The J Street factor, Part I

How much does J Street matter in this election?

Not a whole bunch, says one actor. That actor, believe it or  not, is J Street.

The "pro-Israel, pro-peace"  lobby released a poll today tracking the damage in the race where it has been made  a target, probably more than in any other: Illinois’ 9th congressional district, where Joel Pollak wants to unseat Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.).

Before I get to the poll, let me quote The Jerusalem Post’s Shmuel Rosner, who happens to be in the district, comprising bits of Chicago and its North Shore suburbs. 

Shmuel met with Pollak’s folks, and outlines the stakes succinctly:

7. Pollak wants to win and believes he has a chance. But what if he doesn’t win? Naturally, this isn’t a good time to ask this question. But here’s what I think he’ll say in case he loses: We sent a message, we made clear that actions have consequences, Schakowsky now knows that people are watching her every move on Israel and are ready to challenge her if she doesn’t show that support they expect from her.

8. Of course, if Schakowsky wins J Street will take credit for her victory. It will be annoying, but understandable. Picking the right battles to support is one way of making sure that one is perceived as influential. 

9. If she loses they can always say this was a bad year for Democrats – also true. However, in this case, no one will be able to ignore the specific message related to Israel. If Schakowsky loses it will be about the economy, and jobs, and Obama, and bad-year-for-Democrats, but it will also be about Israel. And it will add to the mountain of evidence showing that Jewish Americans are indeed uncomfortable with the policies of the Obama administration. 

In other words, if Schakowsky loses, it’s because of her substantial J Street PAC takings (over $70,000). If she wins, but Pollak bites into her 2008 margin — it’s because of her substantial J Street PAC takings. And it looks as if Pollak will bite into her margin: Nate Silver has her winning 64-33, as opposed to 75-22 in 2008.

Her opponent then barely ran a campaign, while Pollak has been energetic and a strong fund-raiser, and then there’s the double disadvantage this cycle of being an incumbent Democrat — but still, according to the nexus Shmuel lays out, it’s lose-lose for Schakowsky unless she can pull off the 2008 margin.

The point is to make it dangerous for candidates to take J Street’s money.

Back to J Street’s poll, which nonetheless extracts a seeming win, not just for Schakowsky, but for J Street — by focusing narrowly on the voters who would most likely be influenced by Israel issues, the Jews.

First, it’s run by Jim Gerstein, who’s on J Street’s advisory council, and who is its paid polling consultant.

That said, as far I can make out, it’s straight up: A cold-call phone survey of 400 Jews, drawn from a voter file. It’s margin of error is 4.9 percent.

The poll shows that, at least among the subset that is likeliest to be affected by Pollak’s relentless association of Schakowsky with J Street — Jewish voters — it has had little practical effect. Schakowsky leads Pollak 65-23. Projecting where undecideds go, Gerstein says, that would raise Schakowsky’s take to 71 percent. She scored 73 percent among the same voters in 2008.

Where Pollak has gained seems to be in galvanizing Jewish opposition to Schakowsky, while not budging her support. Her opponent in 2008, Michael Younan, ran a marginal campaign and got 8 percent of the Jewish vote; Pollak seems set to get 25 percent (just outside the margin of error of the 30 percent his polls project him as winning among the general population).

The difference is Younan spent about $8,000; Pollak has spent more than $500,000. The real question is, is it worth that kind of money to try to unseat a J Street-endorsed candidate if all you do is galvanize those who wouldn’t otherwise vote?

Before I get to the answer, and to Pollak’s response, a couple of other things. Gerstein and Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s director, emphasized at today’s unveiling two other aspects of the poll. First, they said that among the 34 percent of respondents who had heard of Pollak’s Israel-related attacks on Schakowsky, the overall effect appeared to increase support for Schakowsky. I don’t see this as worth pursuing, however, because the subset is so tiny — 156 respondents.

More germanely, just 14 percent of respondents listed Israel as among the top two issues they’re taking into the voting booth — more than past national polls have shown (the district has a strong Orthodox representation) but still dwarfed by the economy (53 percent). Barack Obama also scores a 67 percent approval rate among respondents (29 percent disapprove), although his approval-disapproval gap on handling the Arab-Israel conflict is narrower — 49-39. 

