Two polls are already out on Mark Sanford's future in South Carolina, both of which were conducted in the wake of his dramatic press conference yesterday. One poll, from SurveyUSA, reports that 60 percent of South Carolinians want Sanford to resign, versus 34 percent who say he should stay in office. The other, from InsiderAdvantage, is somewhat more sympathetic toward Sanford: 50 percent in that poll think he should resign, versus 42 who think he should remain South Carolina's governor.
Sanford appears to face more pressure to resign than most other recent politicians who have been caught with their pants down. In comparison to the 50-60 percent who are calling for Sanford's resignation:
-- Two polls on Eliot Spitzer (one of which was conducted after he had actually left office) found between 70 and 81 percent of New Yorkers, respectively, favoring his resignation.
-- The only poll of Idahoans on Larry Craig found 51 percent opposed to his decision to stay in office, versus 21 percent supporting it and 28 percent undecided.
-- Four polls on former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey, two of which were conducted after he'd quit, found that between 44-53 percent wanted him to resign after it was revealed he'd had an affair with male adviser Golan Cipel.
-- Some 30 polls conducted on Bill Clinton after he admitted on August 17th, 1998 to an "inappropriate relationship" with Monica Lewinsky found varying margins of between 18-40 percent calling for his resignation, with an average of 32 percent.
-- A Mason-Dixon poll conducted earlier this week on John Ensign found that 29 percent of Nevadans want him to resign.
-- Finally, the only poll we could find on David Vitter had just 20 percent of Louisianans calling for his resignation, although this poll was conducted on behalf of a Republican gubernatorial candidate.
All data was compiled from PollingReport.com.
The chart below correlates the politicians with their particular peccadilloes:
It's actually somewhat hard to find any signature patterns here. Eliot Spitzer's affairs involved kinky, high-priced prostitutes, for instance, but so did David Vitter's. Being caught with another man probably makes matters worse, although both McGreevey and Craig had other aggravating circumstances: in McGreevey's case because he had appointed the underqualified Cipel to be his homeland security adviser, and in Craig's because he was arrested for his conduct. In addition to McGreevey, Clinton's and Ensign's affairs also involved their immediate subordinates, but calls for their resignations were relatively low. Being an executive, as opposed to a legislator, might make matters worse; that is one big difference between Spitzer and Vitter.
Still, the reason that I suspect that Sanford's numbers are as high as they are is because of the dereliction of duty it entailed: both his mysterious absence from the state for six days and the flimsy excuses his staff came up with to explain it. The number of people who want you to resign if you "just" have a garden-variety, heterosexual affair seems to be no higher than 20-30 percent, but Sanford's numbers are at least twice that.
6.25.2009
Sanford: More Resignation Pressure than other Pantsless Pols
@ 6:46 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments
Even his own description has him coming unglued. Bill Clinton couldn't keep his pecker in his pants to save his life, and was a total bullshitter. But at least he kept his wits about him and could still get his job done. Then you have Spitzer that was so blatantly hypocritical, what he indulged in was exactly what he built his career fighting punishing others for.
As jaded and cynical as the electorate may be, competence and degrees of hypocrisy (or hypocracy if you like) does still count.
Is Spitzer guilty of hypocrisy? I know he busted a couple of prostitution rings, but that was kind of his job as AG. As far as I've read, he never went out of his way to go after them or scold other public officials for their impropriety (ala virtually every Republican on your list).
The factors listed look almost like random noise in the chart. I wonder if it would be any more instructive to compare the "% favoring resignation" to the existing (pre-scandal) unfavorables of the pol? That would give a number for how much additional damage the scandal did, rather than trying to treat it as if it occurred in a vacuum.
@Dwight:
"he indulged in was exactly what he built his career fighting punishing others for."
Uh, what? I was under the impression he built his career on busting corrupt Wall Streeters. I believe that's revisionist history there.
Because you have multiple polls for Clinton and whether he should have resigned, instead of showing just the average of the polls, wouldn't it be better to display a box and whisker chart? Just asking...
Sanford was planning to sneak back into town and claim he was on the Appalachian Trail. But somebody close to him done him in. The same person who sent the local newspaper the e-mails in December. That person knew he was in Argentina and sent the newspaper's reporter for a meet and greet at Hartsfield International. After he met the reporter, and she began to ask him questions about the e-mails, he knew he was done.
