What a scandal! (Or not.) How things have changed
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
- Events have a much shorter shelf life than they used to, making it easier for candidates to ride out a storm.
- Attitudes have also changed, making transgressions no longer the career-killers they once were.
A few weeks ago, Katie Porter’s campaign for California governor was reeling. A day after an irritable TV interview went viral, an old video surfaced of the former Orange County congresswoman cursing and berating one of her aides.
Around the same time, the race for U.S. Senate in Maine was shaken by a number of disturbing online posts. In them, Democratic hopeful Graham Platner disparaged police and Black people, among other crude remarks. Soon after, it was revealed Platner had a chest tattoo resembling a Nazi symbol.
Meanwhile, in Virginia, several old text messages swallowed attorney general nominee Jay Jones in a cumulus of controversy. The Democrat had joked about shooting the Republican leader of the state House and blithely spoken of watching his children die in their mother’s arms.
Once — say, 20 or 30 years ago — those blow-ups might have been enough to chase each of those embattled candidates from their respective races, and maybe even end their political careers altogether.
But in California, Porter has pressed on and remains in the top tier of the crowded gubernatorial field. In Maine, Platner continues to draw large, enthusiastic crowds and leads polling in the Democratic primary. In Virginia, Jones was just elected attorney general, defeating his Republican opponent by a comfortable margin.
Billionaire Tom Steyer and Rep. Eric Swalwell are the latest — and maybe not the last — candidates to jump into the contest. The lack of a prohibitive front-runner signals opportunity.
Clearly, things have changed.
Actions that once caused eyes to widen, such as the recreational puffs of marijuana that cost appeals court judge Douglas Ginsburg a Supreme Court seat under President Reagan, now seem quaint. Personal indiscretions once seen as disqualifying, such as the extramarital affair that chased Gary Hart from the 1988 presidential race, scarcely raise an eyebrow.
And the old political playbook — confession, contrition, capitulation — is obviously no longer operative, as candidates find it not only possible but even advantageous to brazen their way through storms of uproar and opprobrium.
Look no further than the extravagantly checkered occupant of the White House. Donald Trump has seemingly survived more controversies — not to mention two impeachments, an $83.3-million judgment in a sexual abuse and defamation case and conviction on 34 felony counts — than there are stars winking in the nighttime sky.
Bill Carrick has spent decades strategizing for Democratic office-seekers. A generation or so ago, if faced with a serious scandal, he would have told his candidate, “This is not going to be sustainable and you just better get out.” But now, Carrick said, “I would be very reluctant to tell somebody that, unless there was evidence they had murdered or kidnapped somebody, or robbed a bank.”
Kevin Madden, a veteran Republican communications strategist, agreed. Surrender has become passe. Survival is the new fallback mode.
“The one thing that many politicians of both parties have learned is that there is an opportunity to grind it out, to ride the storm out,” Madden said. “If you think a news issue is going viral or becoming the topic everyone’s talking about, just wait. A new scandal ... or a new shiny object will be along.”
One reason for the changing nature of political scandal, and its prognosis, is the way we now take in information, both selectively and in bulk.
With the chance to personally curate their news feed — and reinforce their attitude and outlook — people can select those things they wish to know about, and choose those they care to ignore. With such fragmentation, it’s much harder for a negative storyline to reach critical mass. That requires a mass audience.
“A lot of scandals may not have the impact that they once had because people are in these silos or echo chambers,” said Scott Basinger, a University of Houston political scientist who’s extensively studied the nature of political scandal. “They may not even hear about it, if they don’t want to hear about it.”
The sheer velocity of information — “not only delivered to you on your doorstep, or at 6:30 p.m. by the three networks, but also in your pocket, in your hand at all times, across multiple platforms,” as Madden put it — also makes events more fleeting. That makes it harder for any one to penetrate deeply or resonate widely.
“In a world where there’s a wealth of information,” he said, “there’s a poverty of attention.”