Combined, these numbers suggest the "threshold" is alive and well: Jewish voters may perceive Republicans as stronger on Israel, but they perceive Democrats as strong enough — as meeting the threshold — to keep the issue from becoming a primary focus when they vote.

Now to Pollak’s response:

We have little regard for push polling conducted on behalf of an organization like J Street with a history of dishonesty. Our campaign has never been exclusively or even primarily about Israel. We have brought pro-Israel voters together with all other voters who believe that our country needs to stand by its founding principles and defend its democratic allies. J Street’s attack against pro-Israel leaders is a fitting companion to Jan Schakowsky’s desperate campaign of lies and misinformation. We look forward to Election Day, proud of the role our campaign has played in exposing J Street as a foreign-funded front for the Obama administration’s radical agenda in the Middle East. Jan Schakowsky has taken tens of thousands of dollars from J Street, destroying her credibility in the real pro-Israel community.

First, I don’t see any evidence of push polling here. The term actually refers to using pretend polls to spread lies/malicious gossip or perpetuate bigotry about a candidate. ("What do you think of Ron Kampeas’ funny looking nose? Is God punishing him for being a Jew?") In this case, perhaps Pollak is referring to loaded questions that can skew a poll — "Jan Schakowsky and Joel Pollak — nu, who reminds you more of your sweet Bubbie?" — but I don’t see any of that in this poll either.

Next, although Pollak’s campaign has not been "exclusively or even primarily about Israel" — I’d say, from his e-blasts, it’s been mostly about jobs — his Jewish campaign has, indeed, been primarily about Israel, evidenced by how he has made Schakowsky’s closeness to J Street the principle issue in his appearances at synagogues, at Jewish fundraisers, etc. He has repeatedly called on Schakowsky to return J Street’s money in light of revelations that Ben-Ami misled about George Soros’ ties to the group (hence, the reference to "dishonesty," above).

Ben-Ami, today, acknowledged that J Street chose to poll Illinois’ 9th precisely because Pollak had made the group a target — and to disprove the notion that it matters. He said he wants to "create the space" for politicians to realize that by adopting J Street’s posture on Middle East talks — two states, an aggressive U.S. role, and pressure on both Israel and the Palestinians — they will not lose Jewish votes.

I would say Ben-Ami and J Street have, with this poll, gone some way toward making the case that skewing J Street or AIPAC or ZOA will not substantially harm or hurt a politician among Jewish voters. This is a country with largely gerrymandered districts  and the shift here simply isn’t substantial enough to influence the vast majority of incumbents. What Pollak has accomplished — and we’ll see the real results next week — does not seem worth a half-million dollars.

That said, two caveats — one is in J Street’s favor, one is not.

Pollak has apparently raised the GOP candidate’s Jewish portion from 8 percent to 25 percent of the vote. That’s a hefty 17 points. Even if that entire portion culls votes from the unmotivated in 2008 who did not vote for Schakowsky, that comes to 3,400 extra votes (out of what Gerstein estimates is the district’s 20,000 Jewish voters) against a J Street-backed incumbent on Election Day. Remember, that’s not a swing — few of those votes would come out of Schakowsky’s take  — but in very, very tight races, it might make some candidates pause, depending on expected Jewish turnout in a given district.

The other caveat is — it’s not really about votes. It never has been. It’s more about fund-raisers — whom can you scare away? What donors can you spook into not giving money?

J Street’s answer, at least in the 9th, is we can raise that — see the $70,000-plus it has raised for Schakowsky. She’s also raised close to $1.4 million overall, almost three times Pollak’s take. (UPDATE: Pollak writes to note that he out-raised Schakowsky 2-1 last quarter. He also says — and this is absolutely true: "As for the value of the effort — we’ll see on Tuesday, not before.")

Moreover, J Street is now the leader among pro-Israel PACs, reaching close to $1.6 million in funds.

Pollak has not made it dangerous to take J Street money — but he might have made it a losing proposition to throw money against J Street.

UPDATE: Shmuel counters with some good points here. A: Pro-Israel campaigning is not necessarily aimed at Jews alone and B) If someone like Pollak can make this much trouble in a safe Dem district, is it worth the $70,000 from J Street?