![Public funding committed or proposed for 10 U.S. pro sports stadium projects, and the net worth of each team's owner [OC]](https://preview.redd.it/p2h08bxknh2h1.png?auto=webp&s=aa334c37690cae3b1578dc09d7418c155a4d7b92)
u/MarkusGrant
![Public funding committed or proposed for 10 U.S. pro sports stadium projects, and the net worth of each team's owner [OC]](https://preview.redd.it/p2h08bxknh2h1.png?auto=webp&s=aa334c37690cae3b1578dc09d7418c155a4d7b92)
What actually determines whether a personal scandal ends a politician's career?
The Texas Senate race has me thinking about something that’s always felt inconsistent: why do some personal scandals destroy politicians while others barely slow them down?
We’ve seen this across both parties: David Vitter was caught in the D.C. Madam scandal and still won reelection to the Senate by nearly 20 points.
Mark Sanford’s “hiking the Appalachian Trail” affair didn’t stop him from winning back his old House seat a few years later.
John Edwards’ affair and cover-up basically ended his career.
Andrew Cuomo resigned over harassment allegations and then lost his comeback attempt in 2025.
Severity alone doesn’t explain the difference. So what actually does? Is it mainly about whether their party has a strong alternative ready? Tribal loyalty? Media environment? Timing?
Or is there something else going on? Like how much the politician is seen as irreplaceable to their side? I am curious what people think explains this pattern best, and whether there are recent examples that don’t fit it.