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 is someone who runs on a "family values" platform. But I can only pretend to know how most voters think. Many surveys give me a good idea of *what* they think, but why is another matter. on 6/2/03 1:26 PM, Bryan Caplan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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. The usual rules do not apply to Clinton - the public will punish > other politicians for comparable actions. > 2. Politicians systematically overestimate voters' reactions. > 3. Public opinion has changed. Pre-Clinton, scandals mattered. Now > they don't. Politicians are still learning about this regime change.
