Republicans in tight races are closing out the election with ads blasting their Democratic opponents for supporting last summer’s nuclear deal with Iran, while Democrats are remaining largely silent about the broadly unpopular agreement, according to media analysis provided to THE WEEKLY STANDARD and interviews with GOP pollsters and campaign strategists.
Liberal groups that favored the deal and urged Democrats to back it have been left to counter the Republican push and the perception that support for the deal is electorally damaging. These groups have launched a media effort suggesting that prominent Democrats are in fact eager to run on the deal, a claim that strategists told TWS is at odds with data about campaign spending and messaging.
The Republican side has released a slew of advertisements slamming Democrats for supporting the deal, with the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) releasing campaign videos for at least nine of its candidates, and its counterpart on the House side, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) instituting a similar strategy.
An analysis of advertisements provided to TWS by a campaign media expert found that over 100 Republican broadcast federal campaign ads mention the Iran deal, while only three Democratic television ads focused on it. One of the three advertisements was released by a Nebraska congressman who says he opposed the deal and describes how he “stood up to my own party.”
The other two Democratic advertisements came from the liberal advocacy group J Street, which told reporters last month it was releasing ads for states like Illinois and Wisconsin. The spots counter the perception that Democrats are being damaged for backing the Obama administration’s diplomacy toward Iran.
But pollsters and strategists cast doubt on the specifics of J Street’s campaign, and on the broader suggestion that Democrats were willing to campaign on their support for the deal.
A GOP pollster working on several races this cycle told TWS that to their knowledge, “not a single Democratic campaign in a competitive race is running this as a positive message.” If Iran deal backers really thought the deal was a “‘winning’ issue that would bring new voters into the fold,” the pollster added, they would have targeted Republicans in “reach” or “red” states, especially states like Arizona with significant Hispanic votes.
Asked specifically about the J Street ad buy, the pollster speculated that the group was trying to create the impression that the Iran deal was boosting candidates by choosing races in states that Obama won in 2012 by 5 to 16 percent—and suggested the campaign was backfiring.
“J Street picked ‘safe’ seats early in the year, and are probably shocked that at least a couple of them have become competitive, [and] their donors would probably be more shocked to learn the Iran Deal is a significant part of why,” explained the pollster. “Essentially, J Street and the Iran Deal are alienating swing voters in what should have been easy-to-win races.”
A senior official at a national Jewish organization said that J Street and allied groups were struggling to stay relevant, as Democratic lawmakers backed away from voicing additional support for the deal this cycle.
“J Street and other Iran backers promised Democrats that they’d have electoral cover if they voted for the Iran deal. But by the end of 2015 the public opposed the deal 2:1, and that’s where the number has stayed,” said the official. “Supporting the Iran deal is electoral poison, and politicians who have their seats on the line know that better than anyone. No amount of Potemkin spending is going to fool them.”
J Street said in a press release that their 30-second spots were “the first and only national effort to defend the Iran agreement in the context of the 2016 elections.” The organization’s president, Jeremy Ben-Ami acknowledged Republicans were outspending Democrats on Iran deal ads, but said that the ads were meant to “exact a cost” from Republicans and argue for diplomacy.
