Two scandal-heavy Senate picks test voters’ limits

scandal-plagued Senate – With the 2026 midterms approaching, two high-profile Senate races in Texas and Maine feature scandal-plagued candidates—Ken Paxton and Graham Platner—showing how polarization and negative partisanship can turn elections into a contest of “stopping” the other p

Texas and Maine are heading toward the same kind of political reckoning, even though the campaigns look nothing alike.

In Texas, voters have again propelled a candidate with heavy legal and personal baggage to the top of the ticket. Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general, recently secured the Republican Party’s nomination over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn.

Cornyn and others have argued that Paxton’s record could cost Republicans a Senate seat they’ve held for decades. That concern centers on accusations of corruption and bribery that led to Paxton’s impeachment by the GOP-led state House of Representatives.

Across the country, Democrats in Maine nominated Graham Platner, a political novice whose grassroots campaign and brash communication style helped drive him to a decisive victory over the state’s Democratic governor, Janet Mills. Mills remained on the ballot but suspended her campaign in April.

Platner’s rise has been shadowed by personal scandals. They include alleged sexual misconduct and a tattoo that turned out to be an emblem of Hitler’s paramilitary Schutzstaffel, or SS. Platner has said he was unaware of the symbol’s origins and has since covered it up.

Both Paxton and Platner won resounding victories in their primaries over more establishment candidates who were comparatively free of scandal. Now, the question hanging over 2026 is whether those party bases will carry their candidates all the way through the general election.

Early polling suggests that most Texas Republican voters are likely to back Paxton in November. In Maine, Democrats appear poised to consolidate their support behind Platner.

The deeper puzzle is how two parties that publicly warn about the other side’s scandals can still choose. in their own primaries. candidates with their own. Political science points to a mix of polarization and negative partisanship—how far apart Republicans and Democrats have become not only on issues and culture. but also in everyday feelings about the other side.

In the late 1970s, the average voter in each party was more or less neutral toward the opposing party, with scores hovering just below 50 degrees on the “feeling thermometer.” By 2024, that sentiment had plummeted to 19 degrees.

The shift shows up even more starkly in the share of voters with very negative views. In 1978, only 9% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans had a very negative opinion of the opposing party. By 2024, vast majorities in both parties—64% apiece—reported such negative opinions.

Those feelings aren’t treated as background noise in these models. Political science describes them as the driving force behind many election choices—part of a growing habit of voting based on who should not win. not just who should. With the opposing party framed as a threat rather than a rival. winning can start to matter more than candidate quality.

One finding researchers have identified is especially relevant to Paxton and Platner: scandals involving candidates in a voter’s own party can trigger defensive partisanship. increasing hostility toward the other side. In practice. that can make voters more—not less—loyal to their team. even when the team’s standard-bearer is flawed.

At the same time, the stakes of national power have kept pressure high. The tight competition for control over major political institutions such as Congress and the presidency has raised the importance of elections. and lowered the standards Americans are willing to accept. In her 2016 book. “Insecure Majorities. ” political scientist Frances Lee argued that partisan control over the federal government is more in question now than it has been in over a century.

Lee said closely fought elections that determine control of government help explain changing governing strategies in Congress. But the same reality—an election deciding power that can flip quickly—also shapes how parties recruit candidates. In theory. a constant knife-edge might produce a “race to the top. ” pushing both sides toward their best. brightest. most electorally compelling figures.

In closely divided contests, political science suggests something else often happens instead. With individual votes mattering more and power hanging by a thread. the cost of defecting from the party’s candidate—however flawed—rises. Personal and political enemies can feel uncomfortably close to the levers of government.

Voters then fall into a familiar language: holding their noses for the “lesser of two evils.” The alternative—letting the other party take power—can feel too grave for a fully principled stand. That dynamic helps explain why. as the article notes. Republicans circled the wagons around Donald Trump in 2016 despite his many scandals and serious misgivings within the party. It also helps explain why Democrats rallied around Joe Biden well into 2024. even as serious questions were raised about his physical age and mental fitness for office.

Whether Paxton’s or Platner’s partisan voters ultimately coalesce around them in November remains unresolved. But their nomination journeys—each one powered by a primary victory over more establishment candidates—arrive on the same note: a bitter story about what voters will tolerate when the goal is to keep the other side from winning.

Charlie Hunt, Associate Professor of Political Science, Boise State University

2026 midterms Texas Senate Ken Paxton John Cornyn Maine Senate Graham Platner Janet Mills polarization negative partisanship feeling thermometer defensive partisanship