He had originally planned the press conference, but as time wore on, he realized he was going to have to spill his guts. And he did in the most disastrous press conference possible where he didn't have a plan and almost didn't fess up.
The only question that remains is this -- who rolled on him? I vote for his father-in-law, whose money he lavishly used to become a conservative pol.
i think people are bothered more by the "off work for a week without anyone knowing about it" thing than about the affair by itself.
I think it's also worth examining how popular the individual was at the time of the scandal. One of the main reasons support for Spitzer's resignation was so high was his approval ratings were already in the mid-thirties.
I'm pretty sure the job abandonment thing had a lot to do with the negative sentiment towards Sanford.
Michael Jackson Dead At 50
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/michael-jackson-hospitalized/?hp
Just going by a regression, it is gayness (weight 39.5) and hypocrisy (weight 36.5) that most lead to calls for resignation, followed by being an executive (weight 22).
Turns out adultery is considered a crime in South Carolina:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/25/adultery-criminal/
So, Sanford should arguably get the Criminal Conduct box filled in too.
I couldn't care less about his affair, that's for his wife and girlfriend to deal with.
I do have a BIG problem with running off and hiding for days. He's the governor!! There might actually be something that he needs to do...like take care of some emergency.
I have never worked anywhere that you could just disappear for days and then reappear and go back to work.
Fire his ass!
i've always wondered what the numbers were for party vs type of sex scandal. it certainly SEEMS like the Rs always have the "variant" affairs, i.e. other than with a non-hooking female if they're an assumed straight male, whilst the democrats mostly have the boring old plain vanilla i slept with this chick i know who's not my wife. obvious exceptions there. but the trend seemed apparent.
i say this because i've jokingly said the Rs are "horin' in" on the Ds territory these days. but is it true? i have no idea...
ha. meant to say "hornin' in". interesting typo...
I'm a New Yorker and followed Spitzer's career reasonably closely because I was a huge fan of his work as Attorney General. I couldn't give you specifics, but I do recall him prosecuting prostitution rings with great enthusiasm and sanctimony. That said, had he not already shown a pathological and counterproductive obsession with riding roughshod over the Majority Leader of the State Senate - who he obsessively and presumably illegally spied upon - and the Speaker of the State Assembly, he might well have been able to confess and be forgiven. The bottom line is that he sucked as a governor, and the hypocritical sex scandal was the last straw. And the really sad post-script is that his replacement is even worse.
Shouldn't you factor in their popularity or lack thereof before the scandal? I can't imagine that existing popularity has zero effect on the number of people wanting him to resign.
That second chart is absolutely priceless.
What would be the proper model here? Logistical regression?
I still wonder if the affair was with a woman.
You know the old saying -
"I wanted to vote a straight Republican ticket, but I couldn't find a straight Republican".
Oh keep Sanford in office, by all means! While the GOP may think they can satisfactorily explain away the moral failings of their officeholders, the average Joes of this country know hypocrisy when they see it, and aren’t particularly fond of it. So the more tainted Republicans in office during the year 2010 the better.
"Clinton's and Ensign's affairs also involved their immediate subordinates"...
Really? Monica was a cabinet secretary? I had no idea.
What was her department? Health and Human Humjobs?
I made the mistake of moving to South Carolina a year ago. It's been an unbelievably trying year, politically, dealing with the bullshit these people flung about during the presidential election and following, dealing with Sanford and his idiotic rejection of stimulus funds...
This event has been a vindication for me of sorts, but I will be positively shocked if Sanford resigns, or is pressured to resign. The populace here simply wants nothing of this story. They don't want to believe it. This conclusion is anecdotal, of course, but the view from the ground influences my analysis. I notice people turning away from TV screens, blaming the media for prying into his life, and offering to pray for him. If he was a Democrat, things would be different I'm sure. But all it takes with these people is the assertion that you are a christian and a conservative, and all other concerns go out the window. National political ambitions may be a wash for him now but as far as South Carolina goes, I don't think anyone wants to give him a hard time, regardless of his hypocrisy about money and morals. That would require way too much critical thought of people who just don't seem to have it in them.
I'm guessing he's suffering the same kind of fate Tom Daschle. By the time Daschle found out he hadn't payed all his taxes, he suffered the wrath of the previous ones that didn't pay all their taxes. Sanford, unfortunately, had a bunch of others that got a break but there comes a time when Republicans can't turn a blind eye anymore.
