I know there's a desire to downplay this on the left, but it still does have some impression on people.
You say that about **** near literally every "scandal" that affects a Democrat, real or imagined (the scandal, not the Democrat). You don't have much of a batting average.
I don't have to, at the rate that Dems are racking up the scandals.
I do find it amusing that the same folks who have gleefully pointed at any scandal involving any Republican at any level and associated this to damaging the "Republican brand"
At which point you always insist that it could never, ever hurt the Republicans.
I've never argued that these things "could never" hurt the Republicans. I have often lamented how the media tends to take very very minor things and turn them into harmful scandals when it's a Republican, while downplaying or out right ignoring far more problematic actions by Democrats. It's a foregone conclusion that each and every scandal by a Republican will hurt the party brand, because those who control 80% of what people see on TV make sure of it. That's not in question. What I do is try to show people how ridiculously skewed things are.
We're a little better at picking scandals though
No. You have the aid of a media that overwhelmingly leans left.
-- for instance, stupid abortion remarks easily cost the Republicans two Senate seats they should have won even as you swore the "war on women" was a media invention and no one outside the Left cared.
Yup. Case in point. Stupid remarks? So nothing having to do with policy, or votes, or actions. So not really scandals at all. Yet they cost Republicans two Senate seats. Kinda proving my point there Joph. Meanwhile, Democrats can cheat on their taxes, cheat on their wives, get caught on camera smoking crack, get caught red-handed with bribery money in their freezers, make openly racist comments, or any of a number of things which would get any Republican thrown out, and rarely do they suffer much if any negative effects. It's not because what they're doing isn't as bad, but that they are far more likely to have the media downplaying things for them rather than exaggerating them.
What's interesting is that it seems that Democrats have gotten so used to this beneficial treatment by the media, that they seem to engage in more and more brazen behavior, and then are shocked when the media finally reports any of it. It's like a betrayal when it happens.
Worth mentioning that, in the case of Wiener, he has zero party support, his polling has cratered and he's only in the news as a joke. That said, his transgressions didn't affect anyone except his spouse. There's no reason to expect an identical response to someone who sexually harassed women (seemingly to the point of assault) with someone who engaged in consensual, if retarded, Twitter cybersex. That said, the person almost certain to become NYC's next mayor is a Democrat.
Sure. Point I'm making here is that in both of these cases, the men involved clearly believed that they could just continue to get away with their behavior, and that this played at least some part in the degree to which their behavior advanced over time. That's not about an individual taking their own actions, but reflects a larger trend. It's that trend I'm talking about. Edited, Aug 7th 2013 6:13pm by gbaji