Recent NRSC Iran Deal Ad ran in surprising places

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The NRSC has been running ads hitting democratic senate candidates on supporting the Iran Deal in a number of states: The battlegrounds of North Carolina, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, but also the (probably) non-battlegrounds of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Georgia.

Here's one of the ads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez4wJxwBB_0

Wisconsin I get because they always like to fantasize about winning it. But Illinois and Georgia? Hmmm.....

[Heisenberg]

Somewhere else on this forum I mentioned how I noticed that the NRSC started making ads against Barksdale. That kind of surprised me, so apparently they're losing confidence.

[Miles]

What a terribly low energy ad.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What's surprising about it?

Kirk is supposed to be DOA*, and Isakson is supposed to be Safe. Why would they waste money there?

*The race hasn't been polled very much, so I guess it's possible that Duckworth is this year's Mark Warner - someone who is expected to win easily right up to the end, but nearly loses or actually loses on election day.

[heatcharger]

Illinois I guess they want to fool people into thinking they're still trying to win.

Georgia's interesting. Most public polls have shown a pretty healthy lead for Isakson even with Trump tanking in the state compared to Romney. My theory? GOP internals have been must less friendly for them than public polls, and they see a competitive race with Barksdale. I still think the likelihood of Barksdale getting to 50% is quite low.

[Heisenberg]

The NRSC has been running ads hitting democratic senate candidates on supporting the Iran Deal in a number of states: The battlegrounds of North Carolina, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, but also the (probably) non-battlegrounds of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Georgia.

Here's one of the ads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez4wJxwBB_0

Wisconsin I get because they always like to fantasize about winning it. But Illinois and Georgia? Hmmm.....

Also, on the battlegrounds, I would swap East Vermont (which is Safe D) and Wisconsin (which is tightening).

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^ I'm using my own ratings, not the angry women stuff. I know I only have IL at Lean D, but that's because there is essentially no data, we're working solely off fundamentals.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Kirk's been running hard against the Iran deal since it was being negotiated. I'm pretty sure Toomey has as well.

[Young Conservative]

Good ad. Wisconsin's senate race is still wannabe despite what Atlas thinks and I am glad we are treating it as such since we can move resources out of Ohio to other areas and decrease resources in Florida and devote to other races.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Good ad. Wisconsin's senate race is still wannabe despite what Atlas thinks and I am glad we are treating it as such since we can move resources out of Ohio to other areas and decrease resources in Florida and devote to other races.

I wouldn't be too comfortable with moving resources out of Florida yet. That's a must-win seat unless you want it to be blue for a long time or deal with a Murphy run for president, and Rubio's margin, while consistent, isn't all that big.

[Kingpoleon]

What's surprising about it?

Kirk is supposed to be DOA*, and Isakson is supposed to be Safe. Why would they waste money there?

*The race hasn't been polled very much, so I guess it's possible that Duckworth is this year's Mark Warner - someone who is expected to win easily right up to the end, but nearly loses or actually loses on election day.

There's been one non-internal, IIRC.