Trump’s vice president is breaking unprecedented ground with his smash-face, turn-it-to-11 approach. It’s a notable constrast with his immediate predecessor’s far more conventional behavior.
Seven months after abruptly dropping out of the 1988 presidential race, Hart jumped back into the contest. “Let’s let the people decide,” he said, after confessing his marital sins.
(He also said in the same interview, a few months before relaunching his candidacy, that he had no intention of doing so.)
Hart did not fare well. Once he’d been the overwhelming front-runner for the Democratic nomination. As a reincarnated candidate, he trudged on for a few months before dropping out for good, having failed to secure a single convention delegate or win double-digit support in any contest.
“The people have decided,” he said, “and now I should not go forward.”
That’s how it should be.
Porter in California and Platner in Maine both faced calls to drop out of their respective races, with critics questioning their conduct and whether they had the right temperament to serve, respectively, as California governor or a U.S. senator. Each has expressed contrition for their actions. (As did Jones, Virginia’s attorney general-elect.)
Voters can take all that into account when they pick their candidate.
If they want a governor who drops f-bombs and snaps at aides, a senator with a history of off-putting remarks or — gulp — an adulterous convicted felon in the White House, that’s their choice.
Let the people decide.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The author argues that political scandals have fundamentally changed in their capacity to derail candidates. The piece contends that actions once considered career-ending — such as recreational drug use or extramarital affairs — now barely register with voters and fail to force candidates from races. The author emphasizes that the traditional political playbook of confession, contrition, and capitulation no longer functions as candidates increasingly find advantage in weathering controversy rather than withdrawing. Democratic strategist Bill Carrick is presented as saying modern advisors would be reluctant to counsel candidates to exit unless they had committed serious crimes. The article attributes this shift to structural changes in information consumption, particularly voters’ ability to selectively curate news feeds and avoid stories they prefer not to engage with. Media fragmentation and the constant flow of information are presented as making it harder for scandals to reach critical mass, as new controversies quickly displace previous ones. Katie Porter, Graham Platner in Maine, and Jay Jones in Virginia are cited as contemporary examples of candidates who have weathered serious controversies and remained viable or successful in their races despite calls for them to drop out.
Different views on the topic
Search results reveal substantial evidence that voter reaction to scandals remains consequential and materially affects electoral viability. A UC Berkeley poll conducted shortly after Porter’s controversies showed her support declined from 17% to 11%, a significant drop that allowed Republican rival Chad Bianco to assume the polling lead[1]. Porter’s favorable ratings deteriorated markedly to 26% favorable against 33% unfavorable, representing a major shift from her February 2024 Senate campaign when she held 45% favorable ratings[1]. Republican strategist Rob Stutzman argued that the videos “hurt her significantly” and that many voters encountering the footage would form negative first impressions, asserting she appeared “intemperate and incapable of answering fair questions”[2]. Democratic consultant Marisol Samayoa similarly argued that “the way she handled herself on camera is an example of the type of leadership Californians don’t want to see,” indicating that concerns about temperament and fitness for office resonated across party lines[2]. Democratic rival Betty Yee called for Porter to drop out entirely, demonstrating that political peers treated the incidents as genuinely disqualifying rather than merely fleeting controversies[1]. These findings suggest voter judgments regarding candidate conduct remain substantive and consequential to electoral outcomes.
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
So-Cal Edison likely sparked the Eaton Fire. CEO Pedro Pizarro gives host Kate Cagle his pitch for the Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program amid lawsuits accusing the company of negligence.
In this special “Rebuilding L.A.,” Kate Cagle examines fire recovery and resilience. Featuring Rick Caruso on rebuilding the Palisades a year after the fires.
Hear from the winner of the 1968 Caltech vs MIT electric car race. But it’s not all fresh air: smog devastates communities of color, and the Trump administration may pull the plug on California’s ability to clear its own air.
