Bubble Effect

TO: Professor Herness, Facilitator Hatch
DATE: November 30, 2013
SUBJECT: Assignment 6.1: Candidates, the Code, and Consulting
Over the course of history sexual scandals have always been a part of the political arena. There exists a body of social science and psychological study specifically related to power and the effects it has on men and women, particularly in the political field. Power and influence can lead to a “bubble effect” for some politicians where they become insular. The formation of a double standard and hypocritical behavior emerges. A 2010 The Economist magazine article explains this political phenomenon. “Politicians who have extramarital affairs while complaining about the death of family values, or who use public
“How can this be?” the Republicans questioned. The answer lies in Clinton’s apologia and how the Republicans handled it. The public at large, outside of the virulent Clinton-haters, knew the on-going series of investigations, Whitewater, Intern-gate, etc., and ultimate the Starr investigation were completely politically motivated (whether they were or not). By the time the Lewinsky scandal broke, Americans were tired of it. The whole time, Mr. Clinton stayed on course telling the American people he was working every day to protect them, making their lives better and leading the nation. His apologia never wavered. His opponents, full of family values virtuosity and righteousness, took the course of piety. When it was discovered Speaker Gingrich was having an affair while the House of Representatives was impeaching the President, he commented “that it wasn 't hypocritical of him to lead impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton… even though he was having an extramarital affair at the time, because the impeachment case was "not about personal behavior."5 The American people understand this form of hypocrisy and can forgive the candidate, thus the political consultant can maintain an honorable position. Yet, not all of the stories are
If, however, one of the variables is negative, trust is presumed to be lower, and the opportunity increases for a challenger (c) to beat that incumbent. This simple equation becomes quite powerful when one considers the electoral cycle itself. During a primary election, the party affiliation variable is largely held constant across candidates (the distance between party members is usually small in terms of actual and perceived policy differences). Should the incumbent’s character assessment variable be negative, then it becomes more likely that the voters would vote for the challenger, especially if the retrospective evaluation of the member’s performance is also negative and it is assumed that P > R > C (see: statement A). Interestingly, these preferences (P > R > C) also reveal how it is that some voters may “hold their nose” and vote for a scandal-plagued incumbent, if that member has earned a positive retrospective evaluation from their constituents.”6 The study is a tool to evaluate how the voting public may react to your scandal-plagued candidate. Yet, of the many factors involved hypocrisy appears to be a leading factor in voter disapproval. “Looking more closely at the partisan differences, the coefficients suggest that the type of scandal an incumbent is plagued by