Campaign Diaries

For months now, we keep hearing a puzzling rumor that Senator Chuck Grassley is facing a threatening Republican primary in 2010 - so threatening, in fact, that it explains his schizophrenic behavior on health care issue. (Grassley is simultaneously negotiating with Max Baucus and bashing the Democrats’ reform efforts, warning he is unlikely to support them.) Ezra Klein writes: unsubstantiated

Whatever Chuck Grassley wants to do, he can’t get away from two facts. First, he is facing a Republican primary challenge in his 2010 reelection campaign. Second, his term as ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee is coming to an end, and he needs the favor of his party leadership to smoothly transition to ranking member of Judiciary or Budget.

The second of these facts could not be more true: The Republican Caucus functions differently than the Democratic one, and GOP Senators cannot trust that their seniority will overcome their colleagues’ displeasure as much as conservative Democrats can. (That’s a very wise system that Democrats should emulate.) But I am unable to figure out where the first rumor is coming from, nor why we keep hearing it referenced.

Who is this Republican primary challenger that Grassley is facing and cannot get away from?

Let’s get to the bottom of this, starting with the acknowledgment that yes, there has been grumbling among conservatives that Grassley is not far enough to the right. His vote in favor of the bailout and his initial silence on the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage annoyed conservative activists, though it did not take long for Grassley to remind them that he had voted for DOMA and FMA.

In stories that reference a potential primary challenge for Grassley, one man is invariably quoted: Bill Salier, a hog farmer who lost the GOP’s Senate nomination in 2002 and later managed Tom Tancredo’s caucus efforts during the congressman’s quickly aborted presidential run. That does not make Salier particularly representative of the Republican electorate - even of the conservative electorate that might dominate a GOP primary - but it does give him enough credibility for his warnings to be taken seriously.

In the days following Grassley’s muted reaction to the gay marriage ruling, Salier vented to Radio Iowa. . “If anybody was ever vulnerable to a primary who is an icon, it would be Chuck Grassley now,” he warned. “People become more and more and more incensed the more they start to pay attention to how far he has drifted.” This has led many to consider Salier a potential candidate - he is listed as such on Wikipedia, for instance - but he has explicitly ruled out a run.

Salier’s statements are clearly designed to scare Grassley into falling in line and not dare support health care reform. The Des Moines Register recently did quote two Republicans, including one state Senator and one former state Republican central committee member, warning that Grassley should indeed worry about a primary if he votes for such a bill “but they could not name anyone who might mount a campaign.”

Conservatives are perfectly entitled to use such threatening tactics to keep Grassley in line. More power to them. But this is certainly not in any way, shape or form a tangible enough threat for Grassley to feel threatened or change his behavior.

Grassley’s image among GOP voters could change overnight if he were to suddenly announce his support for the public option, but if Senators were automatically vulnerable to primary challenges when they disappointed their base, few Democratic Senators would win re-election. There’s a reason we talk about an incumbency advantage - one that is so powerful that it looks like Gillibrand will avoid a competitive primary.

Successful challenges to sitting Senators are rare, especially when we’re talking about a senior lawmaker like Grassley. They take lots of time to lay the groundwork, lots of offensive material in the incumbent’s record and a lot of preexisting angst to rely on. If most of those conditions are not present, the primary is highly unlikely to competitive - nor will the incumbent feel pressure to move closer the base. This is the reason prominent liberal bloggers have realized they need to coalesce in Accountability Now if they want to voice credible primary threats.

The well-financed and well-known Steve Israel and Carolyn Maloney were preparing to jump in more than a year in advance - and that was to take on an appointed senator with no statewide profile; in 2004, Pat Toomey was a sitting congressman running against a Senator who had given Republicans a lot to hate him for, and he fell short.

In Iowa’s case, there isn’t a single name being mentioned as a challenger; time is pressing - with less than 9 months remaining until primary day; the preexisting discontent does not exist (Grassley has 66% approval rating among Republicans in a recent SUSA poll). And we’re talking about a 30-year incumbent whose career is certainly not filled with material conservative activists can seize on.

Let me repeat the most important bottom line: With 9 months to go, there isn’t a single name of a potential challenger circulating. Even Salier and those quoted by the Des Moines Register - those activists who care about moving Grassley rightward - are unable to think of someone to name. In short, I find it hard to believe that anything Grassley might be doing right now is motivated by fear of Iowa’s Republican voters. Fear of Republican Senators, certainly, but not of Republican voters.