that grassroots Republicans distrust.

The Symbolism of the AFP Poll

This isn’t the first poll to show Reeves in a crowded tie at the top, but it may be the most telling. With AFP’s name attached, it was the perfect opportunity for Reeves to showcase that his big spending and outside support were bearing fruit. Instead, it underlined the opposite: money and mail are not translating into voter enthusiasm, and rivals utilizing deeper face to face voter engagement are holding their own.

For Barrett, Bulso, and Van Epps, the message is encouraging. Their consistent presence on the ground is keeping them competitive despite Reeves’ spending advantage. For Reeves, the symbolism is awkward. If the group that once helped fuel his rise can’t deliver him a decisive edge in the polls, what does that say about the effectiveness of his campaign strategy?

The Bottom Line

The AFP/Spry poll does not settle the Republican primary in Tennessee’s 7th District. It merely confirms what every other straw poll has suggested: the race is wide open, with four candidates clustered together and the winner likely emerging with barely 23% of the vote.

But the poll does highlight a deeper contrast. Barrett, Bulso, and Van Epps have been visible, accessible, and willing to engage directly with voters. Reeves has spent heavily, avoided most forums, and tried to spin away unfavorable data. At some point, voters may decide that if a candidate won’t stand in front of them now, there’s little reason to trust he’ll stand up for them later.

In a race that could be won with just 23% of the vote, Reeves may soon discover that money can buy ads, but it can’t buy trust — and trust is the only currency that counts.

If you support what I do, please consider donating a gift in order to sustain free, independent, and TRULY CONSERVATIVE media that is focused on Middle Tennessee and BEYOND!