Christopher W. Larimer is Professor of Political Science at the University of Northern Iowa, USA. He is the author of Gubernatorial Stability in Iowa: A Stranglehold on Power (2015). Read Chapter 3, “‘Iowa Comfort’ and Doing the ‘Full Grassley,’” free until October 5.

Ever since an unknown peanut farmer named Jimmy Carter traversed the state for a few weeks back in 1975, the citizens of Iowa have grown accustomed to seeing presidential candidates up close and personal.  That familiarity has grown into an important expectation.  Iowans now expect presidential candidates to be in the state early and often, and those visits must include personal, small-group gatherings that allow for one-on-one interactions.  

Importantly, those expectations associated with the Iowa Caucuses have spilled over into state politics.  While U.S. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa is famous for his 99-county tour, what Jason Noble, formerly of the Des Moines Register, labeled “the full Grassley,” governors have also adopted this strategy.  Indeed, former governor Terry Branstad made a point of visiting all of Iowa’s 99 counties every year he was governor (all 22 years) while another former governor Tom Vilsack did a “walk across Iowa” to engage fellow Iowans.  

The significance of the personal connection found among successful candidates for governor in Iowa likely extends to other states, but it seems that this element may carry extra weight in a state where citizens also get the opportunity to regularly interact with candidates vying for the highest office in the land.  

In my 2015 book, Gubernatorial Stability in Iowa: A Stranglehold on Power, I make the case that the qualitative is just as important as the quantitative to understanding the longevity of Iowa governors.  Consider that during the 42-year period from 1969-2011, Iowans elected just four different men as governor, the fewest of any state without term limits.  While perceptions of the state’s economy and shared party affiliation with the president certainly matter, so too does the perceived comfort level Iowans have with incumbents.  David Yepsen, a longtime reporter for the Des Moines Register summed this up quite nicely when I interviewed him for the book:

“Iowans are fairly traditional.  If you’re doing the job…and there’s not a lot of turmoil or controversy, there’s a heavy bias in favor of you.”

Or, consider the following excerpt from my interview with U.S. Senator Grassley:

“If they [voters] feel comfortable with you; that they feel like you’re representing Iowa, like you’re working hard, and maybe not being overly partisan, that they give you some rope, some leeway”

I believe this sentiment has worked in part to propel recent incumbents across the finish line on Election Day, even when outside factors were seemingly working against them.  Case in point, Governor Robert Ray, a Republican, was reelected in 1974 by 17 points, the most of any incumbent Republican in what was historically a “bad” year for the party following the Watergate scandal.

To be clear, this is not to discount the abundance of research on partisanship; partisan identification remains the number one factor in predicting vote choice.  But in a state where split ticket voting still occurs quite regularly (e.g. the regular and easy reelections of Senators Grassley and Tom Harkin stand out), voters may be more open to the default option (i.e. the incumbent) if certain personal qualities are perceived to be present in the candidate.   

I put this research together to develop the “big wide-mouthed frog theory of Iowa politics.” The name comes from the children’s book, The Big Wide-Mouthed Frog, by Ana Martín Larrañaga.  In that book, a frog meets several large animals.  Upon each encounter, the frog asks, “Who are you, and what do you eat?”  The level of comfort the frog demonstrates while approaching large and unknown creatures is the same level of comfort Iowans expect to have with candidates, and vice versa. In other words, voters should feel like candidates for office are approachable and want to be approached without any hesitation or threat.  If that feeling is absent, the “leeway” at the polls described by Senator Grassley may also be absent.

The 2018 race for governor in Iowa is currently rated a “toss-up” by several ratings firms, but a couple of things seem obvious. First, on the quantitative side, there does not seem to be much of an edge for the incumbent, Governor Kim Reynolds.  On the one hand, the state’s unemployment rate remains low relative to the rest of the country and the “blue wave” has yet to materialize as Republicans continue to outnumber Democrats in terms of party registration (no-party voters outnumber both, but that is another story).  Additionally, Reynolds’s challenger, Fred Hubbell, does not have elected office experience (but does have a family name that is recognizable to a considerable number of older voters). On the other hand, and this is potentially quite significant, Reynolds shares party affiliation with a president who is currently very unpopular and very polarizing.  So, if this turns out to be a difficult year for Republicans, what may carry Reynolds past her opponent is a sense of comfort.

A quote from former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, who was also interviewed for the book, conveys precisely this point:

“If you’re hard working, if you’re out there if you’re pressing the flesh, if you’re walking across the state, if you’re creating a good image for the state…they’re going to like you—if they like you they’re going to vote for you and once they vote for you they are going to find it very hard to fire you.”

What makes this race so unique is that while Kim Reynolds is the incumbent, voters have yet to cast a vote for her directly.  She assumed office in May of 2017 after former governor Terry Branstad was selected to be the U.S. Ambassador to China. So there is still a real question as to whether Iowans will treat Reynolds like a traditional incumbent and whether the “big wide-mouthed frog theory of Iowa politics” will apply.