Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


What Makes Us Politic

watergate-complex

The Watergate. (Photo: Frontpage/Shutterstock)

Why Do Scandals Destroy Some Politicians but Not Others?

• April 14, 2014 • 12:00 PM

The Watergate. (Photo: Frontpage/Shutterstock)

We’ve seen some careers ended, and others accelerated. What does the research have to say about who is ruined by a scandal and who isn’t?

Just how deadly are scandals for American politicians? We’ve certainly seen plenty of political careers cut short by extramarital affairs or financial misconduct, but we’ve also seen politicians like Bill Clinton not only weather scandal but seem to emerge stronger and more popular from the experience. Why is it that some politicians seem to be able to ride out difficult storms while others founder? Are some storms worse than others?

Scott Clement at The Fix had a fascinating post up last week analyzing 38 congressional sex scandals since 1974. The analysis found that not only are the odds against a scandal-plagued incumbent maintaining his (yes, these were all men) seat, but those odds have gotten worse over time. This doesn’t bode well for Representative Vance McAllister (R-Louisiana), whose short congressional career is now threatened by his kissing a married staffer.

Context also matters. Your allies may be quick to abandon you during a scandal if you’re expendable (think John Edwards), but if you’re, say, the president, they may be more likely to rally to your side.

Political scientists have also looked at these questions. Brandon Rottinghaus (PDF) examined scandals in presidential nominations contests since the 1990s and found a curious pattern: Scandals seemed to harm fundraising but actually improve the candidate’s prospects for winning the nomination. There may be a few things driving this. For one, the scandal may actually increase awareness of the candidate—voters hear more about the contest thanks to the scandal and start paying attention to the candidate, and they may actually like what they see (apart from the scandal itself). These scandals may also be more likely to emerge among the candidates with a better chance of winning. (More on this below.) Other research by Rottinghaus (PDF) suggests that presidential scandals are more durable when there is a larger party opposing him in the Congress (presumably one with subpoena powers).

Scott Basinger, meanwhile, looked at over 250 scandals affecting members of the House of Representatives over the past four decades, finding that scandal seemed to reduce re-election margins by around five percent—roughly erasing the typical advantage incumbents have when running. This may well understate the penalty, as many incumbents facing the most serious scandals resign their seats before the next election. One way or another, Basinger finds, roughly 40 percent of House members facing scandals will not be in office for the next session. An earlier study by John Peters and Susan Welch found a vote penalty ranging from six to 11 percentage points.

Context also matters. Your allies may be quick to abandon you during a scandal if you’re expendable (think John Edwards), but if you’re, say, the president, they may be more likely to rally to your side. Scandals may also be more damaging for black candidates (PDF) than for white ones. Additionally, scandals may be more likely to emerge when the opposition party has a lower opinion of the incumbent and when it’s a slow news week (PDF). Voters think worse of scandals involving financial problems than they do of sex scandals, especially when abuse of power is involved. They are also quicker to forgive (or forget) sex scandals than financial ones (PDF).

The studies all seem to confirm the idea that scandals are serious and do exact a price from politician’s careers. Yet a lot of this research remains plagued by selection bias. That is, scandals may be more likely to emerge among the better candidates or more powerful officeholders. This isn’t because better politicians are more likely to cheat on their spouses (although that would be interesting!), but because no one’s going to bother to research and dig up scandals against a politician whose career isn’t going anywhere. Why waste effort destroying someone who poses no threat to you? It’s more often the serious politicians whose lives will be investigated with a fine-toothed comb. Which means that scandals may actually be more damaging to political careers than they seem.

On the other hand, we also know that many politicians resign almost immediately upon a scandal’s emergence rather than test their fate with the voters. They do so partially on the belief that they’re going to lose anyway, partially due to pressure from allies in their party, and partially because they just don’t want to have reporters camped out in front of their houses anymore. And who can blame them? But we don’t actually know how they would have done if they’d just refused to resign. As Bill Clinton and David Vitter showed, you can survive some scandals, but that can take a toll on your personal or family life that many politicians just aren’t willing to pay.


Thanks to Brendan Nyhan for help in researching this post.

Seth Masket
Seth Masket is a political scientist at the University of Denver, specializing in political parties, state legislatures, campaigns and elections, and social networks. He is the author of No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures (University of Michigan Press, 2009). Follow him on Twitter @smotus.

