{"id":42661,"date":"2026-06-18T07:15:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-18T14:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=42661"},"modified":"2026-06-18T08:36:53","modified_gmt":"2026-06-18T15:36:53","slug":"americans-keep-voting-for-scandal%e2%80%91prone-candidates-because-they-just-dont-want-the-other-party-to-win","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/americans-keep-voting-for-scandal%e2%80%91prone-candidates-because-they-just-dont-want-the-other-party-to-win\/","title":{"rendered":"Americans keep voting for scandal\u2011prone candidates because they just don\u2019t want the other party to win"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Charlie Hunt<\/a>, Boise State University<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every election cycle sees its share of controversial, scandal-plagued candidates running for office. But the 2026 midterm elections will feature two such candidates \u2013 one from each party \u2013 in two of the highest-profile U.S. Senate races.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Texas, the state\u2019s attorney general, Ken Paxton, recently secured the Republican Party\u2019s nomination over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cornyn and others have insisted<\/a> that Paxton\u2019s substantial legal<\/a> and personal<\/a> baggage \u2013 including corruption and bribery accusations that got him impeached<\/a> by the GOP-led state House of Representatives \u2013 might lose Republicans a seat they\u2019ve held for decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democrats in Maine, meanwhile, have nominated Graham Platner<\/a>, a political novice whose grassroots campaign and brash communication style propelled him to a decisive victory<\/a> over the state\u2019s Democratic governor, Janet Mills, who remained on the ballot but suspended her campaign in April<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This, despite Platner facing a series of personal scandals ranging from alleged sexual misconduct<\/a> to a tattoo that turned out to be an emblem of Hitler\u2019s paramilitary Schutzstaffel<\/a>, or SS. Platner has claimed he was unaware of the symbol\u2019s origins and has since covered it up<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both Paxton and Platner won resounding victories in their primaries over more establishment candidates who were comparatively free of scandal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a scholar who studies Congress and elections<\/a>, and the co-host of a podcast about political scandals<\/a>, I believe political science offers answers about how Paxton and Platner pulled off victories in their states\u2019 primaries \u2013 and why they might win in November.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Historic distance and distaste between the parties<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Both Paxton\u2019s and Platner\u2019s flaws were well known prior to primary voting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Early polling indicates that most of Texas\u2019 Republican voters are likely to back Paxton<\/a> in November. Polling also shows that Platner will continue to consolidate his party\u2019s support in Maine<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both parties\u2019 leadership in Congress and beyond<\/a> have also rallied behind<\/a> their respective candidates. And both parties have used the opposing candidate\u2019s scandals<\/a> against them in the campaign, despite propping up flawed candidates themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These actions can coexist thanks to two forces that political science has much to say about, precepts that have been steadily increasing in relevance over the past few decades: party polarization<\/a> \u2013 or the distance between the two parties \u2013 and negative partisanship<\/a>, voters\u2019 tendency to vote based on negative feelings toward the other party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Several
Supporters in Plano, Texas, celebrate Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton\u2019s win on May 26, 2026. AP Photo\/Tony Gutierrez<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Democrats and Republicans are far away from each other<\/a> on policy preferences, issue positions and culture. They are also distant in terms of where they live, whom they support<\/a>, how they feel and even whom they love.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Political science tells us that this polarized distance has increased feelings of personal animus<\/a> between members of the two parties. Political psychology says the more different Americans are from each other, the easier it is for them to not just disagree with the other side but to dislike the other side to the point<\/a> of viewing them as a threat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are trends Americans frequently see reflected in public opinion studies<\/a>, many of which use the \u201cfeeling thermometer\u201d to ask respondents to rate their personal feelings toward a person or party on a scale of zero degrees, or coldest\/most unfavorable, to 100 degrees, or warmest\/most favorable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the late 1970s, the average voter in each party was more or less neutral toward the opposing party, with scores hovering just below 50 degrees. By 2024, the average voter sentiment toward the other party had plummeted to 19 degrees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n