So if Mark Sanford had skipped his job to go to Argentina to be with Mario instead of Maria he would be toast now!
I decided to pretend that there was no ordered data here and took a shot at diagonalizing the table It's not really worth looking at, but it did bring to light the following potential patterns:
- The only folks in this set of people to have resigned (to date) are D executives. R legislators get a pass, even kinky hypocrite criminal R legislators.
- Hypocrisy is well-represented among R legislators. The only D hypocrite in the set is Spitzer.
- From the chart, Spitzer and Vitter look quite similar, with the exceptions of party affiliation, executive, and % favoring resignation. It can't be that simple, can it?
On the other hand, Sanford, whose fate has not yet been determined, is the only R executive in the data set, and there are no R resignees in the data set. This makes for some tough sledding, as you aren't comparing similar populations.
I noticed if you try to correlate the % supporting resignation to the variables in the grid the most confounding factor seems to be sex with hookers. Those wanting Vitter to resign is only 20 percent while Spitzer garnered a 76 percent score. That's a head scratcher.
You need to update your graph. Adultery is illegal in South Carolina!
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/25/hard-time
Sir Nate,
this is o.t. (sorry) but it could be interesting for your next post on healthcare reform.
"On Healthcare, Americans Trust Physicians Over Politicians"
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120890/Healthcare-Americans-Trust-Physicians-Politicians.aspx
Given that Gov. Sanford was in Argentina when he was conduicting his affair, he wasn't actually breaking the law. (Unless its illegal in Argentina?) Which kind of shows the flaw in a law making adultery illegal!
But I agree with Celestite, the issue here isn't the affair, its that he ran off unannounced for 4 days to conduct the affair. That to me is the resigning issue. Personally I am not convinced he will resign, but if he had any notion of public service, he would.
@markymark:
FYI (although I am unable to name the statute and would be more than happy were you to do so for me), a law was passed under Clinton that leaving the country to violate a US law was still punishable under US law.
(Presumably, this was done to deal with US citizens traveling to Sweden to enjoy 15-year-old Swedish tail.)
(Actually, it was more than likely for US citizens traveling to enjoy the haze of certain countries which do no hold narcotics as such an abomination.)
markymark said...
(Unless its illegal in Argentina?)
June 26, 2009 6:34 AM
para nada.
It's only embarassing in US.
:)
Nate, could you add John Rowland to the list and charts? He was the Republican governor of Connecticut who resigned in 2004 as he was facing impeachment for corruption.
Unlike the others in your chart, none of his problems were sexual in nature. However, he could be something of a control group to compare the others to.
I agree with several commenters who have noted that it doesn't make sense to compare popularity ratings in a vacuum -- you need to look at % calling for resignation relative to % who disapproved before the scandal broke.
Another factor that may be influencing the people of S.C. is that Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer, who would take over, may not be much of an improvement in their eyes. From the little I've read about it, Bauer and Sanford (though both Republicans) have some sharp policy disagreements. And Bauer has been caught in a few reckless acts himself (driving over 100 miles an hour, crashing a small plane).
Perhaps they'd rather stick with the sanctimonious jerk that they know than take a chance on someone new, who might turn out to be any even worse jerk once in office.
I'll bet Sanford is glad to have Michael Jackson use up all of today's media oxygen, so his story can fade to the inner pages...
"he indulged in was exactly what he built his career fighting punishing others for."
Uh, what? I was under the impression he built his career on busting corrupt Wall Streeters. I believe that's revisionist history there.
I was thinking more along the lines of blatantly illegal activity in general. I suspect it'd be similar results if he pulled a Martha Stewart.
@STepper thinks Sanford's father-in-law rolled on him.
It's happened before here in Illinois. Blagojevich's father-in-law, Chicago power broker Richard Mell, was his political patron. Mell rolled on him years ago after Blago cut him out -- not because Blago was cleaner but because he was much, much dirtier.
I think that second chart is the single best graphic I've ever seen at this site.
RE: Elliot Spitzer
One reader said his role as AG was to prosecute prostitution. Another said it was prosecuting Wall Street brokers. Can someone explain the difference between these two groups?
Ole Forsberg said
'FYI (although I am unable to name the statute and would be more than happy were you to do so for me), a law was passed under Clinton that leaving the country to violate a US law was still punishable under US law.'
