Why Democratic senators from red states are backing the Iran deal

image

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., like many other red state Democrats, is a supporter of the Iran nuclear deal. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., after initially signaling he could support the deal, became the only red state Democrat to oppose it. (Photo: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)

Fewer than a half-dozen Democratic senators remain undecided about whether to approve the Iran nuclear agreement, but among those who have already pledged their support, one notable trend has emerged: Democrats from more conservative states have opted to back the framework.

And while that might come as a surprise to some — given the propensity of moderate Democrats to find issues upon which to create separation from President Obama — in this case, the decision of the vast majority of Senate Democrats to support the deal reflects the basic reality of Senate electoral politics, especially for members from more conservative states.

More than anyone, those members need strong Democratic base turnout and support to hold their seats. And Democratic voters largely support the Iran deal.

Recent polling suggests that 70 percent of Democrats support the nuclear agreement. To date, only three Senate Democrats have announced their opposition to the deal, while 38 have declared their support. If 41 Senate Democrats opt to support the agreement, then legislation disapproving of the deal will not make it to the president’s desk and he will not have to issue a veto, which would be an ideal outcome for the White House. Both the House and the Senate are expected to hold votes on the multilateral agreement upon returning to Washington next week.

A good point of reference to consider the importance of base voters for Senate Democrats from more conservative states is the 2012 election, when many moderate Democrats won and Obama was at the top of the ticket.

While conventional wisdom suggests winning independents is the key to taking those statewide races, data from that election suggests otherwise.

Take the examples of Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.

All of those Senate Democrats, many of whom serve in states also represented by a Republican, have already announced their support for the Iran deal. And none of them won more than 50 percent of their state’s independent voters in 2012.

Brown, for example, won 92 percent of Democrats, who made up 38 percent of 2012 Ohio voters. He actually lost independents by 4 points, but those voters made up only 31 percent of the electorate. Casey also lost independents by 4 percent, but he won 92 percent of Democrats, and Democrats were 45 percent of voters.

image

Sherrod Brown, who serves alongside a Republican to represent Ohio in the Senate, announced his support of the Iran nuclear framework in August. (Photo: AP/Andrew Harnik)

In 2012, Kaine had the biggest deficit with independents, 44-55, but those voters made up only a 29 percent share of the electorate, while 39 percent of voters were Democrats and 95 percent voted for him.

These splits across the board were similar in each of the races mentioned, where Democratic turnout was driven in part by the top of the ticket: Between 34 and 45 percent of the electorate was Democratic, and Democratic candidates won between 92 and 96 percent of those votes.

In 2016, liberal Democrats have gained traction by focusing on economic populism as a litmus test, but it wasn’t so long ago — 2006 — when a sitting conservative Democrat, Joe Lieberman, was effectively primaried from the left by an antiwar candidate. And while support for the Iran deal and opposition to the Iraq War are not equivalent, the Democratic base’s preferences on foreign policy over the past decade have been consistent and at times strong.

So while opposing the Iran deal could pick up some support from independents (recent polling indicates 6 out of 10 independents support the deal), it also might alienate a candidate’s Democratic base — which, it turns out, is more crucial than anything else, both in turnout and support, for a Democratic senator to win in a moderate-to-Republican state.