More From Seth Masket

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts


September 30 • 10:09 AM

Trust Is Waning, and Inequality May Be to Blame

Trust in others and confidence in institutions is declining, while economic inequality creeps up, a new study shows.


September 30 • 8:00 AM

The Psychology of Penmanship

Graphology: It’s all (probably) bunk.



September 30 • 6:00 AM

The Medium Is the Message, 50 Years Later

Five decades on, what can Marshall McLuhan’s Understanding Media tell us about today?


September 30 • 4:00 AM

Grad School’s Mental Health Problem

Navigating the emotional stress of doctoral programs in a down market.


September 29 • 1:21 PM

Conference Call: Free Will Conference


September 29 • 12:00 PM

How Copyright Law Protects Art From Criticism

A case for allowing the copyright on Gone With the Wind to expire.


September 29 • 10:00 AM

Should We Be Told Who Funds Political Attack Ads?

On the value of campaign finance disclosure.


September 29 • 8:00 AM

Searching for a Man Named Penis

A quest to track down a real Penis proves difficult.


September 29 • 6:00 AM

Why Do So Many People Watch HGTV?

The same reason so many people watch NCIS or Law and Order: It’s all a procedural.


September 29 • 4:00 AM

The Link Between Depression and Terrorism

A new study from the United Kingdom finds a connection between depression and radicalization.


September 26 • 4:00 PM

Fast Track to a Spill?

Oil pipeline projects across America are speeding forward without environmental review.


September 26 • 2:00 PM

Why Liberals Love the Disease Theory of Addiction, by a Liberal Who Hates It

The disease model is convenient to liberals because it spares them having to say negative things about poor communities. But this conception of addiction harms the very people we wish to help.


September 26 • 1:21 PM

Race, Trust, and Split-Second Judgments


September 26 • 9:47 AM

Dopamine Might Be Behind Impulsive Behavior

A monkey study suggests the brain chemical makes what’s new and different more attractive.


September 26 • 8:00 AM

A Letter Becomes a Book Becomes a Play

Sarah Ruhl’s Dear Elizabeth: A Play in Letters From Elizabeth Bishop to Robert Lowell and Back Again takes 900 pages of correspondence between the two poets and turns them into an on-stage performance.


September 26 • 7:00 AM

Sonic Hedgehog, DICER, and the Problem With Naming Genes

Wait, why is there a Pokemon gene?


September 26 • 6:00 AM

Sounds Like the Blues

At a music-licensing firm, any situation can become nostalgic, romantic, or adventurous, given the right background sounds.


September 26 • 5:00 AM

The Dark Side of Empathy

New research finds the much-lauded feeling of identification with another person’s emotions can lead to unwarranted aggressive behavior.



September 25 • 4:00 PM

Forging a New Path: Working to Build the Perfect Wildlife Corridor

When it comes to designing wildlife corridors, our most brilliant analytical minds are still no match for Mother Nature. But we’re getting there.


September 25 • 2:00 PM

Fashion as a Inescapable Institution

Like it or not, fashion is an institution because we can no longer feasibly make our own clothes.


September 25 • 12:00 PM

The Fake Birth Mothers Who Bilk Couples Out of Their Cash by Promising Future Babies

Another group that’s especially vulnerable to scams and fraud is that made up of those who are desperate to adopt a child.


September 25 • 10:03 AM

The Way We QuickType


Follow us


Trust Is Waning, and Inequality May Be to Blame

Trust in others and confidence in institutions is declining, while economic inequality creeps up, a new study shows.

Dopamine Might Be Behind Impulsive Behavior

A monkey study suggests the brain chemical makes what's new and different more attractive.

School Counselors Do More Than You’d Think

Adding just one counselor to a school has an enormous impact on discipline and test scores, according to a new study.

How a Second Language Trains Your Brain for Math

Second languages strengthen the brain's executive control circuits, with benefits beyond words.

Would You Rather Go Blind or Lose Your Mind?

Americans consistently fear blindness, but how they compare it to other ailments varies across racial lines.

The Big One

One company, Amazon, controls 67 percent of the e-book market in the United States—down from 90 percent five years ago. September/October 2014 new-big-one-5

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.