The GOP Establishment Isn't Dead Yet

Political observers should not misinterpret Rand Paul’s victory as a sign of a Tea Party wave crashing down upon mainstream, “establishment” Republicans. In truth, opponent Trey Grayson's inexperience hurt his candidacy as much as any Tea Party surge.

Throughout Rand Paul’s victorious Republican primary campaign against Trey Grayson, Paul, the Tea Party’s candidate of choice, repeatedly criticized his opponent for being part of the establishment. “We have run an election where I have never run for office before,” Paul boasted at one point to Neil Cavuto, “and yet the handpicked establishment candidate is now trailing us by over 10 points.”  Paul hit voters over the head with this trope throughout the campaign, and it seems to have resonated.  Grayson, the Kentucky Secretary of State supported by Dick Cheney and Sen. Mitch McConnell, crumbled before the Rand Paul Revolution.

Paul’s primary victory could lead observers to believe that the Tea Party wave has crashed down upon mainstream, “establishment” Republicans.  It’s possible that assumption is correct.  But, by observing the other Republican primaries in the area, and by looking at Kentucky Republicans’ attitudes toward their representatives, it’s perhaps more likely that Paul and his followers have it exactly backwards: Trey Grayson lost not because he was part of the “establishment,” but because he wasn’t enough of an entrenched member of the establishment.

Of Kentucky’s seven neighbors, four of them—Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Missouri—are holding races for an open Senate seat this cycle, just like Kentucky.  Aside from geography and coincidental Senate retirements, there are many features that these five states share in common.  Kentucky, like its neighbors, has been a major manufacturing and technology hub, and, also like its neighbors, it has seen its unemployment figures climb and remain high; as of March 2010, all five states were at or above the national unemployment figure of 10.2%.  Polling data in these states have indicated strong opposition to President Obama’s recent healthcare reform and slipping support of President Obama, in general.

Yet despite the financial unrest, job loss, crumbling of common industries and opposition to the healthcare reform package that these states all share, only one of them—Kentucky—has nominated a Tea Party-backed candidate.  Since the Tea Party feeds off of voter dissatisfaction, conditions are ripe in each of these states for a minor Tea Party surge at the very least.  But, not only has the Republican Party in Indiana, Illinois, Ohio and Missouri not nominated an anti-establishment candidate, it has instead opted for the exact opposite:  established candidates with legislative experience in Washington, D.C.

Illinois Republicans have nominated Rep. Mark Kirk, a moderate and a Naval officer; Indiana Republicans are represented by former Sen. Dan Coats; Rob Portman, a former Congressman and Director of the Office of Management and Budget under George W. Bush, is the Republican of choice in Ohio; and Rep. Roy Blunt is far ahead of the rest of the Republican field in Missouri.  (The Missouri primary takes place later this summer.)  None of these four candidates enjoys significant support (if any) from his local Tea Party, yet each candidate won the nomination (or are on the path to winning the nomination) handily.

Why is Kentucky different than its neighbors?  One reason is that Rand Paul is not a traditional outsider; his father, after all, is one of the figureheads of the Tea Party movement and maintains a powerful fundraising apparatus.  But the answer seems to lie with Grayson, not Paul.

Trey Grayson rose fast.  A Harvard graduate, Grayson was first elected Kentucky Secretary of State in 2003, when he was only 31.  Thereafter, however, he did not impress with his political acumen or accomplishments.  In 2006, he played a role in mistakenly removing voters from the rolls before a primary, and later he was criticized for giving convicted felons the right to vote.  But Grayson’s biggest problem seems to be that he didn’t accomplish enough to merit a substantial political following.  Mark Kirk, who serves in the Navy and ably represented one of Illinois’ more liberal districts, has established himself as a policy wonk and a military expert.  Rob Portman, a former Congressman, U.S. Trade Representative and OMB Director, is a jack-of-all-trades technocrat.  Dan Coats, who focused on gun-control issues during his days in the Senate, established himself as a foreign policy expert after his terms had run out.  And Roy Blunt, as a leadership figure in the U.S. House, has developed well-defined positions on a number of contentious issues.  Grayson has none of that gravitas.

Additionally, the idea that Republican voters in Kentucky have rejected “the establishment” is a myth.  According to a May 6, 2010 poll, Mitch McConnell—whose general approval rating across the state is below 50%—has a 68% approval rating among Republican voters in Kentucky.  Jim Bunning, who won his Senate seats by only the slimmest of margins in 1998 and 2004, has a higher-than-expected 64% approval rating.  Though Grayson is likely a smart and capable politician, attacking him for being a political hack is easy when Grayson only has a slight record of accomplishments with which he can defend himself.

Rand Paul has run an extremely effective campaign.  According to SurveyUSA, in September 2009 Grayson, who at the time was likely better known to his constituents than Paul, led Paul by 37% to 26%.  Since then, Grayson’s poll numbers have stagnated and then slipped while Paul’s have skyrocketed.  According to one poll taken just six days before the May 18 election, Paul led Grayson 49% to 33%.  Given how well Portman, Blunt, Kirk and Coats have performed in their primaries—in states which face issues quite similar to the ones Kentucky faces—it makes one wonder how the Kentucky race would have been different had a more established and accomplished Republican run in Grayson’s stead.  It’s possible that the Kentucky primary ended how it did not only because of Tea Party enthusiasm and organization, but also because Bluegrass State voters were looking for an establishment candidate who was less green.