I don't believe Gary Hart was ruined by scandal, per se.
First, he supported a very unpopular, but I think kinda OK,
50 cent/gal tax on gasoline. When gas about $1/ gal (including
taxes). This made the unsure very unsure.
Only second did he publicly claim something like he
would never cheat/
Hart went on a boat with Donna Rice and two other friends. The media never
had any more evidence than that that he had an affair, but they crucified him
for having an affair just the same. The same news media for months pretended
that they didn't beieve that Clinton was having sex with
The Lewinsky scandal, according to most public opinion scholars,
actually increased Clinton's popularity. But even after Lewinsky,
politicians have continued to resign or drop out of races in the face of
similar scandals, and of course they did it for a long time before.
What is going on?
1.
Do I have to avoid a preference-based explanation? What if I dig up some
evidence of trends in human behavior that support my claim?
Maybe what angers voters is not the scandal, but hypocrisy. Someone who is
perceived as liberal on social issues is less of a hypocrite for having an
affair than
Steve Miller wrote:
Maybe what angers voters is not the scandal, but hypocrisy. Someone who is
perceived as liberal on social issues is less of a hypocrite for having an
affair than is someone who runs on a family values platform.
Gary Hart was a liberal in good standing, but he is the
In a message dated 6/3/03 12:32:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Miller wrote:
Maybe what angers voters is not the scandal, but hypocrisy. Someone
who is
perceived as liberal on social issues is less of a hypocrite for having
an
affair than is someone who runs on a family values
But at least I've explained away Packwood, Livingston, etc. ;-)
on 6/3/03 12:23 AM, Bryan Caplan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Miller wrote:
Maybe what angers voters is not the scandal, but hypocrisy. Someone who is
perceived as liberal on social issues is less of a hypocrite for