------------------------
But Sanford was leaving the US to break a South Carolina, not a federal, law. I can't see how that Statute could apply in this case.
hrm... I wonder how this breaks down by region of the country, political party, base support, party in power, etc.
i.e.
- New Yorkers have higher standards and were more critical of spitzer whe
- vitter is from the deep south and has a deeply religious base who are more "forgiving of sin"
- republicans are not in power, so craig supporters overlook his misbehavior for tribal reasons- bad representation is better than no representation.
Your answer might be in one of those...
note- "higher standards" may also mean "more easily outraged".
In my experience people on the liberal end of the spectrum are more likely to say "OMG he can't say that!"
Spitzer had a staus of being "Mr. Clean". He was caught due to money laundering. Plus he made a lot of enemies in his party and the government. He resigned.
Craig should have resigned, but didn't. I think the Republicans wanted him to, but there was nothing to force is resignation.
McGreevey was under several investigations when this came up. He was not popular in the government and was already sinking when this came up. The reelvation was the result of the threat of blackmail. He appointed his exlover to a highly paid position where he had no experience. This person later threated the governor with blackmail. Unpopular in his state, under investigation for other problems, and blackmail ended his career. Otherwise, I think NJ wouldn't have cared too much.
Clinton was a highly popular president who was previously well known for roving eyes. No crime was committed although he did lie on a court document which asked him whether or not he was having an affair.
Ensign can't resign because the Republicans need him. Same with Vitter. When you're the minority party, and every vote counts, you can't let a little scandle get in the way.
I think there's several things going on: One is the position. Legislators usually have more leaway than governors. How popular or unpopular the polititian is already in his home state. Popular politicians will be given more leaway.
Craig's case stands out because of the whole drama with Craig initially saying he'd resign, then not resign, then claiming he didn't mean to plead guilty, and of course the whole thing with the "wide stance" business. By the time it finished, people were simply sick of Craig.
Sanford is not popular in his state. He had previously campaigned as a family man. Plus, you now have the fact that state money was used to help promote this affair.
Then, you add in the mysterious disapperance, the attempt at coverup, and even worse, his own behavior when 'fessing up. He certainly didn't look leaderlike or even sane.
I think the odds are good he'll resign. I don't know enough about SC politics to see if the legislature will use the impeachment stick in order to enforce it. It all depends on who gains political advantage if this happens.
@matador:
While it is (minimally) interesting that Americans Trust Physicians over Politicians, it would be far MORE interesting to find out whether Americans Trust Politicians Over Insurance Salesmen/Adjustors.
Since that is REALLY what the anti-public-option crowd is supporting.
@eveybody else
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Gov. AWOL Sanford very vocally remonstrative about President Clinton's illicit behavior and subsequent LYING about it?
This is where I see hypocrisy. The bible thumper who forgets the parts about "judge not" and logs in eyes and being the first to throw a stone...
Sewmouse,
I would love for someone to ask both Gov Sanford and Sen Ensign, who were both among those to call for President Clinton to leave office, why, given that, they haven't resigned yet.
Personally I don't think hypocrisy should be a disqualifier from political office (after all if it were we wouldn't have anyone to fill any political positions). I am not entirely convinced Senator Ensign needs to resign, but Sanford went AWOL for 4 days in order to conduct his affair, and had done so before. To me that is why he should go.
Sanford should resign.
A governor should not be AWOL.
Also why should we give the Dems an issue to bray over when they have ahnded us such magnificent ones of their own like Cap n' Tax and Socialized Medicine!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Oh and its quite unconvincing to post a tiny url address as a source. (Especially as it turns out to be from the WSJ, hardly a balanced news source!) Why not just copy and paste??
But just to humor you, here is the key sentence in the WSJ piece 'A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.' Translation- politicians are looking for a way to avoid making tough choices. Its about the politics not the science
Celestite said...
I couldn't care less about his affair, that's for his wife and girlfriend to deal with.
I do have a BIG problem with running off and hiding for days. He's the governor!! There might actually be something that he needs to do...like take care of some emergency.
What about running off and leaving his family in the dark. What would have happened if there had been a family emergency? According to his wife, she had no idea where he was. But, then, she calls them "her kids" so maybe she really didn't care where daddy was on Father's Day.
Any way you look at it, Sanford is a a not very nice and very hypocritical man and if his wife takes him back, she deserves anything he may dish out for her.
Post a Comment